Jump to content
TeemuVanBasten

Is there a loss of support for the project?

Recommended Posts

All the so-called ‘project’ can tell us is that a ‘self-funding’ club is fundamentally incompatible with competing in the PL. However, our failure to be anything other than whipping boys for the likes of Watford seems to have the majority support of our supporters. The boos at the end of the game were few in number or volume. Sadly, if and until, new investment comes into the club we will retain our growing reputation as being little more than an embarrassment to the PL. At least whatever the outcome at Everton no result can be as abject as losing at home to a newly promoted side which finished below us last season.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kenfoggo said:

“The Project”? For a Club to be self sustaining it has to buy cheap talent, develop that talent and then sell on that talent. This leaves behind a number of time serving journeyman with no ambition, doing as little as possible to get that pay packet and not get injured. The kind of player who has little commitment or incentive to put in a graft.  The kind who will not sprint back to cover a breakthrough but will jog back. The kind who passes square or backwards at every possible opportunity rather than run with the ball. Somewhere there has to be a leader who inspires, a motivator of men, a man of vision to get these weaker players to perform. Farke?  A head coach who admonishes his own fans to show more backing to the players and yet gives them so , so little to cheer? I watched the Saturday performance and felt that I was being mugged. Something has to change and change before we have another direct relegation back to the Championship.

Has there ever been a post on this board that demonstrates less understanding of modern football?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Jersey Canary said:

Our club objective is to be a top 26 team and we are. We don’t have a rich owner who can buy ready made players so we have to be creative and develop to sell. The only way we’re going to go that is by playing Farkeball.  That will mean losing a fair bit at this level but once the players acclimatise, we’ll start to pick up points. The big question is, will it be in time for us to survive this season?  I hope so. 

I got one don’t accept this too 26 cr*p and don’t think a lot of other fans do either. Now we are in the premier the objective is to stay there and playing Farkeball is currently one of the biggest obstacles to tgat. We need to adapt Farkeball to something that has a chance of succeeding at this level. Right now, we have no identity to our play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kenfoggo said:

“The Project”? For a Club to be self sustaining it has to buy cheap talent, develop that talent and then sell on that talent.

No. For it to work, you have to spend the same as you earn over the medium term.

This gives us an advantage over investor clubs where they have spend less than they earn so that they can pay the investors or in several cases, the banks.. This is an advantage of several million a year.

The critical issue for us is staying up the first time. Then we would be able to build upon a squad that is already competitive. It would require fewer purchases and would enable a higher average spend per player.

I read somewhere (but cannot source, sorry) that the average number of promoted teams to get relegated each year is 1.7. In other words, a promoted team is more likely to be relegated than stay up - statistically, this works out that leaving all other things aside, a promoted teams chances of getting relegated in the first year are 57%. This applies each time we are promoted.

It is frustrating, I know but it is the reality of modern football. in many ways, the perception of our problem is influence by the fact that the strength of our model means that we are promoted more quickly than just about any other team.

Share this post


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

No. For it to work, you have to spend the same as you earn over the medium term.

This gives us an advantage over investor clubs where they have spend less than they earn so that they can pay the investors or in several cases, the banks.. This is an advantage of several million a year.

The critical issue for us is staying up the first time. Then we would be able to build upon a squad that is already competitive. It would require fewer purchases and would enable a higher average spend per player.

I read somewhere (but cannot source, sorry) that the average number of promoted teams to get relegated each year is 1.7. In other words, a promoted team is more likely to be relegated than stay up - statistically, this works out that leaving all other things aside, a promoted teams chances of getting relegated in the first year are 57%. This applies each time we are promoted.

It is frustrating, I know but it is the reality of modern football. in many ways, the perception of our problem is influence by the fact that the strength of our model means that we are promoted more quickly than just about any other team.

We will not keep bouncing back if we go down again. The model relies on that happening but fans and a club can only take so many promotions and relegations. If we go down this season (and certainly if we go down pathetically as looks like a possibility if we can't address this awful start) then I think the club is at a crossroads and actually may not be in the sort of "stable" situation that people think. Webber is out of contract and has stated previously his intention to leave. If we've been relegated poorly then one way or another its hard to see Farke still being there. 4 of our first team starters from Satuday are on loan and will be gone. Dimi and Todd are currently being benched in favour of loan players so i'm sure arent that pleased and I cant see the likes of Tzolis and Rashica having signed to play in the championship. It could be a summer of fairly major upheaval. 

Personally, if this is what being the prem is going to be like every time under this regime then getting promoted massively loses its shine and I can see half our fan base becoming extremly ambivalent. But then that probably suits the owners as it puts them under zero pressure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

We will not keep bouncing back if we go down again. The model relies on that happening but fans and a club can only take so many promotions and relegations. If we go down this season (and certainly if we go down pathetically as looks like a possibility if we can't address this awful start) then I think the club is at a crossroads and actually may not be in the sort of "stable" situation that people think. Webber is out of contract and has stated previously his intention to leave. If we've been relegated poorly then one way or another its hard to see Farke still being there. 4 of our first team starters from Satuday are on loan and will be gone. Dimi and Todd are currently being benched in favour of loan players so i'm sure arent that pleased and I cant see the likes of Tzolis and Rashica having signed to play in the championship. It could be a summer of fairly major upheaval. 

Personally, if this is what being the prem is going to be like every time under this regime then getting promoted massively loses its shine and I can see half our fan base becoming extremly ambivalent. But then that probably suits the owners as it puts them under zero pressure. 

Probably best just to fold the club now, Jim predicts we're doomed. 

For a change...🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, norfolkngood said:

Exactly Right !

Brentford are the Best team to Compare us with 

in Fact i would say we have a Better Squad 

But watching them so Far they have shown no respect to other teams and are playing some Nice Football and getting results 

So proof it can be done at this level with lesser players if you get the Tactics Right 

Sadly if Our bad  Run continues it must be down to Farke 

Thomas Frank is a very , very good manager... Not saying DF is not , but that is one of the main reasons Brentford are doing so well. His tactical nous is very good and his group of players are closely knit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

We will not keep bouncing back if we go down again. The model relies on that happening but fans and a club can only take so many promotions and relegations. If we go down this season (and certainly if we go down pathetically as looks like a possibility if we can't address this awful start) then I think the club is at a crossroads and actually may not be in the sort of "stable" situation that people think. Webber is out of contract and has stated previously his intention to leave. If we've been relegated poorly then one way or another its hard to see Farke still being there. 4 of our first team starters from Satuday are on loan and will be gone. Dimi and Todd are currently being benched in favour of loan players so i'm sure arent that pleased and I cant see the likes of Tzolis and Rashica having signed to play in the championship. It could be a summer of fairly major upheaval. 

The only thing that I disagree with here is that the model relies upon us bouncing back up again. Even without TV money, our revenues are better than most clubs in the championship and if we are not saddled with the debt that most others are we will remain financially competitive. I agree that there is no guarantee that this will be translated onto the pitch, but it increases our chances.

If we are relegated, I think that you are right, there will be a lot of change, and I'm sure that several players will want out. As with Emi, if this is the case, I think that we should sell them if we get good offers. I don't think it will help having too many players not up for the challenge.

Personally, if this is what being the prem is going to be like every time under this regime then getting promoted massively loses its shine and I can see half our fan base becoming extremly ambivalent. But then that probably suits the owners as it puts them under zero pressure. 

I agree with you that promotion loses its shine if you are immediately relegated each time and I think that I alluded to this above. Personally, I feel it is better than not getting promoted, but I sense that not everybody has the stomach for it.

I don't agree with you about the owners though. I am sure that they would rather be in the Premier League than the championship (or below). Nor do I think that remaining in the Championship puts them under zero  pressure. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Bunny said:

*Did* we fill all the glaring gaps with the money spent? I think at best, the jury is out. The early signs suggest probably not. All we know for sure right now is we lost a proven PL attacker, and probably our best player. 

So we should have kept Buendia and spent even more money net than we have done, either getting in more players than we actually have done to fill remaining gaps or  buying more expensive players to fill all the gaps, or both. With a consequent increase in the wages spend. We simply could not afford to do that. Not the massive net spend or the wages. A fantasy on the lines of Brexit's 'cake and eat it' to think we could.

Anyway, nice to see Highland Canary has found an internet connection, and can advocate his favourite Neil Lennon, who by happy chance is available, to replace Farke.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jersey Canary said:

Our club objective is to be a top 26 team and we are. We don’t have a rich owner who can buy ready made players so we have to be creative and develop to sell. The only way we’re going to go that is by playing Farkeball.  That will mean losing a fair bit at this level but once the players acclimatise, we’ll start to pick up points. The big question is, will it be in time for us to survive this season?  I hope so. 

Well that is the point I'm making in my thread really, that you don't sell Godfrey for £26m if you teach him to just hit it to Row Z or punt it long to target men for 90 minutes, all this playing the ball out from the back is designed to produce the footballers that we can then sell on to big teams who play possession football.

But then Burnley stay up year after year whilst having a modest wage bill and a modest transfer spend, so when you say "have to", I think what you mean is that we choose to. It isn't the only way. Lets not forget that Brentford have no youth academy and instead invest in B team players. 

And Watford had a 5 year run in the Premier League with a very modest average net spend. 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Well that is the point I'm making in my thread really, that you don't sell Godfrey for £26m if you teach him to just hit it to Row Z or punt it long to target men for 90 minutes, all this playing the ball out from the back is designed to produce the footballers that we can then sell on to big teams who play possession football.

But then Burnley stay up year after year whilst having a modest wage bill and a modest transfer spend, so when you say "have to", I think what you mean is that we choose to. It isn't the only way. Lets not forget that Brentford have no youth academy and instead invest in B team players. 

And Watford had a 5 year run in the Premier League with a very modest average net spend. 

That seems a fair assessment. In some ways Farkeball needs to be modified. I don't much care for Watford's style of football but Brentford maybe finding a middle way whilst Burnley have had a great evolution strategy in the Boardroom etc.

Perhaps the sizeable returns we get on our young player trading successes justify the salary top ups we pay to 15 players on loan at lesser clubs many of whom turn out to be more suited to run of the mill EFL football. Without any hard evidence we don't know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any support that actually exists for this pretend project is based purely on the assumption we will continually straight back up. Unfortunately this will eventually stop.

Share this post


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

The only thing I disagree with is that the model relies on us bouncing back. Even without TV revenues, our finances are better than most in the Championship.

We can't be competitive for very long in the top reaches of the Championship without parachute money and without bouncing back. In 201819 our third season back Turnover was £33 million and we spent more than double that.

That £33 million is quite good relative to most other clubs but much of the trading income also has associated costs. Football without Premier League TV money is a vastly different proposition to football with such money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't reached a conclusion on this yet but I'm beginning to wonder whether Farke is a brilliant Academy coach but not great manager. Good at developing talent but not EPL level for tactics and game management. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

I haven't reached a conclusion on this yet but I'm beginning to wonder whether Farke is a brilliant Academy coach but not great manager. Good at developing talent but not EPL level for tactics and game management. 

I'm also at the early stages of wondering that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Probably best just to fold the club now, Jim predicts we're doomed. 

For a change...🙄

The amount of times he's predicted we won't bounce back, he's going to be right eventually...

Share this post


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

We can't be competitive for very long in the top reaches of the Championship without parachute money and without bouncing back. In 201819 our third season back Turnover was £33 million and we spent more than double that.

That was part of the problem and why we changed the model. We had to many journeymen on high wages - hence the need for "the project" (not really a phrase I like).

That £33 million is quite good relative to most other clubs but much of the trading income also has associated costs. Football without Premier League TV money is a vastly different proposition to football with such money.

Without doubt we are better off with parachute payments, but as you have identified above most of these go in wages. However, as you have identified it is still better than most championship clubs. As you will see below, even without TV money, our revenue was 8th highest in the Championship in the year you mention. Of those above us, some are likely to be struggling due to high wages having "gone for it." I would also cautiously admit that player development and sales is part of our model, so our revenue is likely to be higher in future years.

Even without the latter assumption, which, of course, cannot be guaranteed, having the 8th highest revenue in the Championship makes us pretty competitive, especially as shouldn't be saddled with large debt repayments, which, for example Southampton, Burnley and Palace will be when they are relegated.

Looking at the table, Brentford and Sheffield Utd were pretty competitive and had much smaller revenues. Of the teams with higher revenues, only Villa and Leeds have been promoted and TBH they are of a size when they shouldn't really be relegated at all if they were sensibly run. They only got relegated in the first place because of  "ambition" (financial mismanagement) coming home to roost.

All in all, I think we could be pretty competitive without parachute payments (but I'd rather have them).

Image

 

Share this post


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

I'm also at the early stages of wondering that.

I think that we will find out this season. 

Share this post


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

 

Good graph with fair representation. Without parachute money top 26 becomes top 28 which perhaps OK given that we don't have to overperform by that much to get back in the mix as we indeed did in 2019. The skew in favour of the top 6 also demonstrates though that it is challenging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The skew in favour of the top 6 also demonstrates though that it is challenging.

Financially yes, but as I pointed out of the 7 above only Leeds and Villa were promoted. It wouldn't be easy but I think that we would be competitive.

Anyway, I'm hoping that it doesn't come to that (as I am sure you are too). Obviously Saturday was disappointing, but I still think our chances of staying up this year are better than 50-50. I'm certainly not giving up yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I accepted from promotion that we would be bottom three, I know by selling our best players to keep evolving means to sacrifice better odds of staying up. 
The players we have actually bought are on the most part very talented on paper with a good potential to be gained in the future. Rashica, Tzolis and Sargent all look like they will blossom into very good players given time, possibly our next season in the championship.

The issue comes when trying to buy established premiership players to improve our premiership starting 11, we just cannot compete with the wage packages to get players of that calibre here, we rely on the likes of Hanley, Gibson, Byram who all had  shown some decent promise but never fulfilled that level, through injury or other circumstances, so they end up at Norwich.

Kabak has the potential to be one of the best defender we seen in recent times, he’s got the game but has he got the focus to fulfil his promise? Under Farkes team I have every confidence that he and Omobamdele can be a great combination, Malky / Flem type combo.

So I’ve got no problem with this set up, I have no desire to cut Farke lose as I accept we won’t stay in the premiership this season, if we do great, but another championship season with the funds in background from a premiership season means we go again. I’m happy to be a yo-yo club and to see the likes of Omobamdele, Aarons, McCullum, Mumba grow and to be able to afford the likes of Rashica, Tzolis & Sargent, shows we are growing as a club and building slowly with good young players, each season just that little bit better than the last.

Edited by Indy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

So we should have kept Buendia and spent even more money net than we have done, either getting in more players than we actually have done to fill remaining gaps or  buying more expensive players to fill all the gaps, or both. With a consequent increase in the wages spend. We simply could not afford to do that. Not the massive net spend or the wages. A fantasy on the lines of Brexit's 'cake and eat it' to think we could.

Anyway, nice to see Highland Canary has found an internet connection, and can advocate his favourite Neil Lennon, who by happy chance is available, to replace Farke.

I think you're putting words in my mouth. 

All clubs have a budget to spend upon getting promoted, due to additional income. It's possible to do this without selling your best player. Obviously the budget would be lower in our case without the Emi sale, but personally I think we'd be better with a 33m lower budget whilst hanging on to our talisman. He's worth more than that if he keeps us up. 

Hanging on to your best player and investing in the squad is hardly an unconventional approach either. In fact, selling your best player and hoping you can replace him upon getting promoted was pretty unprecidented before we did it. 

My point is simply that I'm not convinced that what we did is good business. If those players we brought to replace emi end up being flops then that investment will have turned bad very quickly. If nothing else, 33m lower player budget is 33m that the board can't blow on unproven players who don't work out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Bunny said:

I think you're putting words in my mouth. 

All clubs have a budget to spend upon getting promoted, due to additional income. It's possible to do this without selling your best player. Obviously the budget would be lower in our case without the Emi sale, but personally I think we'd be better with a 33m lower budget whilst hanging on to our talisman. He's worth more than that if he keeps us up. 

Hanging on to your best player and investing in the squad is hardly an unconventional approach either. In fact, selling your best player and hoping you can replace him upon getting promoted was pretty unprecidented before we did it. 

My point is simply that I'm not convinced that what we did is good business. If those players we brought to replace emi end up being flops then that investment will have turned bad very quickly. If nothing else, 33m lower player budget is 33m that the board can't blow on unproven players who don't work out. 

No; Just pointing out that your plan wouldn't have been financially feasible. Hang onto  Buendia, and we still have to fill or upgrade in several positions that are not covered by Buendia staying.

So we have to replace Skipp. An absolute necessity. That is either an expensive loan deal or at least £10m to buy, and probably millions more. Ditto a central defender. Another necessity. Similar numbers as those for the Skipp replacement.

A back-up/potential replacement goalkeeper. Another necessity. That has cost us £5m. An least one new fullback. Another necessity. We have done it by way of a loan but to buy probably another £5m.

A striker. Another neccessity even if Buendia stays. And the most expensive players normally. It has cost us close to £9m up front. Then an improvement on Placheta and Hernandez. We have bought in two, given that Buendia has gone, but we would have needed one anyway if he'd stayed. Doesn't matter whether we choose Tzolis or Rashica - another fee not that far short of £10m.

And those are just the necessities, without thinking about improvements to the squad such as Gilmour and Lees-Melou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BigGrantsTash said:

Why do so many of our fans view buying players in and selling them on for more money as a greater achievement than winning football games?

It's called brainwashing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

No; Just pointing out that your plan wouldn't have been financially feasible. Hang onto  Buendia, and we still have to fill or upgrade in several positions that are not covered by Buendia staying.

So we have to replace Skipp. An absolute necessity. That is either an expensive loan deal or at least £10m to buy, and probably millions more. Ditto a central defender. Another necessity. Similar numbers as those for the Skipp replacement.

A back-up/potential replacement goalkeeper. Another necessity. That has cost us £5m. An least one new fullback. Another necessity. We have done it by way of a loan but to buy probably another £5m.

A striker. Another neccessity even if Buendia stays. And the most expensive players normally. It has cost us close to £9m up front. Then an improvement on Placheta and Hernandez. We have bought in two, given that Buendia has gone, but we would have needed one anyway if he'd stayed. Doesn't matter whether we choose Tzolis or Rashica - another fee not that far short of £10m.

And those are just the necessities, without thinking about improvements to the squad such as Gilmour and Lees-Melou.

From my perspective, this year's squad is probably weaker than last year's. 

To achieve parity, we would have had to replace Skipp, as you say. A tough ask, but not impossible on our budget, given the influx of TV money. If we did just that, we'd be in a better spot than we are now. Anything beyond that spent improving the squad would be a bonus.

But those additional signings (beyond the Skipp replacement) are a moot point. If we haven't even managed to achieve parity with last year's squad after selling our best player, it would mean the gamble hasn't paid off, and for that, the board should be considered culpable. 

Edited by The Bunny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Bunny said:

From my perspective, this year's squad is probably weaker than last year's. 

To achieve parity, we would have had to replace Skipp, as you say. A tough ask, but not impossible on our budget, given the influx of TV money. If we did just that, we'd be in a better spot than we are now. Anything beyond that spent improving the squad would be a bonus.

But those additional signings (beyond the Skipp replacement) are a moot point. If we haven't even managed to achieve parity with last year's squad after selling our best player, it would mean the gamble hasn't paid off, and for that, the board should be considered culpable. 

I think you are very much in a minority if you believe the squad is weaker than last year’s. I know there is an argument about a notional starting eleven but the squad is markedly stronger. I could go through the whole squad, but just to take the first and last positions, Gunn is a better back-up keeper than anyone we had last season, and Pukki, Idah and Sargent look to be better than than Pukki, Idah and Hugill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mello Yello said:

Never mind the quality.....feel the width......

I remember that program. Who was in it - I was very young 😀

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

×
×
  • Create New...