Mr Popodopolous

36 minutes ago, Jobi said:

I’ve never understood how fans, who I assume don’t have coaching badges, who don’t see the players week in week out, and don’t know the specifics of what actually goes on in the club can say, with such confidence, the formation they would play. Find it bizzare.

Coaching badges are one thing but okay and players are another but a basic reading..

3-5-2 vs 4-3-3.

Your 2 v 1 can really pin baxk the wingbacks. Wide forward plus attacking fullback.

3 v 3 in central areas.

If you can get the service to the 2 strikers, 2 CBs can match up- if an attacking mid one can drop back but 2 CBs can assist v the lone striker.

Wingbacks are intetgal often to the 3-5-2.

Pulling across to even the score 2 v 1 wise can leave 3 v 2 in the centre and exposed again.

Overloading, flooding key areas.

3-4-3 vs 4-3-3

2 v 1 in wide areas is less of a concern but 2 v 3 in central areas can also become 6 v 5 or 4 v 5 and unless the spare man is very good another tactical dilemma.

Wide man or wide striker tucks in, you then have 2 v 1 to exploit on one flank and a possible imbalance to boot.

Coaching badges? No. I watch or have watched a lot of football however, as we all have- not just English League but other Leagues- there is no perfect setup but I have reservations about the back 3 as it stands.

Just now, Davefevs said:

Because just like a pro manager, they have their own thoughts and philosophies on how they’d play the game, or how they’d play the game with the players they have available to them.

Mr P isn’t gonna rock up at the HPC tomorrow and get the chance to implement his thoughts, but he can be as bullish as he wants about his thoughts on OTIB (or any other platform).  It’s kinda the point of OTIB, etc, isn’t it.  You carry on @Mr Popodopolous with your 433.  One day, one day!

And sometimes football is so insular, it can miss the obvious, or it can get a fresh perspective on things from the outside world, it doesn’t have to be “if you’ve not played the game” Danny Murphy type bollocks.

To be honest, our current head-coach thinks it’s a good idea to play Mark Sykes at LWB, how does that ratify his skills? Slightly tongue in cheek, but a semblance of WTAF also.

You for manager @Davefevs I reckon..only if Manning goes of course but your scouting, use of data off your own bat- well it would be intriguing.

Bird and Knight in a 3-4-3?

With two 10s...James has played in some of our best games this season.

Just now, Maltshoveller said:

So the shape is wrong

What shape would you play and why

4-3-3 ish. 

I'm slightly biased towards it as a setup, it is more clearly defined, more cover in wide areas and the middle, we clearly played towards and were built towards it between January and end of October last year.

One of my critiques is that a back 3 with wingbacks if you can pin them back then the side are bang in trouble.

We have changed shape seemingly after all the stuff of last October.

2 minutes ago, Cov 77 said:

Oh ok that sounds even better , fingers crossed 

Yeah, it does but I don't really have faith in us.

Releasing James isn't a great start- however given we have one of the non Parachute top incomes it should assist a fair amount yes or could do anyway.

2 minutes ago, Cov 77 said:

If not promoted West Brom have had their 3 years of parachutes and Norwich will be on their third year, so losing some of their advantage, in a division of unequals for that reason only want Leeds or Southampton to win the play offs 

WBA actually only had 2 years as yoyo clubs only get 55%, 45% and then 20% 

See also Norwich if they stay down and Watford- only does a 2nd successive year or more qualify a club for the 3rd and final.

Ergo Norwich if they stay down will be from Year 2 Parachutes to EFL cash, WBA will be Year 2 Parachutes, EFL cash Year 1, EFL cash Year 2.

Just now, Jobi said:

Yes but a lot of money for someone who wasn’t going to be first or second choice.

Who is going to be first choice then- or who would have been 

Bird is, will be good but still has it to prove.

The shape is flawed, we're going nowhere fast.

1 hour ago, Jobi said:

I don’t understand this “brush away” NP elements - MJ is in his 30s, one of the highest earners in the club and is by no means a 1st choice in 24/25 - makes little sense to keep him unless on heavily reduced terms and even then he is unlikely to accept. As for King, obvious not to renew. Don’t think it has anything to do with NP, just sensible business in my view. 

One of the highest earners and frankly he is worth it if so but I'm sceptical and probably he is closer to £15,000 than £20,000.

He maybe one of the highest earners now but that was only after 2 years of restraint on expenditure and reduction of the cost base.

6 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

Quick deal or no deal on Twine imo - a very early agreement at our limit (we must have one and it surely won't be anywhere near 5m) or quickly move on (Rudoni?) imo.

The last thing we want is for Twine negotiations to drag out so that our other targets are taken by the time an impasse becomes clear.

While I like Twine I don't like him at Burnley's reported valuation so I hope City will be really decisive here.

 

£2.5-3m tops or is even that a bit much?

Would be a slap in the face given the events of Summer 2023 onwards too.

35 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Dunno!  Major, minor, somewhere in between?

It's a very situation to someone wanting to leave to get 3x / 4x their wage as part of a step-up.  Hard to stand in their way then.  Twine has 2 years left on his contract, on sensible wages, so wages wise I doubt there’s an issue.  But it’s not like we are gonna blow Burnley out of the water with a wage either.

I’ve yet to hear a player questioned about his current club (signing, loan, contract) say he doesn’t want to be at said club either.  So we’ve really no idea who Twine prefers to play for.  Nor if he became available do I think Bristol City would be the only Champ club in for him.  So if Burnley are still insisting on £5m like they were in January, we need to decide to stump up or pull out early.  Unless we think we can wait to do another loan later in the summer.  That would be foolish to wait in that imho, but that’s just my thoughts.

But I think a lot of people have convinced themselves that he wants to leave Burnley (we’ve no idea) and that we’d be doing them a favour by taking him off their hands for £2m.

If we do manage to pull it off at that price, fantastic. My gut feel is that we won’t, because we had two goes in January, and Burnley didn’t budge then.  But then again, I could see us overpaying (imho) £5m too, to give support to LM, because that’s the kind of thing we do!

We definitely won't get Twine for £2m, £5m is excessive.

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Agree wirh a lot of this but that £124m owed but that may not be repaid any time soon..

Securing against Parachute Payments could do it, albeit I haven't for a while checked what is and isn't secured already.

Mind you in a remotely normal industry how many clubs would still be viable businesses, perhaps I'm overstating.

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Is that just trying to set a narrative for signing Twine?  In many ways, I think it’s become less likely Manning gets him now they’re relegated.

They will get there £100m+ PL money, they’ll have £45m PP, wage reduction clauses in many contracts, etc.

They have Twine (as we know), Obafemi, Weghorst, McNally, Roberts returning from loan, all capable Champ players.

I think they might have an obligation to buy Tresor.

Season after relegation doesn’t seem to hit many clubs these days.

You could be right but the leveraged buyout may have changed the calculus, time will tell.

Yeah Burnley will have all that but FFP no issue, it is some of the Cash items that make me wonder a bit. If Twine was deemed surplus combined with that it could be to the advantage of a buying club..their owners have put next to nothing equity and cash wise in.

One to keep an eye on at least, whether it will help with Twine that is in turn another issue.

18 minutes ago, Charlie BCFC said:

Burnley look to be in the best state, not replacing Tella and Maatsen with similar quality has been their downfall this season. Luton I think will find it harder but still be fighting to get in the top 6. Sheffield United I can see being bottom half very easily

Don't like some of Burnley's cash position although this was the position at end of July 2023 so maybe outdated.

That sounds great but an issue is that the £124m owed to them maybe paper only ie no intention of repaying any time soon or ability to do so.

Factoring is basically bringing forward proceeds of debt. This method is perhaps to sell your future Receivables (Transfer fee instalments) in order to get them now and pay a fee or interest and they go directly to the lender as they fall due.

Perhaps they will be hemmed in or to a degree, distressed sellers.

1 hour ago, firstdivision said:

Yeah, but I wonder who’ll pay all the bills to keep us in the Championship for the next ten years. I presume you’ve got someone in mind who’ll do that. 

56 minutes ago, tin said:

Spot on. Add Millwall, Luton, Brentford, Coventry, Plymouth etc - plenty of examples out there. But don’t worry, based on more than two decades of evidence SL and his boy know everything about what it takes to get to the PL and keep us there. 

54 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

The "bills" / debts are mostly of his own making, we had very little debt when he became Chairman/ Majority shareholder - his choice to throw money at both Johnson's ( LJ signed 74 players for example) was SL's , there is another way as stated above clubs like PNE and Millwall have comparable records in the Championship and spend much less, and therefore have less "bills". 

 

Honestly think it is a bit of A and a bit of B.

They all need equity/cash injections, it just varies. Our trading model was somewhat flawed, as was backing the wrong horse in Lee Johnson.

They also have a much lower commercial income which reduces both cost and income, likewise Depreciation which indicates less expensive Infrastructure.

However the Championship is a moneypit for many, a matter of degree but I don't see what makes the Lansdowns so special in respect of being the only ones who could pay the bills.

19 minutes ago, The Coach said:

They also need to offload if they wish to spend apparently. However, feeling is no PL club will want to purchase their players.

Could that assist us for Twine?

24 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I don't know how they stand with their finances , but I imagine they will do their best to keep that side together . Seemed to get better as the season went on . They will probably see next year as an opportunity , if they don't win the PO's.

Query how well they can, clubs who lose between x and y have to submit by 31st March of the existing season their following 2 seasons forecast to the EFL.

I won't go Chapter and Verse but the EFL/CFRU can intervene in more restrictive ways if clubs are being difficult or resistant but the idea is to keep clubs compliant at all times, prevent breaches before they occur ideally by club and League working together.

21 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Norwich will be better again too. 

On one level yes, on another level maybe not. They will be going from £61m in Upper Loss limit and £35m or so in Parachute Payments to £39m (okay £41.5m) Upper Loss Limit and EFL money.

That is a rapidly shrinking headroom base. Clubs who yoyo only get Year 1 (55%) and Year 2 (45%) of the Central Award but there is no 20% for 3rd year, straight down to EFL cash.

10 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Does he know they'll have £44m(ish) more to spend than most of the other teams?

Plus the extra £22m in headroom (£61m vs £39m). Plus the £2.5m Cost of Living FFP increase which I just remembered but that lifts all clubs.

Albeit both them and Sheffield United, the financial trajectory is questionable from an angle of Cash Pile, borrowed money etc.

51 minutes ago, luke_bristol said:

Burnley getting relegated will probably make them more inclined to talk tough when it comes to transfer discussion over Scott Twine I suppose 

Hard to say, their financials are questionable (not FFP but more generally speaking).

Thank you Matty and all the best (except vs us).

Important signing and like King, Weimann, Wells- young players will have learnt in particular some good habits.

20 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Very much feel that the club will regret that decision. I’ve mentioned it before . That’s wiemann, James, king & possibly wells gone in one hit. Who’s policing & passing on experience to that young squad now . Transition is necessary but I’d have kept Matty for another year. If results start to go poorly , who’s there to stop any problems within the dressing room ? 
manning ? No, tinnion or Lansdown I’ve said it before & I hope I’m wrong but I see a relegation battle ahead . 

I was with you until the relegation battle next season point- I'm not so certain there, but I do share concerns, experience and leadership to fall back on in tough periods, or with what to do next in strong runs is vital.

6 hours ago, Redshorts said:

I heard a rumour at the last game of the season that he was chatting to Derby about playing for them next season.

James?

Midlands, could make sense on one level.

4 hours ago, Harry said:

Pops. He is very correct. 
James was the biggest earner. By a distance. 
Weimann, even though on revised terms, was still one of the top 3 earners. 
King would have been lower, agreed. 
 

You say they were signed during the austerity period. 
True. But for us, this meant going with a smaller squad thus enabling us to pay the likes of James, Weimann and Wells the bigger bucks. 
 

Surely the, thinking of James here, the pull factor of NP, King, Simpson, Rennie would be a pull factor? Thereby reducing what we may otherwise have needed to pay.

I'm open minded on it but how big an earner might we be talking? I'd quite happily bet our football wage bill is now £20-21m, £22m tops.

24 minutes ago, Charlie BCFC said:

I liked James but we were never keeping him and Williams. We will miss his calmness and composure but you could also say we would miss Williams’ bite and energy. I don’t think it’s half as bad as you and other people have made out personally

Why were we never keeping him and Williams, I suspect the wage bill has slashed, it would be perfectly affordable, Williams amortisation also off the books.

I reckon our total consolidated wage bill was £27-28m season just gone, £29m tops.

The amortisation was also down as well as a 13th month of other expenses off the books.

The Football side was probably £21-22m all-in? 

17 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Thats Jon Dolman, once of this parish. Believe he left because he didn’t really like people disagreeing with him.

He’s probably correct about James being towards the top end of wage earners - remember even though post Covid it was a free agent 3 year deal. Money saved in fee could be used in package. For the strengthening positions he’s probably also right (although GK will be a low cost back up) and I’d envisage the wages freed up by James/King/Weimann will be far below what we’ll need to pay to get the quality we need in those midfield and striker positions.

Thought it was him.

Hard to say really isn't it because often such compliance plans can have an Upper Wage limit, the Wage bill on the football side fell by £6-7m season on season. Without NP, King  Simpson, Rennie we may not have got him as affordably as is likely or maybe not at all.