Jump to content
IGNORED

Barnsley Fans View on LJ and our Club


Abraham Romanovich

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Monkeh said:

he has spent all the money, look at the player turnover, we've signed over 50 players and they aren't all free transfers

I’m not sure what you’re failing to grasp here....

LJ has not spent all, or anywhere even close too, the amount of transfer funds that he has had to sell...! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Just confused by your claims 

You seem to be looking to make excuses when his 50 plays purchases were raised, and claimed in this thread

LJ's made a vast profit for the club.’

Yet you now state ‘LJ who only has a partial role in transfers anyway’

Very confusing

 

 

(Sorry If challenging your inaccuratepoints seems to have disturbed you)

 

PS  is your Leeds forum post your evidence of other clubs envy of our ‘recruitment’ ?

And 

Are you saying that LJ should take the credit for the fee Bournemouth paid ?

 

You should also take into account players LJ has brought in who would be sold off for a greater sum if they went tomorrow. 

You could use that argument for Moore, Brownhill, Diedhiou, Eliasson, O'Dowda, even DaSilva and Bentley. 

Add into that Webster's fee and Kelly's as well, both of whom were players brought in for relatively little (or from the academy in Kelly's case) and went for much, much more. 

LJ should take some credit for those transfers because he developed the players into premier league talents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

 

 

I’d take off those tinted specs as they seem to have interfered with your understanding

I recommend you read DaveFevs post here and look , and understand a little deeper 

Hi Bob....not sure your re-appearance is that well timed, but I’m glad you’re back on here. ??

5 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Yes , that’s right

And that’s because we’ve signed 50 plus players , many on good wages ,

we have a large wage bill and running costs, and thus need to sell,  not because we pay top wages, which we don’t , but predominantly because Johnson has managed after 4 years and about 7 windows to assemble an unbalanced bloated squad,  which currently appears a shambles , and in which he hasn’t got a clue of his best team or formation  or way of playing

We have million pound + players and multi million pound players who can’t even make match day squads 

Not a problem when you’re spending others money I guess But is a major flaw holding us back

 

 

**

Sorry I forgot , recruitment is nothing to do with Lee , it’s all that Mark Ashton’s fault - he just keeps turning up handing Lee more and more players without Lees say so

I guess you do realise that to date , he’s sold ONE player that he’s signed , at a profit 

Exactly.  I‘ve taught you well ?

Seriously though, net spend is bullocks these days.  With a more efficient squad, relying on your Morrell’s to compete for a place, you can wipe £6-7m off the wage bill and amortised costs and with FFP excludables, your manager can spend everything they bring in.  We still lose money each year (and stay within FFP), but we are today....but we are using our pretty decent selling skills to max out recruitment in.  At the mo’ LJ is hamstrung by not being able to spend all he (MA) brings in, but that’s because he’s hamstrung himself with squad costs!  

3 hours ago, downendcity said:

I think ashton_fan is really talking about keeping our heads above water in relation to ffp rules i.e. profit/oss and not our indebtedness, or otherwise, to SL. 

We are more than fortunate to have the owner we have, who is wealthy enough that he can, and is prepared to, effectively write off massive amounts of money he has invested in the club. Quite a bit of this has been to invest in infrastructure, i.e stadium redevelopment, that will then help generate increased income for the club, thereby improving our financial position in terms of profitability.

That notwithstanding, we still trade at a loss and because SL is only allowed to cover losses up to certain level under ffp, we still need profit on player sales to ensure we don't break the ffp limits and incur potentially damaging penalties.  @Mr Popodopolous will be able to give accurate figures, but I think we needed a profit in 2019 to make sure it offset the losses for the there 2 years in the 3 year cycle and kept us within ffp, but when 3 years ago drops off the ffp calculations I think we could be in a better position, even though I think we will still be making a loss without further player sales.

 

Here you go:

81237DB4-CEC1-4161-8D01-07D5E1AE38DB.thumb.jpeg.a9120bfa71aa22b6c437801ed0b3ded8.jpeg
 

The above contains an error...Webster I didn’t include the cost of his original fee and sell-on to Ipswich, so that £4.7m comes disn to about ZERO ???

If however you think FFP excludables are £5m pa (rather than my cautious £3m - Cat 2 Academy), then we’ve got £6m in the kitty (£2m x 3 year cycle).

38 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

I’m not sure what you’re failing to grasp here....

LJ has not spent all, or anywhere even close too, the amount of transfer funds that he has had to sell...! 

As above , because the difference is spent on wages, amortisation and the cost of running the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

Why is it? That makes no sense at all.

Take two clubs. They both buy a player for £2m.

Club A's player does amazingly, and goes at the end of the season for £30m which they invest back in the team.

Club B's player does ok, and goes for £1m. They invest in another £2m player.

Club A's net spend: -£2m (-£2m + £30m when he's sold, -£30m on new players).

Club B's net spend: -£3m (-£2m + £1m when he's sold, - £2m on a new player). 

So your argument is Club B are in a better position because of their net spend (more investment?!) - even though Club A now have a squad with £30m of investment?

Not to mention that investment in our players (Kelly, for example) is on potential - £20m on him != £20m of quality removed from our squad. It just doesn't work like that.

Team A has spotted a player and improved them and sold them on. If they sell for £20m then reinvest that, they then have a nett spend of £2m but a much stronger squad.  Well played

Team B made a poor signing and now have a worse squad. 

You have to credit the team that develop and sell for doing so aka Bristol city 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Team A has spotted a player and improved them and sold them on. If they sell for £20m then reinvest that, they then have a nett spend of £2m but a much stronger squad.  Well played

Team B made a poor signing and now have a worse squad. 

You have to credit the team that develop and sell for doing so aka Bristol city 

Absolutely - but they have the same net spend which you said was the "only true picture", even though they now have very different squads . Clearly that's not the case though, it's much more nuanced than that.

It's funny how the only "true" measure always seems to be the only one that lines up with that persons argument ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Absolutely - but they have the same net spend which you said was the "only true picture", even though they now have very different squads . Clearly that's not the case though, it's much more nuanced than that.

It's funny how the only "true" measure always seems to be the only one that lines up with that persons argument ;) 

What I meant is don’t judge city on how much they hate spent versus others in this league, judge them on nett spend v nett spend. It gives a much truer picture 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, STeveOELlis said:

We did not replace Webster with Kalas.

We're yet to replace Webster. Taylor Moore has stepped up, but he's not the player Webster was. Webster was the catalyst for almost all of our attacks last season and it'll be impossible to replace that, but Kalas certainly did not replace Webster

Glad you pointed that out and I sometimes wonder if these fans actually watch us.... just like people thinking there's a happy camp in that dressing room and we're actually going to make top 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RedDave said:

What I meant is don’t judge city on how much they hate spent versus others in this league, judge them on nett spend v nett spend. It gives a much truer picture 

Ok lets do that, so this summer?

According to transfermarkt in the summer we made £8.61m on transfers, certainly not too shabby.

However teams above us:

WBA made £11.6m

Leeds made £29.96m(!)

Brentford made £10.85m

Fulham made £25.65m(!)

Swansea made £34.5m(!!)...

so all those teams in your "net spend" league table should be massively struggling compared to us, having had to sell all their quality right?

Wigan however, spent £7.13m, so according to you they should be flying high!

When does your "net spend" table start and stop? Do we take into account wages etc? It just doesn't make sense, and isn't a good metric. You just like to use it as justification for Lee spending a hell of a lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Ok lets do that, so this summer?

According to transfermarkt in the summer we made £8.61m on transfers, certainly not too shabby.

However teams above us:

WBA made £11.6m

Leeds made £29.96m(!)

Brentford made £10.85m

Fulham made £25.65m(!)

Swansea made £34.5m(!!)...

so all those teams in your "net spend" league table should be massively struggling compared to us, having had to sell all their quality right?

Wigan however, spent £7.13m, so according to you they should be flying high!

When does your "net spend" table start and stop? Do we take into account wages etc? It just doesn't make sense, and isn't a good metric. You just like to use it as justification for Lee spending a hell of a lot of money.

Can’t judge it on one season. Fulham spent £100m 18 months ago! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Can’t judge it on one season. Fulham spent £100m 18 months ago! 

Well exactly, which is why net spend it isn't a great metric because the further you extend it over time the less meaning it then has, as the values aren't representative!

Fulham also loaned in £40m of talent this summer even though they "spent" £0m according to their transfer balance sheet - wages another matter however!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JBFC II said:

You should also take into account players LJ has brought in who would be sold off for a greater sum if they went tomorrow. 

You could use that argument for Moore, Brownhill, Diedhiou, Eliasson, O'Dowda, even DaSilva and Bentley. 

Add into that Webster's fee and Kelly's as well, both of whom were players brought in for relatively little (or from the academy in Kelly's case) and went for much, much more. 

LJ should take some credit for those transfers because he developed the players into premier league talents

What values do you put against each of those 7 players ? 

Also deduct their cost in wages for the time they have been here. 

I'm not sure we'd be in credit on all of them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RedDave said:

There will often be sackings in football where fans of other clubs will wonder what the hell the club is doing. Whether you think Lee should go or not, if we did sack him the media and fans of other clubs will be amazed!  
 

Probably but it makes no difference.  We've not outdone ourselves like Charlton being 7th in the Premiership.  We're in the pack of a mediocre Championship with a very good set of players not playing well.  People were horrified when Southampton sacked Atkins and gave the job to some Argentinian and that worked..  Atkins had taken Southampton where he could and they wanted someone to manage talented players at a higher level... to keep improving. 

The lack of evident ambition is what gets me.  Not the need to be solvent but the notion that bobbing along is what we should be happy with. It's entirely in the mind and not about money.  We don't seem to want to get to the Premiership when the opportunity presents itself.  I'm 48 and have watched some dogshit sides get to the top division since 1980.  Blackburn even won it!  I make it 21 sides smaller than us in terms of core support..

Bradford, Swindon, Bournemouth, Swansea, Notts County, Wigan, Huddersfield, Bolton, Hull, Cardiff, Burnley, Blackburn, Millwall, Oxford, Reading, QPR, Luton, Watford, Barnsley, Wimbledon, Blackpool and finally Oldham.

The infrastructure is in place to get promoted and make a fist of it, we just need to actually want to do it. If you don't get what I'm saying, just compare how Pat Lam talks about his ambitions for Bristol compared to how Johnson talks about his ambitions for City.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

 

 

I’d take off those tinted specs as they seem to have interfered with your understanding

I recommend you read DaveFevs post here and look , and understand a little deeper 

I didn't see the @Davefevs post you've used there Bob, and I'm not sure I really understand it, and certainly not in the context of @ashton_fan comment. 

I get that we paid more for Kalas, and that his wages are higher. That's why he costs the club more than Webster was costing the club each year. But we sold Webster for £15m more than we paid for him ( including the sell on)

Dave says that we were left with £8.6m after we sold Webster and took into account all associated costs, but that £8.6m calculation includes the whole of the Kalas transfer fee. However, the fee then appears again, amortised over the four years of his contract, as part of the ongoing cost of Kalas to the club. Surely that's counting the transfer fee twice? If you amortise the Kalas transfer fee then the surplus at the outset is £15.6m, not £8.6m. And that still leave a healthy surplus even after taking account of Kalas' cost. Have I missed something Dave?

If selling Webster and buying Kalas, selling Kelly and buying Dasilva, selling Flint and buying Webster, isn't profitable (which is essentially all Ashton is saying) then what's the rationale behind our 'buy players cheap and sell them for more' model?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I didn't see the @Davefevs post you've used there Bob, and I'm not sure I really understand it, and certainly not in the context of @ashton_fan comment. 

I get that we paid more for Kalas, and that his wages are higher. That's why he costs the club more than Webster was costing the club each year. But we sold Webster for £15m more than we paid for him ( including the sell on)

Dave says that we were left with £8.6m after we sold Webster and took into account all associated costs, but that £8.6m calculation includes the whole of the Kalas transfer fee. However, the fee then appears again, amortised over the four years of his contract, as part of the ongoing cost of Kalas to the club. Surely that's counting the transfer fee twice? If you amortise the Kalas transfer fee then the surplus at the outset is £15.6m, not £8.6m. And that still leave a healthy surplus even after taking account of Kalas' cost. Have I missed something Dave?

If selling Webster and buying Kalas, selling Kelly and buying Dasilva, selling Flint and buying Webster, isn't profitable (which is essentially all Ashton is saying) then what's the rationale behind our 'buy players cheap and sell them for more' model?

ID - you make a very good point.   I think I was arguing / answering the wrong question (doh!), or joining two slightly unconnected things together...and if I did post what you say above, then yes, that is wrong.  You’ve made me think about it in a different way though, so ta....and I guess it backs up net spend is not useful.

I think the photo I included earlier is the best way of looking at it.  It shows that we can’t just spend what we bring in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I didn't see the @Davefevs post you've used there Bob, and I'm not sure I really understand it, and certainly not in the context of @ashton_fan comment. 

I get that we paid more for Kalas, and that his wages are higher. That's why he costs the club more than Webster was costing the club each year. But we sold Webster for £15m more than we paid for him ( including the sell on)

Dave says that we were left with £8.6m after we sold Webster and took into account all associated costs, but that £8.6m calculation includes the whole of the Kalas transfer fee. However, the fee then appears again, amortised over the four years of his contract, as part of the ongoing cost of Kalas to the club. Surely that's counting the transfer fee twice? If you amortise the Kalas transfer fee then the surplus at the outset is £15.6m, not £8.6m. And that still leave a healthy surplus even after taking account of Kalas' cost. Have I missed something Dave?

If selling Webster and buying Kalas, selling Kelly and buying Dasilva, selling Flint and buying Webster, isn't profitable (which is essentially all Ashton is saying) then what's the rationale behind our 'buy players cheap and sell them for more' model?

Dave

DaveFevs has a  far better full understanding of the financial picture and flow 

And I’m not going to keep getting involved in some of the debates on here - pointless

But , In my simplistic terms , with the money that we’ve done well to / been fortunate to / worked to ,    accumulate to gain thro some notable player sales , as we gather that in with one hand , Lee’s doing his very best to spend it on a bloated squad ,with his ponchance for clubs in the bag of every type and shape, many of which he never or rarely uses  or ‘trusts’ , and one from which he, currently and for some period, can’t form a cohesive side.

For all his whining Lee has had plenty of funds to replace players that have moved on

Id also pose the question for all his complaining about having to sell his best players , how many was he desperate to keep

He certainly wasn’t a Flint fan , happy to offload Pack, Ayling , Freeman Lloyd for all his promise wasn’t a automatic pick / starter, 

Kodja at the time ,  Webster,, Reid I’d hope  and possibly Bryan 

Virtually every side in this division lose their better players 

In the time LJ has been her , Look how many Brentford for example have lost in recent seasons, they’ve also changed their manager several times , not always at their wish , yet their plan is , and always has been clear and they are thriving  and playing very attractive football

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Dave

DaveFevs has a  far better full understanding of the financial picture and flow 

And I’m not going to keep getting involved in some of the debates on here - pointless

But , In my simplistic terms , with the money that we’ve done well to / been fortunate to / worked to ,    accumulate to gain thro some notable player sales , as we gather that in with one hand , Lee’s doing his very best to spend it on a bloated squad ,with his ponchance for clubs in the bag of every type and shape, many of which he never or rarely uses  or ‘trusts’ , and one from which he, currently and for some period, can’t form a cohesive side.

For all his whining Lee has had plenty of funds to replace players that have moved on

Id also pose the question for all his complaining about having to sell his best players , how many was he desperate to keep

He certainly wasn’t a Flint fan , happy to offload Pack, Ayling , Freeman Lloyd for all his promise wasn’t a automatic pick / starter, 

Kodja at the time ,  Webster,, Reid I’d hope  and possibly Bryan 

Virtually every side in this division lose their better players 

In the time LJ has been her , Look how many Brentford for example have lost in recent seasons, they’ve also changed their manager several times , not always at their wish , yet their plan is , and always has been clear and they are thriving  and playing very attractive football

Preston are another example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Monkeh said:

 

any fan base who's spent upward to 25 million in the transfer window has a right to expect a high position in the league

I’m all for a change of management and I do tend to agree that we’re currently underachieving, but you simply can’t make that statement without the full context.

What’s our net spend? How does the spending compare to our rivals?

Most importantly - what is our squad worth? That’s the key statistic. You could spend £25m but if your starting place was £0m, then you don’t have a right to expect to do better than a team who spent nothing but already had a squad worth £50m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, RedDave said:

There will often be sackings in football where fans of other clubs will wonder what the hell the club is doing. Whether you think Lee should go or not, if we did sack him the media and fans of other clubs will be amazed!  
 

That doesn’t mean they’d be right and we’d be wrong. The media and fans of other clubs don’t share the same context and close insight as us.

They won’t appreciate the lack of a clearly defined playing style - and failure to address it.

They won’t appreciate the failure to get the best out of the squad.

They won’t appreciate the lack of entertainment, particularly at home, without the results to justify it.

They won’t appreciate the consistent inconsistency in performance level - without any sign of a resolution.

They won’t appreciate the cliche-ridden interviews that leave more questions than answers.

They won’t appreciate the growing sense that the entire club has simply become stale and in need of fresh impetus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Leveller said:

Interestingly, the general consensus is that he is doing a reasonable job and our expectations are too high. That’s probably how the football world sees it overall. Just what we think of other teams’ over critical fans, in fact.

The football world doesn't watch 90 minutes of Ashton Gate footy each fortnight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CotswoldRed said:

The football world doesn't watch 90 minutes of Ashton Gate footy each fortnight. 

And we don’t watch all the minutes other teams play - mostly highlights. You’ll probably find fans of other inconsistent teams feeling much the same .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChippenhamRed said:

That doesn’t mean they’d be right and we’d be wrong. The media and fans of other clubs don’t share the same context and close insight as us.

They won’t appreciate the lack of a clearly defined playing style - and failure to address it.

They won’t appreciate the failure to get the best out of the squad.

They won’t appreciate the lack of entertainment, particularly at home, without the results to justify it.

They won’t appreciate the consistent inconsistency in performance level - without any sign of a resolution.

They won’t appreciate the cliche-ridden interviews that leave more questions than answers.

They won’t appreciate the growing sense that the entire club has simply become stale and in need of fresh impetus.

I know it doesn’t make it right or wrong. Merely an observation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

That doesn’t mean they’d be right and we’d be wrong. The media and fans of other clubs don’t share the same context and close insight as us.

They won’t appreciate the lack of a clearly defined playing style - and failure to address it.

They won’t appreciate the failure to get the best out of the squad.

They won’t appreciate the lack of entertainment, particularly at home, without the results to justify it.

They won’t appreciate the consistent inconsistency in performance level - without any sign of a resolution.

They won’t appreciate the cliche-ridden interviews that leave more questions than answers.

They won’t appreciate the growing sense that the entire club has simply become stale and in need of fresh impetus.

Out of interest, just as a comparison, how would you feel if Alex Neil was sacked at Preston?

They are a similar club to us, bankrolled by a billionaire, but comparatively modest spenders. They are widely admired on OTIB. They are currently one point and one place above us. But they too had a good start and are now on a poor run of form - worse than us in terms of points recently.

Like ours, their fans are quite fickle. Read their forum, and you’ll find it’s very similar to OTIB. It’s not as poisonous re the manager and playing style, but there is a feeling that AN might be sacked. There is also resentment about the owner not spending more. They are not far off the playoffs, but the mood is negative. That’s how fans everywhere get after a run of poor form.

We might feel PNE fans are overreacting. PNE fans - like Barnsley - might feel OTIB is overreacting. But we all seem to expect more of our own club than others do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Leveller said:

our expectations are too high. 

 

23 hours ago, Super said:

They’re one point off the play offs in one of the toughest leagues in the world.

what do they expect, exactly?

We expect, at the very least, just a little bit more than might reasonably be expected. And, also, at the very least, just a little bit more, and a little bit better, than what we are right now. Like the vast majority of football fans. 

And exactly like Lee Johnson, Mark Ashton and Stephen Lansdown. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/01/2020 at 12:11, Leveller said:

Interestingly, the general consensus is that he is doing a reasonable job and our expectations are too high. That’s probably how the football world sees it overall. Just what we think of other teams’ over critical fans, in fact.

And this, ladies and gentleman, is why we don't tickle the top flight. If we're happy with reasonable then that's what we'll get and are getting. 

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...