Steve Walsh (Director of football)

[Paddock]

 

Just a slight correction in case the results aren't what you expect:

 

(Walsh + Koeman) ÷ Moshiri = Showtime!

If you minus a Kone, Mcgeady and Niasse we've hit the jackpot!

[EFC-Paul]

Walsh + Koeman + Ryanzantsev ÷ Moshiri = Showtime! ?

I think Ryanzantsev will play a major part in any dealings on Moshiri's part so thought I'd add him or we may see fingers disappear if we don't appreciate the man ?

 

Made up to have Walsh on board the man seems to certainly know what he's doing and as others have said he's very very highly regarded to get that kind of recognition from old whiskey nose speaks volumes (no pun intended)

Edited July 21, 2016 by EFC-Paul

[MikeO]

 

 

[Newty82]

As far as I'm concerned, this is the best signing by any Premier League club so far this season. And I'm not a fan of the DoF role, but this feels more 'proper'.

 

This is building a real structure. Full credit to all involved.

 

I don't expect many, if any, 'big name' buys just yet (mainly due to our poor finishes last 2 seasons). But certainly going forward we should see some exciting things happening.

[nogs]

'I've found one, Ronnie...'

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

I just hope he had nothing to do withe Leicester's £20m bid for Troy Deeney

 

 

[captainbeaker]

I just hope he had nothing to do withe Leicester's £20m bid for Troy Deeney

 

 

Too much money but I think he would have been a great partner for Vardy, not an out and out goal scorer but good at holding ball up and laying it off.

 

I imagine Ron will identify the type of player he wants and Walsh will go out and find them. If he wants someone like deeney who Ranieri obviously wanted he would identify the options.

 

Lets just give him time and see who he comes up with, probably none of the names we have been linked with so far.

[Aidan]

It's good to see us sorting out this team starting with the foundations. Hopefully we can bin this deal off with kitbag and give our marketing team a kick up the arse too.

[Trigger]

To my mind when footballers look at moving to a team they look for

 

1) Money

2) European Football (preferably Champions League)

3) To be a regular player not on the bench

4) To put themselves in a position to be picked for international duty.

 

Now 2) and 3) relate highly to achieving 4).

 

If you want to attract a quality player and you're not in Europe and that player can go play for a European Competition team then you're going to need to pay them over the odds to get them to your club. Fact of Life I'm afraid. Although that then obviously makes the player a mercenary as he should have chosen us anyway for the love of the club even though we're not in Europe.

 

When the market gets like this, and especially now Steve Walsh is in place, I would rather us buy 4 or 5 lower league promising players instead of 1 big name with a view that at least 1 of them will be a gem.

[Aidan]

To my mind when footballers look at moving to a team they look for

 

1) Money

2) European Football (preferably Champions League)

3) To be a regular player not on the bench

4) To put themselves in a position to be picked for international duty.

 

Now 2) and 3) relate highly to achieving 4).

 

If you want to attract a quality player and you're not in Europe and that player can go play for a European Competition team then you're going to need to pay them over the odds to get them to your club. Fact of Life I'm afraid. Although that then obviously makes the player a mercenary as he should have chosen us anyway for the love of the club even though we're not in Europe.

 

When the market gets like this, and especially now Steve Walsh is in place, I would rather us buy 4 or 5 lower league promising players instead of 1 big name with a view that at least 1 of them will be a gem.

People go on about keeping integrity, which I want, but I also want us to push for CL asap, and the only reasonable way we could do that is to sign big players.

[MC11]

And to sign big players without being a "big" club you need to offer handsome wages and big transfer fees. Ala City & Chelsea.

[Trigger]

And to sign big players without being a "big" club you need to offer handsome wages and big transfer fees. Ala City & Chelsea.

 

Yup. But when you get it wrong you massively get it wrong and you can never get rid because of the high wages or they get injured all the time...

 

Adebayor, If anyone buys Lukaku for £75m, Torres, Carol

[AlbanyNYToffee]

I just hope he had nothing to do withe Leicester's £20m bid for Troy Deeney

 

 

Look at the player Deeney made out of Ighalo. He's limited but he unlocks the door for others.

[nogs]

And to sign big players without being a "big" club you need to offer handsome wages and big transfer fees. Ala City & Chelsea.

Rubbish. Why does everyone keep forgetting Leicester just won the fucking league?? The City/Chelsea megabucks model is NOT the only way to succeed as a football club.

Edited July 22, 2016 by nogs

[Paddock]

Rubbish. Why does everyone keep forgetting Leicester just won the fucking league?? The City/Chelsea megabucks model is NOT the only way to succeed as a football club.

It is if you want sustainability Nogs mate, Leicester did win the league and they're being picked apart. Even we took their main talent spotter!

 

If you want to get and remain around the top you need quality AND money to keep or replace that quality.

[markjazzbassist]

Rubbish. Why does everyone keep forgetting Leicester just won the fucking league?? The City/Chelsea megabucks model is NOT the only way to succeed as a football club.

 

 

It is if you want sustainability Nogs mate, Leicester did win the league and they're being picked apart. Even we took their main talent spotter!

 

If you want to get and remain around the top you need quality AND money to keep or replace that quality.

 

pad is right, nogs mate. not to mention Leicester winning it was the first time in 20 years (blackburn 95-96) that one of the Big 4 didn't win it. I'd like better odds than that.

Edited July 22, 2016 by markjazzbassist

[Hafnia]

Can you buy the league? Yeah. The best players aren't always the most expensive to aquire.... but they are difficult to retain once they prove themselves at that level... ultimately there is a barca or real waiting to offer £££££ plus prestige plus a standard of living you just dont get in the UK.

 

Personally I would love to play for Everton and be rich and live on the Wirral. But I'm a home bird. These boys all want to be top dog. It's tough for a club like Leicester..

[nogs]

Pad, I don't see the City and Chelsea model as sustainable, as soon as the rich backers leave, both clubs will be nowhere near the top of the tree. Both regularly get ripped off in the transfer market and City in particular have signed some real dross - they have won the league twice essentially on the core of players Hughes/Mancini signed, and both were guilty of some right whoppers. Throwing enough shit at a problem and hoping some of it sticks is not a sustainable model. We're already being drawn into it being linked with silly money for an average player like Witsel.

 

Based on his track record, I don't think Walsh will oversee us throwing money around like it grows on trees. His CV is full of picking the right players to fit in with the system/culture of a side, often doing very shrewd pieces of business. If he thinks we need to shell out a big fee to get the right player, we know we have the money. But that's the thing - getting the right players, not just forking out because they have great stats on Fifa and the media talk about them all the time.

[nogs]

 

 

 

pad is right, nogs mate. not to mention Leicester winning it was the first time in 20 years (blackburn 95-96) that one of the Big 4 didn't win it. I'd like better odds than that.

But the Big 4 hasn't been the same teams for 20 years, has it? Arsenal and Man Utd are the only constants, in that period Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool and Spurs have all gone close to winning the league. Add Chelsea and Man City to the list (and Blackburn) and the odds look a lot better.

[markjazzbassist]

In the last 20 it's been Man U the most. Then Chelsea and Arsenal then man city and finally one for Leicester and Blackburn.

 

Even the newly rich sides man city and Chelsea won it quickly by splashing the cash.

 

So either you take 2 out of 20 odds build the squad from cheap and pray. Or you splash and have 18 out of 20 odds. Pretty simple. Man U spent with fergie and won.

[Newty82]

Fergie and Manchester Utd didn't just win by spending. Far from it. They built it up behind the scenes as much as in the transfer market.

 

City and Chelsea have spent far too much money. They paid way over the odds for plenty of players who didn't actually have an impact on them winning whatever they have won. This is what we need to avoid.

 

With Walsh, I hope we will find the balance of a few 'big' signings combined with a few well priced finds that end up being golden, and of course some good young talent too.

 

I'm not expecting much change overnight but no doubt we'll end up at the right end of the table.

[Paddock]

Pad, I don't see the City and Chelsea model as sustainable, as soon as the rich backers leave, both clubs will be nowhere near the top of the tree. Both regularly get ripped off in the transfer market and City in particular have signed some real dross - they have won the league twice essentially on the core of players Hughes/Mancini signed, and both were guilty of some right whoppers. Throwing enough shit at a problem and hoping some of it sticks is not a sustainable model. We're already being drawn into it being linked with silly money for an average player like Witsel.

 

Based on his track record, I don't think Walsh will oversee us throwing money around like it grows on trees. His CV is full of picking the right players to fit in with the system/culture of a side, often doing very shrewd pieces of business. If he thinks we need to shell out a big fee to get the right player, we know we have the money. But that's the thing - getting the right players, not just forking out because they have great stats on Fifa and the media talk about them all the time.

They wont leave though mate it's a cash cow they're going nowhere plus the clus have massive assets and growing fanbases.

[markjazzbassist]

Fergie and Manchester Utd didn't just win by spending. Far from it. They built it up behind the scenes as much as in the transfer market.

 

City and Chelsea have spent far too much money. They paid way over the odds for plenty of players who didn't actually have an impact on them winning whatever they have won. This is what we need to avoid.

 

With Walsh, I hope we will find the balance of a few 'big' signings combined with a few well priced finds that end up being golden, and of course some good young talent too.

 

I'm not expecting much change overnight but no doubt we'll end up at the right end of the table.

You can say they spent far too much but their fans will show you title trophies while we show nothing.

 

Not buying it newty. United spent tons under fergie and bought plenty of shit. Zaha Bebe Anderson Hargreaves the list goes on and on. Expensive flops.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either splash and give it a go with better odds or try and do it the Leicester Blackburn way and hope you don't get relegated and the injuries go your way once every 20 odd years.

[Makis]

How many key players did ManU youth setup produce in the last 10 years Fergie was there? No doubt early days their academy had a huge influence but even then Fergie bought lots of key players. Schmeichel, Keane, Cantona, Irwin, Bruce, Ince, Pallister, Cole, etc.

[nogs]

They wont leave though mate it's a cash cow they're going nowhere plus the clus have massive assets and growing fanbases.

Guess only time will tell. Blackburn and Leeds were big spenders too and crashed, but I agree Chelsea and City are better set up for the long term.

 

As far as Man Utd are concerned, well that's the dream model, isn't it? Find a genius manager and back him with a great business model for two decades. I still think the first part is the crucial bit - have people running the club who look long term, not just about buying titles.

[Baba]

You can say they spent far too much but their fans will show you title trophies while we show nothing.

Not buying it newty. United spent tons under fergie and bought plenty of shit. Zaha Bebe Anderson Hargreaves the list goes on and on. Expensive flops.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either splash and give it a go with better odds or try and do it the Leicester Blackburn way and hope you don't get relegated and the injuries go your way once every 20 odd years.

Mark, Blackburn were the invention of a relatively small or long-term mid-table club spending on a level almost unparalleled at the time, to achieve instant success. They invested massive amounts to assemble a squad and big name manager within a very short timeframe.

 

They were the first contemporary Chelsea or Man City, and were not at all comparable to Leicester. Blackburn were regularly breaking transfer record fees both for outfield players and their goalkeeper with their spending, and were paying salaries rarely seen before.

 

The only club spending on a similar level were United, but that was supported by their huge worldwide revenues - ie. they were a big club, and Blackburn were new money.

[Newty82]

You can say they spent far too much but their fans will show you title trophies while we show nothing.

 

Not buying it newty. United spent tons under fergie and bought plenty of shit. Zaha Bebe Anderson Hargreaves the list goes on and on. Expensive flops.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either splash and give it a go with better odds or try and do it the Leicester Blackburn way and hope you don't get relegated and the injuries go your way once every 20 odd years.

You've completely missed the point of what I was saying. As per.

[markjazzbassist]

Mark, Blackburn were the invention of a relatively small or long-term mid-table club spending on a level almost unparalleled at the time, to achieve instant success. They invested massive amounts to assemble a squad and big name manager within a very short timeframe.

 

They were the first contemporary Chelsea or Man City, and were not at all comparable to Leicester. Blackburn were regularly breaking transfer record fees both for outfield players and their goalkeeper with their spending, and were paying salaries rarely seen before.

 

The only club spending on a similar level were United, but that was supported by their huge worldwide revenues - ie. they were a big club, and Blackburn were new money.

Thanks for the clarification baba, I wasn't a premier league fan then as I was 10 years old.

 

That proves my point even more, 1 team in over 20 years won the league without splashing the cash. More an anomaly than regularity and our fans are saying we can't splash the cash, do the Leicester, your crazy if you think that.

 

If you look at champions league victories it's the same thing, biggest spenders win it the most. Very simple correlation.

[Shukes]

We're talking about something so obvious.

Of course teams who spend a lot will generally win more.

 

But what our fans are saying is that we don't want to throw money around for the sake of it.

 

If we're going to spend, then spend smartly.

[Newty82]

We're talking about something so obvious.

Of course teams who spend a lot will generally win more.

 

But what our fans are saying is that we don't want to throw money around for the sake of it.

 

If we're going to spend, then spend smartly.

That's the one.

 

I guess along the way there will be odd mistakes. But I remember when City first got started, they spent daft amounts of money on players that they didn't need to with massively over inflated fees.

 

With Walsh, hopefully we'll be a lot smarter and be more precise with our purchases.