Summer Transfer Thread and Gustavo Cisneros Type Rumours.

[chrisw1]

Funny though, a lot of other promoted teams come up without a full team of premier league ready players don't they?  They don't all have the option to release their Huttons, Whelans and Adomahs as they haven't got £140m to spend.  Most of them don't have the benefit of one of the best players in the league either.

[SoccerHQ]

His biggest test is how he uses the squad this season imo.

Last season endless excuses were made for his lack of subs because we had little in reserve and in fairness when your backup strikers are Davis and Wes (who wasn't even making the bench until April) it was fair.

Now despite no DM signing we still have 7-8 midfielders who want to get regular minutes and same for final third. Trez will probably be back in January as another option for final few months.

I'm hoping to see some decent formation switches this years, times when we play 3 at the back (sorry CWB) others when we play a diamond in midfield and others when high press 4-3-3 is the right way.

Good example last season was when we played West Ham. They had a standard way of playing but that night Moyes started Fredricks and pushed Coufal up and pretty much nulified G***lish and they comfortably won.

What I don't want to see is us just playing an ill-fitting 4-4-2 against pretty much everyone just because DS is too scared to drop a big name or expensive forward playing. It will also go against all he's done as a manager in last decade.

That's one of the things that will suggest to me can he make step up into eilite manager land as say Brendan Rodgers has done in last decade with his body of work at a few clubs.

Will also mean when everyone is fit he'll have 2-3 good sub options to bring on so again hopefully not leaving those type of subs until 80th minute as happened with Ollie v Brentford when he could've been on around the hour mark.

[sickbeggar]

Funny though, a lot of other promoted teams come up without a full team of premier league ready players don't they?  They don't all have the option to release their Huttons, Whelans and Adomahs as they haven't got £140m to spend.  Most of them don't have the benefit of one of the best players in the league either.

And they get mullered mostly. Norwich have a much more settled team that we had. They didn't have a load of old men like Whelan and Hutton. Their main striker wasn't a loan that was unbuyable. And they're getting mullered. I'd admit on paper 143m sounds a lot, but it was necessary if we wanted half a chance of staying up. None of the players we let go are premiership players now because they were either old, or in most cases, a bit shit.

[Sexual Ealing]

Funny though, a lot of other promoted teams come up without a full team of premier league ready players don't they?  They don't all have the option to release their Huttons, Whelans and Adomahs as they haven't got £140m to spend.  Most of them don't have the benefit of one of the best players in the league either.

None of the players we let go are premiership players now because they were either old, or in most cases, a bit shit.

Or both.

[sickbeggar]

Funny though, a lot of other promoted teams come up without a full team of premier league ready players don't they?  They don't all have the option to release their Huttons, Whelans and Adomahs as they haven't got £140m to spend.  Most of them don't have the benefit of one of the best players in the league either.

None of the players we let go are premiership players now because they were either old, or in most cases, a bit shit.

Or both.

Aye. And the other problem was who we could attract to stay up. If Delia Smith found 143m down the back of her sofa they wouldn't have got an Ings or a bailey however much Norwich offered because the players wouldn't have come to a club perceived as cannon fodder. Just like we couldn't.

[Ketzster]

The problem with Smith is, yes he probably has achieved all of his targets. So you’ve got people who will say that, and others that can see the things like the tactical inflexibility and the record without Grealish. And as Grealish has now gone the latter is more relevant. To be fair to those that are critical of him, he has had 3 years to demonstrate he can come up with different systems depending who is available, and he hasn’t managed it. That includes a run in the Championship where he still had better players than the other teams we were playing (Abraham, Mcginn, El Ghazi for example). I agree with SoccerHQ above about him finding different formations, but I have absolutely no doubt that all we will see is 4-3-3 no matter who is available

[Sexual Ealing]

Yep, look at that Rashisca (sp?) lad who was at Werder Bremen (I think).He didn't want to sign for us because last year because he thought we were relegation candidates. Then he got relegated. Then joined Norwich. Funny how the world works sometimes.

Edit: I was replying to sb

[Smithy]

Top 4 was never really realistic, as to compete over 38 games with the likes of Man U, Man City, Liverpool and Chelsea would take some doing. Outside of that though, it’s all pretty much of a muchness. Our main problem in my opinion is we’re saddled with a lower league manager who’s been given a third of a billion quid to spend but whose managerial ability really doesn’t warrant the faith the owners have shown him. He doesn’t have the tactical ability nor is he a draw for top players to get us into the top 6..

Well this seasons a huge one for Smith and if he improves us yet again from the last, your view is flawed. If we manage to finish in the top half he’s done another remarkable job.

It was a mixed bag last year and he outwitted some of the best mangers, yet failed against others. So far he’s doing a fantastic job.

Top half would be remarkable? After spending the thick end of half a billion quid? Bielsa managed it first go last season, and Leeds haven't spent anything like the amounts we have.

This stuff about what Bielsa did "first go" is a bit misleading, because he's actually been Leeds' manager longer than Dean has been with us, and had an extra transfer window.  Dean got us up "first go", Bielsa's Leeds needed another full year. Bielsa also inherited a much younger squad in the Championship, that needed far less surgery, than our own. 

Bielsa is a great manager, there is no doubt about it, and he's done a really good job at Leeds, but Dean has done a pretty good job too, in slightly less time and with one transfer window fewer.  They were separated by two league places and just four points after 3 seasons, and two and a half seasons in charge respectively.

I don't see how one can be declared a brilliant manager, and the other defined as a lower league manager?

[paul_e]

I was intrigued by a comment that Smith had spent the 'thick end of half a billion' since his arrival in October 2018. I couldn't think how that estimate was arrived at so took a look at www.transfermarkt.co.uk.
I looked at Villa's most expensive 50 players and then sorted them by year of purchase to see how much has been spent on Dean's watch: I would include a picture here to show the data but cannot seem to do it!.
This analysis does not include players bought for under £6.00mm, but, Smith seems to have spent £322mm on 19 players; roughly £17mm per player. The average Premier League player is currently valued at £15.8mm (purchase value) by the same source.

I don't think the Smith years are marked by excessive spend or profligacy, based on this. Obviously, we can question the quality of some of the purchases but not the overall spend. Nor has he spent a big amount given that he was effectively rebuilding a depleted squad.

322 million is still an awful lot. Leeds didn’t spend much last year and managed to finish in the top half. As my Leeds mate always tells me, they’ve got Liam League 1 Cooper playing in defence. So it’s fair to say Smith had had better resources available than that. Yet we spend a fortune and people talk as though it would be a great achievement if Smith finished in the top half. Bielsa is just an example of what a really good manager can do without spending a fortune. Imagine if you combined having a really good manager and spending money

Leeds have spent (Net) about £140m since they were promoted so about £70m per season.
In 1 more season we have a net spend of about £200m so slightly under £70m a season.

On that basis most of your post is wrong.

[Smithy]

Funny though, a lot of other promoted teams come up without a full team of premier league ready players don't they?  They don't all have the option to release their Huttons, Whelans and Adomahs as they haven't got £140m to spend.  Most of them don't have the benefit of one of the best players in the league either.

You're absolutely right of course, an awful lot of promoted teams can't afford to replace players who are too old, or out of contract, with new, better or younger ones.  But most of those teams also get relegated straight away.   I remember reading a while ago that 2 out of 3 promoted teams get relegated during their first three seasons in the top flight. I think it's something like once in 20 years that all 3 promoted teams survived.

Getting promoted, and staying in the Premier League is NOT easy.  Highlighting what a lot of teams do regarding transfers isn't really relevant if it isn't successful in keeping them up.

I'm more interested in what the teams who stayed up long-term did.

[Ketzster]

I was intrigued by a comment that Smith had spent the 'thick end of half a billion' since his arrival in October 2018. I couldn't think how that estimate was arrived at so took a look at www.transfermarkt.co.uk.
I looked at Villa's most expensive 50 players and then sorted them by year of purchase to see how much has been spent on Dean's watch: I would include a picture here to show the data but cannot seem to do it!.
This analysis does not include players bought for under £6.00mm, but, Smith seems to have spent £322mm on 19 players; roughly £17mm per player. The average Premier League player is currently valued at £15.8mm (purchase value) by the same source.

I don't think the Smith years are marked by excessive spend or profligacy, based on this. Obviously, we can question the quality of some of the purchases but not the overall spend. Nor has he spent a big amount given that he was effectively rebuilding a depleted squad.

322 million is still an awful lot. Leeds didn’t spend much last year and managed to finish in the top half. As my Leeds mate always tells me, they’ve got Liam League 1 Cooper playing in defence. So it’s fair to say Smith had had better resources available than that. Yet we spend a fortune and people talk as though it would be a great achievement if Smith finished in the top half. Bielsa is just an example of what a really good manager can do without spending a fortune. Imagine if you combined having a really good manager and spending money

Leeds have spent (Net) about £140m since they were promoted so about £70m per season.
In 1 more season we have a net spend of about £200m so slightly under £70m a season.

On that basis most of your post is wrong.

I’m not really sure how you’ve worked the figures there. At the end of last summers window, we’d spent roughly 200 million and Leeds spent 98 million last summer. So take out the window just gone, by my calculations Leeds last season had spent about half of what we had since promotion

[Ads]

Funny though, a lot of other promoted teams come up without a full team of premier league ready players don't they?  They don't all have the option to release their Huttons, Whelans and Adomahs as they haven't got £140m to spend.  Most of them don't have the benefit of one of the best players in the league either.

And most go straight back down.

[paul_e]

I was intrigued by a comment that Smith had spent the 'thick end of half a billion' since his arrival in October 2018. I couldn't think how that estimate was arrived at so took a look at www.transfermarkt.co.uk.
I looked at Villa's most expensive 50 players and then sorted them by year of purchase to see how much has been spent on Dean's watch: I would include a picture here to show the data but cannot seem to do it!.
This analysis does not include players bought for under £6.00mm, but, Smith seems to have spent £322mm on 19 players; roughly £17mm per player. The average Premier League player is currently valued at £15.8mm (purchase value) by the same source.

I don't think the Smith years are marked by excessive spend or profligacy, based on this. Obviously, we can question the quality of some of the purchases but not the overall spend. Nor has he spent a big amount given that he was effectively rebuilding a depleted squad.

322 million is still an awful lot. Leeds didn’t spend much last year and managed to finish in the top half. As my Leeds mate always tells me, they’ve got Liam League 1 Cooper playing in defence. So it’s fair to say Smith had had better resources available than that. Yet we spend a fortune and people talk as though it would be a great achievement if Smith finished in the top half. Bielsa is just an example of what a really good manager can do without spending a fortune. Imagine if you combined having a really good manager and spending money

Leeds have spent (Net) about £140m since they were promoted so about £70m per season.
In 1 more season we have a net spend of about £200m so slightly under £70m a season.

On that basis most of your post is wrong.

I’m not really sure how you’ve worked the figures there. At the end of last summers window, we’d spent roughly 200 million and Leeds spent 98 million last summer. So take out the window just gone, by my calculations Leeds last season had spent about half of what we had since promotion

So you're saying that Leeds, in 1 season, have spent half what we did in 2. How does that show Bielsa did brilliantly with a limited budget and Smith has just has better resources?

[Ads]

Leeds the paupers, who've just spent £30m on a winger. A bit like us.

I dont see why Bielsa being a good manager impacts on Smith. Worth noting that the former has had 2 good years at Leeds, arguably 3, although he has the distinction of being the only side to ever top the Championship at Christmas and fail to be promoted.

[Ketzster]

I was intrigued by a comment that Smith had spent the 'thick end of half a billion' since his arrival in October 2018. I couldn't think how that estimate was arrived at so took a look at www.transfermarkt.co.uk.
I looked at Villa's most expensive 50 players and then sorted them by year of purchase to see how much has been spent on Dean's watch: I would include a picture here to show the data but cannot seem to do it!.
This analysis does not include players bought for under £6.00mm, but, Smith seems to have spent £322mm on 19 players; roughly £17mm per player. The average Premier League player is currently valued at £15.8mm (purchase value) by the same source.

I don't think the Smith years are marked by excessive spend or profligacy, based on this. Obviously, we can question the quality of some of the purchases but not the overall spend. Nor has he spent a big amount given that he was effectively rebuilding a depleted squad.

322 million is still an awful lot. Leeds didn’t spend much last year and managed to finish in the top half. As my Leeds mate always tells me, they’ve got Liam League 1 Cooper playing in defence. So it’s fair to say Smith had had better resources available than that. Yet we spend a fortune and people talk as though it would be a great achievement if Smith finished in the top half. Bielsa is just an example of what a really good manager can do without spending a fortune. Imagine if you combined having a really good manager and spending money

Leeds have spent (Net) about £140m since they were promoted so about £70m per season.
In 1 more season we have a net spend of about £200m so slightly under £70m a season.

On that basis most of your post is wrong.

I’m not really sure how you’ve worked the figures there. At the end of last summers window, we’d spent roughly 200 million and Leeds spent 98 million last summer. So take out the window just gone, by my calculations Leeds last season had spent about half of what we had since promotion

So you're saying that Leeds, in 1 season, have spent half what we did in 2. How does that show Bielsa did brilliantly with a limited budget and Smith has just has better resources?

Isn’t the answer obvious? Smith should therefore have double the resources Leeds do shouldn’t he, if he’s had the chance to spend 2 x 100 million. You might disagree, but it doesn’t make my post wrong. There are times under Smith where we regularly look like we haven’t been coached. A good manager would make a massive difference