Sustaining the future

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I''m not making a point. I''m just posting information rather than figures. Rather like Peter Wolsey wanted to do I''m painting a picture. [8] And if a picture paints a thousand words I''ve done you a favour[;)]

[king canary 7,580]

Again I''m not sure what you''re on about.

Figures and information are not different things...

[nutty nigel 7,509]

k [:)]

[Baldyboy 0]

But you have posted figures, isn’t that what’s at the bottom about salaries and fees?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Of course you''re right Baldy. But it''s rather like the difference between saying 8m is not worth it and Steven Naismith at 8m isnt worth it.

As I said I''m Peter Wolsey today and painting a picture...

[king canary 7,580]

I''m not debating the relative merits of the players signed though.

The point I''m making is that asking someone to implement an entire new system and a culture change across the club is made harder when you have to simultaneously sell to buy and slash the wage budgets.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

And I''m suggesting as always it''s what the money brings that''s important. And that''s not just in the case of what it''s spent on.

[king canary 7,580]

Of course it matters what you get for that money.

My point is that when overhauling a squad and trying to install a new playing style then money helps.

You''re more likely (although clearly not guaranteed) to get a better quality if you''re bringing in 10 players for £15m and £200k in wages than £8m and £120k. Especially when that £8m is raised by selling some of the teams better players.

[Diane 500]

[quote user="nutty nigel"] As I said I''m Peter Wolsey today and painting a picture...[/quote]

If you''re Peter Wolsey does that mean we can we restrict you to one question or argument a year  [:D]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Nope. Three questions or a picture was what the man said. He only asked one though because he got in a bit of a strop and was chuntering about Balls for the next twenty minutes...

Magic moment number one for me from this years AGM[;)]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="king canary"]Of course it matters what you get for that money.

My point is that when overhauling a squad and trying to install a new playing style then money helps.

You''re more likely (although clearly not guaranteed) to get a better quality if you''re bringing in 10 players for £15m and £200k in wages than £8m and £120k. Especially when that £8m is raised by selling some of the teams better players.[/quote]

And nobody argued that. I just thought it was relevant to post what I did. That way we can see how the money is raised, saved and spent for real. If you don''t like that Kingo......

Tough[;)]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Now I''ll post it again. Because I can....

Looking at the budgets and savings suggest you''re right Kingo. But is the reality the same as that?

Players sold  : -

Howson

Rudd

Dorrans

Jacob

Andreu

Players released : -

Ruddy

Bennett

Bassong

Mulumbu

Lafferty

Whittaker

Turner

Cost of players out : -

Transfer fees 17.4m

Total weekly salary 293k

Players purchased : -

Husband

Franke

Zimmerman

Vrancic

Watkins

Stiepermann

Trybull

Hanley

Players loaned : -

Gunn

Reed

Transfer fees 8.1m

Total weekly salary 120k

People will of course have differing views about these players. But it''s probably worth looking at the reality rather than the money figures.

[king canary 7,580]

I''m honestly lost. Are you looking for a debate about the relative strength of those we''ve sold and those we''ve bought in? I''m fairly sure we''ve done that before.

Looking at the numbers is looking at the reality- the numbers don''t like. They show that Webber is being asked to do more (create a squad to get us promoted) with less (both in terms of wages and fees).

Also, if we''re being pedantic, if you''re going to include those we''ve loaned in then you also have to look at those whose loans ended- eg Dijks.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

The reality is what occurs. You posted a theory of what difference the finances might make.

I would have included Dijks but he wasn''t on the slide. I would have posted the slide but I couldn''t do it.

[king canary 7,580]

OK, the reality is what occurs.

The reality is....

We''ve made a £9m profit on transfer fees.

We''ve cut the wage budget by about £180k a week.

We have less points than this point last season.

We''re lower in the table than this point last season.

We''ve scored significantly less goals than this point last season.

What conclusions can you draw from that?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

A reasonable conclusion could be we shouldn''t have changed the manager?

I can''t see why my post has upset you so much.

[king canary 7,580]

Unless Alex Neil has a huge pot of money we''re not aware of, I''d hazard that the trimming of the wage budget and the player sales would have happened regardless of the managerial changes.

So I guess you could conclude that, or you could conclude that overhauling a squad while also trimming the wage budget and making a profit on transfers is asking quite a lot.

I''m not upset at all. I''m replying to your (somewhat obtuse) posts.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Yes but you can''t make that conclusion without taking into account the players that have been kept and released. Your theory assumes that all the players who go out and come in are the same vfm. The reality is different.

[king canary 7,580]

It really doesn''t...

What it suggests is that when you start paying less in wages and when you start spending less on fees your likely to get a lower quality of player. It''s not guaranteed but as a general rule it holds up to what I''ve seen on the pitch this season.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

No Kingo, thats the theory. Reality is what actually occurs.

[Baldyboy 0]

Just to interject NN, you have previously stated that Dijks didn’t belong to us so shouldn’t be included in this sort of thing, so why have you included Gunn and Reed as they don’t belong to us either!

[Baldyboy 0]

Also, as I know you like facts to be correct, Andreu was released by mutual consent so we never received a fee

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Because they were on the slide.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Baldyboy"]Also, as I know you like facts to be correct, Andreu was released by mutual consent so we never received a fee[/quote]

Because he''s listed as sold on the slide. As I said, I can''t post the slide. It''s not jpg and not copyable text.

Anyway, as it seems to upset you two so much I''ll post it again : -

Looking at the budgets and savings suggest you''re right Kingo. But is the reality the same as that?

Players sold  : -

Howson

Rudd

Dorrans

Jacob

Andreu

Players released : -

Ruddy

Bennett

Bassong

Mulumbu

Lafferty

Whittaker

Turner

Cost of players out : -

Transfer fees 17.4m

Total weekly salary 293k

Players purchased : -

Husband

Franke

Zimmerman

Vrancic

Watkins

Stiepermann

Trybull

Hanley

Players loaned : -

Gunn

Reed

Transfer fees 8.1m

Total weekly salary 120k

People will of course have differing views about these players. But it''s probably worth looking at the reality rather than the money figures.

[king canary 7,580]

Yes, I know it''s a theory. That''s why I said ''what it suggests'' rather than ''what it shows.''

How about you stop being obtuse and say what you actually think? As I can''t believe you''re suggesting that the only think postable on the message board is a list of facts.

[Baldyboy 0]

Doesn’t upset me at all, as I stated, you like things to be factually correct so I was just trying to help get the facts correct old fella

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]To quote from The Company, The Philosophy and The Future:

‘Premier money has allowed our model to succeed and operate without significant shareholder or owner financial input in recent years. Many, many others now have this additional funding and the priceless ability to take repeated calculated risks with a safety net of further wealth beyond Sky''s television income. This allows for the amortisation of mistakes that may lead to Premier relegation or non-promotion years within the Championship.

As we return to living within our limited means, the theoretical nominal value of shares likely returns to a far lower level and losses are unlikely to be able to be sustained for more than a very few years. The Championship is not as cheap a place to fail as it once was.

Thus within a fairly short timeframe further investment may become more than a desirable addition, it may well become a necessity, unless we are to very severely reduce our playing staff and their remuneration. Just as prices and fees stepchange far beyond anything seen before. ‘

Balls is deliberately raising the investment issue as a gentle, reawakened siren call. He is making a statement on behalf of himself and the board. He may now be pulling them with him

Investment means others. Others means compromise. Compromise means change. Change means certain visions - heritary peerage and trust fund style club hand-downs - may not be possible or acceptable.

The sustainable model was only such without Premier League success in the first place (or hoarding the money the first (few) time(s), or with continued Murdoch-money. Community club principles were funded by capitalist coin.

Dealing with the readjustment from success to beige Championship survival is actually too much for the sustainable model with the huge sums of 2017 (comparing it to even 6 or 7 years ago is pointless, the disparity is now too great).

It’s not the failure, it’s the success that killed the model.

Parma[/quote]Yes, Parma, very much from the outside that is what it looks like to me. Balls could have come up with a vague, politician''s answer that dodged the question, but it sounded as if he wanted to be asked that and  had got that response prepared, with the "our doors are open" soundbite.It quickly got noticed here that Webber in effect was criticising the board with that comment about money having been wasted, but Balls'' statement on investment is at the least a "clarification" - and arguably more than that - of what Smith and Jones said to The Times. The real poser, assuming etc, is whether he is pulling the other directors with him.

[king canary 7,580]

@purple

Interesting if that is the case. I never understood the idea that Balls would be some kind of yes man (you don''t get as far as he did in politics with that) but if he''s trying to, I''d assume reasonably gently, open others minds to new avenues that can only be a good thing.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Andreu is down as sold on Steve Stone''s slide. Take it up with him Baldy.

Kingo, I''ve put the players as the focal point, you''ve put the money as the focal point.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="king canary"]@purple

Interesting if that is the case. I never understood the idea that Balls would be some kind of yes man (you don''t get as far as he did in politics with that) but if he''s trying to, I''d assume reasonably gently, open others minds to new avenues that can only be a good thing.[/quote]Balls is no fool and also doesn''t suffer fools gladly, if at all! He was never going to be just a figurehead. As evidence of that, he was much mocked when he arrived for talking about formulating a 10-year plan for the club but presumably this switch to a sporting director/head coach model is one one facet of what he intended. So he has already delivered that.As to outside investment, which might be another facet, I am only speculating from outside. I do not know whether this is a significant straw in the wind.