The transfer strategy

[mammutly]

Never before have the management of this club been able to even consider a transfer strategy beyond a swap deal.
Never had the power to be taken seriously if we said we wanted to sign the England Captain.
Now we can. When we want where we want & who we want.

It does destabilise other teams - makes the players question what they are doing.I would say this is strategy being played out in front of our eyes.

Do you have any proof of that?
There is always speculation about good players. I don't see top professionals losing form because it is said that another club wants to buy them.
Christ on a bike! Half the premiership would be running around like headless chickens and clubs would be bombarded with false bids all the time.

The thing is, if West Ham put a bid in for John Terry. People would laugh. When we do it, people laugh, see our perfectly straigh faces, and the laughter turns to shock.

Anyway, why don't you want him talking like this? Would you prefer times of old when we sounded like Andy fuckin Pipkin goin "I want that one, I want that one, I don't like it, I want that one"?

I think the notion that John Terry might suffer a loss of form because another team has put a bid in for him is ridiculous. Any player who was that susceptible to pressure would never have made it to the top in the first place.

Plus, though I don't think this is necessarily the case either, who's to say that putting a bid in for a player might not actually have the opposite effect of inspiring them to play even better?

The club try to find the best players they can get for the job. Where they come from is irrelevant in strategic terms.

 

[Rösler's Dad]

Never before have the management of this club been able to even consider a transfer strategy beyond a swap deal.
Never had the power to be taken seriously if we said we wanted to sign the England Captain.
Now we can. When we want where we want & who we want.

It does destabilise other teams - makes the players question what they are doing.I would say this is strategy being played out in front of our eyes.

Do you have any proof of that?
There is always speculation about good players. I don't see top professionals losing form because it is said that another club wants to buy them.
Christ on a bike! Half the premiership would be running around like headless chickens and clubs would be bombarded with false bids all the time.

The thing is, if West Ham put a bid in for John Terry. People would laugh. When we do it, people laugh, see our perfectly straigh faces, and the laughter turns to shock.

Anyway, why don't you want him talking like this? Would you prefer times of old when we sounded like Andy fuckin Pipkin goin "I want that one, I want that one, I don't like it, I want that one"?

I think the notion that John Terry might suffer a loss of form because another team has put a bid in for him is ridiculous. Any player who was that susceptible to pressure would never have made it to the top in the first place.

Plus, though I don't think this is necessarily the case either, who's to say that putting a bid in for a player might not actually have the opposite effect of inspiring them to play even better?

The club try to find the best players they can get for the job. Where they come from is irrelevant in strategic terms.

Mammutly, surely the intention is not to weaken the opposition by putting in a bid only (as you say, on its own that's not enough) but actually by signing them? It seems to me we are quite serious in wanting Terry; and it's surely not a poor by-product of that to make them realize they are no longer the side in the prem with the most cash? It's also quite arguable that if he comes to us it will weaken them on the pitch.

Maybe that's irrelevant strategically, it's sure as hell not irrelevant tactically.

 

[1961RICH]

Never before have the management of this club been able to even consider a transfer strategy beyond a swap deal.
Never had the power to be taken seriously if we said we wanted to sign the England Captain.
Now we can. When we want where we want & who we want.

It does destabilise other teams - makes the players question what they are doing.I would say this is strategy being played out in front of our eyes.

Do you have any proof of that?
There is always speculation about good players. I don't see top professionals losing form because it is said that another club wants to buy them.
Christ on a bike! Half the premiership would be running around like headless chickens and clubs would be bombarded with false bids all the time.

When Terry had nowhere to go he was going to be at Chelsea for the rest of his life. Now, it appears, he wants to talk to us. O'Neill concluded the Barry transfer double quick to prevent a protracted disruptive morale sapping saga developing.

How often do we see the papers knocking us, other clubs complaining and stirring trouble then these forums slagging off our own club.

No mate no proof, We would have to be inside to see that but I think this certainly mounts the pressure and eventually cracks appear. That is what the club are starting to deal with & fight back with the resources we have.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Never before have the management of this club been able to even consider a transfer strategy beyond a swap deal.
Never had the power to be taken seriously if we said we wanted to sign the England Captain.
Now we can. When we want where we want & who we want.

It does destabilise other teams - makes the players question what they are doing.I would say this is strategy being played out in front of our eyes.

Do you have any proof of that?
There is always speculation about good players. I don't see top professionals losing form because it is said that another club wants to buy them.
Christ on a bike! Half the premiership would be running around like headless chickens and clubs would be bombarded with false bids all the time.

The thing is, if West Ham put a bid in for John Terry. People would laugh. When we do it, people laugh, see our perfectly straigh faces, and the laughter turns to shock.

Anyway, why don't you want him talking like this? Would you prefer times of old when we sounded like Andy fuckin Pipkin goin "I want that one, I want that one, I don't like it, I want that one"?

I think the notion that John Terry might suffer a loss of form because another team has put a bid in for him is ridiculous. Any player who was that susceptible to pressure would never have made it to the top in the first place.

Plus, though I don't think this is necessarily the case either, who's to say that putting a bid in for a player might not actually have the opposite effect of inspiring them to play even better?

The club try to find the best players they can get for the job. Where they come from is irrelevant in strategic terms.

Actually, it's not completely irrelevant. Abramovic's strategy in Russian sport was to weaken the oppo whilst strengthening his own team. As soon as he got the chance he went for all of Utd' s main transfer targets. If the rags had signed Essien & Robben they, not Chelsea, would have won the league at the time. If Gerrard had signed for Chelsea, Liverpool would be history. They took Cole from Arsenal & if rumours are to be believed, just tried, along with us, to get Van Persie.

We have weakened Villa (Barry), Utd (Tevez) & should we get Lescott & Terry will significantly weaken both their clubs. Utd have been doing it for years, Cantona being a prime example.

 

[DancingBadger]

Actually, it's not completely irrelevant. Abramovic's strategy in Russian sport was to weaken the oppo whilst strengthening his own team. As soon as he got the chance he went for all of Utd' s main transfer targets. If the rags had signed Essien & Robben they, not Chelsea, would have won the league at the time. If Gerrard had signed for Chelsea, Liverpool would be history. They took Cole from Arsenal & if rumours are to be believed, just tried, along with us, to get Van Persie.

We have weakened Villa (Barry), Utd (Tevez) & should we get Lescott & Terry will significantly weaken both their clubs. Utd have been doing it for years, Cantona being a prime example.

This. I have read that Abramovic studies Sun Tzu, incidentally, and there was a feeling at the time that their pursuit and eventual purchase of SWP for well over his market value was in part driven by the desire to prevent him going to Arsenal. Chelsea certainly didn't need him, as evidenced by the fact that they rarely played him.

We are aiming for higher league position, ideally top 4. In order to do this, we have to build a better team than our rivals. Signing better players than those we currently have is obviously necessary to improve the side, any fool can see that, but if we can simultaneously weaken our rivals it gives us a greater advantage and improves our chances of achieving our aims. Strategy is all about trying to gain advantages. Anything which gives you an advantage is useful. And who is to say that the players we are targeting are not the ones who MH thinks are best in their position for our current circumstances?

It seems to me that there is a clear strategy here - target proven Premiership players, who are more likely than imports to slot straight into our side and won't suffer culture shock when they discover that we have football in January and it's cold here, and at the same time weaken our immediate rivals. The targeting of a "marquee" signing runs in parallel with this. I think it's very sensible.

 

[OB1]

Actually, it's not completely irrelevant. Abramovic's strategy in Russian sport was to weaken the oppo whilst strengthening his own team. As soon as he got the chance he went for all of Utd' s main transfer targets. If the rags had signed Essien & Robben they, not Chelsea, would have won the league at the time. If Gerrard had signed for Chelsea, Liverpool would be history. They took Cole from Arsenal & if rumours are to be believed, just tried, along with us, to get Van Persie.

We have weakened Villa (Barry), Utd (Tevez) & should we get Lescott & Terry will significantly weaken both their clubs. Utd have been doing it for years, Cantona being a prime example.

This. I have read that Abramovic studies Sun Tzu, incidentally, and there was a feeling at the time that their pursuit and eventual purchase of SWP for well over his market value was in part driven by the desire to prevent him going to Arsenal. Chelsea certainly didn't need him, as evidenced by the fact that they rarely played him.

We are aiming for higher league position, ideally top 4. In order to do this, we have to build a better team than our rivals. Signing better players than those we currently have is obviously necessary to improve the side, any fool can see that, but if we can simultaneously weaken our rivals it gives us a greater advantage and improves our chances of achieving our aims. Strategy is all about trying to gain advantages. Anything which gives you an advantage is useful. And who is to say that the players we are targeting are not the ones who MH thinks are best in their position for our current circumstances?

It seems to me that there is a clear strategy here - target proven Premiership players, who are more likely than imports to slot straight into our side and won't suffer culture shock when they discover that we have football in January and it's cold here, and at the same time weaken our immediate rivals. The targeting of a "marquee" signing runs in parallel with this. I think it's very sensible.

I would be amazed if this City management (football and general) have not taken into account all the benefits to City of buying some of their rivals best players and buying players that their rivals want. I'm sure though it's not the prime motivation behind their choice of targets but in the case of Barry it strengthens us weakens Villa, who are likely to find it very hard to replace him with a better player and also prevented Liverpool from getting him.

 

[mammutly]

Actually, it's not completely irrelevant. Abramovic's strategy in Russian sport was to weaken the oppo whilst strengthening his own team. As soon as he got the chance he went for all of Utd' s main transfer targets. If the rags had signed Essien & Robben they, not Chelsea, would have won the league at the time. If Gerrard had signed for Chelsea, Liverpool would be history. They took Cole from Arsenal & if rumours are to be believed, just tried, along with us, to get Van Persie.

We have weakened Villa (Barry), Utd (Tevez) & should we get Lescott & Terry will significantly weaken both their clubs. Utd have been doing it for years, Cantona being a prime example.

This. I have read that Abramovic studies Sun Tzu, incidentally, and there was a feeling at the time that their pursuit and eventual purchase of SWP for well over his market value was in part driven by the desire to prevent him going to Arsenal. Chelsea certainly didn't need him, as evidenced by the fact that they rarely played him.

We are aiming for higher league position, ideally top 4. In order to do this, we have to build a better team than our rivals. Signing better players than those we currently have is obviously necessary to improve the side, any fool can see that, but if we can simultaneously weaken our rivals it gives us a greater advantage and improves our chances of achieving our aims. Strategy is all about trying to gain advantages. Anything which gives you an advantage is useful. And who is to say that the players we are targeting are not the ones who MH thinks are best in their position for our current circumstances?

It seems to me that there is a clear strategy here - target proven Premiership players, who are more likely than imports to slot straight into our side and won't suffer culture shock when they discover that we have football in January and it's cold here, and at the same time weaken our immediate rivals. The targeting of a "marquee" signing runs in parallel with this. I think it's very sensible.

I would be amazed if this City management (football and general) have not taken into account all the benefits to City of buying some of their rivals best players and buying players that their rivals want. I'm sure though it's not the prime motivation behind their choice of targets but in the case of Barry it strengthens us weakens Villa, who are likely to find it very hard to replace him with a better player and also prevented Liverpool from getting him.

The primary consideration is strengthening our squad. IF that involves taking a player from a rival team, then all well and good. But crucially, if there was a better player in that position available elsewhere, then he would be the first target.

It's natural for top clubs to compete for the best players in the world but any notion of clubs spending multi millions just on the off chance of destabilising their rivals is pure pie in the sky.

In the case of Barry, it is well known that he and O'Neil were in conflict. He wanted to leave and his manger wanted him out. He was available. We didn't prise him from Villa against their will.

And what's this people are saying about us stealing Tevez from the rags?? He's a free agent FFS. Ferguson didn't care enough to keep him. IF we sign him it will be because we want him, not because it upsets the scum.

 

[bizzbo]

Actually, it's not completely irrelevant. Abramovic's strategy in Russian sport was to weaken the oppo whilst strengthening his own team. As soon as he got the chance he went for all of Utd' s main transfer targets. If the rags had signed Essien & Robben they, not Chelsea, would have won the league at the time. If Gerrard had signed for Chelsea, Liverpool would be history. They took Cole from Arsenal & if rumours are to be believed, just tried, along with us, to get Van Persie.

We have weakened Villa (Barry), Utd (Tevez) & should we get Lescott & Terry will significantly weaken both their clubs. Utd have been doing it for years, Cantona being a prime example.

This. I have read that Abramovic studies Sun Tzu, incidentally, and there was a feeling at the time that their pursuit and eventual purchase of SWP for well over his market value was in part driven by the desire to prevent him going to Arsenal. Chelsea certainly didn't need him, as evidenced by the fact that they rarely played him.

We are aiming for higher league position, ideally top 4. In order to do this, we have to build a better team than our rivals. Signing better players than those we currently have is obviously necessary to improve the side, any fool can see that, but if we can simultaneously weaken our rivals it gives us a greater advantage and improves our chances of achieving our aims. Strategy is all about trying to gain advantages. Anything which gives you an advantage is useful. And who is to say that the players we are targeting are not the ones who MH thinks are best in their position for our current circumstances?

It seems to me that there is a clear strategy here - target proven Premiership players, who are more likely than imports to slot straight into our side and won't suffer culture shock when they discover that we have football in January and it's cold here, and at the same time weaken our immediate rivals. The targeting of a "marquee" signing runs in parallel with this. I think it's very sensible.

I would be amazed if this City management (football and general) have not taken into account all the benefits to City of buying some of their rivals best players and buying players that their rivals want. I'm sure though it's not the prime motivation behind their choice of targets but in the case of Barry it strengthens us weakens Villa, who are likely to find it very hard to replace him with a better player and also prevented Liverpool from getting him.

The primary consideration is strengthening our squad. IF that involves taking a player from a rival team, then all well and good. But crucially, if there was a better player in that position available elsewhere, then he would be the first target.

It's natural for top clubs to compete for the best players in the world but any notion of clubs spending multi millions just on the off chance of destabilising their rivals is pure pie in the sky.

In the case of Barry, it is well known that he and O'Neil were in conflict. He wanted to leave and his manger wanted him out. He was available. We didn't prise him from Villa against their will.

And what's this people are saying about us stealing Tevez from the rags?? He's a free agent FFS. Ferguson didn't care enough to keep him. IF we sign him it will be because we want him, not because it upsets the scum.

it's a case of 'two birds with one stone'. dunno why you are on one about this!

 

[scousemanc]

Yep, I'm definitely glad that Cooky is running the club and not Mammutly!

 

[mammutly]

it's a case of 'two birds with one stone'. dunno why you are on one about this!

I agree. Nice if it happens but not intended.


The reason I'm 'on one' about this ( apart from the fact that I'm always on one about something) is that too many people are praising Hughes and Cook for being great and visionary leaders when all they have done is drawn up a list of targets and gone after them. Great! Credit where credits due.

But to argue there is some far reaching meta level strategy involved is stupid.