Cf

I'm also in the camp that talks of £100m is just daft. There's probably a comparison to Guehi here. A few good games for England (against mainly dross) seems to massively inflate the value of certain players. Not to say either player isn't good of course. Just don't think they're necessarily at the level some seem to think.

Not a fan of this thread as the word "Hall" sticks out and the long title makes me think of the worst.

A more interesting way to look at it is: A) Reject 70m and have a 5% chance of winning the FA Cup (making up some pre season odds for it) B) Take the £70m and have a 4% chance of winning. I agree pretty much no-one would swap the money for the cup but at the time the chances of them winning it were slim regardless. PSR is shit the fact we even question this stuff.

Exactly this. As soon as City tell Guehi what they'll pay him that's the end of it. No-one else can come close. City have the selling club over a barrel at that point.

I don't buy into him being directly responsible for the goal but we lose possession from him far too often. It just invites pressure and that obviously works against us.

Have we made him our highest paid player yet and locked him down for 8 years?

He's been superb for us over the years but I think it's fair to say in this day and age you need a goalkeeper who can play football. Ramsdale isn't the answer I don't think but he makes a big difference in allowing us to keep possession. I think for Pope the game has just evolved past him a little bit.

Have you seen where the fixture is? 28th Jan - Away to PSG 31st Jan - Away to Liverpool 4th Feb - Away to City I don't think it's defeatist. I think it's just realistic. Especially with the fact we have a 2 goal deficit to overturn I think we need to prioritise elsewhere.

It's freed up the 2nd leg for us to let the first team get some rest in at least. Has to be the reserves in that match. Given the congestion I just don't see how we can be competitive in it especially from 2 goals down.

To be fair they've gone from one of the best teams in the world to being a solid mid table premier league team who can occasionally fight for Europe and are generally seen as a bit of a joke. I'd say that's some consequences there. They aren't fighting for titles etc any time soon.

They're so back.

I'd be after £90m+ if it's city who want him. If we're selling to these clubs we really do need to maximise what we get.

Thought Slot spoke quite well when asked about the Martinelli incident. I feel dirty for saying that.

Just to add to this before anyone is like "but Guardiola and Arteta manage it" is the simple fact they have better players and squads. Put Howe in charge of Arsenal and suddenly he won't have any issues juggling league and CL. Put Arteta here and watch him struggle with it.

That should be a red card for Martinelli.

These clubs are effectively replacing people who know what they're doing with guys playing Football Manager.

Almost like we've not been shite.

Didn't watch the game. I take it we lost again?

Not sure you having to appoint a caretaker reflects particularly well on the club mind.

So the Brighton/Chelsea model of financial success trumps sporting success? Don't get me wrong - all clubs will want to engage in this sort of trading every now and then to balance the books but if you've got a position needs filling then sometimes it makes sense to fill it with someone who you know will succeed. It's like us with Wissa - there's likely little resale value there but if he's the difference between CL or not then it's paid for that way.

Two key points for me here. Firstly Brighton are consistently mid-table. They've flirted with Europe but that seems to be the extent of their ambitions. The model seems to work as far as that is concerned but does it work for wanting to win things? See also Chelsea who seem happy with the Brighton model but aiming for CL instead of Europa. Liverpool it's arguably causing them problems now too - Slot looks like the wrong guy with players forced on him and they've got an expensive lopsided squad. The second one is giving managers time. It's why i've found some of the discourse on here about Howe disappointing during our rough period. Clubs crave stability and cite the DOF as one of the ways to achieve that but ultimately it's the manager who will give you stability. I'm not saying we shouldn't have DOFs and all the rest of it, but they need to be seen as peers to the manager, not as their boss. Someone who I can't remember (sorry) made an interesting point that DOFs are slowly morphing into the managers of old, except they receive no public/media scrutiny and have a head coach to throw under the bus if things aren't working out.

I think space for the role exists but it should maybe be equal with the manager. The first team is obviously the most important for the club. But there's reserves, acadamies, etc. It's too much for one person but at the same time a DOF style role gives consistency. They can focus on the "less important" bits and big picture stuff but given the first team is the most important then the guy in charge of that should obviously have a large amount of influence.

As for Amorim the writing was on the wall when MOTD showed that press conference. That was a man inviting the board to sack him.

So that's Chelsea and Man Utd ditching their managers. Liverpool and Spurs must have twitchy fingers at the moment. Who is actually out there for these teams? Say what you will about PSR but I think the days of the Big 6 are slowly coming to an end. The rest of the league is catching up.

Then say that rather than this nonsense about 5cm of advantage that's supposedly given to the attacker that we've never seen before. Just watched MOTD on it and I feel utterly gaslit.