The transfer strategy

bizzbo said:
Ducado said:
mammutly said:
1894 said:
Gary Cook's business-speak now appearing as football-speak. We better get used to it ...

I think that's exactly what it is. Dressing things up as something that they are not.

The club is after a big name signing.

That's it.

The only other 'strategy' involves looking at who might be available and whether we want them or not. The only difference between us and other clubs, all of whom do the same thing, is that the money is less of a factor.

Well it's your opinion and who knows you could be right, or you could be wrong, does anyone actually care? I very much doubt it, it's such a pity that all the best people in the world of football management are far to busy posting on internet forums and flipping burgers

guess it's just another way to run down city, or build them up. however, regardless of the coherence or depth of any strategy that may or may not be in place, mammutly appears to have made a crap argument. The unknowns in the transfer market are pretty easy to identify. club X will or won't bid for X. Player X will or will not agree to sign. come up with reasonable probabilities for these things, and you can create a perfectly workable strategy. ask donald rumsfield, although he was talking about the unknowns that you don't even know exist. not many of them in a the transfer business.

almost forgot...do you want onions with that?

Logically, you've listed 16 possible contingencies there, just in your simple example of one club/other club/player.

If you take it into the real world the variables are just too complex to plan around.

My 'crap argument' is just that calling going after players a 'transfer strategy' is bollox garry cooke speak.
 
OB1 said:
I actually think there is a fairly clear transfer strategy that City have. One part of the strategy is to sign one or two big name players for both commercial reasons and footballing reasons, and in order to help City encourage other players to join the club. However a core part of the strategy is to buy proven players with Premier League experience with a clear goal of getting City into the top four pdq. As opposed, for example, to a strategy of buying young players who have great potential and taking time to develop a successful team. That's my take on the strategy.

I'd hope and expect that the transfer strategy will change once City have established themselves as a force.

I agree, OB1.

Of course we have a transfer strategy - it is the planned approach which has been put in place to achieve our objective (officially, top 6 next season). A successful strategy has to be flexible to react to circumstances and (short term) tactics will alter to reach the objective. As 1894 said, it is a business term used in a football context, showing Cook's background and arguably ADUG's attitude toward running the club.
 
city are moving at a level none of us over 35 thought we would ever see.
We have moved to a level in 12 months it would take any so called big city club 5 years to get to.
We have always thought we were a big club but why? Superb loyal fans and fiercely loyal at that.
we had great core support and pride in battle and game as fuck but nothing else.
I remember when I thought City were a big club and far more than an equal of the yids.
They then took my then hero Paul Stewart of us for £1.7m.
Im sure i cried.
Seriosly we have been shite all my life but we are on the verge of something me and anybody with blue blood could have ever have dreamt of.
Not only that we are serioudly fucking the so called big 4 off now already.
we all need to take a step back for a minute.
We are at the beginning of our journey to paradise, its a matter of time.
 
Im sure that MH and GC have a list of alternatives to look at......I just hope we get the right ones.
 
mammutly said:
Logically, you've listed 16 possible contingencies there, just in your simple example of one club/other club/player.

dunno where you got 16 from. club x bids for player x, or they don't. two possibilities. club y accepts or they don't. that makes three (can't reject a bid that doesnt exist), but two are effectively the same (in both cases club y has not sold player x, and club x has not spent the money or acquired the player). player x accepts, or they don't. again the number of meaningfully different outcomes is far fewer than the number of logical possibilities. factor in that only a handful of the 'meaningful' outcomes will affect your strategy.

cmon mammutly, it's like a chess player saying 'as there are x million possible moves my opponent could make in the next five turns, I might as well not bother with any strategy at all'
 
mammutly said:
A strategy is an overall plan, so the idea of a 'transfer strategy' has to be rubbish. There are just too many unknowns.

It cannot be a plan to go after players, not get them, so then go after other players and get them instead, if we can.

The club might have a list of targets but that's all it is. Bigging it up as a 'strategy' is stupid.

Sorry pal but your wrong!

City are using a strategy and its this one.
There is a book called "The Art Of War" By SunTzu. Its a military tactic book over a 1000 years old.
It is used in buisness studies in many universities.

One of the chapters reads that to make yourself stronger, you do so by making your enemies weaker at the same time.

City have bid for these players or enquired or even bought.

Tevez United
Barry Villa
Toure Arsenal
Torres Liverpool (todays mail on sunday)
Lescott Everton
Terry Chelsea

2 Months ago the chairman said our target was a top 6 finish. City are being very very strategic by upsetting and ruffling the feathers of the top 6.
Coincidence???? I do not think so!
Citys owners are "ELITE" buisness men who are succesfull as they use strategy as the foundation of their progression by planning and moving slowly.
I guarentee you we will see some crazy things in the final weeks of the transfer window.
 
OB1 said:
I actually think there is a fairly clear transfer strategy that City have. One part of the strategy is to sign one or two big name players for both commercial reasons and footballing reasons, and in order to help City encourage other players to join the club. However a core part of the strategy is to buy proven players with Premier League experience with a clear goal of getting City into the top four pdq. As opposed, for example, to a strategy of buying young players who have great potential and taking time to develop a successful team. That's my take on the strategy.

I'd hope and expect that the transfer strategy will change once City have established themselves as a force.

at last somebody talking sense around here!
 
5knuckleshuffle said:
mammutly said:
A strategy is an overall plan, so the idea of a 'transfer strategy' has to be rubbish. There are just too many unknowns.

It cannot be a plan to go after players, not get them, so then go after other players and get them instead, if we can.

The club might have a list of targets but that's all it is. Bigging it up as a 'strategy' is stupid.

Sorry pal but your wrong!

City are using a strategy and its this one.
There is a book called "The Art Of War" By SunTzu. Its a military tactic book over a 1000 years old.
It is used in buisness studies in many universities.

One of the chapters reads that to make yourself stronger, you do so by making your enemies weaker at the same time.

City have bid for these players or enquired or even bought.

Tevez United
Barry Villa
Toure Arsenal
Torres Liverpool (todays mail on sunday)
Lescott Everton
Terry Chelsea

2 Months ago the chairman said our target was a top 6 finish. City are being very very strategic by upsetting and ruffling the feathers of the top 6.
Coincidence???? I do not think so!
Citys owners are "ELITE" buisness men who are succesfull as they use strategy as the foundation of their progression by planning and moving slowly.
I guarentee you we will see some crazy things in the final weeks of the transfer window.

this. you, sir, are rapidly becoming one of my favorite posters.
 
Good morning everyone. First post today for me, and I'm playing 'devil's advocate' a moment.

Without a transfer/business strategy, anything could happen - perhaps like signing a player 'cos he was cheap, or you couldn't get anyone else. This has often been the case with many teams, but our owners don't think like that. Neither did Gary Cook become one of Nike's top men by not having clear ideas and goals.

It takes some getting used to, but we'll be hearing more business-speak in footballing terms, but could you imagine what would happen if players suddenly started talking to each other like that during a game ?
"Move the ball in a forward trajectory to my strategic position" - Pass it to me
"Focus your attention on the immediate danger closing in fast from the flank" - Watch that man
"Line up horizontally to deny the opposition a competitive advantage" - Form a wall

Mmmm - some expressions belong in the classroom and others on the field.

BTW - anyone notice how managers are full of techno babble during post-match interviews ? You can't escape it anymore.

*winks* Wonder what the plan is for today ?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.