Pearson & Fleming : OUT

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Will try- hopefully the input of Dave and others too- FFP tbh is quite opaque, isn't covered that well by the media- certainly not the intricacies. I won't bother with PL or UEFA as let's be honest these won't be bothering us any time soon? A typical Championship club at this level for quite some time.

Operating costs are basically the entire costs of running the club- when we talk £60m that's the lot, plus interest.

Amortisation

Buy a player on a 5 year deal for £10m, and do it correctly then all being well it is £2m in the Profit and Loss account each year- written off in equal numbers- this differs to installments and differs to the actual transfer itself which is additions and can be found on the balance sheet albeit with no individual breakdown. All counts within the accounts but only for player transfer fees, signing on fees, some other categories and probably management compensation paid on hire does it count towards FFP- software, nope. Goodwill, nope.

Depreciation

Basically, the cost or the valuation as it appears on the Balance Sheet for Tangible Fixed Assets- if the Stadium is worth or costed at £60m and is written down over 50 years equally then £1.2m would appear in the P&L in a year- this is excluded from FFP calculations.

Loss Tariff

£13m in a year rising to £39m in any 3 year period- this is Loss Before Tax- any corporation tax payment or credit is therefore an irrelevance- however...

Allowable Costs

This is when a club- and all clubs have this- add back what needs adding back. Fixed Asset expenditure (in short reflected in the Profit and Loss via Tangible Asset Depreciation usually, or maybe sometimes Tangible Asset Impairment), Youth/Academy expenditure, Community expenditure and Women's Football expenditure- also goodwill and non playing based Fixed assets ie Software amortisation are excluded.

Put simply, I make our allowable costs £5m per year- which is where the below comes in. You take the accounting loss and then you add back the categories above.

Formula

In this instance, I would say accounting loss minus allowances=FFP Loss. Or in formula form, maybe...

AL-A=FFPL? Probably many better ways to do that formula however!

Cumulative Loss

In short, if our accounting loss before tax in a 3 year period exceeds £54m we could be in trouble! I am factoring this in after Interest payments made and received, and after, inclusive of Profit on disposal of Player registrations- these can certainly decrease or increase our losses. It's why I fear we might need to sell one of our great young talents this summer. Think one could be enough.

Gets more complex with Covid unfortunately...

Covid measures

1. 2019/20 and 2020/21 added and halved- that means the period is included as one, basically- our halved loss is £24m, FFP takes that down to £19m give or take...
2. ...Then Covid losses permitted- the stated limits are £5m per 2019/20 and 2020/21 I believe- which means it could take us down to a combined average of £14m give or take- and £2.5m this season!

Apologies it's quite a long post all told! Quite a bit to unpack though...hope it helps.

In short, as things stand we need accounting losses not exceeding £54m in a regular 3 year period, although with Covid and averaging it becomes rather difficult..

Small bit to add.

By definition if 3 year accounting losses cannot exceed £54m (£18m in one year) and we have an averaged income of £26m per year, plus we assume that eg Profit on transfers or sell on is an exceptional gain because it cannot be guaranteed, then total Operating Costs must be £44m per year on average- this is inclusive of Interest payments made and received.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

 

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@gl2here’s my article for BristolWorld (Gregor) too.

 

 

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Will try- hopefully the input of Dave and others too- FFP tbh is quite opaque, isn't covered that well by the media- certainly not the intricacies. I won't bother with PL or UEFA as let's be honest these won't be bothering us any time soon? A typical Championship club at this level for quite some time.

Operating costs are basically the entire costs of running the club- when we talk £60m that's the lot, plus interest.

Amortisation

Buy a player on a 5 year deal for £10m, and do it correctly then all being well it is £2m in the Profit and Loss account each year- written off in equal numbers- this differs to installments and differs to the actual transfer itself which is additions and can be found on the balance sheet albeit with no individual breakdown. All counts within the accounts but only for player transfer fees, signing on fees, some other categories and probably management compensation paid on hire does it count towards FFP- software, nope. Goodwill, nope.

Depreciation

Basically, the cost or the valuation as it appears on the Balance Sheet for Tangible Fixed Assets- if the Stadium is worth or costed at £60m and is written down over 50 years equally then £1.2m would appear in the P&L in a year- this is excluded from FFP calculations.

Loss Tariff

£13m in a year rising to £39m in any 3 year period- this is Loss Before Tax- any corporation tax payment or credit is therefore an irrelevance- however...

Allowable Costs

This is when a club- and all clubs have this- add back what needs adding back. Fixed Asset expenditure (in short reflected in the Profit and Loss via Tangible Asset Depreciation usually, or maybe sometimes Tangible Asset Impairment), Youth/Academy expenditure, Community expenditure and Women's Football expenditure- also goodwill and non playing based Fixed assets ie Software amortisation are excluded.

Put simply, I make our allowable costs £5m per year- which is where the below comes in. You take the accounting loss and then you add back the categories above.

Formula

In this instance, I would say accounting loss minus allowances=FFP Loss. Or in formula form, maybe...

AL-A=FFPL? Probably many better ways to do that formula however!

Cumulative Loss

In short, if our accounting loss before tax in a 3 year period exceeds £54m we could be in trouble! I am factoring this in after Interest payments made and received, and after, inclusive of Profit on disposal of Player registrations- these can certainly decrease or increase our losses. It's why I fear we might need to sell one of our great young talents this summer. Think one could be enough.

Gets more complex with Covid unfortunately...

Covid measures

1. 2019/20 and 2020/21 added and halved- that means the period is included as one, basically- our halved loss is £24m, FFP takes that down to £19m give or take...
2. ...Then Covid losses permitted- the stated limits are £5m per 2019/20 and 2020/21 I believe- which means it could take us down to a combined average of £14m give or take- and £2.5m this season!

Apologies it's quite a long post all told! Quite a bit to unpack though...hope it helps.

In short, as things stand we need accounting losses not exceeding £54m in a regular 3 year period, although with Covid and averaging it becomes rather difficult..

ok, just one more question, remind me why was FFP brought in anyway? seems more of a hindrance to clubs than help. If they go bankrupt cant afford to pay debtors they either go out of business or are taken over by someone else? like most other businesses.

[B1ackbird]

33 minutes ago, gl2 said:

 

 

ok, just one more question, remind me why was FFP brought in anyway? seems more of a hindrance to clubs than help. If they go bankrupt cant afford to pay debtors they either go out of business or are taken over by someone else? like most other businesses.

I think it was brought in to stop the premier League becoming a closed shop as clubs would have to declare bankruptcy as soon as they were religated.

It's become a reset season for shell shocked prem minnows who were battered weekly even after they sacked their manager in a last desparate " throw of the dice"...

I agree it's not fit for purpose anymore.

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

1 hour ago, gl2 said:

ok, just one more question, remind me why was FFP brought in anyway? 

It's like an arms treaty. Every club in the championship loses millions of pounds. This was the best mutually acceptable compromise they could find to cap their losses.

[The Bard]

On 19/03/2022 at 11:25, Rob k said:

I’ve been in the NP in camp and still am, but, if they are considering getting rid then just do it now so the next manager is the one who gets to sign the next squad, otherwise this cycle continues 

Clearly they're not thinking of it. 

[The Bard]

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@gl2here’s my article for BristolWorld (Gregor) too.

 

Great article.

It seems obvious to me that the best resolution to this would be a Prem 2.  Very much like in Germany.

Then have league 1 as the stepping stone between elite football and semi pro.  Merge league 2 and the national league into north and south leagues and you structure the game in a rational way reflecting it's strengths.

It's ludicrous to have Scunthorpe playing Crawley on the same day that Grimsby play Dover for example.  

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

6 minutes ago, The Bard said:

It seems obvious to me that the best resolution to this would be a Prem 2.  Very much like in Germany.

Interesting idea. Are you thinking that this would be a different route for Championship clubs to share in premier league tv rights? If so I can see why it's appealing, but is it realistic? I can't think why Premier League would vote for it but perhaps I'm missing something, or perhaps it's somthing that could be imposed.

Instinctively I don't like the idea of making L2 regional. I feel proud of the richness and depth of the English Football League and wider pyramid and this feels like it takes something away, relegates L2 to a lower status than it has currently. And for what purpose, it's not travel costs that L2 clubs are struggling with. I wonder whether you're thinking that this would allow less of the premier league wealth to be distributed down to that level and more to be retained at the Championship level, in which case I'd definitely be opposed.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, gl2 said:

 

 

ok, just one more question, remind me why was FFP brought in anyway? seems more of a hindrance to clubs than help. If they go bankrupt cant afford to pay debtors they either go out of business or are taken over by someone else? like most other businesses.

As per my article, brought in by Platini in a veiled attempt to decrease English club’s dominance in Europe.  It is supposedly to stop clubs running up too much debt and create a competitive league, but it fails big-time because I think those two main objectives aren’t complimentary.

In a perverse way I think Derby going bust might be what the EFL / it’s clubs need to really get reform.

1 hour ago, The Bard said:

Great article.

It seems obvious to me that the best resolution to this would be a Prem 2.  Very much like in Germany.

Then have league 1 as the stepping stone between elite football and semi pro.  Merge league 2 and the national league into north and south leagues and you structure the game in a rational way reflecting it's strengths.

It's ludicrous to have Scunthorpe playing Crawley on the same day that Grimsby play Dover for example.  

Gartside (RIP) was a big proponent of this when Bolton started to look like they were struggling to keep their PL status.  I always though it was a bit “cake and eat it”, i.e. happy to share the PL riches with 20 clubs whilst they were one of the 20, but as soon as that was threatened suddenly wanted to share it with another 20 (PL2 would be 20 clubs).  Problem being the PL really only wanted to share it with 6/8 clubs (the really big ones), so they were never gonna vote for stretching it to 40.

But I agree, that would be the sensible way forward, share the PL money wider, get rid of PPs, and regionalise L2 and NL into L2N and L2S.

49 minutes ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

Interesting idea. Are you thinking that this would be a different route for Championship clubs to share in premier league tv rights? If so I can see why it's appealing, but is it realistic? I can't think why Premier League would vote for it but perhaps I'm missing something, or perhaps it's somthing that could be imposed.

Instinctively I don't like the idea of making L2 regional. I feel proud of the richness and depth of the English Football League and wider pyramid and this feels like it takes something away, relegates L2 to a lower status than it has currently. And for what purpose, it's not travel costs that L2 clubs are struggling with. I wonder whether you're thinking that this would allow less of the premier league wealth to be distributed down to that level and more to be retained at the Championship level, in which case I'd definitely be opposed.

Para 1 - that’s the problem, they don’t want to share it.  It’s why I was happy for the big 6 to join the new ESL and piss off out of domestic football.  But it seems they wanted ESL and retain domestic league status too.  PPs create the imbalance, more so with reduced revenues in the past two seasons.  There has to be a better way.  Salary cap has merits but needs fine tuning to remove loopholes.

Para 2 - you could turn this around and say it’s elevating NL status, rather than lowering status on L2. Tomato/Tomayto though!  Travel costs for clubs and fans reduced is a positive, not the be-all and end-all though.  But again, you’re right (same as the Bard), the wealth needs to be shared better.  There is a big argument that EFL should negotiate their own tv deal.  5th best League and all that.

Something needs doing though, whatever that is.

However, the efficiently financed clubs like Luton are currently taking advantage (and fair play to them) of some bigger clubs struggling to recover from covid.  Refreshing.  

[cidered abroad]

1 hour ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

Interesting idea. Are you thinking that this would be a different route for Championship clubs to share in premier league tv rights? If so I can see why it's appealing, but is it realistic? I can't think why Premier League would vote for it but perhaps I'm missing something, or perhaps it's somthing that could be imposed.

Instinctively I don't like the idea of making L2 regional. I feel proud of the richness and depth of the English Football League and wider pyramid and this feels like it takes something away, relegates L2 to a lower status than it has currently. And for what purpose, it's not travel costs that L2 clubs are struggling with. I wonder whether you're thinking that this would allow less of the premier league wealth to be distributed down to that level and more to be retained at the Championship level, in which case I'd definitely be opposed.

I heartily agree with the "richness and depth" comment. However the costs of travel are not insignificant at that level. Add in hotels when a Torquay or Crawley have an away match ar Carlisle or Hartlepool. Or if those teams travel on the day, it diminishes the competitiveness of the game as even very fit, young men become over tired sitting in a coach on a six hour journey. Thus I would make L2 regional.

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

27 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Something needs doing though, whatever that is.  

I think the Crouch Review (or Fan Led Review or whatever it's called) is really encouraging.

On PPs it makes clear that these have to go. If the EFL and Premier League can't develop a replacement to PPs then an alternative approach will be imposed based on independent advice to the new regulator. And whatever is introduced will be focussed on avoiding the distortions created by the current system.

On funding for the lower leagues the review discusses the possibility that a 10% levy on Premier League teams for the costs of overseas player purchases would be enough to fund the whole thing.

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

Regionalisation does of course reduce travel time but it's no panacea. Gloucester City are in National League North which seems crazy and illustrates the difficulty you get when it comes to drawing the boundary. Their longest journey is to Blythe Spartans which is more than 500 miles round trip. And they never get to play Chippenham Town, who might otherwise be a local rival and a good local day out for supporters, but who are in National League South. Some problems solved, some new problems introduced.

If the key problem is financial sustainabiity, regionalisation might help a little but it's fiddling at the edges. The real solution is better cost control - which will follow from independent regulation - and a small enhancment in redistribution from the Prem. Those small changes will allow the underlying strength of L2 to show through again. After all average attendances of 5k / week at this level is unique in world football.

We've had four national leagues for over 50 years and whilst I certainly respect other perspectives it would feel like a massive shame - to me - to throw this out now because of the distorting effects that Premier League wealth has on our game.... just as we've got a solution in sight.

[Tonks55]

13 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@gl2here’s my article for BristolWorld (Gregor) too.

 

Great article...which has changed my opinion on the 'Pearson debate'. If the actions of Pearson (and Gould) in reducing our costs to below FPP limits and subsequently save us a points deduction for next season (whilst still  keeping us in the Championship) then that is an achievement that should be lauded. Although we may have to sell the family silver, Pearson has given that silver a good polish and we may get a better price even in a depressed market (the family silver being the likes of Scott, Massengo etc). My expectations for next year have been managed however!

[The Bard]

23 hours ago, Tonks55 said:

Great article...which has changed my opinion on the 'Pearson debate'. If the actions of Pearson (and Gould) in reducing our costs to below FPP limits and subsequently save us a points deduction for next season (whilst still  keeping us in the Championship) then that is an achievement that should be lauded. Although we may have to sell the family silver, Pearson has given that silver a good polish and we may get a better price even in a depressed market (the family silver being the likes of Scott, Massengo etc). My expectations for next year have been managed however!

Bravo. 

[The Bard]

23 hours ago, Tonks55 said:

Great article...which has changed my opinion on the 'Pearson debate'. If the actions of Pearson (and Gould) in reducing our costs to below FPP limits and subsequently save us a points deduction for next season (whilst still  keeping us in the Championship) then that is an achievement that should be lauded. Although we may have to sell the family silver, Pearson has given that silver a good polish and we may get a better price even in a depressed market (the family silver being the likes of Scott, Massengo etc). My expectations for next year have been managed however!

Thing is, if we can get through next season maybe with a better finish and with signs of progression we will be in a good position. Rid of the overpaid dross and hopefully with a young group of players ready to push on. He said 3 years for a reason. He knew the contract lengths and the impact this would have. The 2 years are an opportunity to blood players and work out who is in for the long run.  

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, The Bard said:

Thing is, if we can get through next season maybe with a better finish and with signs of progression we will be in a good position. Rid of the overpaid dross and hopefully with a young group of players ready to push on. He said 3 years for a reason. He knew the contract lengths and the impact this would have. The 2 years are an opportunity to blood players and work out who is in for the long run.  

Yep, theoretically you just get rid of the ones you don’t want, bring in the ones you do.  Maybe the one you want isn’t available yet, so you go with a temporary option, e.g. one year contracts for Simpson, King.

Doing some quick maths last night, if we look at the players OOC this summer and the ones expiring next summer that you’d like to move on there’s about £8m of cost reduction opportunity (wages and amortisation) there.  Pearson won’t realise all of that, but there is also the possibility of getting some fees in too.  Humour me for a mo’, but someone like Vyner, if we sold him for £100k (made up figure) that’s all profit, as well as his wages off the books.  Someone like Bakinson, his initial fee has pretty much all but amortised, so any fee we get for him (assuming he does go) is pretty much all profit too.

Its going to be a moving feast as the season ends and decisions are made on a raft of players.

[The Bard]

32 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, theoretically you just get rid of the ones you don’t want, bring in the ones you do.  Maybe the one you want isn’t available yet, so you go with a temporary option, e.g. one year contracts for Simpson, King.

Doing some quick maths last night, if we look at the players OOC this summer and the ones expiring next summer that you’d like to move on there’s about £8m of cost reduction opportunity (wages and amortisation) there.  Pearson won’t realise all of that, but there is also the possibility of getting some fees in too.  Humour me for a mo’, but someone like Vyner, if we sold him for £100k (made up figure) that’s all profit, as well as his wages off the books.  Someone like Bakinson, his initial fee has pretty much all but amortised, so any fee we get for him (assuming he does go) is pretty much all profit too.

Its going to be a moving feast as the season ends and decisions are made on a raft of players.

Question then is how much of these savings need to be used to reduce losses and how much can be used on Signings?, be they new players plus fees or new contracts for players already here.

If none of Brownhill,  Webster or Kelly move are we then in a position where we have to sell one of our main assets?

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, The Bard said:

Question then is how much of these savings need to be used to reduce losses and how much can be used on Signings?, be they new players plus fees or new contracts for players already here.

If none of Brownhill,  Webster or Kelly move are we then in a position where we have to sell one of our main assets?

By my estimates, and these are heavily caveated, because I’m not the CFO of Bristol City () so can’t know the real numbers, I think that if we made no changes to our squad, i.e. re-contracted those players expiring (Klose, Cundy, O’Dowda etc) on existing terms and made no new contract offers to those expiring the summer after (Kalas, Bentley, Massengo, etc) then we are looking at a FFP Cycle loss of £44.5m.  The numbers take account of the recently allowed covid losses of £5m, £5m and £2.5m.  There is no transfer profit baked into my estimates.

Therefore we need to find £5.5m to get inside FFP threshold of £39m.

Some of that deficit will be reduced by not extending those players OOC.

Some will be by extending the likes of Kalas, where either his wages come down, his amortisation gets smoothed over a long period, or a bit of both.

Some will be by selling players like Bakinson, receiving a fee and not having to pay his wages..

The hope is Webster, Kelly or Brownhill make us some sell-on dough.

The hope is we don’t have to sell Semenyo, Scott or Massengo.

Its like a big see-saw, with a big £5.5m weight that either needs balancing on the other side, or by reducing the size of the £5.5m.

I don’t believe we will go for a points deduction.  Nor do I necessarily know why people keep quoting 6 points on twitter?

Does that make sense?  Shout if any other questions.

Finally, to use Kalas as an example on £25k p.w, imagine he signed a new deal until 2025 on £15k p.w.  That would reduce that £5.5m weight to £3.5m, i.e. saves us £2m next season.

[The Bard]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

By my estimates, and these are heavily caveated, because I’m not the CFO of Bristol City () so can’t know the real numbers, I think that if we made no changes to our squad, i.e. re-contracted those players expiring (Klose, Cundy, O’Dowda etc) on existing terms and made no new contract offers to those expiring the summer after (Kalas, Bentley, Massengo, etc) then we are looking at a FFP Cycle loss of £44.5m.  The numbers take account of the recently allowed covid losses of £5m, £5m and £2.5m.  There is no transfer profit baked into my estimates.

Therefore we need to find £5.5m to get inside FFP threshold of £39m.

Some of that deficit will be reduced by not extending those players OOC.

Some will be by extending the likes of Kalas, where either his wages come down, his amortisation gets smoothed over a long period, or a bit of both.

Some will be by selling players like Bakinson, receiving a fee and not having to pay his wages..

The hope is Webster, Kelly or Brownhill make us some sell-on dough.

The hope is we don’t have to sell Semenyo, Scott or Massengo.

Its like a big see-saw, with a big £5.5m weight that either needs balancing on the other side, or by reducing the size of the £5.5m.

I don’t believe we will go for a points deduction.  Nor do I necessarily know why people keep quoting 6 points on twitter?

Does that make sense?  Shout if any other questions.

Finally, to use Kalas as an example on £25k p.w, imagine he signed a new deal until 2025 on £15k p.w.  That would reduce that £5.5m weight to £3.5m, i.e. saves us £2m next season.

If we sold Kalas for £2 million and bought a replacement for £1 million on a 4 year deal paying £10k per week, we'd be over £2 million better off wouldn't we?

So it could boil down to whether Pearson wants Kalas long term.

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by The Bard

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 22/03/2022 at 05:52, gl2 said:

 

 

ok, just one more question, remind me why was FFP brought in anyway? seems more of a hindrance to clubs than help. If they go bankrupt cant afford to pay debtors they either go out of business or are taken over by someone else? like most other businesses.

There are many theories on this. There is the one that it is to nobble the English clubs, I think it's a bit more complex- Platini when he first came in was a bit of a football romantic in some ways- there were articles when he first got elected to UEFA that claimed he wanted to bring back the old European Cup except massively bigger- straight knock out, two legs etc. Saw one a few years ago.

The second bit is that when he first came in, his initial focus was on DEBT. Debt not losses- but he was persuaded/leant on by the big clubs in the big Leagues and yes can probably include Man United in this that Profit and Loss was the best marker...as a club with one of the top 3 turnovers in the world but a huge debt thanks to the Glazers they would sail through FFP in its current form but if it was a debt based one, they would flounder.

In some respects, it has been positive- IMO anyway. I'd suggest that beneficiaries include middling well run clubs such as Atalanta, for a time Napoli, a return to relative prominence of Ajax and on occasion Benfica ie in the last 8 of the CL now- these are all examples of a good part to FFP. However it might be worth separating out pros and cons at UEFA level and our level given Parachute Payments count in full as income for FFP.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/football/08/28/football.platini.uefa.debt/index.html

Debt though of course, is only a problem if an entity cannot service it. Man United can plainly service their debt- Leeds, Portsmouth could not and Derby probably cannot now. A lot of top clubs have a lot of top debt in Europe and one or two in England.

If he was just biased against England, then I dunno if that holds entirely...he was pissed off at the large fee offered by Madrid in 2009 for Ronaldo- regulatory arguments for and against, some might say what has the club financials got to do with him. At the UEFA top division level though, in the era of FFP reportedly by 2019 there was a collective profit whereas in 2009 there was a major loss.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/football/06/12/platini.ronaldo.transfer.finances/index.html

I also support aspects of it such as Community, Infrastructure, Women's Football, Youth Academies being exempt- a rule that makes less attractive selling off of Fixed Assets as they don't count towards FFP seems okay too.

In any event, if I'm honest capitalist system or not, not a great fan of any old megabucks owner who got money from god knows where or who, just pouring in limitless funds and buying the competitions.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

31 minutes ago, The Bard said:

If we sold Kalas for £2 million and bought a replacement for £1 million on a 4 year deal paying £10k per week, we'd be over £2 million better off wouldn't we?

So it could boil down to whether Pearson wants Kalas long term.

 

Yep, we’d save £3.25m on Kalas and be forking out £0.75m p.a. on new player….so £2.5m better off next season.

Which is one of the reasons some of us think he might be the one to go.  There’s also a chance we might get more than £2m for him too.

Pearson does talk affectionately about him, but ultimately there’s a whole host of tough decisions to be made.

[Ivorguy]

Wouldn’t want NP’s  job.  Extremely tricky and also dependent on bids coming in, offers to existing players accepted, and our bids not being gazumped.

Then there is the problem of injury prone players and players staying who don’t want to be here

Add an owner putting his oar in.

But wouldn’t want anyone other than a tough and intelligent guy like NP in charge

 

In Nige I trust

 

 

[BCFC Rich]

Wasn't sure which thread to put this in as there are a few on the go! Anyway ended up pretty long!

Short Version: 

Individually players have been great. A massively inexperienced squad giving inconsistent performances shouldn't be a shock, and should even be expected. NP has not had the chance to work with a consistent MId or Def to implement systems. 

Long Version:

I think if you have to look at expectations - who are the players people think he is not getting enough out of? Look at the players he's had available individually and NP is doing a really good job. 

GK: Both keepers have had good spells, Max did well when he came in and Bentley looks better for having dropped out and come back.

Def: Tanner, Klose and Atkinson look good additions especially for the money. Baker was great until injured. Pring is someone I wasn't even sure would make it here, but has had a great season and looks good LB/LWB and CB in a three. Cundy has been given a chance - come in and looked assured + shows promise. It's only really Vyner who hasn't looked up to standard, you could make an argument for NP not getting the best form him, or that he should be given a shot as a DM, but if he moves on I don't think anyone is expecting him to suddenly look like a much better player. Kalas I kept to last here he has been decent and its hard to complain he's pretty consistent and committed, I think you could make a case that we could get marginally better performances form him, but he has still been good. Also worth pointing out much improved since being unburdened with the captaincy (a role that didn't suit him), and that NP handled that transition very smoothly. 

Mid: Scott has been amazing. Williams has shown signs of what he can do and is only just hitting full fitness. HNM - has been a little up and down, he has had his best ever spell for us and then been a little inconsistent. King adds experience, but not much on the pitch (soft spot for him as he is a city fan though! :laugh:). James again adds experience had has had good games. Palmer (remember him!) is clearly not showing the attitude and commitment NP wants. We definitely haven't seen the best of him here but I personally think that's more to do with the player than NP and he'll either repeat the process with other clubs, or be lucky enough to end up somewhere that will indulge him a little more. COD has (apart form a 3-4 game spell early under LJ) been as good as he has ever been for us. Benarous has been given valuable game time and looks like he will develop well. 

Att: Semenyo has been amazing kicked on and looks quality. Easily his best football. Martin - does a lot of the hard work in the middle to work the defense and make space for AW and AS and adds vital experience. Wells showed what he can do at the weekend, I love his attitude and think he is a fantastic pro. you could argue NP could have got more out of him and given him more chances although it would probably have been at the expense of AS or AW (not sure he suits Martins role) so personally think it's understandable why his chances have been limited. Weimann - undoubtably his best ever championship season has been fantastic. Honestly from the whole squad I think you could say he maybe could have achieved better performances from Kalas, Vyner, Palmer, Wells - although for all of these there are strong mitigating circumstances. Everyone else has on an individual level been good, and many have had their best seasons for us.

The issue has been playing as a team and i think thats down to not being able to select a consistent Def or MId.

Def - we have had over half the season without a RB + Baker, Kalas, Jay (early season), Atkinson and Cundy have all had spells out. That makes it hard to gel as a team and drill in the tactics etc. Mid - we barely have one! Scott, King, HNM, James, Williams, COD and Palmer (could maybe add Benarous - although very inexperienced). 7 players, 4 have missed huge chunks of the season and Palmer is definitely not in consideration (+ maybe injured too?). Scott and HNM have been the only players consistently available! Scott has been amazing but is hardly experienced, and even HNM has had spells out with injury. Again hard to develop systems and ingrain tactics when you cannot play or even train the players together regularly. Att - only area we have been able to pick players consistently and even people who don't rate and/or want NP out cannot deny this part of the team have been a success. 

We have also played from academy/youth set up - Scott, O'leary, Pring, Towler, Bell, Vyner, Conway, and Benarous. Add in Semenyo, Cundy, HNM who are to some extent also club developed and thats 11 club developed players getting game time, or 8 if you want to exclude the later 3! Most clubs would love to be able to say that. That takes me to the final point lack of experience. you have all those players + Tanner, Atkinson who lack Championship (could maybe exclude HNM due to no. of seasons, but he is hardly an old pro). So inconsistent performances will happen and should be expected. NP is managing a very young/inexperienced side, has rarely been able to have the same mid/def and very little money to recruit. Despite that - most players are having a good season individually and are young enough that improvement next season is likely. Imagine what he can do with them then. Imagine what he could do if we can improve depth and/or keep def and mid players consistently available.

 

[Merrick's Marvels]

On 22/03/2022 at 11:27, Tonks55 said:

Great article...which has changed my opinion on the 'Pearson debate'. If the actions of Pearson (and Gould) in reducing our costs to below FPP limits and subsequently save us a points deduction for next season (whilst still  keeping us in the Championship) then that is an achievement that should be lauded.

Imo, it should not only be lauded but, when you understand our historical travails at this level and then factor in our current financial position plus the mess of a squad he inherited, be acknowledged as a near miraculous achievement. 

Scandously, imo, that acknowledgement seems unlikely - judging by the opinion of the suits above him (who seem to think he's "under performing") and the know-nothing gobshites of social media and local radio.

More fool them.

Personally, I'm happy to carry Nige shoulder high to the nearest hostelry at season's end to celebrate, although I appreciate this honour is usually reserved for fake sheikhs, fake messiahs,  fake football clubs.

Nige is no messiah, and he may even be a very naughty boy, but fake he is not.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[Waconda]

12 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Imo, it should not only be lauded but, when you understand our historical travails at this level and then factor in our current financial position plus the mess of a squad he inherited, be acknowledged as a near miraculous achievement. 

Scandously, imo, that acknowledgement seems unlikely - judging by the opinion of the suits above him (who seem to think he's "under performing") and the know-nothing gobshites of social media and local radio.

More fool them.

Personally, I'm happy to carry Nige shoulder high to the nearest hostelry at season's end to celebrate, although I appreciate this honour is usually reserved for fake sheikhs, fake messiahs,  fake football clubs.

Nige is no messiah, and he may even be a very naughty boy, but fake he is not.

He is though under performing.

[SBB]

1 hour ago, Waconda said:

He is though under performing.

Probably best if you start adding “IMO” at the end of all your posts, again. You like to talk in fact…. when in actual fact, it’s only your opinion.

[Waconda]

1 hour ago, SBB said:

Probably best if you start adding “IMO” at the end of all your posts, again. You like to talk in fact…. when in actual fact, it’s only your opinion.

Sorry didn't mean to upset you.

Yes in "my opinion" which is just as valid as yours as I'm sure you will agree.

[tin]

3 hours ago, Waconda said:

He is though under performing.

I don’t know why you think he’s underperforming, but that boils down to your own expectations for this season.

For me, anything above the bottom three would be a good season because I understand the imbalance of the squad, it’s inexperience, the shoestring budget he’s working with, plus the fact he’s tasked with overseeing the club’s entire football operation because SL won’t appoint any form of sporting director/director of football or head scout to help him shoulder this load. 

For those reasons, I think he’s exceeding my expectations and he deserves time to try and stop the rot IMO. In times of adversity like these, the club needs our support and patience more than ever. We’ve seen similar rebuilds take place in L1, it’s a pleasant change to see us doing that now in the league above. 

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, tin said:

I don’t know why you think he’s underperforming, but that boils down to your own expectations for this season.

For me, anything above the bottom three would be a good season because I understand the imbalance of the squad, it’s inexperience, the shoestring budget he’s working with, plus the fact he’s tasked with overseeing the club’s entire football operation because SL won’t appoint any form of sporting director/director of football or head scout to help him shoulder this load. 

For those reasons, I think he’s exceeding my expectations and he deserves time to try and stop the rot IMO. In times of adversity like these, the club needs our support and patience more than ever. We’ve seen similar rebuilds take place in L1, it’s a pleasant change to see us doing that now in the league above. 

Plus keeping us up with a significantly reduced budget….and importantly reduced commitments to wages and amortisation in future years, i.e. sustainable, not a one season reduction.

As it stands the budget for this season is £12-13m less, same next season if not more, and approaching £20m lower in 23/24.

That’s notwithstanding any transfers in or out. 

[Phileas Fogg]

32 minutes ago, Waconda said:

Sorry didn't mean to upset you.

Yes in "my opinion" which is just as valid as yours as I'm sure you will agree.

Did you have a different username before?

[KegCity]

4 hours ago, Waconda said:

He is though under performing.

What were you expecting for the season? A lot of people were predicting 17th/18th which is about where we are.