Badger

I would emphasise that it is not just Derby, they are just the most egregious example. There are a whole load of other examples where the gamble has failed & the money has been turned off as the rich owners get sick of throwing good money after bad and the owners start looking to get out with as small loss as possible. I hope Russ succeeds at Swansea, but it is a big challenge and hopefully he will be given a few years to build. I remember the days of "Why can't we be like Swansea" but that seems to have quietened recently. To be fair on their US investor owners, having messed up big time in their first season (3 managers and relegation) they have been quite sensible. However, they have not behaved as most posters on here think investor owners would behave -no big loans or gifts to the club; no big borrowings from banks etc + a determination to cut costs and live within their means. Exerts from the CEO's comments after the last accounts: The accounts "shows a great deal of progress on the road to our overall business model of being financially stable." “The club’s paramount focus remains being able to be financially stable for the long-term, not just for its supporters but also for its proud community.” But I don't suppose that this will destroy the myth that investor owners pump in millions every year and two or three ears later you win the Premier league. It does however, suggest that Russ might be given a chance.

Exactly. The only reason that Sissoko went to Watford is that they are the only club who want him at the level of wages he is demanding. He will not have wanted to go to a newly promoted club but as they were the only ones prepared to give him that last big pay check, he couldn't turn them down. From Watford's point of view it was a gamble that they felt they had to take because they were selling their best midfield player - Will Hughes (although we are told we are the only one that sells top players on promotion). But who knows it may work, if it doesn't the £7 million that they are reported to be paying will be almost as much as they get from ticket sales when they get back to the the championship. It's a gamble, but one that they had to take as they have borrowed to their limit and can't afford to borrow any more. I wouldn't be totally shocked if Watford are sold this year.

Top of the league - that there's much to worry about with regards to their confidence at the moment.

In this case, surely not stinking?

Is he really (or am I being thick?). If he is, I'm glad after such a nightmare start, he deserves it. TBH, I don't go to as many away games as I used to - family reasons. We tend to stay for a two or three nights when we go now, as I have been "winding down" from work for a few years. I think I would do more "day trips" if the coaches were better. I would be happy to pay extra for the more spacious ones like the players have - with TV etc, so we could watch the football on the way back. The "cabbage coaches" aren't really an attractive proposition.

Last time (but one) I used when was years ago, but we got lost too. We lost at Fulham at the start of the season, 5 nil, I think. It was a 3 oclock kick off, but the driver got lost on the way back. At 8 oclock we were heading towards Heathrow! We didn't get back until after 11. I felt sorry for the driver, I think it was his first trip solo. He didn't even have a sat nav! (Probably, as the new boy you get the worst coach?) He also got pulled up by the police it's driving over a bridge and shouldn't have and we all had to go into a service station and get off! Some of the other passengers were left sympathetic than myself and he was in tears 😭

I don't know, but I wish the stewards would do something about it. I thought we were supposed to have a zero tolerance policy on racism.

I have been talking about confidence and performance and the negative impact that booing our own team can have on this. I have not really discussed mental health at all, as I tried to point out the Keelan's grandad. I shout at the referee and the opposition at every game. I don't think it has as much impact as it being done by your own supporters, but I think it might have an impact with some + I'm sure a referees are influenced by crowd pressure, no matter how much they protest to the contrary.

Many clubs offer sports psychologist services which include counselling - probably not enough imo - I have seen a number of about 1/4 clubs with full-time and others part-time but I have also seen it reported that nearly all PL clubs "have contact" with a sports psychologist . I'm not sure if we do, I can't recall it being mentioned. https://thesetpieces.com/interviews/sports-psychology-helping-professional-footballers/ https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11970860/psychology-in-football-missed-opportunity-for-the-english-game https://www.sport-excellence.co.uk/developing-a-premier-league-mindset/ https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/liverpool/liverpool-fc-news-exclusive-sports-psychologist-coronavirus-a4440321.html

1. Yes, they could. Booing is not the only cause at all. 2. I doubt that they do, but even if they did we couldn't rip up their contracts I'm afraid 3. There is increasing use of sports psychologists in professional sport. I don't know if you are into cricket, but there is an excellent series on "the mind in cricket." Sorry, the name escapes me, but well worth a watch.

I am not confusing cash flow with budget, but I think you might be. Much of this years activity will not come from this year's cash flow at all but from future years: it is actually very rare for clubs to pay the transfer fees all in one go, but in stages - it is why I tried to use the word committed, which is more more helpful (although again, amortisation is the financial reality). A transfer is not a flow of cash in one season but a commitment (legally backed by contract) to pay specific sums dependant upon specified criteria. It is NOT a cash transaction in a single year, and confusing a multi-year transfer deal with a single year's cash flow may be why you are muddled. Of course, I agree with you that the way media reports these things is inaccurate and as a non accountant, I wouldn't accuse Webber of deliberately misleading us. I think a classic example of this is would be a player bought for £50 million on a 5 year contract sold at the end of year 2 for £40 million. The press would report this as a £10 million pound loss, whereas in football accounts terms it is a £10 million profit. I very much doubt that the first year's amortisation will be seen in the 20-21 accounts - it would be a nonsense: you would be paying a loan fee and amortising the first year of a permanent contract which had not been signed yet. Gibson and Giannoulis only became permanent transfers on July 1st in the 21-22 season, so we couldn't write down the first year of a transfer fee that hadn't happened yet. Again I would point out, that as every other team uses the media conventions which we both recognise as inaccurate it would be impossible to make any meaningful comparison of transfer spend if we have one system for us and a different one for everyone else. Therefore, despite its obvious weaknesses, it is best to refer to a system like Transfermarket (deeply flawed, but impartial) which has us as a net spend of about £25 million.

Thanks MY, but I'm afraid that it is just part of everyday life for a badger. It's not my fault I spread TB - and I haven't been offered a vaccination and can't find a mask to fit my snout 🥴

I will come on here and post "I told you so" is size 16 font, emboldened and in a special celebratory colour - probably red. I will continue to do so, after every victory this season. If we still get relegated, I will change my username - Old Speckled Hen and Spitfire are in the running - deny that I was ever anything to do with Badger, but continue to post exactly the same views (I can't think of why nobody else has ever tried this, when they have been proved wrong repeatedly).

They key factor is whether or not you control yourself.

Apparently, if you are a real supporter, you should not be able to control yourself 😉

They have been, but that was nearly 20 years ago and several owners since. More interesting is that Derby are still due additional points deductions for cheating FFP - it will be interesting to see if the League enforces these are personally, I feel that it should.

I'm not sure what you mean here? I am not saying that it causes a psychological illness or disorder if that is how you interpreted it: merely that it changes their behaviour on the pitch - players become less confident/ more risk averse/ "hide"/ perception of the task changes so that it seems harder or impossible/ physical effects - players tense up and miscontrol the ball/ overplay passes (Iwan Roberts talks about this in his book) Of course it affects players behaviour. Even in the examples I have given: Gerrard - risk averse - safe balls/ play safe Bale - perception - goal seems much smaller next chance etc A large part of the game is in the mind - it is why booing can be so damaging.

True.

1. I can't say that you are wrong - a Hughtonesque style or Pulis ball might improve our chances of staying up. We certainly had one good season under Hughton. However, it was never very popular with the fans and talk of "the Norwich way" came to the fore. Would they be prepared for the pragmatic style now? I wouldn't like it, but others might. 2. The problem is when trying to switch from the pragmatic to something more attractive after a few years. Palace tried this with de Boer but sacked him after 5 games! It is one of the interesting things to see this season with Viera - can he succeed where De Boer failed? Post-Pulis Stoke got relegated etc 3. The third problem of resorting to hoof ball is that if we are relegated again it may make if harder to get back up again. We will just be another pragmatic championship team. You won't be able to transform the pragmatic bruisers you have bought for Pulis ball into possession dominating thoroughbreds. I would be against a reversion to Hughton-style pragmatism myself, but it is only an opinion: others might welcome it

Yes - I think that this could be the new line of attack - "we are too ambitious!" 1. Instead of buying young players with huge potential we should pay massive ages for middle aged has-beens (or nearly-weres) - "too ambitious in who we buy." 2. Instead of trying to play attractive football we should get 8 massive lumps and sit behind the ball, and when we get it kick it forward to the head of a big 'un with a quick 'un nearby. Oh and spend 3 days a week on set pieces. "We are too ambitious in our tactics."

They are also in denial about the ownership of other clubs and can't see past Leicester. Two very noticeable trends: 1. "Every PL club can spend more than us..." This is demonstrably not the case 2. New ownership will bring more success - the vast majority of new owners at clubs "our size" fail. (Normal response to this fact is - but we could be Leicester) However, whenever facts are produced which challenge both vacuous assumptions they proclaim disinterest in any other club other than Norwich. Fair enough, but don't then post claiming to know what other clubs do, or proclaim the supremacy of other forms of ownership - even "stinking rich Chinese investors" have a very mixed record!

If somebody finds it, can they help Graham Paddon's Beard out - he may be needing it.

Didn't you ever study English Lit at school? Every great tragedy has "comic relief" for periods of catharsis.

There is overwhelming anecdotal evidence from footballers saying that it has effected their performance. There is a wealth of psychological impact of stress on the decision-making process and performance in general. I don't think that there is any real doubt that it affects player performance and I think that there is plenty of evidence to support this. I will agree that there is no evidence on whether supporters leaving grounds early affects performance - TBH, I don't expect that there ever will be - it would be almost impossible to conduct such research.

1. If we want to be pedantic about it neither of us are correct. The value of a player's contract is amortised on a straight line basis over the duration of his contract. 2. However, to say that it the difference between budget and cash flow is additionally wrong - much of the cash that will flow, will not be from this season at all, but over future years. 3. There is a newspaper reporting convention to look at the window and to work out (as best they can) how much has been committed by a club in the window in transfer fees and deduct from that how much other clubs have committed to them. It is extremely "rough and ready" and technically inaccurate from an accounting perspective. 4. Every other club will have their transfer spend reported (again not strictly accurately due to the amortisation convention) as what they have committed in this window. Have you deducted the money that Man City/ Leicester, and anybody else did not spend last year although it was in their budget + every other club to whom it applies. I can tell you that none of the press will have done so, so you will have to work "SG system" out all on your own if you want to make any sort of comparison, and nobody else will know what you are talking about. It really is a nonsense to say that money that we spent in this year's transfer window should not count as money that we spent in this year's transfer window because it was left over from last year. I don't know your occupational background but if you roll over unspent money from one year's budget into year two, you can't say that you spent it in year one - you just refer to it as an under-spend in year one that was carried forward to you two and spent then.