Was sacking Hughton the right decision?

[FCC 76]

Hi T.

Interested in your comments, and certain scenarios, such as Blackburn winning the title support your financial theory. However, it wouldn''t explain the old Wimbledon run in the top flight on the meagre income they had.

It also doesn''t appear to add up when the teams with Premier parachute payments fail to be promoted back to the Premier the following season.

In my opinion, the best players don''t always make the best team. Perhaps a good coach, manager is more adept at spotting potential than spending millions. Moving Chris Sutton from defence to centre forward - that is something you need a good coach for, and that lack of ability supported my view Hughton should go. The only youngster I can remember him signing is Redmond.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="T"]PC - im afraid you and many have missed the point otherwise there would be no need to repeat it. As I''ve said I have analysed football professionally and found that it is mainly driven by finance and managers do have some but limited influence. Its hardly a startling revelation. Its just commonsense that the teams with the most money have the best players and it''s the players not the manager that play the game. Of course a manager has influence but it''s a minor factor compared to finances. Its just surprising that you and many others don''t seem capable of grasping reality as you are blinded by the human emotional response to blame someone when you don''t like events.[/quote]Again, T, your post again makes no sense. To deal with the hilarious

"emotional" claim first, I saw saw my first Norwich City game in 1959

and I am long past the point when I got emotional about football. I have

a very clear-eyed view of the game in general and NCFC in particular. I

understand the realities - on-field and financial - very well. But it

was sweet of you to lop several decades off my life and imagine me as

some idiot infant.Moving on, I will try to explain this one last

time, and then give up, for the sake of all the other posters who

grasped the argument the first time. I will take it slowly and point by

point, since that seems to be necessary.You have said on

numerous occasions that the only people who can judge the performance of

a professional football manager are others managers. It is a fact you

have said that.On this thread you said: "People [on this

message-board]...are not bright enough to understand the financial

reality that we are going down regardless of the manager." In other

words the blame for our imminent relegation lies 100 per cent with

finance and 0 per cent with the manager.There are only two

circumstances under which you could say that for a fact and not as some

emotional opinion. Firstly if there was an invariable iron law that

dictated where a team finishes is always entirely dependant on finance

(particularly wages) and nothing to do with the manager.  There is no

such law. If there was Swansea would have been relegated in 2011-12 and

last season. Palace would be going down this time. QPR would have stayed

up last season and so would Fulham this. Any number of other examples.There is a general probablity that the financially poorer teams will

face a struggle to stay up and are likely to be relegated at some point.

But there is no law that says they are bound to be relegated in any

particular season, as the facts above demonstrate.And you admit

there is no such inevitable law, by acknowledging that managers can

make difference. You tend to down play this, putting it at only 10-15

per cent while the authors of The Numbers Game, based on academic

research, put it higher in any one season. Either way you admit it is

there as a serious factor in how a team performs.Since there

is no law that says clubs go down purely because of finance and regardless of the manager you cannot

be absolving the NCFC management on that basis.That leaves only

the second circumstance under which you could clear the management of

blame. And that would be if you have assessed how it had operated this

season and come to a professional conclusion that it had made no errors

that had contributed to relegation. But, as we know, you are not

qualified to do. You have said so yourself. You have no professional

qualifications that allow you to make a football judgment. So your absolution of the mangement has no basis in fact.

[T 190]

Hi FCC, nice to have a polite reasoned response which is what I get on a coaches message board. Its the way it should be and the main reason I end up posting such strong views on here out of frustration.

Re Wimbledon - think since the increase in TV money and wealthy benefactors that the finance differentials have become larger and therefore the finance impact more pronounced.

The finance theory is very pronounced for the premier league but you make a very good point that it does not explain why teams with parachute payments often struggle. I suspect it is because of the significant change in teams when they get relegated and players that can really make a significant difference are all in the premier league. Leicester and Burnley have wealthy benefactors so finance is still a significant factor in the second league though.

I totally agree that finance is not the only factor and have never thought otherwise. Its just that in the premier league money is the single largest factor and NCFC will always be playing against the odds unless they find a wealthy benefactor. What is wrong is the human tendency to just focus the blame on one individual. Football and life is just not that simple. I fully agree I''m tedious on this point but then to read countless posts that ignore this reality is also tedious.

[T 190]

PC - you are attempting to change and twist my words to disagree with my views rather than actually address my points. I can analyse the impact of finance on results. What I can not do as I''m not a professional football coach is critically assess footballers, tactics, substitutions in anyway to the same extent as a professional football coach based on my own coaching experience. I also do not have powers to assess the hypothetical impact if different players, substitutions and tactics had been deployed which some posters seem to possess. I talk about what I know based on professional experience rather than matters that I know I''m not qualified to discuss. Of course it''s a football message board so people are perfectly entitled to express those views but unless they are based on reality, qualifications and professional experience then those views are not particularly convincing.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="T"]PC - you are attempting to change and twist my words to disagree with my views rather than actually address my points. I can analyse the impact of finance on results. What I can not do as I''m not a professional football coach is critically assess footballers, tactics, substitutions in anyway to the same extent as a professional football coach based on my own coaching experience. I also do not have powers to assess the hypothetical impact if different players, substitutions and tactics had been deployed which some posters seem to possess. I talk about what I know based on professional experience rather than matters that I know I''m not qualified to discuss. Of course it''s a football message board so people are perfectly entitled to express those views but unless they are based on reality, qualifications and professional experience then those views are not particularly convincing.[/quote]For the final time that is simply not true. I am not twisting your words. I am quoting you directly. You said we were getting relegated "regardless of the manager". That is placing all the blame on finance and exonerating the management. And you are not, as you admit, qualified to do that.

[T 190]

PC - the odds are there is a high probability that we would be relegated at some point regardless of the manager. Some one like Ferguson may improve the odds but can''t change the innate quality of the players and even ManU under Ferguson finished each season closely in line with their financial resources. Pulis may well have given us that crucial additional win that made the difference as for NCFC there is a fine line between success and failure but as Pulis and everyone else performed closely in line with finances most seasons there is no guarantee that one particular manager would have defied the odds as PL and CH did previously which further demonstrates the point. I suspect PC you are looking for an argument where there isn''t one.

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

Remember a few weeks ago T, when you claimed you had the figures for last season and we were 19th in the wage table, but refused to provide any evidence.Turns out we were actually 16th and you look a bit silly.

[T 190]

I''ve always acknowledged there was some estimates in my figures and the basis of my figures. I chose my words carefully as I do professionally but NCFC figures came from accounts- where does your 16th come from surprising given the debt repayments as we were 20th previous season and still had debt repayments last season. McNally said 18th/19th this season with the benefit of inside knowledge so CH still overperformed last season and par this season which was my point which you have confirmed

[T 190]

Ok found Guardian report which confirms that CH outperformed last season and only QPR did worse than Lambert last season which confirms my conclusions - thanks

[nutty nigel 7,535]

The way I see it the amount of money a club has to spend on players/wages is a rough guide to how the league will pan out. But there is plenty of room in that for other factors to make a difference. It seems over the past 3 seasons (where we''ve been involved) other factors determine the whole bottom half. The two factors that mainly help do this seem to be VFM in recruitment and getting the most possible from the players recruited. Two seasons ago I would say Lambert got the most out of his squad so we finished near the top end of our "realistic possibility". Last season I would say we got VFM from the players we recruited so Hughton finished near the top end of our "realistic possibility". This season it''s not clear what we failed on. If we failed because Hughton didn''t get the most from the players he recruited then we were right to sack the manager. But if, as seems more likely, we didn''t get VFM from our signings then it''s not so clear and the change should probably have been left to the summer.

 

Bearing this in mind I think T and Purple are both right to a degree. T is right that we probably would get relegated in the end. But Purple is right in saying that relegation would be when we fail for football reasons and not finance.

 

 

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

My figures come from [url=http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/01/premier-league-club-accounts-debt-wages]The Guardian[/url].You claimed that you had all the figures, even that you had posted them before and they were easy to find. I think despite your oft repeated claims of objectivity you were telling porkies.

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

[quote user="T"]Ok found Guardian report which confirms that CH outperformed last season and only QPR did worse than Lambert last season which confirms my conclusions - thanks[/quote]It doesn''t confirm anything of the sort. It only shows that if you take as a given that your method of measuring over and under performance is a valid one, and it isn''t. You''ve never even begun to address many of the criticisms leveled at it.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]My figures come from [url=http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/01/premier-league-club-accounts-debt-wages]The Guardian[/url].[/quote]This thread from a few days ago gives the Sporting Intelligence figures, which are more useful, since they refer to first-team squad wages only, but also have us in 16th place last season.

services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun/cs/forums/3112999/ShowPost.aspx

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

Hmmm. That didn''t work so well. The thread is on page two, entitled "Is this relevant?"

[T 190]

Thanks Dandy and PC missed that as was travelling. Will look when I''ve got some time. As I always said my estimates were based on NCFC accounts, press reports and extrapolations from previous season as they were the best figures available at the time.- I suspect when I have chance to check that the NCFC wages in the Guardian report are overstated as they are for 13 months so actual wage position last season is lower. I''ve always agreed that there are marginal diminishing returns but to deny that finance is the single most significant driver of points is a simple denial of the need to blame someone.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="T"]PC - im afraid you and many have missed the point otherwise there would be no need to repeat it. As I''ve said I have analysed football professionally and found that it is mainly driven by finance and managers do have some but limited influence. Its hardly a startling revelation. Its just commonsense that the teams with the most money have the best players and it''s the players not the manager that play the game. Of course a manager has influence but it''s a minor factor compared to finances. Its just surprising that you and many others don''t seem capable of grasping reality as you are blinded by the human emotional response to blame someone when you don''t like events.[/quote]How do you explain ITFC if your theory is correct?  They only spent £20k on one player last summer and assembled a squad of freebies plus a few loans on the way. They couldn''t compete with wages either (two players turned them down and joined Yeovil instead). By your reasoning, they should have been fighting relegation all season as they had been the previous year but instead, they were chasing a play-off spot until the last couple of games. In their case it was ALL to do with the manager and NOTHING to do with finances. McCarthy has been the only factor in their turn around and therefore a major influence.And please don''t say your reasoning only applies in the Premier League.

[T 190]

Yep the guardian figures look like 13 months wages which would put us in 18th place last season

[Europe_93 11]

In ten years time when you analyse man ute, this season and last what will be the number one reason for their decline in 12 months. The manager.

Money provides potential, good managers ensure teams fulfil their potential.

Hughton did not fulfil ours, he took a mid table team spent our biggest budget ever, and performance and results got worse.

We were right to dismiss, the only debate is when (IMHO)

[T 190]

The facts are just the facts. People always respond by looking at individual clubs and individual seasons. This completely misses the point that if you look at all clubs and over the long term there is a strong correlation between finance and status. Its a common misconception of figures to only focus on single and recent events rather than the big picture and completely misses the point.

[blahblahblah 2]

Hi T

Is the correlation between finance and status as strong in the championship, given that promotion back to the Premier league seems to be hit and miss recently ?

[drurys testamonials V 15 0]

Yes it was the timing that sucked

[ron obvious 1,502]

I largely agree with T, although the water is muddied further by the huge percentage variations between manager effectiveness, i. e. 90% of the time you could bring in another manager & the results would be 90% the same, sometimes - as with Lambert - the effect is enormous. Only a very few managers can consistently bring out the best performances wherever they go, & none of them are coming here anytime soon.

Brian Clough was one of the most phenomenal managers I''ve ever seen. Until he got to Leeds.

Success at a football club results from a happy coincidence of many factors, but there is no doubt in my mind that filthy lucre plays the largest part (& no, he''s not coming here either!).

[T 190]

Agree with Ron obviously. The figures for the Championship are not readily available so I have not analysed the figures in detail but Norwich should be a top half championship club/bottom premier league club so they have a good chance of promotion again at some point. Strangely enough just where they have been most of my life.. I doubt that the financial correlation is so high given the underperfomance of clubs with parachute payments and the lower levels of financial differential for reaons given previously. The 2nd tier clubs are generally 2nd tier financially. To say managers have no impact would be nonsense but clough is a good call for someone who outperformed consistently and clough like Moyes had his failures. If mgrs consistently overperformed then the average term would not be so short as it is.

[lake district canary 4,531]

After League 1, we thought we may need to consolidate in the championship, before making a push for promotion to the premiership.  That proved wrong and we carried on improving.   Its all about development and getting the club moving in the right direction - as the two promotions proved.   On the face of it relegation is not something that looks positive, but if we can keep the squad together - and Adams may be key to that - then sacking Hughton at the time he was sacked may have been a good move - especially if he was going to be sacked at the end of the season even if we had stayed up (according to some on here). 

Sacking Hughton was always going to be a difficult decision for the board with no obvious replacement lined up - that they didn''t do it in November showed their intent to see it through with him.   He was imo in more risk then, than at Christmas.   The board would still have wanted to see it through, hoping he would get us over the line.  That they didn''t see it through is history now, but was the decision right?    In terms of morale yes. In terms of results/performances - we cannot know........but it wasn''t looking good.

 

[Hoolahans Left Foot 0]

LDC was bumming Hughton all season and now says it was right to sack him. Nice turnaround there, son.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="GC"]LDC was bumming Hughton all season and now says it was right to sack him. Nice turnaround there, son.[/quote]

I supported Hughton it is true, then after the two Manchester debacles in November I had had enough - and said so. Then I supported the board''s decision to keep him on  - which is slightly different.  After we picked up a bit with the the ManCity and Spurs game I gave him a bit more support again.  A blanket support for him it was not.

But you think what you like, son, the truth is in the archives.

[Hoolahans Left Foot 0]

OK, Fozzie......................