Finance versus the manager

[TIL 1010 4,746]

Just remind me Newton how many managers Ricky Martin has seen come and go during his tenure as head of the academy. He has been around NCFC longer than these nameless Spainards at Swansea that is for sure.

Boy you don''t half have an anti club agenda and oh by the way because I have said that it does not make me a fan of either Gunn or Adams appointment.

[Newton 0]

Love the club YES

Love the owners NO

If we don''t go up this season the blame sits solely with the Stowmarket 2 who have a history of cr@p appointments at Managerial level stretching well beyond McNallys appointment - but the appointments which fail are almost identical - only connection - Stowmarket

[TIL 1010 4,746]

Ok Newton so you swerve the statement about Ricky Martin so maybe instead you could name these backroom/academy staff at Swansea and Southampton you claim have been in position for years ?

[westcoastcanary 0]

[quote user="Newton"]Love the club YES

Love the owners NO

If we don''t go up this season the blame sits solely with the Stowmarket 2 who have a history of cr@p appointments at Managerial level stretching well beyond McNallys appointment - but the appointments which fail are almost identical - only connection - Stowmarket[/quote]Have you been refused a seat on the board Newton? Or had an offer to buy a controlling interest in the club turned down? You sound like Usmanov at Arsenal! Maybe you wanted Tony Fernandes owning the club? You seem to think there are people queueing up to buy NCFC. Maybe you should ask yourself why there aren''t. Funny that we seem to slip under the radar of  all those rich investors from the Far East, Middle East, USA, India, etc., not to mention anyone in the UK. Your bile against the current owners is not just tiresome but utterly pointless.

[Newton 0]

westcoastcanary wrote the following post at 15/03/2015 10:31 AM:

You seem to think there are people queueing up to buy NCFC. Maybe you should ask yourself why there aren''t. Funny that we seem to slip under the radar of all those rich investors from the Far East, Middle East, USA, India, etc., not to mention anyone in the UK. Your bile against the current owners is not just tiresome but utterly pointless

Westcoast do you seriously believe that Norwich City have never had any approach from a 3rd party to buy the Stowmarket 2 out - while other clubs above and below us with substantial debt and minimal assets (don''t even own there ground) are changing hands at the drop of a hat

Get real man put your head above the parapet / smell the coffee - sorry Mr Blobby & Potatoe Head are not real people no matter what your mum said

The reason why no one has purchased Norwich is that offers are rebuked by the current owners

There is no way a club with no debt & substantial assets would not attract interest

Delia & Michael had a live interview last May on Radio Norfolk before Adams was appointed and Michael joked with Delia on air that what ever happened they had to make sure we did not see Camels walking down Carrow Road - that''s a fact

If the current owners were genuine fans and not just control freaks they would sensibly look for other investors to come into Norwich who would be prepared to put funds in to take the club to the next level. Delia will not she has not got that level of cash. Why does this not happen - she is not prepared to dilute her 52/54% shareholding below the magic 51% which gives her ultimate control

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"][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.[/quote]Point taken about West Brom, westcoast. I probably should have  written "until recently"! That said, Peace may well have a clear - and sensible - idea about the kind of owner he wants to succeed him. It still could end up being be a severe and salutory contrast with, for example, QPR, where two regimes of wealthy people, succesful in other fields of business, have provided an object lesson in how not to run a football club.

[westcoastcanary 0]

[quote user="Newton"]Westcoast do you seriously believe that Norwich City have never had any approach from a 3rd party to buy the Stowmarket 2 out - while other clubs above and below us with substantial debt and minimal assets (don''t even own there ground) are changing hands at the drop of a hat

Get real man [/quote]It''s you who need to get real Newton. You clearly don''t have a clue. Why not ask yourself WHY the clubs you are referring are attractive to investors despite their debts. As to offers for NCFC, it''s public knowledge that Peter Cullum and Tony Fernandes had their interest rebuffed. You are just talking out of your hat as far as any other approaches are concerned.

[Newton 0]

Westy some takeovers work some don''t

Those clubs that have worked with new owners & investment

Bournemouth

Brentford

Fulham (for years)

Liverpool

Leicester

Watford

Derby

etc etc

All I am saying is we don''t have the chance as Stowmarket 2 block it all

Not posting any more as Purple keeps posting epilogues (addicted to them) and I keep falling asleep reading them as they so boring

[Herman 9,765]

Well done Purple, keep it up[Y]

[Newton 0]

only on this thread tho

opps

[Mr Apples 1,320]

Nooooooooootuuuuuuuuuun, where have you been for the last couple of weeks (does it take a draw to draw you out)?!?!? [:D]

 

Apples

[westcoastcanary 0]

Have PM-ed you Purple

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]Have PM-ed you Purple[/quote]Thanks, westcoastcanary. I have replied.

[westcoastcanary 0]

[quote

user="PurpleCanary"]

Everything, on-field and off, was set up to enable Hughton to equal [his]

previous level of achievement. Instead we double-digit plummeted. With the

three clubs that did the same the main reason was managerial failure. Whoever

was in the job performed significantly less well either than their predecessor

or than they had done previously. So with us............... Hughton Season One

managed very competently, Hughton Season Two managed crucially less competently,

with avoidable mistakes.

[/quote]

Purple''s critique of Hughton''s management in the second season focusses on the

11 point difference between our 11th place finish in 2012-13 and 18th place

finish a year later. There''s no disputing the points difference, but what does it show?

If you look at where we actually "lost" those 11

points, the bulk of them, 9 to be precise, are accounted for by poorer results

against four top teams – Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal and Everton (who had a

brilliant first season under Martinez

and finished fifth). Here are our results against the top seven in the two

seasons:

 

Team                       2012-13                     2013-14               Diff

Man City                      3                                 

1                     -2

Liverpool                     0                                  0                       -

Chelsea                       0                                 

1                     +1

Arsenal                        3                                  0                    

-3

Everton                        4                                  1                    

-3

Tottenham                   2                                  3                    

+1

Man

Utd                      3                                  0                     -3

Total pts:                     15                                 6                    

-9

 

What

this shows is that, against all but 4 of the best teams in the league, our

performance in Hughton''s second season was really not significantly different

from his first. There was certainly no improvement, but nor was there a marked

deterioration. Looked at negatively you could say we stood still; looked at

positively you could say we held our own. The truth is that in neither season did we accrue enough points against teams outside the top seven to insure us against the worst when playing those seven. We were saved in Hughton''s first season by beating the odds against Arsenal and the two Manchester clubs in particular. In his second season those three clubs made sure we didn''t do it again, though against Man Utd at Carrow Road it was a close run thing.

The

figures for 2013-14 take no account of the fact that 4 of the games were right

at the end of the season when Neil Adams

was in charge. We''ll never know what would have happened if Hughton had not

been sacked but for the point I''m making it doesn''t matter. But that record in his first season might have been a factor in Hughton''s belief that he could have kept us up.

[Newton 0]

westcoastcanary wrote the following post at 23/03/2015 3:32 PM:

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

PurpleCanary wrote:

Everything, on-field and off, was set up to enable Hughton to equal [his] previous level of achievement. Instead we double-digit plummeted. With the three clubs that did the same the main reason was managerial failure. Whoever was in the job performed significantly less well either than their predecessor or than they had done previously. So with us............... Hughton Season One managed very competently, Hughton Season Two managed crucially less competently, with avoidable mistakes.

Purple''s critique of Hughton''s management in the second season focusses on the 11 point difference between our 11th place finish in 2012-13 and 18th place finish a year later. There''s no disputing the points difference, but what does it show?

If you look at where we actually "lost" those 11 points, the bulk of them, 9 to be precise, are accounted for by poorer results against four top teams – Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal and Everton (who had a brilliant first season under Martinez and finished fifth). Here are our results against the top seven in the two seasons:

 

Team                       2012-13                     2013-14               Diff

Man City                      3                                  1                     -2

Liverpool                     0                                  0                       -

Chelsea                       0                                  1                     +1

Arsenal                        3                                  0                     -3

Everton                        4                                  1                     -3

Tottenham                   2                                  3                     +1

Man Utd                      3                                  0                     -3

Total pts:                     15                                 6                     -9

 

What this shows is that, against all but 4 of the best teams in the league, our performance in Hughton''s second season was really not significantly different from his first. There was certainly no improvement, but nor was there a marked deterioration. Looked at negatively you could say we stood still; looked at positively you could say we held our own. The truth is that in neither season did we accrue enough points against teams outside the top seven to insure us against the worst when playing those seven. We were saved in Hughton''s first season by beating the odds against Arsenal and the two Manchester clubs in particular. In his second season those three clubs made sure we didn''t do it again, though against Man Utd at Carrow Road it was a close run thing.

The figures for 2013-14 take no account of the fact that 4 of the games were right at the end of the season when Neil Adams was in charge. We''ll never know what would have happened if Hughton had not been sacked but for the point I''m making it doesn''t matter. But that record in his first season might have been a factor in Hughton''s belief that he could have kept us up.

OH NO

 

Just wasted 4 mins of my life reading this absolute dribble - stop it or you will wake Purple up for epilogue 3rd edition

This is a football board not a potential cure for insomnia

 

 

Gone ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[westcoastcanary 0]

[quote user="Newton"]

OH NO

 

Just wasted 4 mins of my life reading this absolute dribble - stop it or you will wake Purple up for epilogue 3rd edition

This is a football board not a potential cure for insomnia

 

 

Gone ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[/quote]BINGO!

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"][quote

user="PurpleCanary"]

Everything, on-field and off, was set up to enable Hughton to equal [his]

previous level of achievement. Instead we double-digit plummeted. With the

three clubs that did the same the main reason was managerial failure. Whoever

was in the job performed significantly less well either than their predecessor

or than they had done previously. So with us............... Hughton Season One

managed very competently, Hughton Season Two managed crucially less competently,

with avoidable mistakes.

[/quote]Purple''s critique of Hughton''s management in the second season focusses on the

11 point difference between our 11th place finish in 2012-13 and 18th place

finish a year later. There''s no disputing the points difference, but what does it show?  If you look at where we actually "lost" those 11

points, the bulk of them, 9 to be precise, are accounted for by poorer results

against four top teams – Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal and Everton (who had a

brilliant first season under Martinez

and finished fifth). Here are our results against the top seven in the two

seasons:

Team                       2012-13                     2013-14               Diff

Man City                      3                                 

1                     -2

Liverpool                     0                                  0                       -

Chelsea                       0                                 

1                     +1

Arsenal                        3                                  0                    

-3

Everton                        4                                  1                    

-3

Tottenham                   2                                  3                    

+1

Man

Utd                      3                                  0                     -3

Total pts:                     15                                 6                    

-9

 

What

this shows is that, against all but 4 of the best teams in the league, our

performance in Hughton''s second season was really not significantly different

from his first. There was certainly no improvement, but nor was there a marked

deterioration. Looked at negatively you could say we stood still; looked at

positively you could say we held our own. The truth is that in neither season did we accrue enough points against teams outside the top seven to insure us against the worst when playing those seven. We were saved in Hughton''s first season by beating the odds against Arsenal and the two Manchester clubs in particular. In his second season those three clubs made sure we didn''t do it again, though against Man Utd at Carrow Road it was a close run thing.

The

figures for 2013-14 take no account of the fact that 4 of the games were right

at the end of the season when Neil Adams

was in charge. We''ll never know what would have happened if Hughton had not

been sacked but for the point I''m making it doesn''t matter. But that record in his first season might have been a factor in Hughton''s belief that he could have kept us up.

[/quote]

The factors involved between us staying up and going down were marginal in both seasons.   The two Cardiff games last season where we absolutely dominated were the games that stand out as being pivotal to me, although to be fair any defeat/draw could be pinpointed.  The margins were down to a post being hit there or a bar being hit there, but by rights we should have got something more out of those Cardiff games.  We didn''t and that is history.   We could and maybe should have been as comfortable last season as we were the previous. That we weren''t is down to a mixture of events - yes Hughton was a factor before anyone starts shouting at me - but the game of football is a strange one and small things can determine the outcome of a whole season. The small things went in our favour the previous season, but didn''t in the next.   Could it have been different? Yes, of course - a strong manager like we have now would have made a difference in those marginal games - perhaps that is the reason we now have AN - lessons have been learned and we look forward with hope.   The title of this thread - which I haven''t looked all the way through tbh is - "finance versus the manager".  Despite all the figures and how ever you analyse it is is a balancing act - and at the bottom end of the premiership a delicate balance.  Lets hope if we get up under AN, we will see a stronger showing through sheer force of personality, regardless of the finances.

[Newton 0]

I can save you all wasting your life reading THIS DRIBBLE

I can safely guarantee 100% that we were relegated because we did not get enough points to stay up - its the same each season for those who were unaware of why teams are relegated from Prem

Till will be thrilled as its factual and he does not like opinions, Purple need not work on epilogue version 3 & oh chicken can do what he likes with his mind numbing stats that mean nothing (except to him poor sole)

[morty 0]

Are you getting "monologue" and "epilogue" mixed up?

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]

[quote

user="PurpleCanary"]

Everything, on-field and off, was set up to enable Hughton to equal [his]

previous level of achievement. Instead we double-digit plummeted. With the

three clubs that did the same the main reason was managerial failure. Whoever

was in the job performed significantly less well either than their predecessor

or than they had done previously. So with us............... Hughton Season One

managed very competently, Hughton Season Two managed crucially less competently,

with avoidable mistakes.

[/quote]

Purple''s critique of Hughton''s management in the second season focusses on the

11 point difference between our 11th place finish in 2012-13 and 18th place

finish a year later. There''s no disputing the points difference, but what does it show?

If you look at where we actually "lost" those 11

points, the bulk of them, 9 to be precise, are accounted for by poorer results

against four top teams – Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal and Everton (who had a

brilliant first season under Martinez

and finished fifth). Here are our results against the top seven in the two

seasons:

 

Team                       2012-13                     2013-14               Diff

Man City                      3                                 

1                     -2

Liverpool                     0                                  0                       -

Chelsea                       0                                 

1                     +1

Arsenal                        3                                  0                    

-3

Everton                        4                                  1                    

-3

Tottenham                   2                                  3                    

+1

Man

Utd                      3                                  0                     -3

Total pts:                     15                                 6                    

-9

 

What

this shows is that, against all but 4 of the best teams in the league, our

performance in Hughton''s second season was really not significantly different

from his first. There was certainly no improvement, but nor was there a marked

deterioration. Looked at negatively you could say we stood still; looked at

positively you could say we held our own. The truth is that in neither season did we accrue enough points against teams outside the top seven to insure us against the worst when playing those seven. We were saved in Hughton''s first season by beating the odds against Arsenal and the two Manchester clubs in particular. In his second season those three clubs made sure we didn''t do it again, though against Man Utd at Carrow Road it was a close run thing.

The

figures for 2013-14 take no account of the fact that 4 of the games were right

at the end of the season when Neil Adams

was in charge. We''ll never know what would have happened if Hughton had not

been sacked but for the point I''m making it doesn''t matter. But that record in his first season might have been a factor in Hughton''s belief that he could have kept us up.

[/quote]

Westcoast, you''re right that four of those

2013-14 games were with Adams in charge, and I make the point in my OP

that for his five games as manager, by getting a point against Chelsea,

he actually outperformed Hughton, who had lost all five reverse-fixture

games against Fulham, Chelsea, Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool.It

is indeed impossible to say whether Hughton might have done better in

those final five, but the statistics for last season don''t indicate he

would have done.And

based on Mick Dennis'' account of Hughton''s sacking it looks as if the

directors, who even if they were not au fait with the precise statistics

presumably knew them in rough terms,  took the same view. Dennis says

after we lost to West Brom Delia, MWJ and McNally took Hughton aside and

asked how he intended to approach those last five games."At some stage that evening, Delia, Michael and McNally weighed up

Hughton’s replies in their meeting. They concluded that not enough would

change for the vital Fulham game unless the manager changed."

[Newton 0]

morty wrote the following post at 23/03/2015 7:20 PM:

Are you getting "monologue" and "epilogue" mixed up?

Morty lost will to live with this thread - no idea

But what I do know is that you have woken up the jolly green giant known as Purple and the uncontrolled sprouting has started again DAM

[Newton 0]

Purple just read your thread again and while you make some ridiculous claims this one is an absolute Peach

Purple said:-

And based on Mick Dennis'' account of Hughton''s sacking it looks as if the directors, who even if they were not au fait with the precise statistics presumably knew them in rough terms, took the same view. Dennis says after we lost to West Brom Delia, MWJ and McNally took Hughton aside and asked how he intended to approach those last five games.

And what was Houghtons response which caused them to sack him ?

Can I safely assumed there decision was not swayed in any way by the clackers that were thrown at her & Michael or the boos against the board or the demonstrations outside after the game

There decision to sack him was purely based on his response to Delias question - what do you intend to do over the next 5 games

Purple nearly wet myself reading this - who needs comedy when we have you and the rest of your mates posting on this board - CLASSIC

Suggest you start another thread suggesting what his comments were - cant think ?

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

I would just like to thank Newton for his no fewer than 14 literate, constructive and thought-provoking contributions, which have done so much to keep a thread that might otherwise have drifted downwards instead very near the top of the first page.

[Newton 0]

PurpleCanary wrote the following post at 24/03/2015 11:23 AM:

I would just like to thank Newton for his no fewer than 14 literate, constructive and thought-provoking contributions, which have done so much to keep a thread that might otherwise have drifted downwards instead very near the top of the first page.

 

 

I would like to offer my whole heated thanks to Purple for posting sunch a funny entertaining thread - the last few comments on why Houghton was sacked are absolutely brill and crowned the epilogue of superbly

 

Thanks u again Purple & I look forward to your next entertaining novel

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

A reasonable assumption would be that Crystal Palace were bottom of the 2013-14 Wage League Table 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 18^th.The figures are now in for all clubs. We were indeed in 17th place in the Wage League Table, with Crystal Palace, Hull and Cardiff City below us. Southampton and Swansea have moved a bit away, to 14th= with £63m spent.Finally one subject I didn''t get into at all is financial fair play, and whether that might affect the balance of power between finance and the manager in the latter''s favour. The early signs are that Uefa is taking its FFP seriously and that the Football League is similarly doing so, although the recent decision to alter its rules on losses looks like a bow to pressure from the Premier League. But whether the PL is also serious about FFP seems to be entirely unclear.The figures for 2013-14 suggest FFP in the Premier League is having an effect. The Guardian''s survey shows that despite this being the first year of the mega-TV deal, with income surging by 22 per cent, wages only went up by 5.5 per cent. There was a collective Premier League profit of £198m against a collective loss in 2012-13 of  £291m. Still early days, though.

[BigFish 1,987]

If anyone is looking for FFP to level the playing field they are going to be sadly disappointed and don''t really understand the point of it.

The point is to protect the big clubs rather than the smaller ones. FFP means that no longer will a foreign billionaire be able to buy success and break into the close shop-thus protecting the billionaires already on the inside.

The method that is used is to make the FFP rules a % of turnover. As the Prem money is steadily graduated on position this doesn''t make a significant difference. Foreign earnings, merchandising, gate revenues (both volume and value), sponsorship and Champions League income all tilt the playing field towards the big clubs and raise the absolute amount that can be paid in wages. This is now an insurmountable hurdle for clubs like ours.

Good management can mitigate this only for a limited period, equally poor management will only limit the big guns for a limited period. The smaller clubs will all eventually combine a perfect storm of low wages and poor performance which results in relegation. Man U, on the other hand, will never get relegated again.