Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sgncfc

Top 26

Recommended Posts

Delia and Michael have been great owners and true servants to the club. But as the wealth table above signifies, the game has moved on and they lack the financial muscle needed for us to compete. Since football is supposed to be a competitive sport not a social experiment, at some point in order to stay competitive or challenge for silverware we’re going to need more investment, which means different owners as I cannot imagine anyone willing to put money into the club without an element of control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating discussion. On the question of wages I did a fair bit of research on this some years back, and I don't have time now to find wherever I've hidden it on my computer. But in general over the course of several seasons there is a strong correlation between wages and league performance, but in any individual season the link is much less strong.

I remember one PL season where very few teams finished in the actual league where their wage bill said they should, and there were some wide discrepancies. I remember we very much outperformed our wages while QPR were way up the wage-bill table but scrabbling around near the bottom of the real thing.

And I have just heard a relevant snippet on the Guardian football weekly about Sheffield United. Supposedly their wage bill for this season is the lowest in the PL (we are next lowest) but over the last two transfer windows their spending has been greater than many of the biggest clubs in Europe.

So they will very much outperform their wages this season, but it is a question as to how long they will be able to keep wages low, if they carry on staying on the PL and continue to buy higher-profile players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, king canary said:

Eeesh lots to get into here.

I have edited this to save space. 

1. "I bet if you looked across time the team with the lowest wage bill will more often than not be going down." You would lose. I have only looked at the figures that you yourself have provided from the Guardian link for 2017-17. 

Relegated        

                Wages £m
West Brom         92
Stoke                  94
Swansea            91

Stayed Up

                     Wages £m
Huddersfield    63
Brighton           78
Watford            86

On average, the three relegated teams spent 22% more than the three teams I identified that stayed up. All three of the relegated teams spent more than the three I identified that stayed up. Similarly, my reference to Watford was pointing out that we went down having spent significantly more than them on wages. 

2. "You talk about the prudence of teams likes West Brom and Swansea- do you honestly believe that if they go back up this season that they'll be doing what we did this season?" I don't know, they have had a change of ownership. What I pointed out beyond doubt is that they were successful when they financially prudent under established local owners and relegated after they sold out to "investor owners" promising to take them to the next level. 

3. I don't deny that newly promoted clubs need to add players. I don't agree that they necessarily have to be bought. I don't see why a "loanee" is a worse player than a bought player - indeed it is quite arguable that we can attain some players on loan that we would be unable to attain through purchase. For example, as a newly promoted team, I doubt that we would have been able to buy Fahrmann or Amadou - I don't think that they would have risked their careers with long-term contracts at a newly promoted club.

Furthermore, I would add that I have previously shown that net spend is not a good predictor of retention of PL status. You have provided no evidence that net spend for newly promoted clubs increases the likelihood of survival, just citing a number of examples where is has worked whilst ignoring examples that we are both aware of where it has not. Even the examples that you give are not necessarily legitimate - for example, you cite Burnley as squad investors (and by implication risk-takers) - the reality is that during that season they made a profit before interest and tax of 27.3 million and made a profit on player sales of 1.3 million (see link).

BTW - do you accept my maths re relegation - and how does this impact upon your financial model. It seems to me that you are suggesting that the new owners need to be able to budget for significant losses in the first year of promotion but also afterwards? How long before we hit FFP buffers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

But in general over the course of several seasons there is a strong correlation between wages and league performance, but in any individual season the link is much less strong.

There is quite a strong correlation but the figures are skewed by the biggest teams - Man U; Arsenal; Man City etc - are spending over 250 million (17-18 figures) whereas half the teams spend around or under £100 million. The huge spending of 5 or 6 teams distorts the overall figure. And, as you sat, there is quite a wide dispersion around the correlation. In any case, correlation and causation... I'm sure that you know the rest.

I haven't done the calculation - it's been a while I'm afraid - but a far more useful correlation would be between the teams in the bottom 12 of the PL. I wouldn't mind a bet that the wages- position correlation between the bottom 12 (over successive seasons) is far weaker than for the division as a whole, and really that's where we are.*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Delia and Michael have been great owners and true servants to the club. But as the wealth table above signifies, the game has moved on and they lack the financial muscle needed for us to compete. Since football is supposed to be a competitive sport not a social experiment, at some point in order to stay competitive or challenge for silverware we’re going to need more investment, which means different owners as I cannot imagine anyone willing to put money into the club without an element of control.

That wealth table is becoming more important than the league table. If you put your faith in that why bother playing any football at all. Just present prizes and silverware to the richest owners.

On silverware we've won a championship and Wembley final in the last five years. That's more silverware than some of the PL also rans. 

Something else that's often overlooked is that if we have new owners we won't be adding money to what we have now. We will have a completely new identity and there's a less than 50/50 chance we'll even be as successful as we currently are. Would you gamble with your own possessions at those odds?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

That wealth table is becoming more important than the league table. If you put your faith in that why bother playing any football at all. Just present prizes and silverware to the richest owners.

On silverware we've won a championship and Wembley final in the last five years. That's more silverware than some of the PL also rans. 

Something else that's often overlooked is that if we have new owners we won't be adding money to what we have now. We will have a completely new identity and there's a less than 50/50 chance we'll even be as successful as we currently are. Would you gamble with your own possessions at those odds?

 

If you put your faith in not competing due to the limitations of your owners why bother playing football at all... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

That wealth table is becoming more important than the league table. If you put your faith in that why bother playing any football at all. Just present prizes and silverware to the richest owners.

On silverware we've won a championship and Wembley final in the last five years. That's more silverware than some of the PL also rans. 

Something else that's often overlooked is that if we have new owners we won't be adding money to what we have now. We will have a completely new identity and there's a less than 50/50 chance we'll even be as successful as we currently are. Would you gamble with your own possessions at those odds?

 

Nice to win them but any normal fan would give them up in a flash just to stay in this league for more than one season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Midlands Yellow said:

Nice to win them but any normal fan would give them up in a flash just to stay in this league for more than one season. 

But I was replying to a poster who wanted to challenge for silverware?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

If you put your faith in not competing due to the limitations of your owners why bother playing football at all... 

But we have been competing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Nice to win them but any normal fan would give them up in a flash just to stay in this league for more than one season. 

Er.......... you do know that the reason we're in the Premier League THIS season is because we won the Championship LAST season. And you do know the reason we were in the Premier League last time was because we won the Play-off final the season before that??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Er.......... you do know that the reason we're in the Premier League THIS season is because we won the Championship LAST season. And you do know the reason we were in the Premier League last time was because we won the Play-off final the season before that??

And it looks like another instant return doesn’t it ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

And it looks like another instant return doesn’t it ? 

Last time we got promoted in second place, ie. without actually winning anything, we stayed up for three years. Maybe that's what we need to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Aaaaaah, the old ' they're out there, for sure, i know it, but have not a clue who' get out Clause, so the owners are doing it wrong, someone somewhere knows how to do it better....the owners must be able to source them, despite not having a clue . makes a lot of sense........to you maybe but to me it stinks of lack of knowledge.

please refer to my earlier referencing of the 'Hurler on the ditch '.  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hurler_on_the_ditch

Asking who would buy a football club is like asking someone who is selling their house, who would buy it... Bit silly really. I mean a club with no debt, owes the ground, sells out, potential with some sensible investment to be getting regular premiership payments..1.5hrs from London.. yep no one would want to look at that... Lack of knowledge? Probably same as yours just different opinions... Realistic and not small minded... Definitely not. Try looking up small-town syndrome 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Bottom of the league is competing? Ok....

Well, considering I was told 18 months ago that "under this ownership we wouldn't be able to compete with ipswich" I would say it very much is competing. I would go as far as to say it's competing at a higher level than the majority of richer owners can manage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

Well, considering I was told 18 months ago that "under this ownership we wouldn't be able to compete with ipswich" I would say it very much is competing. I would go as far as to say it's competing at a higher level than the majority of richer owners can manage.

We will have to agree to disagree my friend...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Asking who would buy a football club is like asking someone who is selling their house, who would buy it... Bit silly really. I mean a club with no debt, owes the ground, sells out, potential with some sensible investment to be getting regular premiership payments..1.5hrs from London.. yep no one would want to look at that... Lack of knowledge? Probably same as yours just different opinions... Realistic and not small minded... Definitely not. Try looking up small-town syndrome 😉

If you were an investor, would you buy a house that already looked awesome and was in a great location? Or would you buy one that needed some work doing in order to make it run at a profit? Clubs get bought when they're underachieving and have huge potential, not when they're near the top of their curve. Leicester, Southampton, Watford, Palace, Bournemouth... all their investors came in when they were outside the top flight. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Well, considering I was told 18 months ago that "under this ownership we wouldn't be able to compete with ipswich" I would say it very much is competing. I would go as far as to say it's competing at a higher level than the majority of richer owners can manage.

This x1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

We will have to agree to disagree my friend...

It's fine to disagree, it's what this place is about. 

Anyway, at least we agree that our club is competetive up to wherever we finish this season. So we need to stick together as I think we're in the minority on here🙃

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than 6 or 7 clubs, that will always remain the premiership, most clubs in the premiership are just passing through on their way back down. The financial mountain is massive between 6 or 7 clubs and the rest. 

The premiership isn't all it's cracked up to be. I'd rather watch a competitive championship league any day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

but other smaller clubs in locations further a field have done it

Could you be specific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hogesar said:

I would go as far as to say it's competing at a higher level than the majority of richer owners can manage.

This is simply a fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

Last time we got promoted in second place, ie. without actually winning anything, we stayed up for three years. Maybe that's what we need to do.

We only finished second because QPR were not docked points, as they should have been, for fielding an ineligible player...🤓

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Badger said:

There is quite a strong correlation but the figures are skewed by the biggest teams - Man U; Arsenal; Man City etc - are spending over 250 million (17-18 figures) whereas half the teams spend around or under £100 million. The huge spending of 5 or 6 teams distorts the overall figure. And, as you sat, there is quite a wide dispersion around the correlation. In any case, correlation and causation... I'm sure that you know the rest.

I haven't done the calculation - it's been a while I'm afraid - but a far more useful correlation would be between the teams in the bottom 12 of the PL. I wouldn't mind a bet that the wages- position correlation between the bottom 12 (over successive seasons) is far weaker than for the division as a whole, and really that's where we are.*

 

Badger, I agree. My research was based around the 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13 seasons, and since then the disparity has grown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said before that our owners are the victims of their own success- because of some generally smart decision making they've quite often butted up against the glass ceiling of their ownership. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, king canary said:

I've said before that our owners are the victims of their own success- because of some generally smart decision making they've quite often butted up against the glass ceiling of their ownership. 

Quite possibly so. There are worse problems to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wcorkcanary said:

Quite possibly so. There are worse problems to have.

Of course. Much rather that than have a random billionaire come in, it all go **** up and find out we don't even own our training ground anymore*

 

* I'm aware this wouldn't necessarily be the case but the odds, as Nutty says, would be that we'd end up in a worse position based on our current position vs amount of takeovers of other clubs and their relative success / failures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

If you were an investor, would you buy a house that already looked awesome and was in a great location? Or would you buy one that needed some work doing in order to make it run at a profit? Clubs get bought when they're underachieving and have huge potential, not when they're near the top of their curve. Leicester, Southampton, Watford, Palace, Bournemouth... all their investors came in when they were outside the top flight. 

Next season then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Bournemouth, Burnley. Thanks

Burnley are very much the sort of club that we are emulating (or are they emulating us?) Locally owned and very frugal - debt free and very prudent financially. Although Burnley have a better history than us I am confident that if we continue to operate in the same way as they do, we will enjoy greater success than them because of other natural advantages. But very prudent, I agree - a good model to follow.

Bournemouth I am less sure about. As I understand it, they currently owe their owner about £70 million. He seems a pretty good donor and does not charge interest which is relatively unusual. Nevertheless, it does leave them in a rather precarious position when they get relegated. Certainly seems a pretty good owner at the present - how he reacts when they are relegated will be the issue. I'm not sure that he has the funding to take on losses indefinitely. he does, I understand live locally, which suggests some affinity with the club.

Long-term, I'd rather be in Burnley's position than Bournemouth's and I'd rather be in ours over both in the long term. If we continue to follow a sustainable model of management, we are likely to enjoy more success than both of these over the medium term (as indeed we have already measured over the last 20 years.)

  • Like 2

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  

×
×
  • Create New...