Interesting comments from LJ...

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, Badger08 said:

What cracks me up about people having a pop about Johnson and spend, are the same people who were crying out for us to sign those players in the first place! 
Who's wages do you think increased the wage percentage....

that’s a broad statement 

Kala - Everyone was DESPERATE for him to sign
Dasilva - Everyone wanted him to sign 
Wells - Everyone was desperate for him to sign
Afobe - Rejected by the fans but was worth every penny. 

So, I don't get that argument.  People cry and cry and cry about signing these top end players, then blame Johnson for the wage increase for the players that they (the fans) wanted.  Mental.

I don’t think it’s the fans forcing LJ/MA to buy those players. 

See above. 

8 minutes ago, hodge said:

But its a causality, if we hadn't been receiving more than we ever had Johnson wouldn't have had so much to spend. Its not like we've just allowed him to spend and spend without sacrifice either, he's had to replace that which he's lost at the same time so the expectation of rapid improvement because of his spend is also harder because all the money can't just go on improving the rest of the squad.

I think my major question is could he have been more efficient with the money he’d generated?  Could he, instead of your escalating fees received and fees paid (and associated wage bill), churned the squad less and therefore de-escalating fees received and paid (and wage bill).

Instead of £85m recd / £70m received (Riaz’s figures!) and a 60% wage bill increase, could he have generated the same £15m differential from £50m received / £35m spent - and only a 40% wage bill increase.

Because that’s what Brentford have done in effect (on 60% of our revenues).

Could he have saved some of that spend, e.g. Palmer or Szmodics not both?  Nagy or Massengo not both, or even Morrell or Walsh?

That is where my criticism comes in. 

[SuperRed]

14 minutes ago, Badger08 said:

What cracks me up about people having a pop about Johnson and spend, are the same people who were crying out for us to sign those players in the first place! 
Who's wages do you think increased the wage percentage....

Kala - Everyone was DESPERATE for him to sign
Dasilva - Everyone wanted him to sign 
Wells - Everyone was desperate for him to sign
Afobe - Rejected by the fans but was worth every penny. 

So, I don't get that argument.  People cry and cry and cry about signing these top end players, then blame Johnson for the wage increase for the players that they (the fans) wanted.  Mental. 

I don’t think the issue for most people with Johnson is those signings. My issue is with the quantity over quality approach we seem to have taken. 

[BRISTOL86]

25 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Not completely accurate ;

This has been done many times before but I believe that we were misled by the club into thinking that we were looking for the ‘ best ‘ coach out there but brought in , in an indecent hurry , a man who , whilst a promising young coach , had achieved the sum total of nothing in his fledgling career. 
 

It looked very much like a ‘ comfort ‘ signing and a step back from the edgy , driving force that was Cotts . 
 

Add that into the mix and it is no wonder that he struggles, even today, to unite the fan base. 
 

There is always the suspicion that there’s someone better than LJ who can take the club by the boot straps and get us into the Prem whilst playing sexy football. 
 

I suspect the same in terms of having an easy ‘in’ here. But if that’s the reason for people’s wilful disregard of what he’s done well here, their anger is somewhat misplaced.

Unless of course LJ ran his own recruitment campaign and appointed himself!

[Alessandro]

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Nick, but it was Lee Johnson!

LJ would let Flint go on the basis SL delivered Webster as his replacement. He was no. 1 on LJ's list of replacements.

The medical team/strength and conditioning team also deserve a lot of credit though, they put Webster on a special training regime which got him into the best shape he'd been in his entire career. 

Irrespective of the net spend argument - the constant agenda (vendetta) to lay firmly at LJ's feet anything wrong at the club and remove from him any credit for anything positive is clear as day.

A classic in this thread is to blame any poor signings on LJ and to try and credit someone, anyone else for the good ones. 

The same with developing younger players, Eisa for example will be a LJ waste of money, not a failure of the clubs hard working, unsung coaches methods. Kelly's and Bryan's success is all down to the hard working, unsung coaches methods.

Yes we've seen a recent deterioration in performances, but I find it baffling to constantly read the efforts to re-write history, re-write the recent development of the club in this division and any of LJ achievements. Yes other people take credit too, but if you're sat at home thinking LJ has done nothing but waste our time and money, sorry, you're blinded by something or other.

Achievements are not solely measurable in trophies, promotions and profits. 

I'm sure I read years ago, probably from one of the same posters, that SC at Burnley, despite having a win ratio of 32%, laid the foundations for their promotion. I wonder if LJ was sacked and we went up soon after, using some of his signings or profits from, the same people would have the good grace to give LJ credit for laying foundations. 

I think reading this thread, we already know the answer!

[Riaz]

Clearly the squad is bloated. Thats a legitimate criticism.

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Riaz said:

He saved us from relegation

He delivered a top half finish - something only managers with the name Johnson has been able to acheive at this club since 1992.

Improved league position every year, despite losing his best player or players every summer.

So, in short, nothing.

[Riaz]

Interesting when you compare us and Aston VIlla

Last year they lost over 100m according to accounts released today.

We made a profit of 10m.

They also had parachute payments which we did not.

Thats an incredible difference and we only got 6 points less than them!

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

So, in short, nothing.

[Lrrr]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

See above. 

I think my major question is could he have been more efficient with the money he’d generated?  Could he, instead of your escalating fees received and fees paid (and associated wage bill), churned the squad less and therefore de-escalating fees received and paid (and wage bill).

Instead of £85m recd / £70m received (Riaz’s figures!) and a 60% wage bill increase, could he have generated the same £15m differential from £50m received / £35m spent - and only a 40% wage bill increase.

Because that’s what Brentford have done in effect (on 60% of our revenues).

Could he have saved some of that spend, e.g. Palmer or Szmodics not both?  Nagy or Massengo not both, or even Morrell or Walsh?

That is where my criticism comes in. 

Its not an unfair argument, but is it partly a case that the quality of player required for a play off push has accounted for most of that increase? Compare Flint's wages to Kalas and that jump has occurred in 2 seasons. Palmer/Szmodics, no idea of any truth behind this just my impression was that Palmer was always #1 target for the summer, Szmodics was someone we viewed at with £££ signs if we could develop him right, crude outlook but £750,000 outlay supposedly? Well hypothetically even if we sold him to Peterborough this summer I expect we'd break the million pound mark. If he sticks around it would be a case of being a Brownhill/Eliasson where we don't see much from him in the first season (less now that he's at P'boro but hard to say he's not playing well). 

I think partly our style as a club impacts this as well with the whole loan process, if the club wants a constant conveyor belt of players on loan to develop, bring into the squad or sell then a chunk of your budget needs to be allocated there, if we didn't have that whole process we probably would have a much smaller squad and with it the smaller financial commitment with the wage budget.

[Vincent Vega]

Gregor making his thoughts known clearly.

[Lrrr]

8 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

Eisa for example will be a LJ waste of money

Didn't we technically profit of Eisa?

3 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

So, in short, nothing.

If you want to take that view then over 75% of the managers in this division have achieved nothing either

[Bristol Oil Services]

Where Lee has been "backed" more than anyone else - I believe I can say without fear of contradiction, although @Hampshire Red  ...... - is in his relationship with his boss, the bloke that hired him.

More than any other rival manager/hc in the Championship Lee has had the backing of his employer. He has had the security of - not a guaranteed "job for life" regardless but relative to his peers - a rock solid relationship with the guy above him. So much so his contract was extended whilst his team were setting a club record run of consecutive defeats.

More than most City managers in our history too, I would think.

 

In this precarious line of work, how do you put a price on that?

 

Lee has his challenges here - selling his best player; clubs with parachute payments/larger budgets etc - but he has advantages too. Over his peers, and his predecessors. 

 

[Major Isewater]

12 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Unless of course LJ ran his own recruitment campaign and appointed himself.

Which he probably did .

[Alessandro]

35 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

See above. 

I think my major question is could he have been more efficient with the money he’d generated?  Could he, instead of your escalating fees received and fees paid (and associated wage bill), churned the squad less and therefore de-escalating fees received and paid (and wage bill).

Instead of £85m recd / £70m received (Riaz’s figures!) and a 60% wage bill increase, could he have generated the same £15m differential from £50m received / £35m spent - and only a 40% wage bill increase.

Because that’s what Brentford have done in effect (on 60% of our revenues).

Could he have saved some of that spend, e.g. Palmer or Szmodics not both?  Nagy or Massengo not both, or even Morrell or Walsh?

That is where my criticism comes in. 

Dave, I enjoy your posts and you're one of the most level headed posters on here.

But I've got to ask you about those statements above, regarding number of and escalating fees.

You reacted to a post earlier that basically said LJ shouldn't be credited for fees negotiated by MA. Fair enough.

Which leads to the fact that ultimately MA, and SL, hold the purse strings. If the money isn't there or being generated, they won't let LJ spend it. 

He's not sneaking off with the cheque book. If people are unhappy with what you're saying above, then surely criticism should be levelled at both MA and SL too, who know the bottom lines and wage limitations, for going to broker these deals. 

If the transfer/wage policy could be more efficient, for me, that is the responsibility of more than just LJ. 

[NickJ]

2 hours ago, Riaz said:

Again, I'll repeat, I'm not looking at this from an accounting point of view. Whoever does that when analysing a manager in the transfer market.

 

So to get this straight, earlier you justified your credentials as an expert on arithmetic on the basis that you are (claim to be) an accountant, but you're not looking at it from an accounting point of view.

 

 

 

[Riaz]

1 minute ago, NickJ said:

So to get this straight, earlier you justified your credentials as an expert on arithmetic on the basis that you are (claim to be) an accountant, but you're not looking at it from an accounting point of view.

 

 

 

No, because Lee Johnson is only responsible for the football side of things. But you knew that, because its obvious.

[Lrrr]

8 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

Gregor making his thoughts known clearly.

To me the 'several poor performances' part implies Gregor has stuff he wants to ask LJ and thats the part he's annoyed about more than the 125th. Whereas the club are operating as normal and if anything want to keep the focus on the 125th, so hardly a surprise.

[Vincent Vega]

3 minutes ago, hodge said:

To me the 'several poor performances' part implies Gregor has stuff he wants to ask LJ and thats the part he's annoyed about more than the 125th. Whereas the club are operating as normal and if anything want to keep the focus on the 125th, so hardly a surprise.

Actually I think it maybe in response to how LJ treated him in the Huddersfield press conference. ( just my opinion)

[Lrrr]

4 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

Actually I think it maybe in response to how LJ treated him in the Huddersfield press conference. ( just my opinion)

Just seen Gregor himself says it was club decision rather than an LJ one

 

[Merrick's Marvels]

42 minutes ago, SuperRed said:

I don’t think the issue for most people with Johnson is those signings. My issue is with the quantity over quality approach we seem to have taken. 

Agree 100%. He's been indulged. The man holding the purse strings need to be stronger  - I'm sure he can see the manager's best run of form was when injuries meant the side almost picked itself, whereas with too many players, too many options, it seems our form is poor.

In the last week Nuno Santo Wolverhampton - and another high profile, probably Prem, manager whose name escapes me - were bothh talking about the importance of running with a small squad - 18 players I think it was.

To get the best out of our manager - who I don't believe is going anywhere, any time soon - I think the owner should say he'll fund 24 senior first teamers (other numbers are available) and only in exceptional circumstances can the manager have more.

[BTRFTG]

24 minutes ago, Riaz said:

Interesting when you compare us and Aston VIlla

Last year they lost over 100m according to accounts released today.

We made a profit of 10m.

They also had parachute payments which we did not.

Thats an incredible difference and we only got 6 points less than them!

Stupid comparison given you're an accountant.

Villa bought themselves promotion (gambled but actually achieved something.) They're guaranteed income of at least £170m over 3 years even if they do come down this year.  By contrast we're guaranteed under the EFL deal circa £10m (80% of which would be this season.) Staying up by finishing 17th would guarantee them an additional £110m, given the roll forward. That could continue year on year whilst we could be sucking pennies.

They received parachute payments because they've been in The Premier (as have 48 other teams, but not us,) so no excuses there. League teams not having reached the Premier are the MINORITY, it's not a preserve for a privileged few.

6pts - indeed. Might as well have been 16pts because under Johnson and his losing runs we were also rans.

 

[Riaz]

4 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Stupid comparison given you're an accountant.

Villa bought themselves promotion (gambled but actually achieved something.) They're guaranteed income of at least £170m over 3 years even if they do come down this year.  By contrast we're guaranteed under the EFL deal circa £10m (80% of which would be this season.) Staying up by finishing 17th would guarantee them an additional £110m, given the roll forward. That could continue year on year whilst we could be sucking pennies.

They received parachute payments because they've been in The Premier (as have 48 other teams, but not us,) so no excuses there. League teams not having reached the Premier are the MINORITY, it's not a preserve for a privileged few.

6pts - indeed. Might as well have been 16pts because under Johnson and his losing runs we were also rans.

 

Stupid comparison? Or you dont like it, because it backs up my point.

I agree, their gamble paid off.

But they spent well over 100m more than us and only finished 6 points above us.

Just shows we've done well, with the finances we've used.

[Riaz]

Just had a quick look at both city's and villa's accounts

There costs were 163m for last season

Our costs were 55m last season

We've done very well to even compete with them!

[NickJ]

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Nick, but it was Lee Johnson!

LJ would let Flint go on the basis SL delivered Webster as his replacement. He was no. 1 on LJ's list of replacements.

The medical team/strength and conditioning team also deserve a lot of credit though, they put Webster on a special training regime which got him into the best shape he'd been in his entire career. 

Not sure why that would be bad news Will, but I think back to one of Johnson's earliest press conferences, in which he said that a team of people were responsible for identifying potential signings, over a very long period, the list would be narrowed down and Ashton would recommend players we would actually go for, but he (Johnson) would have the final say. That would indicate to me that all signings not just Webster are initially identified by the responsible team. And I get that, the days of the likes of Bill Shankly running around all over the country watching reserve matches don't happen any longer. If Johnson approved Webster it's still credit to him and even more so if Johnson suggested him in the first place, but that wouldn't accord with what Johnson himself has said, hence why my comment was phrased as it was.

But that and many of the other comments on this thread are off topic big time, which is, back to the original replies, that many people do not have confidence in Johnson, do not believe him, think he talks utter David Brent like garbage, are fed up with the constant blame shifting and excuses and so on. Somehow he has us 7th in the league, you would think he would have 100% support and backing, and yet that isn't so.

I would sum all of that up by saying, as I did on the very first day he was appointed as manager (ok title may be head coach or whatever but the point is he is "Number One" in terms of team and squad affairs) that I simply do not see Johnson as a leader. A good coach maybe, as part of a team, he's clearly good at learning the manuals and diligently soaking up information, but a leader of men, not in a million years, it's something you have or you don't, and I just don't see it.

[Alessandro]

28 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Stupid comparison given you're an accountant.

Villa bought themselves promotion (gambled but actually achieved something.) They're guaranteed income of at least £170m over 3 years even if they do come down this year.  By contrast we're guaranteed under the EFL deal circa £10m (80% of which would be this season.) Staying up by finishing 17th would guarantee them an additional £110m, given the roll forward. That could continue year on year whilst we could be sucking pennies.

They received parachute payments because they've been in The Premier (as have 48 other teams, but not us,) so no excuses there. League teams not having reached the Premier are the MINORITY, it's not a preserve for a privileged few.

6pts - indeed. Might as well have been 16pts because under Johnson and his losing runs we were also rans.

 

It's not quite as simple as that for Villa. £170m over 3 years is less than £56m odd a year. That would probably go around half, at best 2/3's of the way to paying their wage will, which could be reportedly nearly £90m a year. Better hope those relegation clause claims are correct.

That's not taking into account any other major revenue losses and all the other club's expenditure.

If they come down, the gamble for one season in the prem, may well prove absolutely not worth it in the long run, given the FL will be looking very closely at the fact that they've broken UEFA 70% rules for virtually every season they were in the champ. 

Fines, sanctions, points deductions, huge wage bills and debts could all combine to bring on a grim future for the club. Sunderland anybody? They were in trouble when they got promoted, relegation brings them back down with big question marks.

Will the same owners who've already lunged £250m, 250!! into the club, hang around if they flounder in the champ, or worse go down to league one, doubt it. 

[Dynamite Red]

People point to the net transfer money received but forget to factor in the massively increased wage bill every year.

Johnson like every other club has to sell its players when the money is right. He has been backed to the hilt. Just look at January, Benkovic, Henriksen and Wells will all be on huge wages, I doubt Kalas, Palmer, COD, Dasilva, Afobe, Bentley, Diedhiou are on Peanuts. 

This squad is underperforming add the lack of coherent tactics, team selection and the appalling football on show, yes I think we can do much better. Everything at the Gate has been upgraded in the last 4 years, time to do the same with the manager.

[BTRFTG]

16 minutes ago, Riaz said:

Stupid comparison? Or you dont like it, because it backs up my point.

I agree, their gamble paid off.

But they spent well over 100m more than us and only finished 6 points above us.

Just shows we've done well, with the finances we've used.

Are you for real? Do you sign off accounts? Dear you seriously understand accounting and finance modelling?

Villa operate a high risk / high reward operating model which, to date, they've managed to exploit. Their model is wholly underpinned by Premier League income with the risk that goes, so might they without drastic measures.

We on the other hand operate at around 20% of their annual turnover supporting operational losses of £26m p.a. (87% of turnover.) There's £71m of capitalised debt sitting with Mr Lansdown and the notes as regards us as an ongoing concern are clear for all to see - we continue trading because he's kind enough to keep it that way and for no other reason. 

And you think that's doing well with finances used?

[BTRFTG]

10 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

£170m over 3 years is less than £56m odd a year.

Save that's not how its paid or accounted for, with the vast majority coming in this year.

Your point however is right in should they come down they've the delicate balance of shipping out as much cost as possible whilst trying to remain competitive. If they've rich, egotistical backers they might not ship anything out and gamble to get back to the golden goose first time, but like us are then wholly dependant upon 'charity' to keep trading.

[Riaz]

3 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Are you for real? Do you sign off accounts? Dear you seriously understand accounting and finance modelling?

Villa operate a high risk / high reward operating model which, to date, they've managed to exploit. Their model is wholly underpinned by Premier League income with the risk that goes, so might they without drastic measures.

We on the other hand operate at around 20% of their annual turnover supporting operational losses of £26m p.a. (87% of turnover.) There's £71m of capitalised debt sitting with Mr Lansdown and the notes as regards us as an ongoing concern are clear for all to see - we continue trading because he's kind enough to keep it that way and for no other reason. 

And you think that's doing well with finances used?

Yes.

When comparing them with us.

They have had the benefit of Premier League TV money. Years and years of it.

I stand by what i said. For the last accounting year, we did very well to compete with villa. The resources they had, dwarfs ours.

[BTRFTG]

12 minutes ago, Riaz said:

Yes.

When comparing them with us.

They have had the benefit of Premier League TV money. Years and years of it.

I stand by what i said. For the last accounting year, we did very well to compete with villa. The resources they had, dwarfs ours.

Why compare us with Villa?

If you must make comparison if for some bizarre reason you think it justifies performance,  why not compare us with Charlton, Barnsley, Bournemouth, Oldham, or the dozens of other minnows who've enjoyed Premier riches? Why not compare us with the two ex-Premier sides who when we were last entering the top flight were plying their trade non-league? How well have we performed compared to them?

[Riaz]

7 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Why compare us with Villa?

If you must make comparison if for some bizarre reason you think it justifies performance,  why not compare us with Charlton, Barnsley, Bournemouth, Oldham, or the dozens of other minnows who've enjoyed Premier riches? Why not compare us with the two ex-Premier sides who when we were last entering the top flight were plying their trade non-league? How well have we performed compared to them?

Because Villa finished only a couple of places above us. Its an easy comparison.

None of those teams were in the championship last season. So i'm not sure comparing them would be fair.

And it just so happens there financial results were released today