Next manager odds - strange occurance

[Juggy 0]

Paul Lambert will never come back here because he''d see it as a step down.If Villa and him parted ways in the summer he''d probably rather take the Celtic job for a couple of years than come here.

[splutcho 173]

I''d eat my home shirt if it ever happened, but I''d love Clement here.

No thanks to Lennon, Mackay, or Di Matteo.

[Juggy 0]

I think Lennon would be a good choice considering we have Gary Hooper here who formed a great partnership with Kris Commons, who is similar to Wes. Add the numerous incredible signings he has made for peanuts (Wanyama for example). He also has passion and a winners mentality. Mackay and Di Matteo would not be at the top of my list, think I''d rather take a punt on Eddie Howe or Uwe Rosler.But I do know that the time has come for Hughton to leave and for us to have a fresh impetus, I''d probably still be content with Mackay or Di Matteo.

[simmo_2 6]

[quote user="Le Juge"]Betvictor and Stan James have been offering odds on the next Norwich manager (like they do all clubs).The odds are almost always very similar between the two. Malky Mackay remains the favourite with both, but Neil Lennon has gone from 3/1 to 6/1 with Betvictor, still 3/1 with Stan James.With Lennon going to 6/1 though has come Di Matteo coming down massively from 20/1 to 6/1 to be joint second favourite with Betvictor, but is still 20/1 with Stan James.Something has prompted them to massively slash the odds on Di Matteo at a time when there is no speculation or no vacancy and jack up the odds on Neil Lennon. Possibly some rich mug having a large speculative bet, but also could be a number of bets or some information circling. The interesting thing about Di Matteo is that the reason he hasn''t taken a job is that he is still being paid £130k a week by Chelsea on gardening leave, due to stop this summer.A lot of people are saying that they think Hughton knows he has gone in the summer (when I suggested this it was laughed off). Some have suggested Lennon won''t leave until the end of season celebrations have finished, others that Malky wants to agree his compo. Di Matteo basically becomes available for the first time in two years this summer, and for some reason Betvictor thinks he is coming to us.[/quote]

Ask West Brom fans Saturday how good Di Matteo is, my Gran good manage Chelsea to a top 6 finish

[JF 694]

''I''d eat my home shirt if it ever happened, but I''d love Clement here. ''

Why? Would be a massive gamble that could backfire. There has been many very successful assistants fail to make the step up to manager.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

[quote user="simmo_2"][quote user="Le Juge"]Betvictor and Stan James have been offering odds on the next Norwich manager (like they do all clubs).

The odds are almost always very similar between the two.

Malky Mackay remains the favourite with both, but Neil Lennon has gone from 3/1 to 6/1 with Betvictor, still 3/1 with Stan James.

With Lennon going to 6/1 though has come Di Matteo coming down massively from 20/1 to 6/1 to be joint second favourite with Betvictor, but is still 20/1 with Stan James.

Something has prompted them to massively slash the odds on Di Matteo at a time when there is no speculation or no vacancy and jack up the odds on Neil Lennon. Possibly some rich mug having a large speculative bet, but also could be a number of bets or some information circling.

The interesting thing about Di Matteo is that the reason he hasn''t taken a job is that he is still being paid £130k a week by Chelsea on gardening leave, due to stop this summer.

A lot of people are saying that they think Hughton knows he has gone in the summer (when I suggested this it was laughed off). Some have suggested Lennon won''t leave until the end of season celebrations have finished, others that Malky wants to agree his compo.

Di Matteo basically becomes available for the first time in two years this summer, and for some reason Betvictor thinks he is coming to us.
[/quote] Ask West Brom fans Saturday how good Di Matteo is, my Gran good manage Chelsea to a top 6 finish[/quote]

 

Imagine what your Gran could do in charge of Celtic then? Celtic could win that league without a manger, coach, or half the players. All Lennon has to do is hook them out of the boozer half an hour before the game.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

*manager. Maybe he does need a manger!

[Bury Yellow 2]

You''re up late Bearders!

It''s Lennon for me because a) it annoys you and b) he would rejuvenate Hooper plus Forster will replace Ruddy as he travels off to Chelsea.

There are talented managers out there so I hope we will secure one of them. My worry is how much talent remains in the minds of our board!!

[T 190]

Just look at the league table and name one club that is doing substantially better than their financial budget. There isn''t one. There never is. So it beggars belief that some people actually seem to believe that another manager would come in and do better than CH when no other club has managed to find such a mythical manager

[Juggy 0]

"Just look at the league table and name one club that is doing substantially better than their financial budget"Where can I find a list of 2013/14 playing budgets for Premier League teams?

"There isn''t one."You can''t make this claim because you can''t answer the first question. What we do know though is that Crystal Palace started this season with a £15k a week wage cap, which they probably broke to sign Chamakh and Ince in January. It is safe for us to assume that they are rock bottom in the budget table, and yet are 1 point below us in 16th with a game in hand, with more wins, a better defence and a better goal difference.

"There never is"Our turnover exceeds that of Stoke City, 10th in the league, and was £10m higher than Swanseas at last check..... outperformed us last season and look to do the same this season despite the hindrance of Europe. If it was possible for you to answer the first question (it isn''t) then wouldn''t surprise me to see us at around 12th or 13th now in terms of playing budget.We are likely to be below at least three, possibly four teams who are operating with a smaller budget. That means we are underachieving, and for every underachiever there must be an overachiever. Stoke and Hull are the obvious overachievers.

[Canary Willo 0]

JF you are of course correct that many assistants fail, but its not always the case.

 

Clement has worked closely with Mourinho and Ancellotti, is working with high quality players and did his own grounding in the English leagues. Of course there''s no guarantees, but his pedigree would suggest he will make a good go of his first managerial post.

 

For me, I would rather see this kind of appointment than an unknown foreign manager or the trotted out names such as Curbishley et al.

 

Others for me, just gto spark conversation, not ridicule, would be Bergkamp and Koeman.

[T 190]

You can estimate wage budget from prior year public financial statements. There is a over 95pc correlation between clubs between years in the premier league and other public information. How do you think the stock mkt works.

It is not revenue that ultimately counts it is the wage budget you pay as this largely determines player quality. Stoke are heavily subsidised by the owner of bet 365 and Hull have received 70m from their owners so they are both in the range that you would expect.

McNally said our wage budget is 18th or 19th this season - we know CH was the second most effective mgr last season and is outperforming this season. We know that Swansea are the best performing club but we also know they have a free stadiun, no debt repayments for last 2 years and their points are not substantially different.

CH critics are like daily mail readers - we know their criticism is based on ignorance and prejudice rather than looking at the big picture and objectively analysing the facts.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="T"]You can estimate wage budget from prior year public financial statements. There is a over 95pc correlation between clubs between years in the premier league and other public information. How do you think the stock mkt works. It is not revenue that ultimately counts it is the wage budget you pay as this largely determines player quality. Stoke are heavily subsidised by the owner of bet 365 and Hull have received 70m from their owners so they are both in the range that you would expect. McNally said our wage budget is 18th or 19th this season - we know CH was the second most effective mgr last season and is outperforming this season. We know that Swansea are the best performing club but we also know they have a free stadiun, no debt repayments for last 2 years and their points are not substantially different. CH critics are like daily mail readers - we know their criticism is based on ignorance and prejudice rather than looking at the big picture and objectively analysing the facts.[/quote]

One can only assume that you are satisfied with the performance of the team and the style of football being presented to the supporters.

That seems very much at odds with even the players view of things.

As you well know underperformance can be the result of many things, financial only being one factor.

You can pay high wages but if the players do not train well they will lose.

If the tactics are wrong, if the motivation is lacking, players being asked to perform in ways against their natural abilities.

To focus on just one aspect ,however relevant, is to ignore the other factors at play.

The quality of the players/performance should have improved, it has not, it appears the reverse, therefore something other that financial must be the cause.

[Old Shuck 183]

Of course Clement would be a punt, but then every managerial appointment is, there is never a sure fire thing.

 

Whoever it happens to be, the vital requirement for me is that it fires the imagination-club, players and supporters. An exciting appointment, a little leftfeld maybe, someone, as the saying goes, hungry for success and personal/professional growth and progress, someone with modern ideas and techniques and a great all round understanding of coaching as well as both British and European football.

 

Clement probably ticks quite a few of those boxes!

 

Malky doesn''t do it for me for those reasons if we stay up-we''ll need more, an edge, a little extra if we are in the Prem next season. if we go down then he''s an interesting option. Chris Hughton, were he not our manager now, would have been a good option for next season as well-if we went down. Its all about where we are playing next season, yep, state the ''kin obvious, but the type of Manager we would want and approach, the type of player we would look to buy, those we would move on-or have want to move on-all depends on that. There must be an A and a B list depending on what happens and I can''t see anyone on A being on B or vice versa.

 

I''m not enamoured by the idea of Neil Lennon being our Manager, he comes across as someone who manages by sheer forrce of will and discipline rather than that little extra that someone like Brendan Rodgers* brings to a job and club. And look, if Clement is a punt, then Rodgers was for Watford and much, much more so for Swansea who took him on after he had hardly set the footballing world on fire at Reading. Maybe there are parallels between him and Clement?

 

The coaching team is critical as well-this insistance of Managers of bringing in their own team. It would be nice to think that if we were to approach else interview candidates as new Manager as and when it happens, we''d do the same for his Assistant and the First Team Coach, whatever. Wonder if Adams and Hucks are in line for a step up respectively?

 

Di Matteo wouldn''t come here, he has a CL winning ego now to sate. And even if Lambert is sacked and we have a vacancy, that''ll never happen.In any case'' he''s in for the long haul there and they''ll be sticking with him. What would the point of letting him rebuild that squad to the extent he has over the last two years and then just dump him and start again?

 

(Is there another Brendan Rodgers out there-Howe? Rosler? Or, if relegated, Paul Tisdale or Steven Pressley?)

 

 

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

[quote user="T"]Just look at the league table and name one club that is doing substantially better than their financial budget. There isn''t one. There never is. So it beggars belief that some people actually seem to believe that another manager would come in and do better than CH when no other club has managed to find such a mythical manager[/quote]Using the most recent figures I can find as a guideline:Liverpool are outperforming their budget by ~£80mEverton by ~£60mSouthampton by ~ £30mSwansea by ~£20mStoke by ~£10mWest Ham by ~ £10mNorwich by ~ £7mI suspect that when this years details are released Hull will be overperforming by £10-20m, and Palace by a similar amount.Your narrow analysis completely ignores the fact that league positions are linear while wage bills are not. There is a bigger difference between Arsenal and Man City''s wage bills than there is between the entire bottom 15 clubs. Norwich overperforming by ~£35m would put us in 7th place while if Spurs overperformed by the same amount they wouldn''t move a single place from their position in the wage bill table.The correlation being so high is fueled by the inequality in the top half, if you check the correlation of the bottom half on its own you''ll see its far less significant. Your model drastically overemphasises bottom half clubs finishing a few places above or below their expected position.Us overacheiving by ~£10m (or corresponding underachievement from clubs spending marginally more than us) is the difference between being balls deep in a relegation battle, and safely in midtable.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="The Butler"]

The quality of the players/performance should have improved, it has not, it appears the reverse, therefore something other that financial must be the cause.

[/quote]

This kind of statement, which we see a lot of on here, seems to be selective.

Surely it is the case that we sometimes look  improved and sometimes look worse.   No one can deny we looked excellent against Sunderland - and the heart and desire and teamwork against Spurs and Man City was good too.   Even earlier in the season there were games, or at least parts of games where we looked pretty darn good.   But the opposite is true too - we look pretty awful at times.  

I get accused of being blinkered and being one track minded by some on here, but from where I am the view that we have not improved at all is just as blinkered.  The picture is a mixed one.   We are inconsistent.  That is the main issue.  

The inconsistency - imo - is down to a mixture of  confidence, adapting to a style of play that demands players are responsible for their own performance  - as opposed to a gung ho up and at ''em collective approach.  It is a style they have struggled to come to terms with - because of the level of ability they have - and that is down to the finances.   I''m not criticising any of the players because on their day they all look terrific and are capable of  really good football at this level, but they are not world beaters.  

The long term issue - which is what Hughton''s tenure is all about - is about playing in a style that will ultimately be effective and will yield results - and will include more goals and attractive football - like the way we played against Sunderland (and Spurs and Man City - and at West Ham where we should really have won).   We are not there yet - obviously - but if people want to see it, there are some good signs about the way we play  - at our best - we simply have to do it more often.   

That is easier said than done and will take time to achieve -  and the better the players we get in over the course of two or three years, the more likely we are to be able to play at our best more often. People want to see results now - and true, we need results now - but the style of play will become more and more like the good home games we have seen this season, as time goes on.  I''ve said it before, but to see this come to fruition we need to be patient.   

This season hasn''t been as good as we have all hoped, but there are plenty of reasons for it - money being one, the manager and his methods another, the players, injuries, luck, the quality of other teams and their better finances.  Its much more complicated than people seem to want to think, but as I said at the beginning of this, to say we''ve not improved at all is not right (imo).   Its a mixed picture - and just because we have less points, are scoring less goals - it doesn''t mean everything is bad - because it just isn''t. 

[The Butler 0]

Lakey"That is easier said than done and will take time to achieve - and the better the players we get in over the course of two or three years, the more likely we are to be able to play at our best more often. People want to see results now - and true, we need results now - but the style of play will become more and more like the good home games we have seen this season, as time goes on. I''ve said it before, but to see this come to fruition we need to be patient."

That goes against what has happened.

The quality of players has improved, performances, in general, have not.

Either the players are wrong or the system they are asked to play is not suitable to their specific talents

That, unfortunately for your argument, is the management teams responsabilty. 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="T"]You can estimate wage budget from prior year public financial statements. There is a over 95pc correlation between clubs between years in the premier league and other public information. How do you think the stock mkt works. It is not revenue that ultimately counts it is the wage budget you pay as this largely determines player quality. Stoke are heavily subsidised by the owner of bet 365 and Hull have received 70m from their owners so they are both in the range that you would expect. McNally said our wage budget is 18th or 19th this season - we know CH was the second most effective mgr last season and is outperforming this season. We know that Swansea are the best performing club but we also know they have a free stadiun, no debt repayments for last 2 years and their points are not substantially different. CH critics are like daily mail readers - we know their criticism is based on ignorance and prejudice rather than looking at the big picture and objectively analysing the facts.[/quote]

One can only assume that you are satisfied with the performance of the team and the style of football being presented to the supporters.

That seems very much at odds with even the players view of things.

As you well know underperformance can be the result of many things, financial only being one factor.

You can pay high wages but if the players do not train well they will lose.

If the tactics are wrong, if the motivation is lacking, players being asked to perform in ways against their natural abilities.

To focus on just one aspect ,however relevant, is to ignore the other factors at play.

The quality of the players/performance should have improved, it has not, it appears the reverse, therefore something other that financial must be the cause.

[/quote]Quite. Or almost quite. The link between finances (particularly wages) and performance has been discussed here ad infinitum, and it would be tedious to go back into it in detail. There is undoubtedly a correlation of a kind, but it needs always to be seen in the light of the current rather than the past financial figures and in context.As TB indicates, a team of has-been Finidi Georges will cost you a vast amount in wages but will underperform a team of ambitious up and coming players from the lower/cheaper leagues.But the bigger problem for those who defend Hughton on the basis of finance is the one mentioned by TB in his last paragraph, although I disagree that we should necessarily be seeing an improvement in performance. What I have yet to see explained by the Pure Financialists is why, when our circumstances this season are better this season than last (certainly in terms of our own finances and probably in comparison with those of teams around us in the league), we are doing markedly worse. We finished on 44 points last season and are on course to end up on 38 this time. How come we have regressed when we should at least have stayed level in terms of performance?

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="The Butler"]

Lakey"That is easier said than done and will take time to achieve - and the better the players we get in over the course of two or three years, the more likely we are to be able to play at our best more often. People want to see results now - and true, we need results now - but the style of play will become more and more like the good home games we have seen this season, as time goes on. I''ve said it before, but to see this come to fruition we need to be patient."

That goes against what has happened.

The quality of players has improved, performances, in general, have not.

Either the players are wrong or the system they are asked to play is not suitable to their specific talents

That, unfortunately for your argument, is the management teams responsabilty. 

[/quote]

I''ll agree the quality of players has improved - but take issue with the "performances in general".   Home and away is a stark contrast, very good at home very poor results away from home.  But performances have been mixed have they not?  Some very good, some very bad and some where we have been good for parts of the game and bad for parts of the game. 

Your second point is that the players or the system are wrong - but that is to do with the long term approach - build a system and get players that can play that system well enough.    Its a building process.

Thirdly, yes, of course its the manager''s responsibilty - and if he fails to keep us up, then he will probably have to go.   But if we stay up, if you follow and accept what the club are trying to do long term and that it may take two or three years to achieve it, then you have imo to accept that it is a case of better to see the process through with the same manager - and as has been said many times, there are no guarantees that anyone coming in can do any better. 

I would prefer to wait and see if he can get the balance right, the consistency right, the right players fully fit, a stronger squad - and then we should see the best of a Hughton team.   To end that process before it has come to fruition would be folly imo - and expensive.   The only scenario where his job should be under threat is if we go down, or if next season the consistency continues to be missing.  

But imo it certainly is not all bad, generally, or otherwise.  

[GPs Beard 0]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]You''re up late Bearders! It''s Lennon for me because a) it annoys you and b) he would rejuvenate Hooper plus Forster will replace Ruddy as he travels off to Chelsea. There are talented managers out there so I hope we will secure one of them. My worry is how much talent remains in the minds of our board!![/quote]

 

ah ha ! Young Bury Me Lad.

 

I say forget all of this twaddle. League tables are only determined by how much you spend on wages, we are brilliant at home and terrible away, our forums biggest contributor (and self appointed Fans Champion hardly ever goes),  and anyone that disagrees is a Daily Mail reader. We have just got to put up with it.

 

I have now switched allegiance (again), and now advocate Farage as the new manager; his two assistants can be a pint of Best and 20 Rothmans.

 

Watch us fly up the league. They''ll be no Sweaties here thank you very much. We''ll send THEM hameward, tae think agin...

[Bury Yellow 2]

Hoozah Bearders. Can I join your gang as I''m fed up with Lakey and the rest of his all knowing chums.

One question though - Does anyone know where our chairman has gone as I feel McNasty might just need his support right now.

Byeee

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]Hoozah Bearders. Can I join your gang as I''m fed up with Lakey and the rest of his all knowing chums. One question though - Does anyone know where our chairman has gone as I feel McNasty might just need his support right now. Byeee[/quote]

Hi Bury...think he might be South of the border down Italy way....New interests company wise![;)]

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="GPB"]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]You''re up late Bearders! It''s Lennon for me because a) it annoys you and b) he would rejuvenate Hooper plus Forster will replace Ruddy as he travels off to Chelsea. There are talented managers out there so I hope we will secure one of them. My worry is how much talent remains in the minds of our board!![/quote]

ah ha ! Young Bury Me Lad.I say forget all of this twaddle. League tables are only determined by how much you spend on wages, we are brilliant at home and terrible away, our forums biggest contributor (and self appointed Fans Champion hardly ever goes),  and anyone that disagrees is a Daily Mail reader. We have just got to put up with it

I have now switched allegiance (again), and now advocate Farage as the new manager; his two assistants can be a pint of Best and 20 Rothmans.

Watch us fly up the league. They''ll be no Sweaties here thank you very much. We''ll send THEM hameward, tae think agin...[/quote]

Morty goes quite regularly when he''s here, so I understand, or are you talking about Le Juge, who has the most prolific post count this year??

[GPs Beard 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="GPB"]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]You''re up late Bearders! It''s Lennon for me because a) it annoys you and b) he would rejuvenate Hooper plus Forster will replace Ruddy as he travels off to Chelsea. There are talented managers out there so I hope we will secure one of them. My worry is how much talent remains in the minds of our board!![/quote]

ah ha ! Young Bury Me Lad.I say forget all of this twaddle. League tables are only determined by how much you spend on wages, we are brilliant at home and terrible away, our forums biggest contributor (and self appointed Fans Champion hardly ever goes),  and anyone that disagrees is a Daily Mail reader. We have just got to put up with it

I have now switched allegiance (again), and now advocate Farage as the new manager; his two assistants can be a pint of Best and 20 Rothmans.

Watch us fly up the league. They''ll be no Sweaties here thank you very much. We''ll send THEM hameward, tae think agin...[/quote]


Morty goes quite regularly when he''s here, so I understand, or are you talking about Le Juge, who has the most prolific post count this year??


[/quote]

 

 

Ha ha brilliant! thanks Lakey, you really are good value. It is a teeny bit like shooting fish in a barrel , but you make my boring lunchtime salad a tad more interesting!

 

Carry on that man! [:)]

[ZLF 271]

[quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="T"]You can estimate wage budget from prior year public financial statements. There is a over 95pc correlation between clubs between years in the premier league and other public information. How do you think the stock mkt works. It is not revenue that ultimately counts it is the wage budget you pay as this largely determines player quality. Stoke are heavily subsidised by the owner of bet 365 and Hull have received 70m from their owners so they are both in the range that you would expect. McNally said our wage budget is 18th or 19th this season - we know CH was the second most effective mgr last season and is outperforming this season. We know that Swansea are the best performing club but we also know they have a free stadiun, no debt repayments for last 2 years and their points are not substantially different. CH critics are like daily mail readers - we know their criticism is based on ignorance and prejudice rather than looking at the big picture and objectively analysing the facts.[/quote]

One can only assume that you are satisfied with the performance of the team and the style of football being presented to the supporters.

That seems very much at odds with even the players view of things.

As you well know underperformance can be the result of many things, financial only being one factor.

You can pay high wages but if the players do not train well they will lose.

If the tactics are wrong, if the motivation is lacking, players being asked to perform in ways against their natural abilities.

To focus on just one aspect ,however relevant, is to ignore the other factors at play.

The quality of the players/performance should have improved, it has not, it appears the reverse, therefore something other that financial must be the cause.

[/quote]

 

Both of you are right - as the arguments are not mutually exclusive.

 

T is spot on - the correlation has existed for many seasons now;  and I have no reason to think McNallys proclamation that we are in the bottom three of the spend league is right - as such if CH follows the norm he would be certain of relegation.     Given the budget he has outperformed if we finish,  as I suspect,   around 15th.   

 

Perhaps the thin budget explains why the quality in the squad is not deep enough to cope with the injuries,  loss of form,  suspensions that erode the first 11,   when one is missing the back ups are not quite good enough,  indeed in some positions the quality is not quite there even then (eg right back..)  Take out a key player and the team suffers - we have seen that with a full squad we are good,  take one out and we become inconsistent - causing us problems.    That is something that will improve as we have more seasons to invest in better players and strengthen the squad.

 

That budget also limits the style of football,  but does not excuse it.   The lack of backbone when we go behind away is unacceptable and not related to wage bill nor is the style of play, subs etc. 

 

 

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]I have no reason to think McNallys proclamation that we are in the bottom three of the spend league is right - as such if CH follows the norm he would be certain of relegation.     Given the budget he has outperformed if we finish,  as I suspect,   around 15th.   

 

Perhaps the thin budget explains why the quality in the squad is not deep enough to cope with the injuries,  loss of form,  suspensions that erode the first 11,   when one is missing the back ups are not quite good enough,  indeed in some positions the quality is not quite there even then (eg right back..)  Take out a key player and the team suffers - we have seen that with a full squad we are good,  take one out and we become inconsistent - causing us problems.    That is something that will improve as we have more seasons to invest in better players and strengthen the squad.

 

That budget also limits the style of football,  but does not excuse it.   The lack of backbone when we go behind away is unacceptable and not related to wage bill nor is the style of play, subs etc. 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]Zipper, the problem with that argument is the question I posed above. Everything was set up this season for us to do at least as well as last. Our finances were better (with only a bit of internal debt to pay off). Our financial position compared with those around us was almost certainly better than last season.The squad was undoubtedly on paper significantly better than last season. Garrido AND Olsson, for example, rather than just Garrido. And some strikers. Etc, etc , etc. Your argument about the squad having gaps applied much more to last season (and to the season before...) than to this.Plus Hughton with a year''s extra experience of managing in the Premier League. Plus a Premier League not at all obviously stronger than last season. If anything weaker.Yet we are doing markedly worse. For no apparent outside reason that anyone here has given Hughton is significantly underperforming compared with his own performance of last season. How has that happened?

[Tumbleweed 106]

It also doesn''t explain why when we have the same team we look OK at home and terrible away from home. nor why when we concede a goal, anywhere, we tend to fall apart. If it were purely money then you would expect a small tail off away to take account of being at an opposition stadium but not to the extent we see it.

Budget is just one of may aspects to success, if it were true that only money mattered then Wigan would not have beaten Man City twice in 12 months in the Cup and ultimately we should all go home and not bother expecting results because they will be pre-ordained.

Clearly it is a factor, but it is also easy and unambitious to blame lack of progression solely on lack of funds.

[BigFish 1,986]

Posters are confusing statistics with a predictive diagnostic science. Statistically, over a period of time there is a clear direct correlation between expenditure by clubs on the football side (wages, agents and transfer fees). That doesn''t mean on any given day you can predict the result but over a period of time you can. Therefore the difference between our performance this year and last year is not statistically significant.

That is not a get out of jail free card for Hughton though, just science. If we stay up, he will have broadly achieved within expectations. If we down with Purple''s analysis of less debt and better players he will have out performed. Until we are in a position to pay for a top 10 team that will remain the case.

[BigFish 1,986]

Doh......that should be underperformed if we go down. Even Lakey wouldn''t have 18th as out performing

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="BigFish"]Doh......that should be underperformed if we go down. Even Lakey wouldn''t have 18th as out performing[/quote]Actually, BigFish, until quite recently Lakey was advocating keeping Hughton on even if we did get relegated...[:D]