Summer spend

[Canary dwarf 221]

We spent between 50 _ 60 million in the summer , the recruitment was awful , is it necessarily Delia's , Wynn Jones, or Webber's fault ?.surely the scouting team have to take some responsibility.😚

[KeiranShikari 1,426]

Obviously.

We lost more than £60m worth of talent in Emi and Skipp though.

[Canary dwarf 221]

Just now, KeiranShikari said:

Obviously.

We lost more than £60m worth of talent in Emi and Skipp though.

Hell yeah , but still bad recruitment .😗

[Canary dwarf 221]

2 minutes ago, KeiranShikari said:

Obviously.

We lost more than £60m worth of talent in Emi and Skipp though.

Just looked at your profile picture and safri would be awesome in this side .😙

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

9 hours ago, Canary dwarf said:

We spent between 50 _ 60 million in the summer , the recruitment was awful , is it necessarily Delia's , Wynn Jones, or Webber's fault ?.surely the scouting team have to take some responsibility.😚

No we did not. Gianoullis and Gibson had already been signed under previous budget. Then deduct the fee for Buendia etc 

And we spent out around £15-20 which is a poor outlay for a serious attempt to stay up. 

[Jim Smith 2,339]

And we sold Buendia so net spend was £15-£20m.

But headline “we spent” figures are misleading. The key constraint is the wage bill. 

[ged in the onion bag 856]

We didn’t lose anything with Skipp… he wasn’t ours to lose and and was never going to be… just a loan we shouldn’t have taken up since it prevented us addressing the CDM position.    They better not loan anyone next season!   
 

The only positive this season is that in the space of about 4 games, Idah became crucial to the team.   Then again that was only because we were so bad the philosophy had to be kicked to touch in favour of the long ball!

Edited March 14, 2022 by ged in the onion bag

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

31 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

We didn’t lose anything with Skipp… he wasn’t ours to lose and and was never going to be… just a loan we shouldn’t have taken up since it prevented us addressing the CDM position.    They better not loan anyone next season!   

Absolute nonsense. 

Loans can take a team to the next level, as Skipp did for us last season. 

The key is to have a plan to replace the player once they've returned to their parent club.

Again, sorry to sound like a broken record, but I've come to really question the succession planning (among other things) in place at the club. That's entirely down to Stuart Webber. When Skipp left we should have had a list of players who could replace him. Gilmour is not that player. Normann has not been that players. PLM is definitely not that player. 

When Farke left, we should have had a list of managers capable of replacing him, not just Frank Lampard and oh look Villa have sacked Dean Smith let's chat to him. 

If Teemu Pukki leaves us tomorrow, a plan should be in place to bring in someone who can replace him. Right now I'm thinking we'd probably panic and bring back Josip Drmic.

[Chichcan 148]

Absolutely agree with this 

Smoothing out major changes like manager sackings and losing important players was one of the big plus points of the Sporting Director model supposedly 

It's definitely failed this season as you say (plus with the loss of Buendia)

It's left Webber in a difficult position. 

Sooner or later he'll have to say something in public about what went wrong this season.

Either he accepts he got it wrong and ought to resign or he comes out and says he thinks the squad was strong enough, in which case he's basically blaming Dean Smith.

Unless he tries to get out of it by blaming bad luck, Covid, VAR or whatever it's going to be painful 

 

 

[ged in the onion bag 856]

1 hour ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Absolute nonsense. 

Loans can take a team to the next level, as Skipp did for us last season. 

The key is to have a plan to replace the player once they've returned to their parent club.

Again, sorry to sound like a broken record, but I've come to really question the succession planning (among other things) in place at the club. That's entirely down to Stuart Webber. When Skipp left we should have had a list of players who could replace him. Gilmour is not that player. Normann has not been that players. PLM is definitely not that player. 

When Farke left, we should have had a list of managers capable of replacing him, not just Frank Lampard and oh look Villa have sacked Dean Smith let's chat to him. 

If Teemu Pukki leaves us tomorrow, a plan should be in place to bring in someone who can replace him. Right now I'm thinking we'd probably panic and bring back Josip Drmic.

I don't disagree with what youve written here except the first two sentences.

Given our philosophy, we don't have time and room to develop other teams players in the Championship or in the Premier League.  When we got relegated last, we played 5 CDM's, possibly 6 and none were either athletic or strong.  It got to a point where we had McLean and Tettey as the only two Farke would trust and they were both run ragged by all our opponents... they weren't good enough.    You don't address that awful situation by loaning players who you have literally no chance of signing as was the case with Skipp.    Consequently, Sorensen sat on his backside and we didn't get anyone else in who might (learning lessons from the last time) anticipate danger and get stuck in and develop into someone who could operate at EPL level.   Further, when Skipp helped us to promotion we inevitably lost him and had a void we couldn't fill since we don't spend £20-£30m on players.    That void has proved the most significant reason we can't compete in this league since we can't gain any control in midfield, we're passive and teams don't find us a challenge.   If we want to compete at this level with our model, we have to develop our own talent in more volume, that requires having a squad of 16-20 capable players, that means better scouting, more opportunity for our youngsters, spreading game time and having a playing philosophy that could be competitive.   Farke's wasn't and Smith hasn't got a philosophy since he's fire-fighting without a hose. 

If we are going to loan players, then that should only be in the EPL to (as you say) 'take the team to another level' if they can actually do that.    Fair enough, these loans this season have achieved another level (complete embarrassment level) and its understandable since none of them have proven themselves in the EPL before.    Loans should have some skills that will take us to the next level (e.g. past experience, strength, agility, competitiveness, added quality).   Skipp didn't take us to the next level in terms of team development did it.    We were worse in August than we were in May!.   All Skipp did was conceal a massive problem (our lack of effective CDMs) we all knew existed but many seemed to conveniently forget.  

So no, its not absolute nonsense at all.   

Edited March 14, 2022 by ged in the onion bag

[Yellow Wal 314]

2 hours ago, ged in the onion bag said:

We didn’t lose anything with Skipp… he wasn’t ours to lose and and was never going to be… just a loan we shouldn’t have taken up since it prevented us addressing the CDM position.    They better not loan anyone next season!   
 

The only positive this season is that in the space of about 4 games, Idah became crucial to the team.   Then again that was only because we were so bad the philosophy had to be kicked to touch in favour of the long ball!

Very, very true. Loans are no good to us. We develop other team's players and when they are extremely successful, like Olly Skipp, they leave too big a gap to fill.

Without Skipp, would we have been promoted last season?

He was such a massive part of that team.

Check how many loan players Burnley are playing at the moment, or Watford, or Leeds, or Brentford. Only Everton in the bottom six have any notable loans (van ver Beek and El Ghazi) and they are desperation loans and other people's cast offs.

We are being played as mugs by other clubs (especially Chelsea this season).

[ged in the onion bag 856]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Wal said:

Very, very true. Loans are no good to us. We develop other team's players and when they are extremely successful, like Olly Skipp, they leave too big a gap to fill.

Without Skipp, would we have been promoted last season?

He was such a massive part of that team.

Check how many loan players Burnley are playing at the moment, or Watford, or Leeds, or Brentford. Only Everton in the bottom six have any notable loans (van ver Beek and El Ghazi) and they are desperation loans and other people's cast offs.

We are being played as mugs by other clubs (especially Chelsea this season).

I haven't looked at the other teams but fair points if so.   I suspect we wouldn't have got promoted without Skipp last year and consequently wouldn't have had to endure this utter fiasco.    What may have transpired though is that the team could have been developed into one that would have been more capable on a promotion.     That's provided we had spent the inevitable Buendia, Cantwell and Aarons money better.    Before a team re-build though, think we need a thorough clear out of the scouting set-up.... shambolic effort from them all. 

[Bonzo 198]

The reasons we are bottom are as follows; 

1. We opted to solve the issues of a departing Buendia/ Skipp/ Cantwell (whom we thought would go- and eventually did) by changing the formation from 4231 to 433. In this formation we didn't need any of them. Plus we didn't need a CDM for 433- so we never signed one. 433 has the added benefit of giving us a better platform to play counter attacking football which we needed at this level given that we were not going to be able to dominate possession of the ball in any useful areas of the pitch with 4231 in the Premiership. 

2. We had a manager who had not played 433 and for whom it wasn't his preferred playing style.

3. We did a large proportion of our recruiting very late in the window and so we didn't have a pre season with the team that we'd eventually play.

4. We had our toughest games at the start of the season whilst trying to bed in new players to a new system in a higher league- the impact on morale was going to be inevitable. 

5. When we did get our preferred side together there were teething problems with some of the new players (not unexpected).

6. The attempted solution to the problem that our strategy created was to fire the manager. 

Some of these idea were reasonable, but in combination with a move to a higher league it has simply been a case of trying to change too much without adequate preparation and without any margin for error. To work the plan required that nothing went wrong, that players immediately made an impact and adapted to a new side and a new league and new formation instantly.

Many commentators think that we were not ambitious enough yet I don't think the issue was ambition we had ambition the problem was we had a plan with too many moving parts all of which could go wrong and many of which did go wrong. 

Can this team come straight back up again playing 433? Yes I think it can.

If life is a roller coaster then we're on the bit where you feel so sick that you nearly lose your breakfast.

Next year, hopefully, it will be more fun. 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Bonzo

[Badger 2,411]

4 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

No we did not. Gianoullis and Gibson had already been signed under previous budget.

No, they didn't look at this seasons accounts! It has been covered about 50 times!

[Tetteys Jig 830]

3 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Absolute nonsense. 

Loans can take a team to the next level, as Skipp did for us last season. 

The key is to have a plan to replace the player once they've returned to their parent club.

Again, sorry to sound like a broken record, but I've come to really question the succession planning (among other things) in place at the club. That's entirely down to Stuart Webber. When Skipp left we should have had a list of players who could replace him. Gilmour is not that player. Normann has not been that players. PLM is definitely not that player. 

When Farke left, we should have had a list of managers capable of replacing him, not just Frank Lampard and oh look Villa have sacked Dean Smith let's chat to him. 

If Teemu Pukki leaves us tomorrow, a plan should be in place to bring in someone who can replace him. Right now I'm thinking we'd probably panic and bring back Josip Drmic.

Drmic would probably rip the championship up tbf

[Tetteys Jig 830]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

No, they didn't look at this seasons accounts! It has been covered about 50 times!

Who cares when the money came out, fact is those deals were baked in.

[Badger 2,411]

6 minutes ago, Tetteys Jig said:

Who cares when the money came out, fact is those deals were baked in.

You'll have to ask the person who made the false claim. I was just correcting him.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

Ok let’s be fair and admit they were in this years accounts- but that is to conveniently ignore the risible spend on first promotion plus sales of Godfrey etc - bottom line and indisputable is the fact that over a five year period we have had to sell our talent to fund survival and the net spend aside from that is beyond feeble for a club with premiership ambition.   

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

So we bought the wrong ammunition... I'm sure Webber will speak when he gets off the mountain...

[Yellow Wal 314]

59 minutes ago, Bonzo said:

The reasons we are bottom are as follows; 

1. We opted to solve the issues of a departing Buendia/ Skipp/ Cantwell (whom we thought would go- and eventually did) by changing the formation from 4231 to 433. In this formation we didn't need any of them. Plus as we didn't need a CDM for 433- so we never signed one. 433 has the added benefit of giving us a better platform to play counter attacking football which we needed at this level given that we were not going to be able to dominate possession of the ball in any useful areas of the pitch with 4231 in the Premiership. 

2. We had a manager who had not played 433 and for whom it wasn't his preferred playing style.

3. We did a large proportion of our recruiting very late in the window and so we didn't have a pre season with the team that we'd eventually play.

4. We had our toughest games at the start of the season whilst trying to bed in new players to a new system in a higher league- the impact on morale was going to be inevitable. 

5. When we did get our preferred side together there were teething problems with some of the new players (not unexpected).

6. The attempted solution to the problem that our strategy created was to fire the manager. 

Some of these idea were reasonable, but in combination with a move to a higher league it has simply been a case of trying to change too much without adequate preparation and without any margin for error. To work the plan required that nothing went wrong, that players immediately made an impact and adapted to a new side and a new league and new formation instantly.

Many commentators think that we were not ambitious enough yet I don't think the issue was ambition we had ambition the problem was we had a plan with too many moving parts all of which could go wrong and many of which did go wrong. 

Can this team come straight back up again playing 433? Yes I think it can.

If life is a roller coaster then we're on the bit where you feel so sick that you nearly lose your breakfast.

Next year, hopefully, it will be more fun. 

Don't forget the main reason we went to 433.

We were offered a wonder player on loan and had to fit him into our team. We accommodated Gilmour and changed completely.

Chelsea screwed us over and are still laughing at us. How many games do you think Wee Billy would have played this season without us, unless they could have found another mug?

Still it benefitted Gilmour, he has had his experience and, more to the point, it has let Chelsea have a good look at him in a competitive setting. 

Meanwhile it hasn't done us a lot of good.

Incidentally he was marked second behind Rowe in the ratings on the BBC match report this week!

[Midlands Yellow 4,048]

25 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Ok let’s be fair and admit they were in this years accounts- but that is to conveniently ignore the risible spend on first promotion plus sales of Godfrey etc - bottom line and indisputable is the fact that over a five year period we have had to sell our talent to fund survival and the net spend aside from that is beyond feeble for a club with premiership ambition.   

We have always ordered Egg and chips at the top table.This season Norwich added beans and half a slice of toast and it’s still crap. Back to reduced microwave dinners and raiding the bins in the summer. 

[pete 320]

Last time in PL before 2019/20 it was agreed money was wasted on Nismith etc.  P'eed up the wall was Webbers stated comment and he would end  this going forward.  Well i would suggest last summer this is exactly what happened.  £30 million spent on 3 new recruits.  AKossavan one trick pony who at least some promise.  An Ameirican who shows absolutely no promise.  And a Greek wonderkind who has been frozen out by both managers in charge.  At least £20m has been squandered on Webber's watch. 

[glory.win or die. 270]

3 hours ago, pete said:

Last time in PL before 2019/20 it was agreed money was wasted on Nismith etc.  P'eed up the wall was Webbers stated comment and he would end  this going forward.  Well i would suggest last summer this is exactly what happened.  £30 million spent on 3 new recruits.  AKossavan one trick pony who at least some promise.  An Ameirican who shows absolutely no promise.  And a Greek wonderkind who has been frozen out by both managers in charge.  At least £20m has been squandered on Webber's watch. 

Have to say Naismith walks into this current Side!

[Indy 3,314]

Let’s take a look at players sold v players bought in the 5 seasons! Taken from transfer market so Euros.

17/18 season.
Player sold = 33 million

Players bought = 15.5 million

18/19 season.
Player sold = 37 million

Players bought = 5 million

19/20 season.
Player sold = 2.6 million

Players bought = 9 million

20/21 season.
Player sold = 44 million

Players bought = 13.7 million

21/22 season.
Player sold = 39 million

Players bought = 64 million

So since Webber time here we’ve sold 155 million euros worth of players and bought in 107 million euros worth, not including loan fees, or free transfers with fees, Pukki & Krull both on free transfers.

To me that’s a sign that we’re certainly trying to spend as much as we can, but wages take a huge part of our parachute money and the TV money, if you consider the turnover in the last five years too, it’s got to be pushing £400 million, with parachute money and tv not to mention merchandise and game day too! If we didn’t have that you must ask where would we be now and just how much it costs to sign average player over a three year contract!

Edited March 14, 2022 by Indy