LJ's number of signings vs. the Championship

[Alessandro]

I've been interested by a lot of talk recently about the number of signings made, so wanted to see a comparison with the rest of the league. 

Below are the charts for every year of championship first team signings (including loans), according to transfermarkt since summer of 2016 - (It has left out the development squad signings, which there are about 9 for us I believe) 

 

LJ's first whole year and our biggest intake in numbers - joint 4th highest that year. 

 

Second season and right down there in 17th. 

Year three and higher, joint 9th. 

 

So from a league-wide comparison - the only time we were up there in numbers was year 1 - when you could argue we were making up a deficit from the previous summer where only 5 permanent signings were made (1 of which was Fredericks, and the other Garita!)

At the top end, Nottingham Forest jumps out - 54 players.

We are 38. At the bottom end, Brentford with 21.

 

Interesting that although it feels like we've had a massive turnover of players by comparison with the rest of the league it's far from out of the ordinary.

 

*On a train and using transfermarkt and haven't double checked all figures, so mistakes could have been made!

 

 

[Lrrr]

Hopefully this will diffuse people's criticism of LJ somewhat and the amount of players that we have signed under him. Given season 1 we only had 17 first team players and needed quantity as well. Yes quality can still be debated but hopefully the whole 'but 47 players' thing can be silenced a bit.

[BobBobSuperBob]

9 minutes ago, hodge said:

Hopefully this will diffuse people's criticism of LJ somewhat and the amount of players that we have signed under him. Given season 1 we only had 17 first team players and needed quantity as well. Yes quality can still be debated but hopefully the whole 'but 47 players' thing can be silenced a bit.

 

Depends on your spin I guess

Just the paltry 38 championship first team signings then , according to the stats used

[Lrrr]

Just now, BobBobSuperBob said:

Depends on your spin I guess

Just the 38 then according to the stats used

Development signings make up the other 9, OP said so in opening post. Its just how the number was used to make it seem like we're signing players well above the average rate for a club in this division where we're clearly not, no problem with debating quality of said signings.

[Alessandro]

18 minutes ago, hodge said:

Hopefully this will diffuse people's criticism of LJ somewhat and the amount of players that we have signed under him. Given season 1 we only had 17 first team players and needed quantity as well. Yes quality can still be debated but hopefully the whole 'but 47 players' thing can be silenced a bit.

To be honest I have my opinions on certain things but I’ve tried to leave them out of my post for the most part, just to highlight the numbers of players being bought by other teams in the division.

The turnover is crazily big, averaging over 10 a season at a glance.

Numbers seem irrelevant to success looking at those charts - so it’s pretty ignorant to just quote “so X signings means....” X,Y,Z. In fact look at the first chart and two of the top 3 went down.

So the debate should be more about quality. The number, shown above by comparison, is not out of the ordinary for the league.

 

[Lrrr]

6 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

To be honest I have my opinions on certain things but I’ve tried to leave them out of my post for the most part, just to highlight the numbers of players being bought by other teams in the division.

The turnover is crazily big, averaging over 10 a season at a glance.

 

 

I think loans give that a bit of a false perspective though, I posted a while ago we're averaging about 5 permanent signings a season under LJ

Edit - should say 5 permanent first team signings a season, not including development squad players.

[Carey 6]

22 minutes ago, hodge said:

Hopefully this will diffuse people's criticism of LJ somewhat and the amount of players that we have signed under him. Given season 1 we only had 17 first team players and needed quantity as well. Yes quality can still be debated but hopefully the whole 'but 47 players' thing can be silenced a bit.

I don't think the general criticisms are at the amount of signings we've made under LJ, more the quality of said signings. 

[Lrrr]

1 minute ago, Carey 6 said:

I don't think the general criticisms are at the amount of signings we've made under LJ, more the quality of said signings. 

Was more aimed at the fairly decent amount of comments which have targeted it because of the number of players LJ has brought in. As said no problem with debating the quality but using 47 because they think it sounds like a big number of signings without context for the rest of the division just grew annoying as it was just attempts to take a jab.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The number in for the division does surprise me a bit.

Maybe I'm in the past a bit, but it seems instinctively too high. Not only is it costly, but I don't see how a team can develop and grow- get chemistry with such a short termist 'I want that one, no that one, well maybe that one' type approach each season- and in this instance I mean us specifically. This is why I had us down for a midtable type finish before a ball was kicked- partly because of those sold and their quality and depth, particularly Flint, Bryan and Reid but also that level of churn- I dunno...

[BobBobSuperBob]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The number in for the division does surprise me a bit.

Maybe I'm in the past a bit, but it seems instinctively too high. Not only is it costly, but I don't see how a team can develop and grow- get chemistry with such a short termist 'I want that one, no that one, well maybe that one' type approach each season- and in this instance I mean us specifically. This is why I had us down for a midtable type finish before a ball was kicked- partly because of those sold and their quality and depth, particularly Flint, Bryan and Reid but also that level of churn- I dunno...

The turnover of players at many clubs is ridiculous  

As for us , IMHO , if we are ever going to push play offs or above at this level it will be based around a core of 12-14 players

Therefore aImho , We need to make decisions, cut numbers , use the budget on less players , recruit astutely with careful planning 

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

The turnover of players at many clubs is ridiculous  

As for us , IMHO , if we are ever going to push play offs or above at this level it will be based around a core of 12-14 players

Therefore aImho , We need to make decisions, cut numbers , use the budget on less players , recruit astutely with careful planning 

In a harsh world, I would cull the following if I had to:

• one of the GKs.  Sat here today that would be Frankie, I would go with Niki, Max, with JoJo and Sesay. 
• one of the RBs.  Keep Vyner and get rid of one of Hunt or Pisano.  Eros is OOC in summer, but although I like Hunt, i’ve Seen more at both ends of the pitch from Eros in limited minutes.
• one of the CBs.  The value is with Baker, and the fact that Wright can cover RB, recall Taylor Moore, we have enough behind Webster and Kalas.
• one of the widemen.  Probably Watkins.  O’Dowda and Eliasson the main 2, with Adelakun.
• one of the strikers.  Probably Taylor, even though I’ve grown to like / appreciate him, his lack of goals and inability to play on his own, now we look set on one striker.

Thats 5 players.  Encourage the youngsters and supplement only with older payers that are better than we’ve got.  No-more average squad players.

[Mr Popodopolous]

33 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

The turnover of players at many clubs is ridiculous  

As for us , IMHO , if we are ever going to push play offs or above at this level it will be based around a core of 12-14 players

Therefore aImho , We need to make decisions, cut numbers , use the budget on less players , recruit astutely with careful planning 

I reckon so too. Was looking at Leeds for example and they only signed 6 players this season (excluding development)- 2 of which haven't kicked a ball for them this season. 2 have been regular first teamers and 2 squad players- found the solution within, improved players etc. They had quite a high turnover the year before though but probably took them a year to get settled and gel- similar with Norwich last season to this and similar with Wolves and their arrangement from 16/17 to last season. These are clubs with bigger budgets than us- they can afford a few more errors than we can also.

Agree with this- core, keep and develop that core of 12-14 especially the younger ones with just a sprinkling of experience thrown in. Quality and not quantity, make the most of the budget- and crucially if cash is tight or we can't get who we are hoping for, or we have to trade it would be quite good if LJ could get them into a tactical framework that can adept to such events. I have my doubts on this last one...

Careful planning and astute recruitment as you say is a must- I'm torn about January on one hand if we're 10th or 11th or thereabouts, a hypothetical high calibre loan would be ideal for a playoff push but at the same time- save it for the summer unless we can get a player who will clearly improve us on say a 2.5-3.5 year deal who doesn't cost too much- that extra half a season would also help with forward planning.

Agree with the above @Davefevs I was pondering who we should keep and sell earlier but you beat me to the punch!

[Alessandro]

Puts a bit of perspective on the January window too coming up.

A couple of astute, or the best quality we can afford, signings is the way forwards. 

Dependant on who leaves though, which will change things.

Looking back at last January, you can see that was the aim then, a few quality additions to add to the core that was working at the time. It’s just a shame they weren’t of the quality we hoped for and needed.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Alessandro said:

Puts a bit of perspective on the January window too coming up.

A couple of astute, or the best quality we can afford, signings is the way forwards. 

Dependant on who leaves though, which will change things.

Looking back at last January, you can see that was the aim then, a few quality additions to add to the core that was working at the time. It’s just a shame they weren’t of the quality we hoped for and needed.

Hindsight is certainly wonderful and I will readily admit I am posting it with this benefit so no brownie points for me, but looking back at that I wonder if signing nobody might have been an idea. Well Walsh aside, I mean Kent and Diony basically.

We certainly lost valuable points if anything with those latter 2 though- Sunderland for a start. Perhaps we could have ticked along more steadily without those 2 and never know we beat Sunderland 3-1 let's say, it may have at least raised confidence a bit for the final playoff push. As we saw in the first half of the season up until an hour or so in v Wolves at home just how far it could take us...

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hindsight is certainly wonderful and I will readily admit I am posting it with this benefit so no brownie points for me, but looking back at that I wonder if signing nobody might have been an idea. Well Walsh aside, I mean Kent and Diony basically.

We certainly lost valuable points if anything with those latter 2 though- Sunderland for a start. Perhaps we could have ticked along more steadily without those 2 and never know we beat Sunderland 3-1 let's say, it may have at least raised confidence a bit for the final playoff push. As we saw in the first half of the season up until an hour or so in v Wolves at home just how far it could take us...

Indeed.  I guess Leko was recalled by West Brom, so we had little choice there, but we could’ve not replace him, and we had Woodrow, who I still think should’ve been given more minutes and would’ve given us more than Diony.

[Alessandro]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hindsight is certainly wonderful and I will readily admit I am posting it with this benefit so no brownie points for me, but looking back at that I wonder if signing nobody might have been an idea. Well Walsh aside, I mean Kent and Diony basically.

We certainly lost valuable points if anything with those latter 2 though- Sunderland for a start. Perhaps we could have ticked along more steadily without those 2 and never know we beat Sunderland 3-1 let's say, it may have at least raised confidence a bit for the final playoff push. As we saw in the first half of the season up until an hour or so in v Wolves at home just how far it could take us...

Diony, yes, we might have had enough already. 

Kent - I think we needed a bit more depth there. Wasn’t he a replacement really for Leko who didn’t work out either. 

EDIT @Davefevs just said the same thing!

[havanatopia]

A cursory glance at those 3 charts suggests the few signings generally the more successful the team.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Indeed.  I guess Leko was recalled by West Brom, so we had little choice there, but we could’ve not replace him, and we had Woodrow, who I still think should’ve been given more minutes and would’ve given us more than Diony.

Forgot about Leko but fair point- I can see both sides of that argument. 

I can understand why we made the signings- Kent and his promise at Barnsley, Diony because a gamble in the hope he might get his form from the last year or 2 before back i.e. 2015/16 and 2016/17 seasons- the second failed badly. Plus that extra impetus to get over the line- not criticising the club for it, but it proved a costly mistake financially I suspect. The thing about Leko...he generally played as a winger in a 4-4-2. When we played that system- I mean with 4-4-2 with wingers, as opposed to Brownhill 4-4-1-1/4-1-4-1, I remember us being exposed at home to Leeds and Preston. That's a different debate though.

[JoeAman08]

The amount of signings LJ has made has been overblown. Take into account his first season the squad was thin, then we have lost players and had quite a few loans. We have also gotten better in his first two seasons and this season isn’t woeful points wise. 

The debate has to be the quality. Also there has been a general randomness to the signings. We don’t poach 4-5 from the same countries through Europe instead one here and one there. We lacked a few championship signings before this season. Also feels like sometimes the scouts pick a player to be signed then LJ does almost in turns. Again felt like this summer was more of a plan and if LJ were to stay past this season i would be interested in the business next summer(and in January to an extent). 

Our big problem is saying we want youth and having a pathway yet filling the squad with midtable players in their mid 20s. Young enough to keep value but usually too old to improve much. Also better than a teenager so more likely to play. Thus we get stuck in this mediocrity. 

For me we have too many “older” players. I know there needs to be a mix but with wages what they are, our best chance is gambling with youth. Preferably, I’d like to have a squad of about 15-16 reliable champ players. Then fill the bench with youngsters. Expose them to the first team more and use them. See who sinks or swims. 

The current squad needs trimming. I’d look to offload players like Taylor, Wright, Hunt, Pisano, Watkins and Paterson. They will be 8-10k a week each and not really first team players. 

Would leave a core of leaders like Pack, Smith, Weimann and I believe Webster falls into this category so still have experience and leadership. Can be improved on but at minimum that is ok. 

I know it is not simple getting rid of players but we need to trim and be more careful about who we bring in. Vyner, Moore, Bakinson, Semenyo, Pring and Smith are close to this level now. They need minutes available to give them something to fight for. 

[NickJ]

Stats showing number of signings relative to other clubs is irrelevant as nobody has criticised the number of signings per se. 

The issue is more so that a team capable of being in the top 6 has not been assembled out of 47 signings, tens of millions spent and 5 transfer windows. 

It’s an unprecedented level of transfer activity by Bristol City standards and I’d think SL’s expectations were higher than where we are at the moment - if they aren’t they should be. 

[CodeRed]

36 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Our big problem is saying we want youth and having a pathway yet filling the squad with midtable players in their mid 20s. Young enough to keep value but usually too old to improve much. Also better than a teenager so more likely to play. Thus we get stuck in this mediocrity. 

This is a good point. the pathway is often spoken about but our recruitment strategy blocks it.

In the  line up on Saturday Kelly will be the only player that has come through the acadamy, if Joe Bryan had decided to stay then I doubt if Kelly would be in the team - probably would be out on loan.

45 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

I know it is not simple getting rid of players but we need to trim and be more careful about who we bring in. Vyner, Moore, Bakinson, Semenyo, Pring and Smith are close to this level now. They need minutes available to give them something to fight for. 

Yes, get them on the bench at least.

[General Zod]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

In a harsh world, I would cull the following if I had to:

• one of the GKs.  Sat here today that would be Frankie, I would go with Niki, Max, with JoJo and Sesay. 
• one of the RBs.  Keep Vyner and get rid of one of Hunt or Pisano.  Eros is OOC in summer, but although I like Hunt, i’ve Seen more at both ends of the pitch from Eros in limited minutes.
• one of the CBs.  The value is with Baker, and the fact that Wright can cover RB, recall Taylor Moore, we have enough behind Webster and Kalas.
• one of the widemen.  Probably Watkins.  O’Dowda and Eliasson the main 2, with Adelakun.
• one of the strikers.  Probably Taylor, even though I’ve grown to like / appreciate him, his lack of goals and inability to play on his own, now we look set on one striker.

Thats 5 players.  Encourage the youngsters and supplement only with older payers that are better than we’ve got.  No-more average squad players.

I’d be reluctant to offload Baker from the squad when Kalas is only here on loan.  Though his form has dipped we would struggle to buy better IMO when Kalas returns 

[spudski]

If Pack gets injured or suspended, and with Smith and Walsh both with long term injuries, Jens gone...I'd love to see how we would cope in central midfield.

Can't see us doing well tbh.

That's why you need depth as well as quality at this level.

You only need a few injuries or suspensions with a small squad and you are screwed.

 

 

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, General Zod said:

I’d be reluctant to offload Baker from the squad when Kalas is only here on loan.  Though his form has dipped we would struggle to buy better IMO when Kalas returns 

I did say a harsh world.  Would also like to see Wright on the right side of Webster at some point too.

7 minutes ago, spudski said:

If Pack gets injured or suspended, and with Smith and Walsh both with long term injuries, Jens gone...I'd love to see how we would cope in central midfield.

Can't see us doing well tbh.

That's why you need depth as well as quality at this level.

You only need a few injuries or suspensions with a small squad and you are screwed.

 

 

It’s the one position I would bring someone in if I only had one signing allowed.  I don’t care what type of central midfielder, just someone who is not a squad filler, but preferably better than what we have.  Obviously finding that player is not easy!

[Redrascal2]

3 hours ago, Alessandro said:

I've been interested by a lot of talk recently about the number of signings made, so wanted to see a comparison with the rest of the league. 

Below are the charts for every year of championship first team signings (including loans), according to transfermarkt since summer of 2016 - (It has left out the development squad signings, which there are about 9 for us I believe) 

 

LJ's first whole year and our biggest intake in numbers - joint 4th highest that year. 

 

Second season and right down there in 17th. 

Year three and higher, joint 9th. 

 

So from a league-wide comparison - the only time we were up there in numbers was year 1 - when you could argue we were making up a deficit from the previous summer where only 5 permanent signings were made (1 of which was Fredericks, and the other Garita!)

At the top end, Nottingham Forest jumps out - 54 players.

We are 38. At the bottom end, Brentford with 21.

 

Interesting that although it feels like we've had a massive turnover of players by comparison with the rest of the league it's far from out of the ordinary.

 

*On a train and using transfermarkt and haven't double checked all figures, so mistakes could have been made!

 

 

Very interesting statistics. For me the concern would be how many of these went on to succeed and make the first team 

[LilRascal]

48 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It’s the one position I would bring someone in if I only had one signing allowed.  I don’t care what type of central midfielder, just someone who is not a squad filler, but preferably better than what we have.  Obviously finding that player is not easy!

 

Would love a Paul Hartley type player to come in. 

[Northern Red]

2 hours ago, Alessandro said:

Puts a bit of perspective on the January window too coming up.

A couple of astute, or the best quality we can afford, signings is the way forwards. 

Dependant on who leaves though, which will change things.

Looking back at last January, you can see that was the aim then, a few quality additions to add to the core that was working at the time. It’s just a shame they weren’t of the quality we hoped for and needed.

Indeed. There's been much talk about how we 'didn't go for it' in January, which I disagree with. I think we did go for it, it just didn't work out as we'd hoped. Certainly Kent and Diony won't have come cheap.

[Lrrr]

2 hours ago, havanatopia said:

A cursory glance at those 3 charts suggests the few signings generally the more successful the team.

The better your team to start with the fewer signings you need to make 

[1960maaan]

55 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

Indeed. There's been much talk about how we 'didn't go for it' in January, which I disagree with. I think we did go for it, it just didn't work out as we'd hoped. Certainly Kent and Diony won't have come cheap.

I've said a few times, I understand the theory behind the signings. The thing is , was any real due diligence done on Diony and Kent? From a fans viewpoint I see a striker who had a real good season and got a big money move, and in Kent a highly thought of young Liverpool player , sounds promising. Now if we had watched them properly you'd see a player who's career had stalled , 17 games for St Etienne without scoring. Kent, skilful, but holds onto the ball and slows play. The exact opposite to the style we were playing at the time. 
Again it comes down to our scouting and recruitment , I really don't trust them to provide the needed players.

 

2 hours ago, General Zod said:

I’d be reluctant to offload Baker from the squad when Kalas is only here on loan.  Though his form has dipped we would struggle to buy better IMO when Kalas returns 

As @Davefevs said, money wise Baker probably makes sense. Of course it all depends who wants  our players but with Vyner, Moore and Kelly all looking to play CB, even with Kalas going back we could afford to offload one. I like Baker , but I see him as the one who might bring in a decent fee.

[JamesBCFC]

3 hours ago, spudski said:

If Pack gets injured or suspended, and with Smith and Walsh both with long term injuries, Jens gone...I'd love to see how we would cope in central midfield.

Can't see us doing well tbh.

That's why you need depth as well as quality at this level.

You only need a few injuries or suspensions with a small squad and you are screwed.

 

 

I wonder if the club agreeing to terminate Jens contract now means we either have someone lined up or that their is confidence in one of the youngsters to fulfill that covering squad place should those injuries happen (whether that's Morrell or Bakinson when he returns in January.)