Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TeemuVanBasten

All of our signings this season have been crap

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Webber admitted to a poor summer window. Held his hands up to it and said he'd made mistakes.

Short of resigning there's not a lot more he can do 

Maybe in the future a couple of the youngsters will redeem him a little.

 

He also said he felt they had a good January window and in terms of the current first team players they have brought in , in the context of trying to stay in the premier league, i'd say he;s completely wrong on that too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to check some facts before replying to this KC. I have replied within your original. The good news is that you are wrong - the mistakes were NOT off the book - hence the loss. The bad news is that the impact of these purchases may not have worked through yet and may impact next year.

 

13 hours ago, king canary said:

Except it wasnt. The debts were cleared, the wages of those mistakes were off the books, yet we would still have made a loss of north of £10m.

All of the last splurge by McNally were still on the books - Pinto, Klose, Naismith and Jarvis were all being paid by us last year, although we obtained a small amount of loan fees for Naismith. On top of this, we also had the subsequent purchases of Wildshutt and Oliveira from the old Chief Executive model. The wages and amortised transfer fees of this half dozen, would have covered most, if not all (and possibly more) than the loss you identify. 

The net result of all this spending on "established players," apart from the financial loss, was about the 20 - odd games that Klose made (would have been except for injury). 

We ran a wage bill @ 73% of turnover, last season, which is actually quite low by most championship teams standards.

No - this is miles out - where do the figures come from? Turnover was 33.7 million, wages were £51.2 million. We spent 152% of our turnover on wages - more than double the 73% you quote.

What last season told us was that without parachute payments, we either need to sell players every summer or we need to run a wage bill of under £20m (which is about what Ipswich did).

This is not the case. Turnover was nearly 34 million, still 10th largest in the Championship (and 3rd largest excluding parachute payments). Our wage figure could afford to be £25 million + without major player sales - Sheffield Utd's last published wages figure was £19 million. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I think everyone, from Webber down to the fans, were a bit naive. The vast majority on here were tipping us to not only stay up, but to avoid a relegation battle in August. It seems that everyone from top to bottom completely underestimated the gulf between the top of the Championship and the bottom of the Premier League, with a lot of posters on here claiming it's a 'myth' and just marketing.

Whilst some will point out how well Sheffield United have adapted, they are very much the exception rather than the rule.

We didn't strengthen anywhere near enough in hindsight and aside from Hernandez on the wing who is quick and direct, all of our players are the same as each other which gives us no alternative options and makes us far too predictable. If our opponent stops plan A, we're stuffed.

This is very true. We are playing away from home with zero pace on the flanks at the moment. Its madness that Onel is not at least getting a run off the bench. teams can just sit in against us knowing we don't have the pace to hurt them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Badger said:

I wanted to check some facts before replying to this KC. I have replied within your original. The good news is that you are wrong - the mistakes were NOT off the book - hence the loss. The bad news is that the impact of these purchases may not have worked through yet and may impact next year.

 

Sorry Badger but you are totally wrong.

Look at the link I posted- all the numbers I mention are in there.

Share this post


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

I wanted to check some facts before replying to this KC. I have replied within your original. The good news is that you are wrong - the mistakes were NOT off the book - hence the loss. The bad news is that the impact of these purchases may not have worked through yet and may impact next year.

 

From the article in question...

"Yet head coach Daniel Farke and his players still managed to win the Championship title and earn promotion amid that tight financial situation.

Turnover reduced from £61.7m in 2018 to £33.7m, which largely accounts for why player wage costs as a percentage of turnover rose from 50pc to 73pc - and to 105pc once promotion bonuses are factored in."

So player wages were 73% of £33.7m, which is about £24.5m. Despite this heavily reduced wage bill we were on course to make a loss of over £10m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

From the article in question...

"Yet head coach Daniel Farke and his players still managed to win the Championship title and earn promotion amid that tight financial situation.

Turnover reduced from £61.7m in 2018 to £33.7m, which largely accounts for why player wage costs as a percentage of turnover rose from 50pc to 73pc - and to 105pc once promotion bonuses are factored in."

So player wages were 73% of £33.7m, which is about £24.5m. Despite this heavily reduced wage bill we were on course to make a loss of over £10m.

Maybe you guys are at difference between player wages and wages overall, including staff! Both correct!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Indy said:

Maybe you guys are at difference between player wages and wages overall, including staff! Both correct!

That would suggest we're paying our non-playing staff about £25m combined. I doubt that.

Share this post


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

That would suggest we're paying our non-playing staff about £25m combined. I doubt that.

More like £19m, I think, since the overall staff costs (which included bonuses) were £54m and the player wages including bonuses came to £35m. But staff costs include non-wage costs such as social security payments and pensions, presumably for playing and non-playing staff alike, so that would muddy the waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

This is very true. We are playing away from home with zero pace on the flanks at the moment. Its madness that Onel is not at least getting a run off the bench. teams can just sit in against us knowing we don't have the pace to hurt them. 

Onel is injured and out at least for a few weeks was the last update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took my figures from Swiss Ramble, an acknowledged expert in football finance - see below + original link:

 

Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, king canary said:

Yeah I made this point earlier in the season and got told it wasnt worth talking about...

Byram is the only signing you can argue improved our squad this season. Everyone else is basically worse than we already had.

I’m guessing the first sentence is reference to what we debated earlier this season, Kingo.

Let me clarify...

My point actually was that we knew last summer *exactly* how we were going to approach this season regarding transfers, the smallest Premier League transfer window in history and if it didn’t work out then we’d come back down in a far better place, which is indeed looking to be the case. Webber as always was completely honest and upfront about that. And as I didn’t recall anyone making a fuss at the end of the window, I revisited the threads from last year, and pointed out that was indeed the case. There were no hidden surprises before the season started, so for supporters to begin turning on the approach to our transfer window and the signings we made, I found it more than a little hypocritical. 

Indeed, the reason being I say hypocritical, is because it was fair to say that 99% were extremely happy with the signings and positions we had made and filled by the end of the window. It was seen that Webber had done a great job signing some European talent shrewdly on a budget, shoring up all the areas of the squad that the supporters had all agreed needed adding additional quality to. Amadou was seen as the quality and muscle needed to improve our central defensive midfield, Robert’s the skilful winger with pedigree having come from Man City. Fahrmann the highly rated quality upgrade on Krul with plenty of top drawer experience. And finally, Byram, who ironically was by far the least lauded signing, but at only £750K has completely blown the other signings out of the water (Sam, being our budget signing, providing conclusive proof that it’s not necessarily the amount of money spent that ultimately constitutes what makes a good or poor signing).

This is the first time in history that I won’t be gutted if we get relegated. Webber and Farke have basically brought us up, pillaged the Premier League of the money that comes with both promotion and being at the top table, and will now, if relegated, shrewdly have us in a very very healthy position for next seasons assault on the Championship where if promoted (it’s a gamble granted) I’m absolutely certain we’ll open the purse strings a little more next summer. I can see exactly what Webber’s doing, and I have to say I think he’s being extremely clever indeed.

Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey ⬆️

 

Share this post


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

From the article in question...

"Yet head coach Daniel Farke and his players still managed to win the Championship title and earn promotion amid that tight financial situation.

Turnover reduced from £61.7m in 2018 to £33.7m, which largely accounts for why player wage costs as a percentage of turnover rose from 50pc to 73pc - and to 105pc once promotion bonuses are factored in."

So player wages were 73% of £33.7m, which is about £24.5m. Despite this heavily reduced wage bill we were on course to make a loss of over £10m.

I went back to the additional NCFC accounts as a check as well as looking at Swiss Ramble. Page 22 Section 7. See link below*

So the figures, I gave you were correct KC. We did still continue to suffer as a consequence of previous over-expenditure and it explains why we made a loss. Without our history of panic buying, we would have been able to maintain a healthy wage bill without making a loss.

I have checked your link - I don't understand why the Pink Un got it so wrong - but using the logic of the section you quote they are suggesting that our wages were about £24.5 million (73% of turnover - this is clearly wrong as the accounts show.)

STAFF COSTS (000s)

Wages and salaries 43,658 

Other employment costs (including loan players) 5,806 

Subtotal - 49,464 

Plus:

Social security costs 4,754 

Pension costs 223 

Total = 54,441 

https://files.canaries.co.uk/canaries/AR2019.pdf

* There is a slight difference between Swiss Ramble's and the NCFC figures - I imagine that this is because they have classified particular costs in a different way. As Swiss Ramble does this for many clubs, he will want to classify costs in the same way, regardless of how the club might do it.

Share this post


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

I went back to the additional NCFC accounts as a check as well as looking at Swiss Ramble. Page 22 Section 7. See link below*

So the figures, I gave you were correct KC. We did still continue to suffer as a consequence of previous over-expenditure and it explains why we made a loss. Without our history of panic buying, we would have been able to maintain a healthy wage bill without making a loss.

I have checked your link - I don't understand why the Pink Un got it so wrong - but using the logic of the section you quote they are suggesting that our wages were about £24.5 million (73% of turnover - this is clearly wrong as the accounts show.)

STAFF COSTS (000s)

Wages and salaries 43,658 

Other employment costs (including loan players) 5,806 

Subtotal - 49,464 

Plus:

Social security costs 4,754 

Pension costs 223 

Total = 54,441 

https://files.canaries.co.uk/canaries/AR2019.pdf

* There is a slight difference between Swiss Ramble's and the NCFC figures - I imagine that this is because they have classified particular costs in a different way. As Swiss Ramble does this for many clubs, he will want to classify costs in the same way, regardless of how the club might do it.

Well riddle me this then.

If our wages were actually £54m.

And our turnover was £33m.

Then how were the club talking about a £10-15m pound loss? Surely it would be much more if we're already spending £20m more than we turnover on wages.

Share this post


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

Well riddle me this then.

If our wages were actually £54m.

And our turnover was £33m.

Then how were the club talking about a £10-15m pound loss? Surely it would be much more if we're already spending £20m more than we turnover on wages.

The wages figure is accurate KC - it comes direct from the accounts - I included a link.

I don't recall the £10 to 15 million figure, our loss, before tax was £39.4 million (£33 million after tax). Look at the Swiss Ramble figures above. 

Our loss would not have been this big if we had not been promoted. If I attempted top explain the difference between the actual figure and the 10 to 15 million that you speak of, I could only guess, without a detailed read. My first hypothesis would be that 4 significant sets of extra costs were incurred:

1. Player bonuses (our staff costs would not have been as high if we had not been promoted)

2. Other contingent liabilities. For example, rumour was that we had to pay Everton another million for the Naismith deal because of promotion + significant Buendia add-ons etc.

3. We paid back the bond early.

4. Other - e.g. We might have kept Marshall rather than pay him off if we had remained in the Championship etc + we might have used the money to sort out one or two other issues.

I don't know if this explains the difference - as I say its only a guess - I don't know if it is accurate.

Nevertheless, I am absolutely clear that we were still suffering in the last set of accounts because of the profligacy of 15-16 and 16-17 and that it had a big impact on our staff costs. Unfortunately, it is likely to impact next season as well - unless we make a profit of over £22.6 million this year.

Share this post


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

The wages figure is accurate KC - it comes direct from the accounts - I included a link.

I don't recall the £10 to 15 million figure, our loss, before tax was £39.4 million (£33 million after tax). Look at the Swiss Ramble figures above. 

Our loss would not have been this big if we had not been promoted. If I attempted top explain the difference between the actual figure and the 10 to 15 million that you speak of, I could only guess, without a detailed read. My first hypothesis would be that 4 significant sets of extra costs were incurred:

1. Player bonuses (our staff costs would not have been as high if we had not been promoted)

2. Other contingent liabilities. For example, rumour was that we had to pay Everton another million for the Naismith deal because of promotion + significant Buendia add-ons etc.

3. We paid back the bond early.

4. Other - e.g. We might have kept Marshall rather than pay him off if we had remained in the Championship etc + we might have used the money to sort out one or two other issues.

I don't know if this explains the difference - as I say its only a guess - I don't know if it is accurate.

Nevertheless, I am absolutely clear that we were still suffering in the last set of accounts because of the profligacy of 15-16 and 16-17 and that it had a big impact on our staff costs. Unfortunately, it is likely to impact next season as well - unless we make a profit of over £22.6 million this year.

We will be very heavy in the black soon enough when the departures commence. You really hope Farke will then be backed in the right way even though it will be 12 months too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

We will be very heavy in the black soon enough when the departures commence. You really hope Farke will then be backed in the right way even though it will be 12 months too late.

If relegated we will benefit from parachute payments, meaning that assuming that we have sensible relegation reductions in the players' wages we will be under no financial pressure to sell, so will only have to do so if we feel that it is beneficial for us to do so.

I hope that the club backs Farke in a sensible way, particularly through investing in younger players and the training infrastructure, steering clear of "established players at this level."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

He also said he felt they had a good January window and in terms of the current first team players they have brought in , in the context of trying to stay in the premier league, i'd say he;s completely wrong on that too. 

I guess we'll have to see. I would say the only really disappointing result since they came in was yesterday at Wolves. 

It would seem Rupp is an improvement on Roberts. And Duda is an improvement on Stiepermann. But it's really difficult to step into a side in January fit in. He could have just gone with what we already had I guess.

I remember a top flight season when Trevor Hockey joined at the end of February and saved our season. So there's time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think quite a few, myself included, are regularly victims of "short-term-itis" with regard to the most recent result/performance. And yesterday was dismal. I just hope that the players keep showing some fight & desire to get some points on the board and keep morale reasonably high. If yesterday becomes the norm performance-wise over the next few weeks, an already shaky team spirit will take a nose-dive and we all know how that tends to end. It's in nobody's interest to throw in the towel yet, including the few who fancy their chances of a lucrative move over the summer. 

A defence that was performing fairly well recently made two enforced changes, one of whom has played very little in the last couple of months. I think many would agree that deep-midfield has been a weak point in comparison to virtually all opposition since August. Our 'creator-in-chief' looks to be frustrated and possibly causing a bit of unrest in the camp. Our two primary goal threats are marked men, are barely getting a sniff and are poorly supported in attack (see deep-midfield for root of problem). Our two new signings are understandably struggling to make their mark in a team which is similarly struggling for rhythm & consistency having walked straight into the starting 11. Confidence looks shot if first to concede. Goals have dried up. Injuries are biting again. We're only heading one way, but if we don't pick up a few points here & there and look competitive in the majority of games, I would worry about squad, management & fan togetherness and our prospects of tackling another big promotion push from August with a positive mindset. 

The rest of the home fixtures are Leicester, Southampton, Everton, Brighton, West Ham & Burnley. I think it's hugely important that a couple of scalps are taken here and that we hold our own in these matches. Anything at all on the road (Blades, Arsenal, Watford, Chelsea & Man City) would be welcome of course, but realistically doesn't look likely given the current situation. Maybe a draw or two.

If I remember rightly, Farke experimented with 3 at the back in pre-season and showed a willingness to be flexible with the formation. We've been hampered pretty much all season with defensive injuries which has limited options. The financial constraints are hugely detrimental to consistency of performance and on-pitch competitiveness at this level. The summer window was not a success, and I for one was generally happy to go with what we had at the time after the Amadou signing, perhaps blinded by the positivity surrounding such an amazing promotion season.

Hopefully yesterday was just a particularly bad day at the office. We deserve to be bottom, we deserve to be relegated, but I really hope that we can get through the last 11 fixtures with a positive mentality, stay in games, tack on a few points and finish strongly. Maybe a trip to Wembley is on the cards! OTBC!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly with his transfer budget for a newly promoted club being the lowest in PL history, where else can he buy players?

Emi, Krul and Pukki have be terrific players at very little cost. But can’t rely on pulling of those bargains very often.

sheff Utd spent around £44m we spent less than £2m, that show a real lack of intend by the board.

Still over 20,000 season tickets sold already, so I guess the board will be happy about that at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bradwell canary said:

Clearly with his transfer budget for a newly promoted club being the lowest in PL history, where else can he buy players?

Emi, Krul and Pukki have be terrific players at very little cost. But can’t rely on pulling of those bargains very often.

sheff Utd spent around £44m we spent less than £2m, that show a real lack of intend by the board.

Still over 20,000 season tickets sold already, so I guess the board will be happy about that at least.

Sheffield Utd have done very well this year and I can understand that some fans are jealous of them, but their success is founded upon the players that they went up with rather than the purchases that they have made in the summer.

1. Of all their bigger purchases only Olly McBurnie at a reported £20 million has played in half of their games (and scored 4 goals) - the rest of them have played fewer and some hardly at all. One £7 million pound 25 year old has been loaned out to a championship club. "On paper" the players we brought in during the summer looked a better bet.

2. In any case, one of the reasons that they were able to spend more than us in the summer was that they were in a stronger financial position to start with having been very frugal in the Championship. Luckily for them, assured of PL football next year, they are able to attract some better candidates now. 

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...