Off Field Metrics, realistically do we deserve more?

[KegCity]

This attitude of 'little Bristol City' is tiring. We've seen plenty of clubs with smaller stadiums, smaller fanbases and smaller budgets fly past us and into the Premier League for any of those off field metrics to matter.

 

[spudski]

3 hours ago, zombie said:

We’re always hearing about on the field metrics; XG, pass completion %, aerial, duels, distance covered etc….

They are useful indicators when assessing the game or players.

However, when trying to objectively assess the club how should we do it? We all want the same thing, a realistic playoff or title challenge, but realistically nowadays with parachute payments is that fair?

Some expect top 10 or higher, but what areas of the club are top 10? Do we have a top 10 transfer budget? Top 10 wages? Top 10 attendances? Is the HPC a top 10 training facility?

We’ve never been in the Prem (I know there was football before that), but realistically we’re not a Leeds. There’s nothing wrong with ambitions and aspirations, I’d love more success on the pitch, I wouldn’t mind a few more lows as long as I get the highs too, we are mediocre, chatting to Leicester fans last Friday reminded me how boring being a City fan has been in recent years.

I’m no supporter of the current ownership and leadership, but am grateful for the stability and platform they’ve given us, but are they being too harshly treated and do we, like all fans, have unrealistic expectations?

The top 6 is predictably predominately recent Prem clubs, the only surprise being Ipswich, even teams which have arguably gone for it like Hull signing Fabio Carvahlo to their fairly star studded squad only sit a couple of places above, it makes you wonder if it’s worth having a real go, I do appreciate the likes of what Luton, Brentford etc… have done, but if you don’t have the very best leadership, huge ambition and some good fortune is it worth sinking millions in when there’s unlikely to be return on investment, in fact does being more sustainable make us more attractive to a prospective buyer, is SL holding back financially (compared to his history) potentially doing us a favour in the long run?

We all want Prem or even Championship top 6, but why should we expect it if we don’t have a top 6 squad, back room team, board, transfer/wage budget, attendances etc… Is it unfair to expect more when everything about us screams mid table?

I would like to know why some may feel we should be considerably higher, we all want more, but would that reflect what is happening off the pitch relative to our rivals? Are some fans being a little entitled? Hopefully if anyone replies they have something to say regarding some off the field areas where we may excel (like the minutes players from the HPC play) or where we are mid table or lower and this doesn’t just turn this into another NP v LM or BT/JL are clueless thread.

I don't know anyone that expects top 6.

We are constantly being told by the media and our owners, and board that we are expecting top 6 and and promotion. 

But this is pure folly. 

Putting your hopes and expectations into top 6 and the lottery of the players offs is a joke. 

No one runs a business like that. 

We have the infrastructure, and grateful for it. However we have an owner and board that imo, are miles off making the correct decisions in progressing to the top 6 or Prem aspirations. 

Being told every season that we expect top 6 or promotion has now become a joke. 

Fans see through it. 

It makes them look like idiots imo

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 minutes ago, spudski said:

I don't know anyone that expects top 6.

We are constantly being told by the media and our owners, and board that we are expecting top 6 and and promotion. 

But this is pure folly. 

Putting your hopes and expectations into top 6 and the lottery of the players offs is a joke. 

No one runs a business like that. 

We have the infrastructure, and grateful for it. However we have an owner and board that imo, are miles off making the correct decisions in progressing to the top 6 or Prem aspirations. 

Being told every season that we expect top 6 or promotion has now become a joke. 

Fans see through it. 

It makes them look like idiots imo

Let's be honest top 2 under the current system, Ipswich are playing well well out of their skin but it won't be replicated and is perhaps a 1 in 20 type season.

We could aim for top 2 albeit unrealistic and hope to have a go at the top 6, stars v moon etc but actually bona fide having a top 2 ambition just doesn't seem feasible to me.

Edited April 3 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

17 minutes ago, Supersonic Robin said:

In the long term, the biggest off-field metric is the size of the city the club is based in.

If you look throughout any football league system in the world, there's a strong trend that the biggest/best teams are those based in the biggest cities.

For instance, in the UK, the 4 biggest cities are responsible for 8 of the 10 biggest teams in the country:

• London (Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea)
• Manchester (Man U, Man C)
• Liverpool (Liverpool, Everton)
• Birmingham (Aston VIlla)

Not sure about this to be honest. 

Firstly, Liverpool is far from one of the UK's biggest cities. Leeds is bigger, Glasgow is bigger, I'm pretty sure even Southampton is bigger. 

Secondly, if home city size is a determining factor then how do you account for the fact that all of these cities have many other teams that are nowhere near the size of the ones you quote.

It's perhaps more a case that home city size is a factor that gives a team the potential to be "big", but the more important factor is that they have the ability to capitalise on that potential. For example the Woolwich Arsenal are not a "big" team simply because they are based in London, they're big because long ago they became a franchise and moved from peripheral Woolwich to leafy Highbury, and disrupted Tottenham Hotspur's dominance of that area. They then used their connections to raise investment and became the first big spenders etc. They shrewdly, perhaps even nefariously, capitalised on the potential that their (new) location granted them, but it wasn't simply because of that location that they became "big".

Edited April 3 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, KegCity said:

This attitude of 'little Bristol City' is tiring. We've seen plenty of clubs with smaller stadiums, smaller fanbases and smaller budgets fly past us and into the Premier League for any of those off field metrics to matter.

 

The last non Parachute Payments club in the last 4 years was Leeds in 2019-20 in respect of Bielsa Leeds. Outstanding, and big money.

Nottingham Forest non Parachute Payments of course. 4 of the top 6 in receipt of Parachutes.

Likewise this year, 4 of top 6 in receipt.

Laat year differed, none of Middlesbrough,  Luton, Coventry or Sunderland in receipt.

Think in 2019-20, as well as 2nd placed WBA, in receipt of Parachute Payments were Fulham, Cardiff, Swansea. Brentford the outlier.

2020-21, Watford and Norwich Parachutes up, Bournemouth and Swansea Parachute lost..Barnsley and Brentford non Parachute Payments.

Brentford, Luton went up via playoffs both non Parachute in that period. It is getting harder all the time, playoffs is probably the best bet any time soon. That said we have not made the push at the right time.

[KegCity]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The last non Parachute Payments club in the last 4 years was Leeds in 2019-20 in respect of Bielsa Leeds. Outstanding, and big money.

Nottingham Forest non Parachute Payments of course. 4 of the top 6 in receipt of Parachutes.

Likewise this year, 4 of top 6 in receipt.

Laat year differed, none of Middlesbrough,  Luton, Coventry or Sunderland in receipt.

Think in 2019-20, as well as 2nd placed WBA, in receipt of Parachute Payments were Fulham, Cardiff, Swansea. Brentford the outlier.

2020-21, Watford and Norwich Parachutes up, Bournemouth and Swansea Parachute lost..Barnsley and Brentford non Parachute Payments.

Brentford, Luton went up via playoffs both non Parachute in that period. It is getting harder all the time, playoffs is probably the best bet any time soon. That said we have not made the push at the right time.

Exactly. Luton particularly sting as an example of a club with considerably worse "off field metrics" than us. 

Those metrics shouldn't be used as an excuse, they're not the reason we've consistently failed to push on.

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Let's be honest top 2 under the current system, Ipswich are playing well well our of their skin but it won't be replicated and is perhaps a 1 in 20 type season.

We could aim for top 2 albeit unrealistic and hope to have a go at the top 6, stars v moon etc but actually bona fide having a top 2 ambition just doesn't seem feasible to me.

I think you have to have top 2 ambition to make top 6. 

Top 6 ambition or 6th isn't far off mid table. 

If we made 6th and knocked out...what have we accomplished?

Play off defeats are more detrimental imo than not making them. As it gives a false sense of achievement. 

[Supersonic Robin]

13 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Not sure about this to be honest. 

Firstly, Liverpool is far from one of the UK's biggest cities. Leeds is bigger, Glasgow is bigger, I'm pretty sure even Southampton is bigger. 

Secondly, if home city size is a determining factor then how do you account for the fact that all of these cities have many other teams that are nowhere near the size of the ones you quote.

It's perhaps more a case that home city size is a factor that gives a team the potential to be "big", but the more important factor is that they have the ability to capitalise on that potential. For example the Woolwich Arsenal are not a "big" team simply because they are based in London, they're big because long ago they became a franchise and moved from peripheral Woolwich to leafy Highbury, and disrupted Tottenham Hotspur's dominance of that area. They then used their connections to raise investment and became the first big spenders etc. They shrewdly, perhaps even nefariously, capitalised on the potential that their (new) location granted them, but it wasn't simply because of that location that they became "big".

It's a clear trend across almost every football league in the world that the biggest teams are from the biggest cities.

Granted, I agree it would be more accurate to say that *technically* it gives you the potential to be big, but nevertheless, the biggest and most successful teams are almost exclusively from the biggest cities.

 

Firstly:

Re your point on the size of different cities in the UK, this is my source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_urban_areas_in_England_by_population

In fairness, you can probably find 20 different answers to which cities are the biggest depending on how exactly the size of the city is being measured and where you're drawing your boundaries.

I'm not bothering to include Glasgow since they don't play in the English football league system, but Glasgow serves as an example of this being true for Scotland.

 

Secondly:

Of course, I'm referring to the most dominant team in each of these cities, since they're the main beneficiary of that city's size. For clubs who aren't the biggest team in their city, you'd need to analyse it a bit differently. In the case of these clubs, an assessment of their "geographical dominance" might be a suitable way to amend the point being made.

Fortunately, we're not a club who have to worry about not being the biggest team in our city 

As noted, you'd be right to suggest that "potential to be big" would be a slightly more accurate statement. I think this is fairly obvious though - I'm not suggesting that I could move to London and start a Sunday League team who would suddenly become the biggest team in the country, simply because I happened to be stood in Westminster when I founded them 

 

 

[Crackers Corner]

1 hour ago, Supersonic Robin said:

In the long term, the biggest off-field metric is the size of the city the club is based in.

If you look throughout any football league system in the world, there's a strong trend that the biggest/best teams are those based in the biggest cities.

For instance, in the UK, the 4 biggest cities are responsible for 8 of the 10 biggest teams in the country:

• London (Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea)
• Manchester (Man U, Man C)
• Liverpool (Liverpool, Everton)
• Birmingham (Aston VIlla)

Very little difference in city population between bristol and Liverpool. 

[Supersonic Robin]

26 minutes ago, Crackers Corner said:

Very little difference in city population between bristol and Liverpool. 

As with most population estimates, it depends which source you look at. My understanding is that when you include the surrounding urban area, Liverpool is quite a bit bigger.

Edited April 3 by Supersonic Robin

[zombie]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

I don't know anyone that expects top 6.

We are constantly being told by the media and our owners, and board that we are expecting top 6 and and promotion. 

But this is pure folly. 

Putting your hopes and expectations into top 6 and the lottery of the players offs is a joke. 

No one runs a business like that. 

We have the infrastructure, and grateful for it. However we have an owner and board that imo, are miles off making the correct decisions in progressing to the top 6 or Prem aspirations. 

Being told every season that we expect top 6 or promotion has now become a joke. 

Fans see through it. 

It makes them look like idiots imo

What do they tell or try to sell to the fan base?

The carrot is the Prem, even though I reckon less than 5% of the promoted teams in the last 10 years have stayed up.

We need to be more ambitious than survival, not knocking Plymouth, but for them staying in the Championship would be success.

They need to tell us we’re going for top 6, top 2 unrealistic, bottom or middle third is not a going to sell tickets or enthuse the fans. I want more, I think promotion is unlikely but not impossible each season, that’s the dream. I don’t think the club should come out and say we’re happy with a sustainable 10th - 14th even if they are happy with that, that may be the objective and maybe hope for better while the hope some comes in and pays close to SL asking price, which isn’t looking likely.

I want the club to have a strategy, ambition and plan, but also don’t want the, to put the club at risk. The current ownership need to go, I’d love a new ownership and vision, but what’s the point in overspending and bringing in players like Fabio Carvhahlo and being 2 places above us like Hull are now?

[Superjack]

5 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

I’d genuinely just be happy if we had a team who performed better than the sum of its parts. I think that’s what was starting to happen under Nige and that’s what makes it all the more annoying. 

Let’s be honest, a team togetherness and over performing is the only way we’ll get out of this league upwards, because as you rightly point out, we can’t compete any other way. 

Exactly. 

But let's rip it all up. 

[Ivorguy]

We need a charismatic manager before we can hope realistically for promotion 

[spudski]

1 hour ago, zombie said:

What do they tell or try to sell to the fan base?

The carrot is the Prem, even though I reckon less than 5% of the promoted teams in the last 10 years have stayed up.

We need to be more ambitious than survival, not knocking Plymouth, but for them staying in the Championship would be success.

They need to tell us we’re going for top 6, top 2 unrealistic, bottom or middle third is not a going to sell tickets or enthuse the fans. I want more, I think promotion is unlikely but not impossible each season, that’s the dream. I don’t think the club should come out and say we’re happy with a sustainable 10th - 14th even if they are happy with that, that may be the objective and maybe hope for better while the hope some comes in and pays close to SL asking price, which isn’t looking likely.

I want the club to have a strategy, ambition and plan, but also don’t want the, to put the club at risk. The current ownership need to go, I’d love a new ownership and vision, but what’s the point in overspending and bringing in players like Fabio Carvhahlo and being 2 places above us like Hull are now?

Yeah... basically we are told bullshit to sell tickets. 

The reality is we aren't a top 6 side...but they tell you we are to sell tickets. 

But when it goes on for years and then your Tech Director says it as well...you either call bullshit or delusional and question their judgement. 

[Super]

20 minutes ago, Ivorguy said:

We need a charismatic manager before we can hope realistically for promotion 

Like who?

[Ivorguy]

1 minute ago, Super said:

Like who?

Well that’s a interesting question!

[Superjack]

39 minutes ago, Ivorguy said:

We need a charismatic manager before we can hope realistically for promotion 

Ergo...

...we need a new owner.

[Superjack]

19 minutes ago, Super said:

Like who?

I guess I shouldn't answer this.

[Ivorguy]

2 hours ago, Superjack said:

I guess I shouldn't answer this.

Think we are on the same page