Fair Criticism in the press

[canarybubbles 1,946]

3 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Parachute payments were introduced so clubs can increase their wage bills on promotion to attract players of higher ability to make sure the Premier league keeps its competitiveness, we just do not do that, so why should we get the "buffer" money when we never increase the buffer? 

So we should endanger the future of our club for the sake of keeping the Premier League competitive?

Also, the Premier League is not competitive, at least not unless you are one of the Big Six (now become the Big Seven since Newcastle sold its soul to the Saudis).

[Branston Pickle 3,696]

3 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

So we should endanger the future of our club for the sake of keeping the Premier League competitive?

Also, the Premier League is not competitive, at least not unless you are one of the Big Six (now become the Big Seven since Newcastle sold its soul to the Saudis).

It’s ridiculous isn’t it - I didn’t see any of these articles about Fulham, who are a season ahead of us in the yo-yo ‘cycle’ but could have easily bankrupted themselves…which is apparently ok in the moronic world that some inhabit.

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[Ken Hairy 3,781]

4 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

So we should endanger the future of our club for the sake of keeping the Premier League competitive?

Also, the Premier League is not competitive, at least not unless you are one of the Big Six (now become the Big Seven since Newcastle sold its soul to the Saudis).

We wouldn't endanger the club if we hadn't had such a scattergun approach to signing loads of players that fit the already in place wage structure as opposed to increasing that structure and signed 4 or 5 proven quality players. And if we did go down doing that then that's what the parachute payments are for, not for the way we do it. 

That's why we get stick in the national press, and it's not just this chap who says it, in fact I think he nicked it based on comments Simon Jordan made about us a couple of weeks ago. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Ken Hairy

[hogesar 9,760]

If you're still agreeing with:

1) An article in the S*n

2) Written by someone who hasn't bothered researching basic facts.

3) Is trying to discuss football finance without even considering wage expenses which eclipse transfer fees 

4) Is trying to trick stupid people into thinking they're clever enough to solve footballs problems whilst ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

Then you probably need to reevaluate your life.

[Newtopia 519]

Absolutely rubbish.  The real issues these guys should be discussing is how expensive watching the games in the UK is, both live and on TV, and uncompetitive the league is becoming.

[chicken 2,649]

15 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Parachute payments were introduced so clubs can increase their wage bills on promotion to attract players of higher ability to make sure the Premier league keeps its competitiveness, we just do not do that, so why should we get the "buffer" money when we never increase the buffer? 

Sorry but this is plain wrong.

It isn't "just to attract players of higher ability" but also to retain the players you already have of higher ability. Otherwise again, clubs would be promoted and teams would cherry pick their best players, offering more in wages etc.

That is exactly how we operate. We offer rewards to our players for promotion in the form of better wages. We sign players offering them better wages - though typically with relegation clauses in them. Though, notably, not always - see Klose, Naismith and a few others.

The problem here is that "higher ability" is relatively subjective. At the moment people will argue we are paying good wages to players who are not of a higher ability. That is a different argument really. Majority of the players we signed last summer were playing top flight European football.

[Ken Hairy 3,781]

8 minutes ago, hogesar said:

If you're still agreeing with:

1) An article in the S*n

2) Written by someone who hasn't bothered researching basic facts.

3) Is trying to discuss football finance without even considering wage expenses which eclipse transfer fees 

4) Is trying to trick stupid people into thinking they're clever enough to solve footballs problems whilst ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

Then you probably need to reevaluate your life.

Need to re-evaluate life based on a discussion on a football board??? Overreaction much? 

People are allowed to disagree with you without having the question all their life decisions you are aware? 😉

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

24 minutes ago, chicken said:

It's not rewarding failure. The entire reason for their existence was the understanding of the gulf between the Championship and the Premier League and that teams HAD to try and be competitive and offer PL wages and that being relegated could leave them with a PL wage bill without the means to pay it.

Look at the likes of Leeds and Southampton. Even selling players can do little to help. Especially if teams gamble future PL seasons income on staying up (Leeds and Southampton again).

Stricter rules on the money? Possibly. But without them, you will see teams simply not gamble money at all and go up, more likely to become relegated and then lose larger chunks of their squad as they are unable to offer even close to competitive wages.

The main reason put forward was as you point out, signing players on EPL contracts and playing in the Championship, which led in part to our wilderness years after 2005.

But thats not a justification for three years money adding up to, at the moment, £95M. Ask West Brom supporters hat they think happene d to the parachute payments they got.

Of course we will take the money.

But some posters need to take their heads out of Delia's Ares and try and put forward a reasoned argument other than its because we had to pay higher wages. Any fcukin different opinion to the usual suspects is treated as disloyalty and club bashing. The article is about justification. Our place in the EPL is justified and not in question to me. I just believe that parachute payments are unfair. Its our problem if we brought in failures like Sargent. So it does reward failure.

For a start, does anyone know or believe that our players will be on the same wages if we go down? Will there be smaller attendances? Maybe from the away sides. Is the price of a season ticket going down?

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

12 minutes ago, hogesar said:

If you're still agreeing with:

1) An article in the S*n

2) Written by someone who hasn't bothered researching basic facts.

3) Is trying to discuss football finance without even considering wage expenses which eclipse transfer fees 

4) Is trying to trick stupid people into thinking they're clever enough to solve footballs problems whilst ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

Then you probably need to reevaluate your life.

You really need to grow up sonny. You really are the most pathetic poster on this site. Hoggy the Stepford Supporter.

[CirclePoint 205]

3 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

We spent £40-50m but only after selling our best player - so make that £20 odd on lots of average players. As the article states - a record purchase of less than £10 million is not ambitious when prices start around £15m

Such an easy argument to make when it's not your business to run, nor your money to spend.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 minute ago, CirclePoint said:

Such an easy argument to make when it's not your business to run, nor your money to spend.

Well counter that argument with a valid point not an off the cuff remark.

[Badger 2,412]

Sun readers

 

 

[Ken Hairy 3,781]

6 minutes ago, CirclePoint said:

Such an easy argument to make when it's not your business to run, nor your money to spend.

So do you think the overall spend would be more on 4 or 5 proven players (including wages), and improving the contracts of say Krul, Pukki and Hanley than 11 scattergun signings within the current wage structure? 

I'm not saying either/or is, right or wrong but parachute payments were brought in to allow clubs to veer more towards the first option than the 2nd (and what we have done) option. 

It's no surprise people think we **** take the system. 

[Robert N. LiM 4,511]

7 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

So do you think the overall spend would be more on 4 or 5 proven players (including wages), and improving the contracts of say Krul, Pukki and Hanley than 11 scattergun signings within the current wage structure? 

I'm not saying either/or is, right or wrong but parachute payments were brought in to allow clubs to veer more towards the first option than the 2nd (and what we have done) option. 

It's no surprise people think we **** take the system. 

I'd say we've taken three different approaches in our three most recent relegations. 2015-16 we threw a bunch of money at the wages of Naismith, Klose, etc. 2019-20 we didn't spend any money (to recover financially from the mess we made by gambling in 2015-16). This season we spread the money over more players, a kind of middle-ground approach. It obviously hasn't worked in terms of keeping us up, but it will probably leave us in much less trouble then we were when Webber/Farke took over.

There's obviously a good discussion to be had about how we should approach it: we're clearly not getting it right. But, as we proved a few years ago, spending more on fewer players isn't a guarantee of success.

My problem with the piece is that it (deliberately) ignores those nuances and just accuses us of not trying. And the effect of that is to draw attention away from the underlying problem, the chasm in finances between the PL and the Championship. 

[hogesar 9,760]

41 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

You really need to grow up sonny. You really are the most pathetic poster on this site. Hoggy the Stepford Supporter.

I'll take that from the poster who thinks illegal streams are legal 😅😅😅

Just put me on your block list - then you don't need to see my posts and I dont need to get notifications when you've lost the plot again.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,450]

For fück sake . 
 

I’d be absolutely livid if I had any idea who Phill Thomas is . 
 

Now , if it was his brother John, it would be worth a read . 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Graham Paddons Beard

[glory.win or die. 270]

What a rubbish article. I  could easily make it as a journalist if writing an article on what Talksport said 6 months ago counts as journalism.

 

[glory.win or die. 270]

What a rubbish article. I  could easily make it as a journalist if writing an article on what Talksport said 6 months ago counts as journalism.

 

[glory.win or die. 270]

Gritty Opinion?

Gritty as in salty maybe.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

13 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I'll take that from the poster who thinks illegal streams are legal 😅😅😅

Just put me on your block list - then you don't need to see my posts and I dont need to get notifications when you've lost the plot again.

I know the yaren't illegal pal because I know the law. But of course you are the know all about football. keep blubbing

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

The parachute money is ..Quote  "to retain the players you already have of higher ability"..

Buendia

Godfrey

Madison

Lewis

........ok

 

[hogesar 9,760]

37 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I know the yaren't illegal pal because I know the law. But of course you are the know all about football. keep blubbing

Blubbing? You're the one who quoted me like a confused old man - did you want me to provide a tutorial on how to block me? I'll add pictures and everything 🤓

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Is it the same blubbers, like old Pike Hogesar ( yes I have already blocked you) who think its marvellous and fair to get the parachute money but have the lil' ole Nardge attitude that the EPL is so unfair because they all have rich owners and we don't so how can we compete and we are miracles because we keep going back up. Bunch of hypocrites.

Pick that bottom lip up Private Pike

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by keelansgrandad

[CirclePoint 205]

3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Well counter that argument with a valid point not an off the cuff remark.

It’s not rocket science. Why should the owners put their financial future and well being on the line to strengthen a team that has a high probability of PL failure? 

All I’m saying is that it’s really easy for people in our position to sit around and talk about how other people should be spending hundreds-of-millions of pounds on a business, to make us happy. 
 

https://sqaf.club/most-profitable-football-clubs/

“In European football, only 10 teams recorded a profit of £1 million or more during the period from 2019 to 2021. With over 1000 professional clubs in Europe, this means that less than 1% were significantly profitable.

Chelsea, Liverpool, Newcastle and Norwich were the only Premier League clubs able to profit; Aston Villa and Burnley broke even despite the drop in revenue thanks to player sales and injections of cash from their owners.”

So I would have to laugh at anyone who does not agree with how NCFC is being run.

We are a developmental club. We are profitable. We are honest.

[CirclePoint 205]

3 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

So do you think the overall spend would be more on 4 or 5 proven players (including wages), and improving the contracts of say Krul, Pukki and Hanley than 11 scattergun signings within the current wage structure? 

I'm not saying either/or is, right or wrong but parachute payments were brought in to allow clubs to veer more towards the first option than the 2nd (and what we have done) option. 

It's no surprise people think we **** take the system. 

Any player purchase is a gamble. The ‘scattergun’ approach used by NCFC is because we’re a developmental club. We buy a number of promising youngsters, play them for a few years and hope to sell a few at a tidy profit.

What kind of club do you think we are?

As for the parachute payments, I don’t care if we’re taking advantage of the system. It’s an honest loophole and we’re doing nothing dishonest in our actions. Besides, I wouldn’t say this season we’ve taken the pi55 out of anything. We made real player purchases with real money. It just unfortunately, didn’t work out.

I would rather be profitable and sustainable than rolling the dice with spending big money and hoping it works out. We’ve seen that nightmare play out at many, many other clubs.

So, as I said, it’s easy for people to sit around and complain that other people aren’t spending enough money to make them happy.

I actually hope that there’s a financial reckoning in the world of football. When that day comes, we’ll be near the top.

Edited April 10, 2022 by CirclePoint

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

Don't see the claims of hypocrisy, frankly. The parachute payments are basically a prize. We satisfy the conditions to win it, we get it. This is radically different to the fortune of a wealthy owner depositing largesse on a whim.

As others have said, this is a classic case of focusing on small gains made by a club that's realised how to do quite well for itself in the absence of other funding. Much easier to kick down rather than up at the likes of the regimes that power Newcastle, Manchester City, etc. and the resulting inequalities that arise from those. But that implies a bit of cage-rattling to those in power, and that scares the crap out of these sports journalists. So they kick down instead with ill-informed nonsense like that article.

Being "well-adjusted" to a sick financial landscape, which is essentially what this clueless hack wants us to do, is not a sign of healthiness.

Edited April 10, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[Branston Pickle 3,696]

3 hours ago, glory.win or die. said:

What a rubbish article. I  could easily make it as a journalist if writing an article on what Talksport said 6 months ago counts as journalism.

 

Sadly that’s what a lot of ‘journalism’ is these days - many political stories are in Private Eye weeks or months before being reported in the main media.

[chicken 2,649]

4 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

We wouldn't endanger the club if we hadn't had such a scattergun approach to signing loads of players that fit the already in place wage structure as opposed to increasing that structure and signed 4 or 5 proven quality players. And if we did go down doing that then that's what the parachute payments are for, not for the way we do it. 

That's why we get stick in the national press, and it's not just this chap who says it, in fact I think he nicked it based on comments Simon Jordan made about us a couple of weeks ago. 

No it's not. You are literally creating this argument to beat the club with.

Last season our club total wage bill was £55-65m. That included bonuses for gaining promotion to the Premier League. No way could we have covered that sort of wage bill without the parachute payments.

Nor could we have probably retained Buendia if financial constraints were tighter.

[Ken Hairy 3,781]

44 minutes ago, CirclePoint said:

Any player purchase is a gamble. The ‘scattergun’ approach used by NCFC is because we’re a developmental club. We buy a number of promising youngsters, play them for a few years and hope to sell a few at a tidy profit.

What kind of club do you think we are?

As for the parachute payments, I don’t care if we’re taking advantage of the system. It’s an honest loophole and we’re doing nothing dishonest in our actions. Besides, I wouldn’t say this season we’ve taken the pi55 out of anything. We made real player purchases with real money. It just unfortunately, didn’t work out.

I would rather be profitable and sustainable than rolling the dice with spending big money and hoping it works out. We’ve seen that nightmare play out at many, many other clubs.

So, as I said, it’s easy for people to sit around and complain that other people aren’t spending enough money to make them happy.

I actually hope that there’s a financial reckoning in the world of football. When that day comes, we’ll be near the top.

I know exactly what kind of club we are, it's that I question. Signing 11 players who may come good in a few years time was not the way a newly promoted side should be doing things, we needed to sign a few proven players who could help THIS season, then move onto the sign players for profit mould, although do we honestly think any of last summers signings will ever raise us a profit? I don't see it. 

Webber sees the best way of making money is profit on players, again I don't see him being successful here with these recruits, but the better way was actually staying in this league. 

If we failed doing it the way the likes of Jordan suggests, THAT is what parachute payments are for, despite Chickens protestations. Simon Jordan stated this 2 weeks ago, and as he's ran a side that has both gained promotion then utilised the parachute payment system I suspect he has a better insight into the reasons for them being brought in than us. 

As for your last comment, yeah I'd agree but it ain't going to happen, it just isn't so should we go up again next season we need to **** or get off the pot, not **** a load of money on cheap kids from poorer foreign leagues who more than likely will never be good enough. We also need to veer away from the policy of signing crocks and previously relegated players. 

Anyway I'm off to bed to await the all too predictable hangover in the morning, thank god for being off work this week 😁

Edited April 10, 2022 by Ken Hairy

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

If the article wants clubs to have a go at staying up then the 3 promoted clubs should each be given £100m when they get promoted as well as the Premier League payments during the season and the parachute payments if they go down.