Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PurpleCanary

Finance versus the manager

Recommended Posts

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]


There is as yet no WLT for 2013-14, and any estimate is complicated by it being the first year of the new mega-TV deal, from which we received £18.6m more than the year before (that being pretty much the basic rise) while Swansea, for example, scooped £26.6m extra. But Swansea will not have known when structuring wages that they would end up receiving so much extra. We increased our wage bill – by £7m to £54m but what all clubs did to their wage structure in anticipation of this largesse is unknown.

A reasonable assumption would be that Crystal Palace were bottom of the 2013-14 WLT, and Cardiff and Hull towards the bottom. They may have rich owners (bearing in mind that it is willingness to spend rather than theoretical wealth that matters here) but in 2012-13 Southampton, despite being wealthier than us, were only level on wages. Promoted clubs do take a while to catch up. We had a only year’s start on Southampton but two years’ start on Hull and Cardiff. Cardiff’s wage bill in their 2012-13 Championship season was £32.8m and Hull’s was only £25.9m. Given that, with our 2013-14 wage bill of £54m, I would, with modest conviction, expect us to have been above Hull and probably Cardiff as well. Perhaps now a bit behind Swansea, who had to bulk up their squad for the Europa League, and Southampton, so 17
th or perhaps 18th.


 

 

[/quote]

Crystal Palace seem not to have announced their results yet, so I don''t know what their wages were for last season, but since they were only £18.8m for the season before it is safe to assume they were comfortably bottom of the 2013-14 Wage League Table.

The accounts for Hull and Cardiff now show they respectively paid out £47.2m (an extrapolation from what seems to be an 11-month figure of £43.3m) and £46.1m in wages. That means, with our spending of £54m*, we were above all three promoted sides and no lower than 17th in the WLT, and so a very strict correlation of wages to league position would mean we underperformed last season by finishing 18th.

But only a very strict linkage. It is a mistake to treat the correlation as an iron law, especially over a season or so. Wages are the best guide of a bad bunch, and useful over the longer term, but much less reliable in the shorter term.

*The Swiss Ramble, in his highly professional view of our finances:



http://swissramble.blogspot.fr/2015/03/norwich-city-east-of-sun-west-of-moon.html


... makes the point that our wage bill figure of £54m - which like that quoted for other clubs is for all staff costs - included a special £4.5m charge and so our wages were really £49.5m. Even so we would still be out of the relegation places in the WLT, but the problem with taking special charges into account is that to then make a fair comparison with the other 19 Premier League clubs one would have to comb through all their accounts to look for any special charges and the like and deduct them from  the "all staff costs" figure. The fairest figure would be player wages only for the first-team squad but that is not obviously available. Given all that, I think it is fair to stick with the £54m.

[/quote]

 

Do you know if the CEO''s wages and bonus finds it''s way into that figure?

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Butler"] Do you know if the CEO''s wages and bonus finds it''s way into that figure?[/quote]They do, TB, and Paul''s Ferry. The accounts list the "Staff Costs" of £54m as including the CEO''s salary and any bonuses. This is why a figure for wages for the first-team squad only, shorn of extraneous non-footballing costs, would be a better indicator of how a team should perform. There is one international survey that purports to be based on just that, but I don''t know whether it really is that precise and accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The absolute twaddle and pathetic back slapping on this thread is so funny I have nearly wet myself 3 times reading the posts - what utter rubbish

Get real guys we were relegated for 2 x reasons

Houghton tried to change our whole Forward line over 1 x summer - signed flops and we did not score any goals

The manager should have been changed around Christmas but for some explicable reason the board stuck with Houghton until the ship was almost under water -took the step when it was too late

That''s why we were relegated - and I am very sad to say its all factual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Newton"]The absolute twaddle and pathetic back slapping on this thread is so funny I have nearly wet myself 3 times reading the posts - what utter rubbish

Get real guys we were relegated for 2 x reasons

Houghton tried to change our whole Forward line over 1 x summer - signed flops and we did not score any goals

The manager should have been changed around Christmas but for some explicable reason the board stuck with Houghton until the ship was almost under water -took the step when it was too late

That''s why we were relegated - and I am very sad to say its all factual[/quote]

Always difficult to take things as "factual" and that we should "get real" when a "fan" doesn''t even know the name of a recent manager!

I believe the real factual spelling should be Hughton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi As my Login

 

Another post of value adding to the debate

 

I better butt out as this thread is Troll Heaven - keep it going guys

Something to think about (perhaps Purple or Login can answer) Is there any connection between the start of the 2nd World War, Crystall Palace finances for year 2013/14 and sinking of the Titantic

I am sure you boys can find one - thought this was a football views board -, perhaps not ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the clear precursors to the outbreak of World War 2 was the Night of Broken Glass. Also known as CRYSTALnacht. Crystal Palace are a football team in London and their 2013/14 finances show that they remain, for the time being, afloat, which is more than can be said for the RMS Titanic which sank in 1912.

Easy. Next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the Titanic sink with 17.2 million lumps of coal on board after costing £17.2 million quid to build??? [:P]

 

Apples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. it''s not wery well known but the Captain of the Titanic was once a TV cook who was meddling in cruise ships with his cohorts...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the four C/Palace owners is Jerry Hosking.....Jerry Grosclaude was a waiter on the Titanic.....And of course, Hitler was a Jerry......Easy, peasy. [<:o)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the post Purple, it''s nice to see an analysis like this.

The point that interests me is the Swansea analogy as I see them as a pretty good comparator with ourselves over recent years.

They have either been very lucky with their signings or very clever. Mitchu for example I think had been playing more of a mid field role but with them developed into a lethal striker. Was that good fortune or clever? Your ability as a club to spot potential and get a bargin or to develop your own players a la Southampton must give you more for your buck , of course if you sell the player on then this is reflected in your financial status which goes back to the theme of your post.

Why is it that Swansea have been succesful under a string of new managers? Surely that is key to this, have they just flicked the coin and called it right each time, to use your analogy or do they have a double headed coin?

Who knows, but I do believe that as a club they have a philosophy and style of play which they have tried to maintain under successive managers and have appointed I suspect with this in mind. Is this a factor that can swing the odds more favourably towards the lower mid table clubs such as us, or have they just been lucky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr Jenkins"]Thanks for the post Purple, it''s nice to see an analysis like this.

The point that interests me is the Swansea analogy as I see them as a pretty good comparator with ourselves over recent years.

They have either been very lucky with their signings or very clever. Mitchu for example I think had been playing more of a mid field role but with them developed into a lethal striker. Was that good fortune or clever? Your ability as a club to spot potential and get a bargin or to develop your own players a la Southampton must give you more for your buck , of course if you sell the player on then this is reflected in your financial status which goes back to the theme of your post.

Why is it that Swansea have been succesful under a string of new managers? Surely that is key to this, have they just flicked the coin and called it right each time, to use your analogy or do they have a double headed coin?

Who knows, but I do believe that as a club they have a philosophy and style of play which they have tried to maintain under successive managers and have appointed I suspect with this in mind. Is this a factor that can swing the odds more favourably towards the lower mid table clubs such as us, or have they just been lucky?[/quote]Swansea are a good illustration of the merits of the so-called "continental" way, the basic idea of which is to ensure stability and continuity through the inevitable short term exigencies of squad changes (players and managerial). As you say, this requires a club to establish an identity on and off the field, laying down the parameters within which the director football and scouting network operate when recruiting players and coaches. Sadly very few British coaches (managers) are prepared to operate under these constraints, demanding absolute autonomy in all on -field matters from style of play to player recruitment. No wonder we tend to regard managerial appointments as a lottery. And we make things even more risky by giving managers long contracts because each new appointment has to be given time to wreak the (often expensive) changes "his" brand of football requires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr Jenkins"]Agree with that Westy.[/quote][B]As a newcomer on this board I hadn''t read Purple''s original post until the thread was revived a couple of days ago. So I''ll add my thanks to Purple too. That said, I have some methodological reservations about his conclusions, which I will try at some time to put together. For the time being though, the present is too enthralling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="westcoastcanary"][quote user="Mr Jenkins"]Thanks for the post Purple, it''s nice to see an analysis like this.

The point that interests me is the Swansea analogy as I see them as a pretty good comparator with ourselves over recent years.

They have either been very lucky with their signings or very clever. Mitchu for example I think had been playing more of a mid field role but with them developed into a lethal striker. Was that good fortune or clever? Your ability as a club to spot potential and get a bargin or to develop your own players a la Southampton must give you more for your buck , of course if you sell the player on then this is reflected in your financial status which goes back to the theme of your post.

Why is it that Swansea have been succesful under a string of new managers? Surely that is key to this, have they just flicked the coin and called it right each time, to use your analogy or do they have a double headed coin?

Who knows, but I do believe that as a club they have a philosophy and style of play which they have tried to maintain under successive managers and have appointed I suspect with this in mind. Is this a factor that can swing the odds more favourably towards the lower mid table clubs such as us, or have they just been lucky?[/quote]Swansea are a good illustration of the merits of the so-called "continental" way, the basic idea of which is to ensure stability and continuity through the inevitable short term exigencies of squad changes (players and managerial). As you say, this requires a club to establish an identity on and off the field, laying down the parameters within which the director football and scouting network operate when recruiting players and coaches. Sadly very few British coaches (managers) are prepared to operate under these constraints, demanding absolute autonomy in all on -field matters from style of play to player recruitment. No wonder we tend to regard managerial appointments as a lottery. And we make things even more risky by giving managers long contracts because each new appointment has to be given time to wreak the (often expensive) changes "his" brand of football requires.[/quote]I suspect the Swansea "philosophy" is indeed a help in continuing to pick good managers. Not least because it probably does limit the choice. Even so there is no guarantee Swansea won''t choose a dud sooner or later. But if it ended up in relegation that shouldn''t be a catastrophe. From the outside they seem a well-run club, just - as The Swiss Ramble acknowledges - as we are. West Brom strike me as another example of sanity.The problems come with clubs that have been relying on their managers to defy gravity. Wigan, even if they avoid relegation, now look like a club that will find it hard to get back to the Premier League.PS. Thanks to Newton for continually bumping this thread back up the page. A selfless act in a hard-hearted world, and much appreciated...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]....... I suspect the

Swansea "philosophy" is indeed a help in continuing to pick good

managers. Not least because it probably does limit the choice. Even so

there is no guarantee Swansea won''t choose a dud sooner or later. But if

it ended up in relegation that shouldn''t be a catastrophe. From the

outside they seem a well-run club, just - as The Swiss Ramble

acknowledges - as we are. West Brom strike me as another example of

sanity.
[/quote]West Brom is interesting. For quite a time now under Jeremy Peace''s ownership they have operated with a more or less continental set up of Director of Football Administration, Technical Director, Head of Recruitment, Coach. On the other hand it is difficult to identify a WBA philosophy or style of play, and their managerial appointments over the years don''t exhibit much continuity or coherence -- Mowbray, di Matteo, Appleton, Hodgson, Clarke, Pepe Mel, Irvine, Pulis. What seems to have kept things together over the period when they were yo-yoing between PL and Championship and then establishing themselves in the PL was having Dan Ashworth as Director of Football. His going to the FA appears to have de-stabilised the club and Pulis''s appointment maybe signals abandonment of the structure hitherto favoured by Peace. The fact that Peace has declared himself ready to sell adds to the feeling that all is no longer so healthy at the Hawthorns. Just my opinion looking from the outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
user="Bor Bor Bor" The Titanic sailed from Portsmouth and look what happened to them 100 years later.

Left Belfast on April 2nd

Left Southampton April 10

Left Cherbourg April 11

Left Queenstown (Ireland) April 11

Four away games in nine days, no wonder it hit an iceberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Dundee! Instead of sleeping please check your emails.[/quote]

The fake is best left asleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The twaddle on this thread continues

The reason why Swansea and Southampton have continued to progress and build in the Prem even though they have changed Manager sf solely due to both clubs policies of retaining the majority of backroom staff, when changes at the top happen

What do we do, allow a new manager to replace all backroom staff with there inexperienced mates, no continuity and a recipe for disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Newton"]What do we do, allow a new manager to replace all backroom staff with there inexperienced mates, no continuity and a recipe for disaster.[/quote]Yep!!  That Lambert should never have been allowed to have brought Culverhouse and Karsa in. [:S]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Newton"]The twaddle on this thread continues The reason why Swansea and Southampton have continued to progress and build in the Prem even though they have changed Manager sf solely due to both clubs policies of retaining the majority of backroom staff, when changes at the top happen What do we do, allow a new manager to replace all backroom staff with there inexperienced mates, no continuity and a recipe for disaster.[/quote]

Southampton have had 10 managers in just over 6 years and the current backroom staff includes 2 Dutchman brought to the club in 2014 by Koeman, one of which was his brother. Sammy Lee joined also in 2014 and I surely don''t have to mention when and where their goalkeeping coach came from.

More clap trap from Newton.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Till Utter clap trap

You have picked on 3 changes - Academy setup and the rest have not changed at Southampton - get your facts right fool

Same at Swansea, half coaching team Spanish & have been for years

Look what Adams & Gunn did - Crook Holt etc really ? What did Delia call both collections - Norwich Dream Teams - the only dream is what she has at night

The back room teams they both assembled were nearer a nightmare than a dream and quickly dismantled when someone arrived who had a clue about football

But then Till you were probably really impressed with Gunn*& Adams assembles as you were with our summer signings and everything else Delia has her finger in

Get an opinion man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lappinitup wrote the following post at 13/03/2015 10:22 PM:

Newton wrote:

What do we do, allow a new manager to replace all backroom staff with there inexperienced mates, no continuity and a recipe for disaster.

Yep!! That Lambert should never have been allowed to have brought Culverhouse and Karsa in. Tongue Tied [:S]

Lapup you fool - even you knew that Crook was out of his depth along with the rest of Gunns pub connected norwich mates he had assembled for his match day drinking sessions

Of course Lambert made changes - he had to bring in people who knew something about football rather than people who not only knew Delia but the bottom of a pint glass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...