Sheffield United

[hogesar 10,536]

We certainly don't have to spend £20m on a McBurnie to be successful. That's laughable. Especially when you look who our current main striker is and how much he cost us.

Saying that, our model makes things a bit more difficult. But it's also fun and interesting to watch, and I get to watch a lot of our youth / young players develop and evolve. And I also believe as Purple says we'll invest in the infrastructure of the club.

Also, whilst everyone wants to be Sheffield United right now, if they go down next season and Sergi has a poor season in the prem (entirely possibly), will they still have done the right thing?2

[Midlands Yellow 4,672]

Our model makes things extremely difficult to say the least.

[Monty13 2,710]

1 hour ago, ron obvious said:

No. But The club obviously did. Personally I had no idea how he'd turn out (though as always I hoped for the best).

 

Not sure there are many 29 year olds Ron whos value is likely to go up.

Naismith was a gamble that didn’t payoff, it wasn’t an investment.

Wolfy on the other hand was both and we got it wrong.

But in the PL you are gambling with higher stakes, but the returns are potentially that much higher too.

 

 

[Highland Canary 78]

A shiny ground in the chumps or competing in the prem. I suspect the former is the predominant ambition of our fans.

[CDMullins 490]

1 hour ago, ron obvious said:

No. But The club obviously did. Personally I had no idea how he'd turn out (though as always I hoped for the best).

 

That's not strictly how it works;

We were desperate and spent £9 Mill on a player who it was highly unlikely we'd be able to recoup any money back on.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,211]

57 minutes ago, Making Plans said:

That may be true but that was before anybody knew that he was going to be the top scoring striker in the last completed Championship season

Shows you just how good our scouting and recruitment was in this case doesn't it? 

Any cretin can look at the goal scoring stats and say 'lets go out and buy the top scorer in the Championship' and pay a fee above £20 million for the privilege. 

 

[Kenny Foggo 1,175]

49 minutes ago, Highland Canary said:

A shiny ground in the chumps or competing in the prem. I suspect the former is the predominant ambition of our fans.

I'd say the predominant ambition is unfortunately with the very conservative Stowmarket two...

[nutty nigel 7,870]

Did anyone hanker after Sander Berge before he signed or is it blind faith in the transfer fee?

Is it all about the player or is it all about the price tag?

Why is everybody so obsessed
Money can't buy us happiness
Can we all slow down and enjoy right now
Guarantee we'll be feeling alright.....

 

[JF 694]

Absolutely nothing to do with this thread but there isn’t an appropriate thread to post it in! But I see that Wolves are signing Rochdales 17 year old Luke Matherson for £1 million. Very surprised we haven’t gone for him considering his potential and that he’s also a Norwich fan, it may have swayed him this way.

Edited January 31, 2020 by JF

[ron obvious 1,698]

1 hour ago, Monty13 said:

Not sure there are many 29 year olds Ron whos value is likely to go up.

Naismith was a gamble that didn’t payoff, it wasn’t an investment.

Wolfy on the other hand was both and we got it wrong.

But in the PL you are gambling with higher stakes, but the returns are potentially that much higher too.

 

 

I would say Naismith was an investment in that he was meant to keep us up.

He didn't

 

[Big Vince 413]

Sheffield United want to compete in the EPL.

Norwich City ran up the white flag as soon as the final whistle blew against Blackburn.

League table is the pudding.

End of.

Socialists out. Resoundingly beaten at the polls. Ditto in the EPL. No mandate to continue.

[wcorkcanary 4,681]

If the league table is the pudding then the proof is not in the pudding but the eating of it you ignoramus.  Seasons not over yet, but why dont you pretend it is and Jog on.

Edited January 31, 2020 by wcorkcanary

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

12 hours ago, Mr Apples said:

£17.5 million (rising to £20 million) on Oli McBurnie??? 🤔🤨😂

Apples

McBurnie has time on his side and its too soon to declare that one a waste of money. 

Also, while he only has 4 league goals this season, that would still be enough to be our 3rd highest scorer.

Pukki has 11, Cantwell has 6, and we have no other player on more than 1 in the league.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

4 hours ago, JF said:

Absolutely nothing to do with this thread but there isn’t an appropriate thread to post it in! But I see that Wolves are signing Rochdales 17 year old Luke Matherson for £1 million. Very surprised we haven’t gone for him considering his potential and that he’s also a Norwich fan, it may have swayed him this way.

That does surprise me also.

I'd have thought he was the obvious singing for our U23's and £1m is a snip for a prospect like that.

[wcorkcanary 4,681]

16 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

That does surprise me also.

I'd have thought he was the obvious singing for our U23's and £1m is a snip for a prospect like that.

He has a good voice too?

[NFN FC 1,142]

4 hours ago, Big Vince said:

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 

Good point Vince 👍

[Badger 2,743]

18 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Our model makes things extremely difficult to say the least.

Our current model makes it much more likely that we are able to do this moving forwards if we chose to do so. There are a couple of points that seem to have been largely missed in the thread so far:

1. Sheffield Utd have done brilliantly this year, but it is not due to the new purchases, but very largely to the success of the players that got them promoted in the first place rather than the purchases.

2. The reason that Sheffield Utd have been able to spend more freely than us this year is that they have "run a tighter ship than us in the previous years." 2018-19 figures are not available at present but in the previous year Sheffield Utd spent less on transfers, had a lower wage bill and lower debt than us. The most recent accounts (Feb 2019) show:

• Transfer fees owed of just £0.9 million
• A profit from transfer activity (sale of David Brooks)
• A wage bill of just £19 million
• Net debt of £0.7 million - effectively breaking even

Of course much of this self-discipline was imposed upon them by their stay in league, which meant that they have had to cut their cloth very carefully. However, the overall picture is clear - rather than showing the benefits of profligate spending, it shows the gains to be had from financial discipline and maximising the assets that you have. Compare their spending to the likes of Derby, Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday for example.

Sheffield Utd's success shows the benefits of their financial discipline and moving forwards it is something that we should be able to enjoy if we ignore the spend at all cost pleas!

http://financialfootballnews.com/sheffield-united-2018-financial-review-blades-cut-losses/

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Badger
Link to figures inserted

[Highland Canary 78]

With the board’s strategic objective of finishing in the top 26, presumably, finishing but failing in the playoffs fully meets the board’s strategic objective. Our broadcasting cash pile will soon evaporate in such circumstances. It is the lack of further investment that never gave Farke a chance this season.

[Mello Yello 2,538]

13 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

That does surprise me also.

I'd have thought he was the obvious singing for our U23's and £1m is a snip for a prospect like that.

Yeah I was disappointed that young Matherson wasn't snapped up by us......Hes the kind of blossoming young talent we should be bringing in to our football fold.....Oh well, on we go.......  

[Badger 2,743]

6 minutes ago, Highland Canary said:

Our broadcasting cash pile will soon evaporate in such circumstances.

Why? This would only be the case if we spend a lot more on player transfers and wages than we would normally be able to do due to non-TV revenue.

If this were to be the case, I thought your whole argument is that this guarantee success! Please explain.

[kick it off 2,061]

30 minutes ago, Badger said:

2. The reason that Sheffield Utd have been able to spend more freely than us this year is that they have "run a tighter ship than us in the previous years." 2018-19 figures are not available at present but in the previous year Sheffield Utd spent less on transfers, had a lower wage bill and lower debt than us. The most recent accounts (Feb 2019) show:

I'm not sure on this point - They may have spent less, but is that because they sold less too? Eg didn't have as many players to replace.

2017/18, they didn't sell anybody having just come up from League one. They let a few go on free transfers and loans but they didn't sell anyone for a fee. We sold Pritchard, Murphy, Howson, Dorrans, Jerome and Rudd, and also let other first teamers/squad players go to get them off the wage bill - Mulumbu, Bassong, Ruddy, Ryan Bennett, Whittaker - Angus Gunn finished his loan. We also got rid of Wildschut, Naismith, Russell Martin, and Marcel Franke on loan. So hardly surprising we spent more than they did that season when they didn't lose a single player and we lost 10+ from the matchday squad.

They also didn't have the hangover from Naismith and co on their books so yes they ran a tighter ship but surely this was because these figures are from them being a year removed from League one and us being a year removed from the Prem which obviously will come with a much higher wage bill.

Also I thought they actually did spend more than we did last season. Transfermarkt has them spending 6mill and us spending 5mill so kind of backs that up.

So my point is basically - did they really run a tighter ship, or was that just circumstantial due to them having been in league one and us having been in the Prem prior to the 2017/18 season, and our mis-management prior to that?

Edited February 1, 2020 by kick it off

[Badger 2,743]

27 minutes ago, kick it off said:

So my point is basically - did they really run a tighter ship, or was that just circumstantial due to them having been in league one and us having been in the Prem prior to the 2017/18 season, and our mis-management prior to that?

I think that you seem to be agreeing with my point. It was our previous profligacy that led to us having to get rid of Pritchard, Murphy, Howson, Dorrans, Jerome, Rudd, Mulumbu, Bassong, Ruddy, Ryan Bennett,  Whittaker + of course, Naismith. We had too many old hands on big wages sucking up the TV money as well as the life out of the club and the opportunities for younger players. Let's not forget that Neil thought Madison was surplus to requirements and wanted to get rid of him. 

As I said in the post, 

57 minutes ago, Badger said:

Of course much of this self-discipline was imposed upon them by their stay in league, which meant that they have had to cut their cloth very carefully

Sheffield Utd  benefited from their more frugal approach + it left them in a position where they did not have expensive previous commitments. Because of our previous "ambition" we were less able to do so until we started to get the wage bill under control. 

I don't disagree with you that Sheffield Utd's approach was imposed by the necessity of League One, nor that it was an approach that was eventually forced upon us, following previous financial profligacy. My point is, that both they and we have done better since we have been more prudent, but that due to a our hangover being more recent than theirs, it has a greater effect upon this year's finances. By not repeating the same mistake, we should be in a stronger position going forwards.

[ron obvious 1,698]

Excellent posts Badger 👍

[kick it off 2,061]

Gotcha, makes sense - I guess I was thinking in more delineated terms re: how far back the tight ship went and not going back far enough. 

[hogesar 10,536]

Great posts Badger, but those who dont want to listen and would rather criticise without basis will unfortunately ignore the facts.

[PurpleCanary 6,276]

1 hour ago, Highland Canary said:

With the board’s strategic objective of finishing in the top 26, presumably, finishing but failing in the playoffs fully meets the board’s strategic objective. Our broadcasting cash pile will soon evaporate in such circumstances. It is the lack of further investment that never gave Farke a chance this season.

What direct evidence do you have from anything the directors or Webber have ever said to back that up?

And excellent posts, Badger.

Edited February 1, 2020 by PurpleCanary

[Surfer 1,547]

On 31/01/2020 at 07:35, Midlands Yellow said:

Our model makes things extremely difficult to say the least.

The lack of a model to follow would make things worse. Changing the model would not change our financial situation.