- Joined
- Dec 3, 2018
- Messages
- 173
Utd should be speaking to Poch if he's available.
£100m isn't defined as "l didn't spend shit, just got players on loans and stuff", though is it?100m isn't really a high spending force these days. If we spend such net spend we will consider it shit. Didn't Poch have problems with Levy despite him paying 60m for Ndombele?
Well in my eyes they only gave him a short contract so they wouldn't have to pay-out if a manager they fancied more became available, ZZ is their dream.Sure, but he just came from a break - and this could be another longish one too. He's no Zidane who won it all and can sit back at will and still keep interest high.
I'm not saying it's a no-brainer to go back to spurs, heck maybe he stays next season at PSG or even extents the contract for all we know - or his management tries to stir up some interest by other clubs, but sometimes it's better to start building your own young n hungy team that follows you instead of going to another b-tier club (because let's face it he likely won't get appointed by Real Madrid or Juve or the likes anytime soon). And that sort of rebuilding is obviously easier within a club you already know inside out. PSG is as big as it could gets for him atm and it didn't look like he truly got them rolling to their potential - not saying that can't change come next season btw - but that's how it looks right now from the outside IMO.
So? It'd still be really early to sack him after appointing him when, start of January? They could also extent the contract if they'd think the work he's done is warranting it.
https://www.transfermarkt.com/totte...8/plus/1?saison_id=2019&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=s£100m isn't defined as "l didn't spend shit, just got players on loans and stuff", though is it?
It's almost double what United was last summer
I honestly find no reason for him to leave PSG now, unless the board are the ones forcing him out. He should have stayed for the rest of his contract and it's not like he can't return to Spurs whenever he wants later. The whole thing just screams safe job for me.Sure, but he just came from a break - and this could be another longish one too. He's no Zidane who won it all and can sit back at will and still keep interest high.
I'm not saying it's a no-brainer to go back to spurs, heck maybe he stays next season at PSG or even extents the contract for all we know - or his management tries to stir up some interest by other clubs, but sometimes it's better to start building your own young n hungy team that follows you instead of going to another b-tier club (because let's face it he likely won't get appointed by Real Madrid or Juve or the likes anytime soon). And that sort of rebuilding is obviously easier within a club you already know inside out. PSG is as big as it could gets for him atm and it didn't look like he truly got them rolling to their potential - not saying that can't change come next season btw - but that's how it looks right now from the outside IMO.
So? It'd still be really early to sack him after appointing him when, start of January? They could also extent the contract if they'd think the work he's done is warranting it.
I don't quite get what your are trying to say, it wasn't a safe job as he was sacked. TBH I have no idea what's going on, but there is too much out there for this to be just smoke.I honestly find no reason for him to leave PSG now, unless the board are the ones forcing him out. He should have stayed for the rest of his contract and it's not like he can't return to Spurs whenever he wants later. The whole thing just screams safe job for me.
He knows that Spurs fan will like him no matter what, and that the pressure on him will be less. I don't think he was sacked purely for results back then, more like due to his moaning about the board's and Levy's supporting him in the market consistently imo because he believed he did so much for Spurs he deserved more backing in the market. I think if he didn't moan, Levy would have probably let him stay.I don't quite get what your are trying to say, it wasn't a safe job as he was sacked. TBH I have no idea what's going on, but there is too much out there for this to be just smoke.
Having seen what happens when Spurs and also when Pochettino gets money to spend I’d say they’re better off keeping Kane if they can.If I was in your shoes I’d want to believe it too! Obviously losing Kane is a massive blow, but don’t you think with the funds raised, the club could address multiple holes in the squad? There are good players that could be bought with a boost in your budget of £120 million.
I'm running out of my allowance of daily posts quota.. but yes, I agree.Well in my eyes they only gave him a short contract so they wouldn't have to pay-out if a manager they fancied more became available, ZZ is their dream.
That's all I'm saying tbh - if the PSG board tells him "sorry Poch, you've done ok but we'll likely bring in Zidane anyway - but we kinda like you so how would you like to communicate your departure?" it's not totally far fetched for him to go back to where he came from. Flick did something similiar, not the same mind, since Nagelsmann was bound to go to Bayern rather sooner than later so once becoming the next national team manager was feasable (likely for years to come -> extremely safe job) he jumped on board and cut ties with Bayern before they started cutting ties to bring in Nagelsmann in a year.I honestly find no reason for him to leave PSG now, unless the board are the ones forcing him out. He should have stayed for the rest of his contract and it's not like he can't return to Spurs whenever he wants later. The whole thing just screams safe job for me.
No matter how much money we get from him, its very unlikly we get a player who will constantly produce what Harry has over the last 5-6 years.Having seen what happens when Spurs and also when Pochettino gets money to spend I’d say they’re better off keeping Kane if they can.
He has one year contract, on option for another (dunno if that matters) doubt it would be a problem.Should PSG let him leave if he wants to? And should they ask a big transfer fee?
To be honest, I don't think this is true anymore. After a few lean years while building the stadium, we spent £100 million last season and £133 million the season before (net of roughly 80 mil both times).Same said about Mourinho and they still didn't spend shit, just got players on loans and stuff. Levy aren't spending.
He has virtually two years in his contract, they could trigger his clause and be very vindictive.He has one year contract, on option for another (dunno if that matters) doubt it would be a problem.
My point is Poch wasn't really fond of how much the board spent the last season he went which was 80m net spend so I don't see why he'll be happy with 100m net spend. He seems to think he deserved better players, more power in the transfers and more money. Will any of these happen ? Really can't see Levy changing his transfer business of buying budget players and loans, and definitely can't see him giving Poch the power he seemed to want last time.To be honest, I don't think this is true anymore. After a few lean years while building the stadium, we spent £100 million last season and £133 million the season before (net of roughly 80 mil both times).
We're obviously not at Man City/Chelsea/Man Utd levels but once we had an idea of the actual cost of the stadium and money started rolling in, we were starting to be able to spend again.
The question for me actually is whether Levy/Poch (blame whichever one of the two you like or a mixture of the two) can actually spend higher transfer fees wisely because so far, the evidence is not great.
I'm not sure that's totally true to be honest. Poch wasn't overly happy with the transfer dealings prior to that, with the infamous 2 windows without a single purchase, loan or free transfer. Things got stale, our form was essentially relegation form over the course of a calendar year and he was sadly let go. It should never have gotten to that situation in the first place but such were the circumstances.My point is Poch wasn't really fond of how much the board spent the last season he went which was 80m net spend so I don't see why he'll be happy with 100m net spend. He seems to think he deserved better players, more power in the transfers and more money. Will any of these happen ? Really can't see Levy changing his transfer business of buying budget players and loans, and definitely can't see him giving Poch the power he seemed to want last time.
They don't have to let you go, you are still under contract. They can hire a new manager and let you play scrabble. Clubs generally don't do that but managers also generally don't talk to other clubs less than six months into their contract.I find the idea of a manager not being allowed to leave kind of hilarious.
If I was Pochettino I'd start playing cleaning staff instead of Neymar etc.
But was he happy with such market he got before he was sacked ? I don't remember him being that fond of Ndombele or Lo Celso either.I'm not sure that's totally true to be honest. Poch wasn't overly happy with the transfer dealings prior to that, with the infamous 2 windows without a single purchase, loan or free transfer. Things got stale, our form was essentially relegation form over the course of a calendar year and he was sadly let go. It should never have gotten to that situation in the first place but such were the circumstances.
Poch only had 1 transfer window of the increased power of spending and was fired about 3 months after said transfer window.
As I said, none of the purchases of N'dombole, Lo Celso, Sessengnon (for the type of player), Reguilon, Sanchez or going back a bit Sissoko were bargain bucket. The question is how much utility we've gotten out of these rather expensive players. The reality is that, so far, none of them have exactly set the league on fire.
The spending patterns were clearly different post and during stadium build, which Poch sadly was able to take full advantage of due to the sacking. Covid has obviously plunged a hole in our finances so god knows what our spending is going to be like in the next few seasons too.
Well yeah. He never complained or started to show any signs of complaining until the year we went without signing anyone.But was he happy with such market he got before he was sacked ? I don't remember him being that fond of Ndombele or Lo Celso either.
These players aren't bad, but at the end all of them are about 2nd tier players. Not sure if that's what Poch would want. I think he wanted more, and better standards of players.
I honestly don't think he was that happy. I felt he wanted more backing and thought he deserved more because of what he did to the club. I don't think he believed 80 net spend was enough for the club to be going forward with the increased competitiveness around him. I think the sacking was just a culmination of all his problems with the board.Well yeah. He never complained or started to show any signs of complaining until the year we went without signing anyone.
I doubt that Poch had no input in the purchase of those two players. N'dombole is one of the 50 most expensive players in history. Reguilon top 5 LBs in terms of transfer fee etc etc.
If your point is that Poch could buy a higher calibre of player at PSG, I don't think anyone would ever doubt that.
But your initial point seemed to be that Poch was unhappy with a net spend of £80 million a year. Poch didn't get that or anything even approaching that until his final transfer window and then was sadly fired 3 months after because of a calendar year's worth of abysmal form so he never had the time to be upset about that level. The reality is that if post the stadium build, we were gearing up to be able to spend £80mil net per season, there would be very few clubs who would be able to match that. PSG of course being one of them.
I think in France you have to keep your employees doing what's in their job description, here coach of the first team. If not they can leave, sue for wrongful termination and ask for the remainder of the contract to be paid + compensation for "préjudice moral".They don't have to let you go, you are still under contract. They can hire a new manager and let you play scrabble. Clubs generally don't do that but managers also generally don't talk to other clubs less than six months into their contract.
It depends on the terms of the contract and why smart employers do not give specific roles and locations. But even then the procedure is through the prud'hommes which isn't quick. There is the small issue of loyalty which would be used against him in any attempts to demand compensation for moral prejudice, it would actually most likely turn into a compensation in favor of the employer. For a CDI the situation is totally different and a lot better for the employee.I think in France you have to keep your employees doing what's in their job description, here coach of the first team. If not they can leave, sue for wrongful termination and ask for the remainder of the contract to be paid + compensation for "préjudice moral".
There is more often than not a mutual agreement for the termination that as you mentioned can include payments until a new job is found and displays a better image of everyone. It benefits the club not having to pay everything upfront, but also avoids the risk of "faute grave", many coaches being pretty liberal with criticism (sometimes insulting), public complaints about recruits or similar acts that can be sanctioned at Prud'Hommes like with Puel at Lyon.It depends on the terms of the contract and why smart employers do not give specific roles and locations. But even then the procedure is through the prud'hommes which isn't quick. There is the small issue of loyalty which would be used against him in any attempts to demand compensation for moral prejudice, it would actually most likely turn into a compensation in favor of the employer. For a CDI the situation is totally different and a lot better for the employee.
Regarding your first sentence, that's because it's one of the three ways to legally break a CDD. The other are by signing a CDI and the last one can only come from the employer with only three legal reasons, inaptitude, serious misconduct or exceptional circumstances.There is more often than not a mutual agreement for the termination that as you mentioned can include payments until a new job is found and displays a better image of everyone. It benefits the club not having to pay everything upfront, but also avoids the risk of "faute grave", many coaches being pretty liberal with criticism (sometimes insulting), public complaints about recruits or similar acts that can be sanctioned at Prud'Hommes like with Puel at Lyon.
Major clubs in europe do it in last few years it seems....Real Madrid fecked about with Lopetegui and Solari for a season before running back to Zidane, looks like Juve are doing the same with Allegri aswell. Chelsea want back to Mourinho a few years ago etc.Weird to go back to a manager you sacked a season and a half ago. I'm not even sure he would be that interested in going back with the state Tottenham are in.
If the rumours are true, his relationship with Leonardo is already pretty bad. So the argument would be that Spurs contacted him and that he is receptive to their offer.I simply do not understand why he would go back to Spurs after half a season with PSG? Has anyone explained this yet?
ZZ is available.I simply do not understand why he would go back to Spurs after half a season with PSG? Has anyone explained this yet?
This is an amazing straw man. No idea why you're trying to change the subject, but the original point was (for the third time) "they didn't spend shit, just got players on loans and stuff". It's wrong in every facet, but not as wrong as changing the point to be how happy Pochettino is with anything.https://www.transfermarkt.com/totte...8/plus/1?saison_id=2019&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=s
Last summer market under Poch, Spurs spent 80m net spend and Poch didn't like it, had problems with the board and wanted out, but you believe he'll be content with the 100m net spend you spent last summer ?
I didn't change the subject. I don't think 100m is actually a high net spend. When United spent a net spend of 70m we thought it was shit.This is an amazing straw man. No idea why you're trying to change the subject, but the original point was (for the third time) "they didn't spend shit, just got players on loans and stuff". It's wrong in every facet, but not as wrong as changing the point to be how happy Pochettino is with anything.
Must not have full control is the only thing i can think of if true.
Of course he doesn't have full control, almost no one has full control outside of some english clubs.Must not have full control is the only thing i can think of if true.