What would it take?

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="T"]

I''m saying a an experienced coach with professional qualifications knows more than an average punter based on my experience. My views are based on working through my professional sports qualifications. It is now obvious to me that as I suspected I knew nothing as a punter and still have an awful lot to learn compared to a top level qualified sports coach.

 

For instance there is a higher level of Diabetes in Norfolk than urban regions. Its just basic biological evoluation theory.

 

The correlation co-effecient is a measure of how strong the relationship is between 2 sets of numbers in this case wages and premier league points. All you have to do is copy and paste into an excel spreadsheet the premier league points at the end of the season and the wage bill for each club subsequently published in the telegraph and the guardian. Select the correlation function, highlight the points and wages column for each club and it will calculate the correlation coeffecient for you. Its really no great surprise the correlation is so high since the best players are likely to command the highest wages but I was still shocked that when you sort the premier league table in order of decending wages just how similar the table looked compared to the final premier league table each season. It takes minutes to do. Of course you get fluctatations each year eg QPR and Swansea last season but that is just normal probability distributions and clubs typically perform very close to their wage bill over time. In NCFC case, previously we had one of the lowest wages bills becasue of the debt repayments and I suspect the Boards budget of 16th place is a good indication of where we stand in the financial league table this season. The average variation is a couple of premier league places either way so on average Norwich will typically finish between 14th and 18th this season. Anything above this and they have over performed as thes did last season and below 18th we have underperformed. So we are about where I would typically expect us to be and all the figures show that changing the manager will not make a difference.

[/quote]

 

Cor! I always thought it was to do with all those sugar beets bor.

[T 190]

Matt, I don''t claim to know anything about being a professional football manager only something about a sports coach and analysing what drives the performances and finances of a professional football club. I was actually professionally engaged to work with a top level ex-professional footballer turned leading business advisor and subsequently leading football administrator to review the acquisition of a premier league football club. So yes my views come from working professionally with a leading expert on football looking at what drives the performances of a football club. 70-90 pc is the wage bill. The manager can make a 10 to 15 pc difference. The rest over a season is luck, injuries, referee decisions.

[The Big Bad Wolf 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]What would it take to change your mind about Hughton?  There are those that have said all along that CH isn''t the man for us.  There are those that said he definitely is the man.  Some of the Hughton in posters are starting to waiver.  So is it approaching crunch time for all of us?

If the team gets 8 points from the next four games, scoring average 2 goals per game  - would that be enough?  That''s two home wins and two away draws.  That would make me more certain in my views that he is up to the job.   Would that kind of turn around be enough for the long term doubters?

What would it take for you to accept Hughton as the right man for the job?   

[/quote]

If we get 8 points from the next 4 games I would be delighted, and it would start to make me think that he should be given more time. Problem is I think we will get about 4 points (one win, one draw) and that''s not enough for where we are. It will be interesting...but tomorrow I fear it will be damage limitation.

[T 190]

I think this season kit is predominantly yellow.

I have not analysed the correlation coeffecint between goal music and points so I''m afraid I can not give you a professional expert opinion although all the evidence suggests it will make as much difference as a punters opinion on a message board based on available data

The third is a ridiculous question. Pie obviously. although real sausage meat and norfolk mustard and I may have to re-consider my decision.

[Bws Cat 0]

Who else thinks T is none other than tommy cavendish?

[T 190]

I would not go near the University of Easy Access

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

[quote user="T"]I''m saying a an experienced coach with professional qualifications knows more than an average punter based on my experience. My views are based on working through my professional sports qualifications. It is now obvious to me that as I suspected I knew nothing as a punter and still have an awful lot to learn compared to a top level qualified sports coach.[/quote]

None of which precludes the ability of a non professional to make valid criticisms of a football team.

[quote user="T"]For instance there is a higher level of Diabetes in Norfolk than urban regions. Its just basic biological evoluation theory.[/quote]

I asked for evidence, not more unsubstantiated statements. 

[quote user="T"]The correlation co-effecient is a measure of how strong the relationship is between 2 sets of numbers in this case wages and premier league points. All you have to do is copy and paste into an excel spreadsheet the premier league points at the end of the season and the wage bill for each club subsequently published in the telegraph and the guardian. Select the correlation function, highlight the points and wages column for each club and it will calculate the correlation coeffecient for you. Its really no great surprise the correlation is so high since the best players are likely to command the highest wages but I was still shocked that when you sort the premier league table in order of decending wages just how similar the table looked compared to the final premier league table each season. It takes minutes to do. Of course you get fluctatations each year eg QPR and Swansea last season but that is just normal probability distributions and clubs typically perform very close to their wage bill over time. In NCFC case, previously we had one of the lowest wages bills becasue of the debt repayments and I suspect the Boards budget of 16th place is a good indication of where we stand in the financial league table this season. The average variation is a couple of premier league places either way so on average Norwich will typically finish between 14th and 18th this season. Anything above this and they have over performed as thes did last season and below 18th we have underperformed.[/quote]

You don''t know how to work something like that out yourself without excel, and you are lecturing other people on statistics?

I implement machine learning algorithms for a living

and often test using football data in a misguided attempt to find an

edge over the bookies, its not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be.

If you look at position vs wages you see bands of wage amounts and that clubs rarely finish outside their band, with the bigger the gap between bands, the less chance of an interloper from lower finishing in it. Having a wage bill around 1 standard deviation from other teams puts you in the same band but within those bands finishing order is essentially random. Its certainly not a case of ''variation of a couple of places''. 

As the difference between wage bills increase in a non linear fashion as you go up the table, it is much harder to overachieve if you are Spurs, facing a 60m gap to the top 4, than it is for Norwich, facing a 10m gap to the top half.

For the record I do think both our finishes in the prem were overachievements, but not so much so that mentions of statistics should shut down all possible criticism, especially given our form over the last year would put us firmly in the relegation zone.

[quote user="T"]So we are about where I would typically expect us to be and all the

figures show that changing the manager will not make a difference.[/quote]

You''re really bringing up the manager changing thing again? After it turned out you hadn''t even read the paper you were citing and it was directly contradicting the way in which you were trying to use it?

[T 190]

Dandy, I appreciate your arguments. I''m not saying someone can''t criticize as clearly they can and do! Just some recognition of the reality of how much we know as a punter. I''m just saying I''ve learnt an awful lot from working with top qualified professional sports coachs and they clearly know a lot more than an average punter and I''m a lot more aware but I do beleive a punter can''t  really judge tactics. Most of the criticism even if valid is based on pure speculation of what would have happened,

 

If you want evidence on the impact of bio-diversity just google or look at the history of royal families. It is just an example of darwinism.

 

I could work out the correlation co-effecient but why do it when it can be caluculated in a moment for you. I fully agree with you that it depends on the diferentials. laurup said he would need another 200m to qualify for Europe which is about right. As the differentials come down then easier to compete. There are a lot of clubs heavily subsidised by benefactors eg Southampton and many others which means they are able to pay higher wage bills and acquire better players than Norwich. I think as differentials come down following the recession and fair play rules should make it easier to compete on a level playing field. But just like formula 1 the financial diferentials are so large it is limited what difference a manager can make.  If managers made such a big difference then why such a high correlation factor. I agree that the article didn''t comprehensively prove that changing could not help but there is certianly no evidence to suggest changing manager would help. In the championship the financials are a lot more even so I actually believe the maanger is crucial as they are more likely to be able to make a difference.

[Waveney Canary 0]

I work with a couple of binners having us in the relegation zone is painful to say the least unless he gets us out this weekend and keeps us out then he has to go as soon as we slip back in

Hughton out

[iron_stan 0]

6-1 dominating win over west ham1-0 away win at newcastle2-0 win over palacenever going to happen, i think his days are numbered especially with the tettet/snodgrass/redmond injurieshe cant leave soon enough imo

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

---T it: Southampton and Villa have signifigantly more financial resources than Norwich.

Net Spend, Hughton and Lambert are now equal. Although I imagine Vila''s wage bill to be higher, much of it historical as they try to reduce it. Norwich have had an extra season in the premiership over Southampton, although Southampton have splashed more cash. We took the decision last season to pay off debts.

As for Hughton''s tactics and selections.... It has taken him 12 months to realise Howson is not a defensive midfielder. he is a First XI manager who does not utilise the squad.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]---T it: Southampton and Villa have signifigantly more financial resources than Norwich.

Net Spend, Hughton and Lambert are now equal. Although I imagine Vila''s wage bill to be higher, much of it historical as they try to reduce it. Norwich have had an extra season in the premiership over Southampton, although Southampton have splashed more cash. We took the decision last season to pay off debts.

[/quote]

There was no decision in the sense of it being optional. We had no choice but to pay off the external debt.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]---T it: Southampton and Villa have signifigantly more financial resources than Norwich. Net Spend, Hughton and Lambert are now equal. Although I imagine Vila''s wage bill to be higher, much of it historical as they try to reduce it. Norwich have had an extra season in the premiership over Southampton, although Southampton have splashed more cash. We took the decision last season to pay off debts.


[/quote]

There was no decision in the sense of it being optional. We had no choice but to pay off the external debt.

[/quote]

 

We have debated this on here before Purple and I cannot agree that the club had "no choice"

 

Yes, Axa did have a clause in the finance agreement stating something akin to if NCFC gained promotion to the Premier League the repayment was racheted up , and paid off.

 

My contention, supported by my Financial Advising friends at Aviva, will tell you that Axa were being paid a fixed rate of 5% on the debt, and would have been open to renegotiating a longer term . Why wouldn''t they? Axa have millions, nay Billions under management across the world, and here was a potential 5% fixed on a relatively secure investment (the risk rating went from ouch to ahhh as City went up the divisions) , secured against property. 5% on a global portfolio is good news. I think , had City wanted to continue to gear the club they could easily have got round the table with Axa and extended the loan.

 

My contention is that City chose to pay off the external debt, or rather chose not to renegotiate. As McNally said at the pre season dinner how many clubs had paid off such a debt? Well it could be argued that they didn''t have to.

 

Its a moot point anyway. But I''m certain that City could have NOT paid it all off if they so chose.   

[ZLF 271]

lake district canary What would it take to change your mind about Hughton? 

If we see signs that the players are not up for competing in home games before xmas thats what will make me want him out.

The fight is still there at the mo, so I remain with CH currently but only just

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]---T it: Southampton and Villa have signifigantly more financial resources than Norwich. Net Spend, Hughton and Lambert are now equal. Although I imagine Vila''s wage bill to be higher, much of it historical as they try to reduce it. Norwich have had an extra season in the premiership over Southampton, although Southampton have splashed more cash. We took the decision last season to pay off debts.

[/quote]

There was no decision in the sense of it being optional. We had no choice but to pay off the external debt.

[/quote]

 

We have debated this on here before Purple and I cannot agree that the club had "no choice"

 

Yes, Axa did have a clause in the finance agreement stating something akin to if NCFC gained promotion to the Premier League the repayment was racheted up , and paid off.

 

My contention, supported by my Financial Advising friends at Aviva, will tell you that Axa were being paid a fixed rate of 5% on the debt, and would have been open to renegotiating a longer term . Why wouldn''t they? Axa have millions, nay Billions under management across the world, and here was a potential 5% fixed on a relatively secure investment (the risk rating went from ouch to ahhh as City went up the divisions) , secured against property. 5% on a global portfolio is good news. I think , had City wanted to continue to gear the club they could easily have got round the table with Axa and extended the loan.

 

My contention is that City chose to pay off the external debt, or rather chose not to renegotiate. As McNally said at the pre season dinner how many clubs had paid off such a debt? Well it could be argued that they didn''t have to.

 

Its a moot point anyway. But I''m certain that City could have NOT paid it all off if they so chose.   

[/quote]

 

GPB, you''re right that it is now moot. But I think the evidence all points to AXA not giving us a choice. Why? Because lenders now want to get out of football debt as soon as they can. Ie, as soon as the club has the money. At the time of Cullumgate I was told that if Cullum had taken over NCFC then AXA would have immediately demanded their then £12m back, and the EDP heard the same. Cullum, despite wanting to renegoatiate, would not have been able to.And the relevant clause that was part of our debt renegotiation is significantly structured. If we stayed in the Premier League for only one season then instead of having to pay back the debt by 2022 we had just until 2016. But if we stayed up for two seasons then the repayment date shot forward even further, to 2013. All that indicates that AXA, far from being willing to give us more time, was calling the shots, based on a cold-blooded assessment of our ability to pay as soon as possible, and that any attempt (which we may have made) to re-renegotiate would have been futile. My vague suspicion is that at the time of the original renegotiation we tried to talk AXA into having longer than until 2016 or 2013 but failed. That would have been the time for us to try that.

[4th floor 4]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]---T it: Southampton and Villa have signifigantly more financial resources than Norwich. Net Spend, Hughton and Lambert are now equal. Although I imagine Vila''s wage bill to be higher, much of it historical as they try to reduce it. Norwich have had an extra season in the premiership over Southampton, although Southampton have splashed more cash. We took the decision last season to pay off debts.

[/quote]

There was no decision in the sense of it being optional. We had no choice but to pay off the external debt.

[/quote]

 

We have debated this on here before Purple and I cannot agree that the club had "no choice"

 

Yes, Axa did have a clause in the finance agreement stating something akin to if NCFC gained promotion to the Premier League the repayment was racheted up , and paid off.

 

My contention, supported by my Financial Advising friends at Aviva, will tell you that Axa were being paid a fixed rate of 5% on the debt, and would have been open to renegotiating a longer term . Why wouldn''t they? Axa have millions, nay Billions under management across the world, and here was a potential 5% fixed on a relatively secure investment (the risk rating went from ouch to ahhh as City went up the divisions) , secured against property. 5% on a global portfolio is good news. I think , had City wanted to continue to gear the club they could easily have got round the table with Axa and extended the loan.

 

My contention is that City chose to pay off the external debt, or rather chose not to renegotiate. As McNally said at the pre season dinner how many clubs had paid off such a debt? Well it could be argued that they didn''t have to.

 

Its a moot point anyway. But I''m certain that City could have NOT paid it all off if they so chose.   

[/quote]

 

GPB, you''re right that it is now moot. But I think the evidence all points to AXA not giving us a choice. Why? Because lenders now want to get out of football debt as soon as they can. Ie, as soon as the club has the money. At the time of Cullumgate I was told that if Cullum had taken over NCFC then AXA would have immediately demanded their then £12m back, and the EDP heard the same. Cullum, despite wanting to renegoatiate, would not have been able to.And the relevant clause that was part of our debt renegotiation is significantly structured. If we stayed in the Premier League for only one season then instead of having to pay back the debt by 2022 we had just until 2016. But if we stayed up for two seasons then the repayment date shot forward even further, to 2013. All that indicates that AXA, far from being willing to give us more time, was calling the shots, based on a cold-blooded assessment of our ability to pay as soon as possible, and that any attempt (which we may have made) to re-renegotiate would have been futile. My vague suspicion is that at the time of the original renegotiation we tried to talk AXA into having longer than until 2016 or 2013 but failed. That would have been the time for us to try that.

[/quote]There was nothing stopping us from borrowing what we owed AXA from someone else, repaying our debt to AXA in full and then repaying the third party over a timescale longer than AXA''s (almost certainly at a higher interest rate than 5%). That sort of backs up your point that nobody wants to lend to football clubs, especially little old ones like Norwich City. Low interest rates for money on deposit doesn''t necessarily imply low borrowing rates or a willingness to lend.

[*** 0]

What would it take?........easy...........his resignation.

[Fat Nat 0]

A point today would be a good start in turning people''s views on the future under Chris Hughton

OTBC