Is he the manager that will save football?
>Builds a squad of young, promising lads
>No mercenaries allowed or wanted
>Exciting, attacking style
>Net spend over last three years is less than £20m
>New stadium will have a 61,000 capacity
>Will probably win the league at least a couple of times in the next five years
Sounds like Wenger during his early years, except Wenger managed to actually win trophies before he moved stadium.
Hey that is not Claudio Ranieri's picture
wenger had more years to win trophies at highbury though?
I don't see how a manager who routinely tells his players to drop out of the cl/el so they can qualify for the cl because all they cares about is money can save football
what does he have to do with the net spend?
Wenger was managing one of the 3 richest teams in the league though, it's not really the same.
>fails at Espanyol
>succeeds in the """"Premier"""" League
>implying they dropped out of cl on purpose
c'mon, no one can be that stupid
If you think he dropped out of the CL on purpose or told Dele Alli to chimp out in the EL then you're retarded.
Tottenham is the 4th or 5th richest team
not at the time
Wenger won the double in his second season at Arsenal. Pochettino has just finished his third season at Tottenham.
Tottenham is the 6th richest team, and the 5 richest teams dwarf Tottenhm financially. The gap between Liverpool and Tottenham is bigger than the gap between Tottenham and West Ham.
Yes at the time.
that's bullshit and you know it, in the last five years only 4 teams spent more than Tottenham, trying to sell them as some kind of poor team who fights the big money clubs is just plain retarded
Leicester City won the Premier League, finance is irrelevant. The fact that Chelsea, City, United, Liverpool and Arsenal all imploded yet Tottenham failed to win the league shows that they aren't a great club yet. And Chelsea, United and City will only get stronger in the next few years while Tottenham will probably be forced to sell their best players.
>le rotate players and lose in the CL then start the strongest XI and lose in the PL man
Fuck no
No it isn't bullshit.
1. Man United (689m)
2. Man City (524m)
3. Arsenal (468m)
4. Chelsea 447
5. Liverpool 403
6. Tottenham 279
7. West Ham 192
and yet they spent more than Arsenal and just little less than Liverpool
Not to talk about clubs like Leicester or Atletico or Sevilla who spent far far less and have been way more succesful
Money isn't an excuse at all
>No mercenaries allowed or wanted
Moussa Sissoko
Did you even look at that chart you posted fucktard, Spurs have the second-lowest Net Spend
>finance is irrelevant
Leicester winning is the sole exception to 20+ years of one of the three richest teams winning the title. It just so happened that the three richest teams collapse simultaneously. Arsenal did basically as well as they had done for thr past few years, no collapse there. Spurs did a little better than usual. Liverpool collapsed.
Spurs spent that much because they sold so much. They were losing as much as they were gaining.
>yet to win a trophy in 3 years
>will most likely get exposed hard next season given their really bad away record and wembley record and leave
>succeeds
>muh net spend
It doesn't matter how they do it, they spend a fuckton nd they try to pass it as a fairy tale
Nobody tries to pass it as a fairytale, but it's obvious that they're not on the same financial level as the 5 richest clubs. They can only spend large amounts when they sell huge amounts, while the teams above them can spend as they please without having to worry about balancing the books.
What's your point? He's barely played so the manager clearly doesn't like him
sounds like the differences between generations is personified with their careers
Blackburn managed to win the PL back then. Leicester managed to win it now. It's the same now as it was back then.
>"""succeeds"""
Thats not Brenny
It literally isn't. Leicester is a fluke that will never be repeated. The big clubs are far bigger now
>Will probably win the league at least a couple of times in the next five years
just no. Maybe one or two times, but Tottenham will lose important players as time goes on.
Reminds me of fergie the way he gets the most out of every player
>Will probably win the league at least a couple of times in the next five years
Blackburn were insanely rich for a few years though. Not really the same thing. Just look at , they had the most expensive starting eleven in the league.
Leicester were...what? 10th-most expensive, at best? Not even half of what the top 3 clubs spent? I think I remember hearing some stat like Sterling+De Bruyne alone cost as much as Leicester's whole starting lineup.
I thought the go-to excuse for being shit in europe was that they did not care enough.
It depends on the situation m8
>No mercenaries allowed
Every fucking player in a goddamn mercenary
>people still post the net spend meme
Transfers are almost irrelevant economically, what you should look at is wages, that's how you know how much a club can afford to spend.
Maybe last season but not this CL
Getting tired of this faggotass subhuman amerishart spud bandwagoner shitting up the board with his delusion.
>no mercenaries
>literally signed Sissoko for 30mil
>wanyama
>vorm
>ben davies
this guy is a top lad which is why he's tagging along with french NT until he or deschamps retires. I'm not arguing he's a great footballer but "mercenary" really doesnt do him justice
getting rid of dead weight is a good thing tho, it is to their advantage
Just think about United or City and all the fat checks they pay to useless players, it's not like they sell a Bale and a Modric every year, they make a profit by selling lots of cheap players, that allows them to spend as much as Arsenal and Liverpool at least
>Nobody tries to pass it as a fairytale
the manager did
his won fuck all you know....
>Spurs
>winning the league
>getting rid of dead weight is a good thing tho, it is to their advantage
Not necessarily, because their wage structure is so limited that they can't afford to go out and buy top players with the money. They have to gamble on players with potential, or players in their prime who are of inferior quality and therefore demand lower wages. Sometimes that works out great (Eriksen, Alli, Dier), sometimes it's a disaster (Janssen, Chiriches, Capoue, Soldado, Stambouli, Kaboul....the list goes on and on).
>they make a profit by selling lots of cheap players, that allows them to spend as much as Arsenal and Liverpool at least
It doesn't. The only reason their total spending over 5 years is anywhere near Arsenal and Liverpool's is the Bale transfer, which was 100 million euros, so they turned around and spent an additional 100 million euros. Selling lots of cheap players would not let them spend that much. Also, this is transfers, not wages. Spurs can have 50 million to spend in a given summer, but that doesn't matter when they can't attract a player who's worth that much because their lower revenue prevents them from paying the wages that a 50 million euro player would demand.
>Mauricio Pochettino says he doesn't have to win trophies to be a success at Tottenham
FUCKING KEK
>Transfers are almost irrelevant economically, what you should look at is wages, that's how you know how much a club can afford to spend.
Exactly
Not what he said, stop reading clickbait headlines. He's saying that he considers the season a success even though they didn't win a trophy. I don't really agree, but that's not the same as saying "he says he doesn't have to win trophies to be a success at Tottenham".
>“Here at Tottenham is a massive success. Yes, you can win titles. But with which teams?
>“It is normal to win titles with Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, maybe Juventus, Porto in Portugal.
>“With a big team, you are already very close to winning. Look at Barcelona with Pep, with Tito Vilanova, with Frank Rijkaard, with Luis Enrique. All different managers but with the same group of players and they were successful."
>“I dream of lifting trophies but the way I did with Espanyol. That is why I admire Diego Simeone at Atletico Madrid. It is so difficult to win with Atletico Madrid. He deserves more credit maybe than some others.
>“At Spurs, you always like a manager and a player who lifts the trophies. But come on! We will arrive there, we are ambitious.
>“But I liked that challenge. If you are there but are not spending the money and are still challenging, that is what I like the most.
>“If we can achieve in the end maybe the Premier League or the FA Cup, or the top four again, I think it’s a massive achievement for the team.”
If Wenger said that it would be the most hilarious thing ever and would be ridiculed endlessly
Pinocchio is literally Wenger lite
He reminds me of Klopp at Dortmund, he liked to have his team be considered the underdog.
Wenger had to make half a billion quid for the new stadium, barely any went on the squad. The Invincibles cost less than Rio Ferdinand's transfer free.
>reminds me of klopp at dortmund
A meme waiting to be found out?
Maybe.
I think Wenger actually has said something along those lines, but Wenger is in a different situation, isn't he? He's managing a much wealthier team, on even financial footing (in terms of wages and transfer spending) with Juventus.
>Wenger had to make half a billion quid for the new stadium, barely any went on the squad.
Then why was the squad so expensive?
(also, Chelsea basically broke the English league, just look at that shit)
Source on that? Arsenal had nowhere near a budget of £160m in 93.
Wenger inherited an aging team that were just inside the top half with no player to sell for £100 mil. Went on to win the league 3 times including 2 doubles and an undefeated season (that ended at 49 games undefeated), then went on to build a stadium and keep the team stable at the top of the league over a 20 year period.
Pochettino has choked 3 seasons in a row
Or squad value rather. George Graham bought young and cheap too.
at least Dortmund managed to win a couple of league titles when Buyern were at their worst. Even if the whole league chokes (see Leicester's season) there is a real plucky underdog who will win a league before Tottenham. It's so absurd that they will win anything of worth that it's even more plausible that Arsenal who are just as much of a joke will win the league before them.
Arsenal aren't a plucky underdog, on their day they play the best football in the country. Weak mentality and injuries have stopped them competing but if they do turn it around finally for a full season nobody will be surprised.
It's adjusted for inflation. Source is The Tomkins Times, basically some Liverpool fans did an analysis to explain why they were so mediocre since 2009 and also really highlight how badly Liverpool fucked up in the 90s (when they really should have won the title at least once). They explain how they did it in the article.
tomkinstimes.com
tomkinstimes.com
Also, I think this paints Wenger in a much more positive light. The title drought isn't really his fault, at least not between 2005 and 2015 (no excuse for finishing behind Leicester though). He just got left in the dust by Chelsea/Man United/Man City.
>Even if the whole league chokes (see Leicester's season) there is a real plucky underdog who will win a league before Tottenham.
The whole league didn't choke in Leicester's season, though. Man United, Man City, and Chelsea choked. Everyone else did pretty much what they always do. Arsenal got a points total in the low 70s (as they had in all of the previous five seasons). Spurs finished with 70 (more or less what they had gotten in the previous five seasons as well). Liverpool finished around 6th-8th, as they had for the previous five seasons except for the Suarez season.
>tfw EPL coaches are trying to pull a Ranieri now
Never ever
DELET
key word probably
Doing amazing while spending no money.
>>Will probably win the league at least a couple of times in the next five years
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thats not Leonardo Jardim
he's going to get exposed next year by kloppo and poop
>''succeeds"
>"Succeeds''
>take a team of pacy mongs and random dindus to 2nd
>not success