Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Indy_Bones

The man in the hat is back

Recommended Posts

There is a claim that

clubs in the Championship HAVE to spend relatively large amounts of

money in order to gain promotion, this includes both transfer fees

and player wages as part of that equation, however, there''s a

sticking point here that just can''t be ignored, so take a look at the

following.

Transfer Fees paid by

promoted clubs since 2011 (does not factor in some

''undisclosed'' prices):

11/12 -

Reading 350k

Southampton 1.8m

West Ham 6.9m

12/13 -

Cardiff 9.5m

Hull 4.1m

Palace 400k

13/14 -

Leicester 750k

Burnley 750k

QPR 10.2m

14/15 -

Bournemouth 3m

Watford 0

Norwich 8.6m

15/16 -

Burnley 13.4m

Boro 21.3m

Hull 6.3m

16/17 -

Newcastle 55m

Brighton 7.1m

Huddersfield 2.5m

17-18 -

Wolves 21.5m

Cardiff 5.2m

Fulham 19.6m

Every single season

since we were promoted under Lambert, there have been 1-2 sides that

have gained promotion having spent very little on transfer fees for

''big name'' or ''proven'' players, and have often simply focused on bringing in more numbers or purely refreshing the playing side. We do have to take into account that

in some cases these clubs may have benefited from the loan system,

and in some other cases these were relegated clubs that held onto some of

their better players at a relatively high wage cost, but the truth

can''t be ignored that there''s ALWAYS a club that goes up that hasn''t

simply thrown a wallet at the solution.

Whatever has happened

in the past simply has to stay there, maybe the board weren''t strong

enough at times, maybe at times we invested too little, or maybe

there were times we invested too much (by keeping on ''expensive''

players on high wages etc.), maybe we kept some managers too long,

maybe in some cases we should have held on longer, but the fact is

that the model we''ve now adopted leaves us with a fairly clear

picture that we''re not going to be spending 55m like Newcastle did in

16/17, we''re not going to throw 19-20m at it like Wolves and Fulham

did this season, but there''s absolutely no reason why we can''t be

this coming season''s Cardiff, or 16/17''s Huddersfield, or 15/16''s

Hull etc, at least in terms of transfer fees and wages.

We have virtually

rebuilt the team since Webber was appointed, we''re focusing on a new

strategy that combines talented players from the continent (who may

not be good enough for their top sides, but can do potentially do a

good job here), youth players who have shown promise and ability, and

a few ''old heads'' to provide experience and support.

There were undoubtedly

times this year when it felt like we were playing possession football

purely for possessions sake, rather than actually trying to do

anything useful with it, but I''d also argue that if our strikers had

delivered better, we''d have at least been challenging for a play-off

spot rather than languishing in mid-table, but at the very least in

the process, the players throughout the club have had plenty of time

to adjust to a very different style of play and approach than they

were used to, and IF we can get the front-line sorted out whilst

adding a little bit more attacking focus at times, I see no reason to

believe why we can''t be challenging again this season.

But there''s the next

sticking point – where are the goals coming from?

We''ve lost Maddison and

Murphy, who provided 21 of our 47 league goals this season (which is

nearly 45% of our total), Oliveira set off an a great run of form and

then threw it in the bin, Srbeny needed time to adapt to the Champs

and in truth didn''t really look any better or worse than the

misfiring NO did, but still wasn''t exactly a genuine threat, and now

we''ve somehow got to replace both the missing goals AND improve on

what''s already here with a limited budget if we are to have any

genuine chance of getting anywhere, as even if players like Leitner,

Buendia and Onel can provide some contribution from midfield/wing

positions, the central striking role is still a HUGE issue, and for

me is the critical signing we need to get right.

We''ve clearly tried to

bring in Ducksch and that''s not worked, we''ve been linked with Jordan

Rhodes who hasn''t had a good season since 15/16 and is apparently on

high wages for very little overall contribution, our youth players

are either injured (Morris) or not seen as ready yet (Abrahams,

Fonkeu, Idah) and it''s not like there are 15-20 a season strikers

just kicking around for a couple of mil these days either, as shown

by the price that Peterborough have slapped on Marriott who''s had a

single good season last year in League One, and whether or not League

Two scorers like McNulty or Eisa have the ability to jump straight to

this level.

Most fans have been

quite patient in regards to the whole transition situation, they want

to see Farke and Webber come good, we want to be challenging for an

automatic spot or the play-offs at the very least, but they have to

acknowledge that it''s not been the best season for the fans, and if

we don''t see real improvements in the early stages of this coming

season, I can see things coming to a head fairly quickly.

I''m normally fairly

optimistic, I want the model to work and for us to become the UK''s

version of Dortmund or similar, but even optimists have their

breaking points, and unless the striker situation is resolved fairly

soon, I can see that point being much sooner than I can later...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]Good post and welcome back buddy 👍[/quote]
Thanks NN, I took an extended break due to dealing with a lot of things in real life, so apols for not being able to keep failing miserably on the PuP''s thread, but with a bit of luck I should be able to contribute a lot better this season.
LMAO @ Lapps, I actually think a prison sentence would have been easier than some of the stuff I have had to sort in the past 6 months!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I can''t see Onel or Leitner chipping in with many goals next season. The former has plenty of pace and strength but falls slightly into the ''headless chicken'' category when in front of goal. I also think his crossing leaves a lot to be desired. I like him, but I don''t know why anyone would think he''s a better option than Murphy was. I do hope, though, that he comes good this forthcoming season as he can be an exciting player on his day when taking people on.Leitner is a goal creator rather than a goal taker. Case in point, when he was clean through on goal (I think against Bolton) and made a total hash of it. Still, having his class in the side will be beneficial.The same argument will continue to rear its head... We would like a striker who has played in the English leagues before and is currently on a hot streak. Such a player will be expensive and therefore we won''t be buying them.I am not sure what we''re going to do. I think Rhodes would be a waste of time, given that he seems to like to play with another striker, and I can''t see any overseas based striker really turning things on in their first season with us.I guess time will tell...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good post and welcome back Indy - hope the non-football stuff has resolved itself and you''re able to ''enjoy'' this forum again (!).

You''ve not mentioned Oliveira or Srebny. We don''t know if the former will leave, or if the latter can step up. Personally I can see Oliveira leave if we get the right offer, but not until we have a replacement. But I suspect his relationship with Farke remains rocky. Srebny - I remain unconvinced - he looked out of his depth in most games last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think transfer fees can be a bit of a red herring in football these days.

I think that (Newcastle and Wolves aside as they were slight anomalies) the ability to retain players and to build a team is probably the most important thing. Brighton for example, we able to retain their entire team who missed out in the playoffs and to supplement it with a couple of extra players. Fulham were similar I think. Its that area where |I think we might struggle a little because if, for the sake of example, we had a good season next season and made the top 6 but missed out in the playoffs would we be able to hold on to the majority of that side for the following season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel that it would probably be best if we were able to move Oliveira on to someone else, there''s no doubt that on his day he''s a very good player, the problem is seemingly his attitude, his wastefulness with so many long shots, and his inability to re-gain any sort of form last season. If there''s still an issue between him and Farke (despite most players having nothing but good things to say about DF) then it''s bad for the team and isn''t likely to get any better, and thus it''s better for him to go play somewhere else, as on last seasons form, it''s pointless him staying here.
I don''t think we''ve seen the best of what Srbeny can offer as yet, there is almost always a transition period for players coming from the continent, especially when you''re moving into a league like the champs from a lower level, but even then he needs to show the form and ability that make us bring him over far more than he has done if he''s ever going to be worth more than a place on the bench. If he''d had the same amount of game time and opportunity as Oliveira had last season, we may have seen a different player with better results, and it''s frustrating to me that NO kept offering very little other than incessant long range wasted shots, instead of this guy getting a better chance to perform and letting NO sit on the bench instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''We would like a striker who has played in the English leagues before and is currently on a hot streak. Such a player will be expensive and therefore we won''t be buying them.

I am not sure what we''re going to do''

That player is Jack Marriott. 27 goals in League One, only 23 years old. £6mil is the fee being quoted. I think we may struggle to get anybody else that so obviously fits the mould of what we want for that price. It may be ''expensive'', but its the sort of price we are going to have to go to unfortunately. We should have that amount to spend as well imo, plus signing him may help us move Oliveira on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]I think transfer fees can be a bit of a red herring in football these days.

I think that (Newcastle and Wolves aside as they were slight anomalies) the ability to retain players and to build a team is probably the most important thing. Brighton for example, we able to retain their entire team who missed out in the playoffs and to supplement it with a couple of extra players. Fulham were similar I think. Its that area where |I think we might struggle a little because if, for the sake of example, we had a good season next season and made the top 6 but missed out in the playoffs would we be able to hold on to the majority of that side for the following season?[/quote]
Thing is though Jim, we DID hold onto most of our squad when we came down, they failed to perform as needed and is also another reason why we''ve made the structural changes we have. We had players that on paper were far better than most of the Brighton side, but the key difference is the one you mention - teamwork.
It was the reason we did so well when Lambert was here, why we were so good under Stringer and Walker, and why most of our best and most successful teams have featured very few ''star'' players, but a hell of a lot of people who played for each other and never gave up. This changed when we started throwing money at the team, and instead of team players we got talented individuals in many cases.
There''s also the matter of who''s in charge, we all saw how a great team under Lambert managed to change into a dour, defensive minded mess under Hughton, then Adams brought a bit more balance back (think he''s had a far harder time than he deserved from some fans), Alex Neil went more attacking again, and now we''ve got Farke going for the possession based team approach.
There''s no doubt that a financial investment CAN make a good improvement on a team, but it needs to be the right player in the right setup, or it''s just money down the drain, just look at RvW and Naismith - both failures, both for different reasons, both cost us a lot of money, neither ended up being the right signing, whereas Trybull and Zimmermann have come in on free transfers and offered far more so far than either of the aforementioned ''big money'' guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]That player is Jack Marriott. 27 goals in League One, only 23 years old. £6mil is the fee being quoted. I think we may struggle to get anybody else that so obviously fits the mould of what we want for that price. It may be ''expensive'', but its the sort of price we are going to have to go to unfortunately.[/quote]
That''s on the back of one good season though RB.
I''m not saying he''s not a talented young striker with good potential, but we''re talking about a single season in the league below where we are now, it''s also TWICE the price we paid for Maddison who is frankly a MUCH better player than Marriott (even though you pay a premium for strikers), and it just seems sort of a double gamble, both in ability and transfer price.
Compare Marriott to Ducksch, both had good seasons last year, both scored at a very similar rate (roughly 1 goal every 145 to 150 mins), I''d argue that Bundesliga 2 is better than League 1, yet Ducksch should cost Dusseldorf around 1.2 mil upfront with another 1 mil in addons, whereas Marriott is being touted at FIVE times that initial amount!
From a pure value perspective it doesn''t make sense to pay that for Marriott, which is probably why we were after Ducksch instead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting post but fundamentally flawed by the omission of one key facts- wages. Those are the single biggest expenditure for most clubs yearly.

Newcastle for instance actually had a lower net spend than us the year of there £55m spend.

Yet I reckon if you dig down into most of the accounts of promoted clubs you''ll see them spending north of 100% of their turnover on wages.

Figures for 16/17 show the three promoted clubs running wages to income of 94% (Newcastle) 107% (Brighton) and 138% (Huddersfield).

This seasons promoted teams stood at 119% (Wolves) 101% (Cardiff) and 106% (Fulham) although those figures would have changed last season.

So this means all of these teams are being pretty much subsidised by outside funding that allows them to make losses. Our income is currently higher than most teams but to remain self funding we''ll either need to sell players to cover our wage budget or cut our budget to about 60-70% of turnover. There is also the danger of falling income if fans start to walk away and ticket income falls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A good point King.
I''ve not studied the accounts of any of the clubs in detail, yet find it incredible to believe that the 40m less we spent than Newcastle that year on transfer fees was paid out in wages instead. Let''s take Naismith as an example as one of our highest paid players (or so I''m lead to believe), if he was on 30k a week, that''s approx 1.5mil a season, so even if all 22 players in the first team were on the same wage, that''s still only 33m - so 7m less than Newcastle''s transfer outlay and BEFORE you include their wages as well! Do you see why I find that suggestion somewhat odd?
Also, I think the percentage figure can be very misleading, if you have income of 5mil and spent 105% of this on wages, you''re spending around 5.25mil on those wages, if your income is 8mil and you spend 70% on wages, that''s 5.6mil - a very similar figure, yet you''re talking about a 35% difference between the two levels, but which is equalised due to the initial income level. So you really have to drill down into the figures to get a genuinely clear and fairly comparative picture, and I genuinely don''t know how this applies to the teams you''ve mentioned.
Obviously both transfer fees AND wages (as well as other infrastructure costs and non-playing wages) have to be taken into account, but again, I very much doubt that teams like Cardiff, Brighton and Huddersfield were paying more in wages than we were overall, and they certainly weren''t outspending us on transfer fees either, yet they all got promoted when we failed to do so, again showing that it''s not simply about the money, even if what I''ve outlined is somewhat basic as a principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Rick O Shea "]Probably a contender for most narcissistic thread of the year[/quote]
I see you haven''t changed Waveney...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Canary is referring to Net Transfer spend with Newcastle. They made £30m in transfer fees altogether - but had the largest ever wage bill in the Championship.

Also, by discounting ‘undisclosed fees’ and fees associated with loans you are presenting less than half the picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]King Canary is referring to Net Transfer spend with Newcastle. They made £30m in transfer fees altogether - but had the largest ever wage bill in the Championship.

Also, by discounting ‘undisclosed fees’ and fees associated with loans you are presenting less than half the picture.[/quote]
Ah, must have missed that, apols King.
You know as well as I do though Bethnal that it''s often impossible to get an accurate figure for many of the ''undisclosed'' amounts other than simple paper talk etc, so whilst I fully agree and admit that''s it''s not a completely full picture, in most cases it''s still more than enough to get a fair representation. Just take the aformentioned Newcastle season, NONE of those transfers that made up the 55m paid out were undisclosed:
Matt Ritchie          £12,000,000Dwight Gayle        £10,000,000Grant Hanley         £5,500,000DeAndre Yedlin     £5,000,000Sels                       £5,000,000Ciaran Clark          £5,000,000Mohamed Diamé  £4,000,000Achraf Lazaar       £3,000,000Daryl Murphy       £3,000,000Isaac Hayden        £2,500,000Jesús Gámez         Free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"]
[quote user="Rick O Shea "]Probably a contender for most narcissistic thread of the year[/quote]
I see you haven''t changed Waveney...
[/quote]
He''s changed his name lots of times since you were last here Indy [:)]
Welcome back Indy, you''ve been missed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Indy

Yes but that doesn''t change the fact Newcastle actually made a profit on transfers when all is said and done.

Most teams in the Championship have a minimal net spend as their money is mostly tied up in wage budgets. What you can spend in transfer fees is less important that what you can sustain in wages. Of course it is more than possible to spend wages on not good players (something we''ve been specialists in these last couple of seasons) but it helps you be competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×