The fidgeting goalposts

[king canary 7,609]

Just because fans were excited by Mulumbu it doesn''t mean Neil avoids criticism for it. He and his scouting team are paid very well to assess players.

Also it isn''t just that first injury- he''s barely been fit since he arrived. He''s only started 15 games in over 18 months!

[Len 74]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Ian"]50 mil? Net spend? Or some random made up figure to suit your agenda?[/quote]The poster didn''t say net spend. But a figure of around 50m  for Neil''s transfer spending since he has been manager does not look too far out to me, allowing for the difficulty of not knowing whether touted figures do or do not include extras, such a promotion payments. For example, in the summer we spent 12.6m on Canos, Oliverira and Pritchard, with potential extra payments of 9m.Of course the net spend figure would be much lower. We have received substantial fees for Grabban, Johnson, Hooper, Brady, Olsson and Redmond. Perhaps 30m or so. But a rough estimate of what were probably the basic fees paid for Neil''s major singings (Andreu, Dorrans, Brady, Jarvis, Pinto, Naismith, Klose, Canos, Oliveira, Pritchard and Wildschut) would certainly get close to 50m. Brady, Naismith, Klose, Pritchard and Wildschut alone would probably account for more than 30m.And this is without taking into account fees paid for players we have had on loan, such as Mbokani.[/quote]It would be interesting to see what the longer term net spend is, as we are rather conveniently at a point just prior to several players leaving. Lots of potential losses to add up, albeit some from players bought before Alex Neil''s arrival.The blame for such losses would of course lie squarely with the board. For every step forward they seem to take two back.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Len"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Ian"]50 mil? Net spend? Or some random made up figure to suit your agenda?[/quote]The poster didn''t say net spend. But a figure of around 50m  for Neil''s transfer spending since he has been manager does not look too far out to me, allowing for the difficulty of not knowing whether touted figures do or do not include extras, such a promotion payments. For example, in the summer we spent 12.6m on Canos, Oliverira and Pritchard, with potential extra payments of 9m.Of course the net spend figure would be much lower. We have received substantial fees for Grabban, Johnson, Hooper, Brady, Olsson and Redmond. Perhaps 30m or so. But a rough estimate of what were probably the basic fees paid for Neil''s major singings (Andreu, Dorrans, Brady, Jarvis, Pinto, Naismith, Klose, Canos, Oliveira, Pritchard and Wildschut) would certainly get close to 50m. Brady, Naismith, Klose, Pritchard and Wildschut alone would probably account for more than 30m.And this is without taking into account fees paid for players we have had on loan, such as Mbokani.[/quote]It would be interesting to see what the longer term net spend is, as we are rather conveniently at a point just prior to several players leaving. Lots of potential losses to add up, albeit some from players bought before Alex Neil''s arrival.The blame for such losses would of course lie squarely with the board. For every step forward they seem to take two back.[/quote]If you start from our season in the third tier then the net spend until now would be by some way more than that (very very rough) figure of 20m. In that season we probably spent only as much as we received or even a bit less. But in the Championship our net spending will have plus by quite a bit, plus by several millions in the Lambert PL season, plus by several millions in the first Hughton PL season, plus by a record amount in the second Hughton PL season, and probably minus by only a few million in the Adams summer window back in the Championship. Which brings us up to my previous calculations.As to blaming the board, the overall net spending figures for this mini-era show they have backed successive managers as much as they could possibly have done, in transfer fees, and wages, allowing for their comparitive poverty. And since in this mini-era the club has risen from the third tier to the second, with three seaons in the PL in between, I cannot see how that qualifies as two steps back for every one forward. It looks more like two forward for every one back.

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

I think the only time the board didn''t back a manager was Hughton''s final transfer window.  It was an understandable (but mistaken) gamble that he would keep us up with what he had and they could change the manager in the summer, while not trusting him to get new players in.  I can understand why they didn''t trust his with more transfer money but they should have followed that to its logical conclusion and got in a new manager at that time.

An argument I see quite often is that we can''t be sure, if we replace AN, that the replacement will be better.  While this is true, it is also true for getting rid of a manager in any circumstances whatsoever.  Also it''s true for any decision to get rid of a player who''d not performing well enough.  So I think it''s a nonsense, there are no guarantees in football or in life, you just have to make the best call you can based on the information you have at the time.  And for me AN is woefully underperforming given he has one of the 2-3 strongest squads in the division... on average, if we can get in a manager who has them playing to their normal abilities, that would put us in contention for the top 2, so the chances are a new manager (as long as we don''t make another stupid decision to appoint someone on the cheap etc) will improve things.

 

I am hoping now that AN''s contract allows for him to be released cheaply if he doesn''t get us in the playoffs, so the board are persevering on the basis that if he fails to do that, they get rid, and if he gets us in the playoffs at least we have a chance of promotion.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

I think the only time the board didn''t back a manager was Hughton''s final transfer window.  It was an understandable (but mistaken) gamble that he would keep us up with what he had and they could change the manager in the summer, while not trusting him to get new players in.  I can understand why they didn''t trust his with more transfer money but they should have followed that to its logical conclusion and got in a new manager at that time.

An argument I see quite often is that we can''t be sure, if we replace AN, that the replacement will be better.  While this is true, it is also true for getting rid of a manager in any circumstances whatsoever.  Also it''s true for any decision to get rid of a player who''d not performing well enough.  So I think it''s a nonsense, there are no guarantees in football or in life, you just have to make the best call you can based on the information you have at the time.  And for me AN is woefully underperforming given he has one of the 2-3 strongest squads in the division... on average, if we can get in a manager who has them playing to their normal abilities, that would put us in contention for the top 2, so the chances are a new manager (as long as we don''t make another stupid decision to appoint someone on the cheap etc) will improve things.

 

I am hoping now that AN''s contract allows for him to be released cheaply if he doesn''t get us in the playoffs, so the board are persevering on the basis that if he fails to do that, they get rid, and if he gets us in the playoffs at least we have a chance of promotion.

[/quote]If you mean the summer window, it is true we only brought in Dorrans (permanently), Brady and Mulumbu, and we didn''t strengthen the defence but I doubt that was Hughton''s fault, or the board''s, in the sense of the board not making the money available.McNally was on record as explaining in detail how we lost out on a high-quality central defender (probably Koulibaly) right at the last moment. The point is that taking such a risk on a transfer that might - as it did - fall through had to have been approved by McNally or recommended to the board by him. It will not have been Hughton''s decision alone. I doubt the fact that our two relegations followed - in crude terms - two flawed summer windows was unconnected with McNally''s departure.Hence having more than £16m available to spend in the winter on Klose, Naismith and Jarvis.  Much of that was what we had earmarked for the sadly elusive defender.Otherwise I am with you on Neil''s underperformance, and the need for him to be replaced. One can never be sure, but  I believe it is highly likely Rowett would do a better job, and there may be others out there who would be good choices.

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

I agree with you about the failure to recruit a defender in the summer before Hughton''s last season - the mistake being not having a plan B to go to soon enough and that call I suspect was more down to the board than the manager.  I do think some of the names mentioned as our targets (e.g. Alderweireld) were over-optimistic and our board didn''t realise that just because we had the money to buy them on paper, didn''t mean that continental players like him would be willing to come to a club like ours.

 

I was actually thinking about the January following (in Hughton''s last season) when as I remember it, we hardly spent anything.

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

" For example, in the summer we spent 12.6m on Canos, Oliverira and Pritchard, with potential extra payments of 9m."how do you know that ?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

I agree with you about the failure to recruit a defender in the summer before Hughton''s last season - the mistake being not having a plan B to go to soon enough and that call I suspect was more down to the board than the manager.  I do think some of the names mentioned as our targets (e.g. Alderweireld) were over-optimistic and our board didn''t realise that just because we had the money to buy them on paper, didn''t mean that continental players like him would be willing to come to a club like ours.

 

I was actually thinking about the January following (in Hughton''s last season) when as I remember it, we hardly spent anything.

 

 

[/quote]You are right, of course. I was getting my seasons/managers spectacularly mixed up. Hughton''s last window - that January - was one where we hardly spent any money at all. I imagine the board had been burnt by the Van Wolfswinkel fiasco and may not have trusted Hughton''s judgment. The failure to land Koulibaly (if it was him) was in Neil''s post-promotion summer window, with Klose etc arriving in the winter.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Flash Gordon"]" For example, in the summer we spent 12.6m on Canos, Oliverira and Pritchard, with potential extra payments of 9m."how do you know that ?[/quote]It''s in the accounts.

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

Yes they do rather blur together... glad it''s not just me.

[Hairy Canary 704]

[quote user="Flash Gordon"]" For example, in the summer we spent 12.6m on Canos, Oliverira and Pritchard, with potential extra payments of 9m."how do you know that ?[/quote]

Yet another example of you trying to derail an interesting discussion with an pedantic off topic interjection. Didn''t you like the direction the post was taking?