Jump to content
IGNORED

Officially over achieving


And Its Smith

Recommended Posts

Interesting, reinforces the point that chucking huge amounts of money at it won’t necessarily bring you success.

Perhaps not signing the likes of Gayle and Gray were a blessing in disguise and using that money to sign younger more unproven talent with potential as well as bringing through more youth players is serving us well. Also clear the players we sign are of a very similar character, no big egos anymore which I think has shown in the excellent team spirit we currently have. 

Regret lumping money on Stoke to win the league! ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teams with higher transfer fees also comes a much higher wage bill, but the top four are subsidised by the PL, interesting we are the 2nd highest non parachute payment team behind Forest who have spent nearly double us. I suspect we would also be near the top in revenue from player transfers out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, RedDave said:

11th most expensive first XI. Surprised Leeds first team is so cheap 

4DE6636B-A54A-4655-9287-B6C2480ABC73.png

Obviously this is only taking into the 10 top starters. Bamford cost Leeds 7mil, rising to 10 mil. If he hasn’t started many then he would be included. 

The other thing is it won’t take into account a loan players value. So, Tammy who has scored a bucket full for Villa and helped them get to their league position isn’t included. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is in the premier league version of this everyone on social media is praising Warnock for doing such a great job with a team that cost £13m compared to everyone else, but he has players like Bobby who cost £10m alone on the bench. This excludes expensive players who aren't part of the most regular 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The King of Spain said:

Interesting, reinforces the point that chucking huge amounts of money at it won’t necessarily bring you success.

Perhaps not signing the likes of Gayle and Gray were a blessing in disguise and using that money to sign younger more unproven talent with potential as well as bringing through more youth players is serving us well. Also clear the players we sign are of a very similar character, no big egos anymore which I think has shown in the excellent team spirit we currently have. 

Regret lumping money on Stoke to win the league! ?

 

 

Ajax are having a great season because they’ve finally learned that you need older more experienced players alongside your talented youngsters.

 I like how we are approaching our task but really don’t see how bringing proven quality, like Gayle , is going to be a bad thing.

The widely reported effect on existing players finding more quality  in their dressing room is positive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh.

I think we are over achieving based on budget, club size, lack of parachutes etc but not sure that chart is the one that can give a definitive.

As already noted, it doesn’t consider loans (and loan fees). It doesn’t consider costly players who aren’t in the first 11. It doesn’t consider that someone could have cost a lot 5 years ago. Most importantly, it doesn’t consider wages - in the case of Bosmans it’s no fee but a bigger wage so the cost ends up being (broadly) similar (or a touch less) over the course of a contract. On that subject, it also doesn’t consider/know how long a fee is paid over.

Basically, it’s a nice chart but is so flawed it’s not worth the paper it’s written on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Meh.

I think we are over achieving based on budget, club size, lack of parachutes etc but not sure that chart is the one that can give a definitive.

As already noted, it doesn’t consider loans (and loan fees). It doesn’t consider costly players who aren’t in the first 11. It doesn’t consider that someone could have cost a lot 5 years ago. Most importantly, it doesn’t consider wages - in the case of Bosmans it’s no fee but a bigger wage so the cost ends up being (broadly) similar (or a touch less) over the course of a contract. On that subject, it also doesn’t consider/know how long a fee is paid over.

Basically, it’s a nice chart but is so flawed it’s not worth the paper it’s written on

If you take all those factors into account where would you think we would be? I assume a lot higher?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hoxton casual said:

If you take all those factors into account where would you think we would be? I assume a lot higher?

Yes. 

- No parachutes

- Not Big wage payers

- Not big fee payers

- Not many big fees not in starting XI (I don’t class £1m as big at this level before the Taylor Moore argument starts)

- No real Bosmans

- 3 loans - however only one of those I expect to be on a significant wedge

I think on those factors we’d be expected to be 15th-18th ish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

Ajax are having a great season because they’ve finally learned that you need older more experienced players alongside your talented youngsters.

 I like how we are approaching our task but really don’t see how bringing proven quality, like Gayle , is going to be a bad thing.

The widely reported effect on existing players finding more quality  in their dressing room is positive.

 

Agree with what you’re saying if someone like Gayle was brought in to complement what we’re doing, but  not at the expense of the what we’re doing if that makes sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hodge said:

Thing is in the premier league version of this everyone on social media is praising Warnock for doing such a great job with a team that cost £13m compared to everyone else, but he has players like Bobby who cost £10m alone on the bench. This excludes expensive players who aren't part of the most regular 10.

Their spend has been comparable to Huddersfield, whether or not Reid is starting. They've spent a fair amount of the season playing a Hearts right-back up front ffs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Shtanley said:

I think wages would be a better table to look at.

With 'stats' for virtually everything in football nowadays....

A stat and table I'd like to see created would be a stadium supporter noise recorded/decibel level league... 

Would create a bit of competition between fans and would surely play a part in creating a bit more atmosphere in grounds while reducing some of the 'library' stadiums.... and would be good for football in general (Theres nowhere better to be than Ashton Gate when The Gate is rocking!)

Maybe a league standard based on noise recorded from a specific area of each stadium,  (the centre spot would be good, or maybe from noise recorders situated in each goal mouth with both levels amalgamated to produce a stadium average?)

I'd prefer a centre spot noise detection system personally as that would provide fair and perfect result for all stadiums.

It'd be fun and a fan noise stadium rating league would provide endless inter club bragging/banter rights...

"We are top of the league, say we are top of the league!''  ?

(could include a 'pro rata' per fan rating taking account of crowd numbers to even things up between 'big' and smaller clubs) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, swanker said:

And all the players we’ve signed and are nowhere near the 1st team?

Pisano - free

Baker 4 million

Watkins 1 mill

Adelukan - free 

Eisa 1.5 million

O'dowda 1.3 million

So just under 8 million. Hardly loads when you consider the rest of the league

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swanker said:

my point was players we’ve signed that are nowhere near the first team not how much we’ve spent. 

We aren't going to have 16 players in the squad. 

Every club signs players as back up options or squad boosters. You can't survive on a squad of 16...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JBFC II said:

We aren't going to have 16 players in the squad. 

Every club signs players as back up options or squad boosters. You can't survive on a squad of 16...

Back up? Some of the players you mentioned earlier aren’t even on the bench and that’s my point, you talk out your arse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, swanker said:

Back up? Some of the players you mentioned earlier aren’t even on the bench and that’s my point, you talk out your arse. 

As I said you can't have a squad of 16 players, no club has it. 

I have no idea what you're on about tbh, do you want us to have a squad of 16 and then hope that nobody gets injured? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, RedDave said:

11th most expensive first XI. Surprised Leeds first team is so cheap 

4DE6636B-A54A-4655-9287-B6C2480ABC73.png

This is very interesting. Wonder if the position changes when you include cost of loan players. Would imagine Kallas is a biggish earner but would expect Abraham and Hogan to bump up villa/Sheffield United costs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...