|
Post by barcaontrent on Sept 2, 2015 12:59:21 GMT
What is this ''next level'' you keep talking about? Top 8
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Sept 2, 2015 13:09:14 GMT
What is this ''next level'' you keep talking about? Top 8 In which case I don't think we necessarily need massive levels of investment. We are nearly there. We would have finished top 8 last season were it not for injuries. When has Saint Peter ever let us down before? I'm not saying we will finish top 8 this season, but we are in really safe hands. Given we have just pulled off arguably the greatest coup of the transfer window in signing Shaqiri, we really don't have much to complain about. I do share some of your concerns. I have felt for years that as soon as we faced a long spell without Ryan it would have a massive impact. However, I think we can make up for it in other areas and I'm willing to trust Hughes on MVG and give the guy time to settle.
|
|
|
Post by barcaontrent on Sept 2, 2015 13:14:46 GMT
In which case I don't think we necessarily need massive levels of investment. We are nearly there. We would have finished top 8 last season were it not for injuries. When has Saint Peter ever let us down before? I'm not saying we will finish top 8 this season, but we are in really safe hands. Given we have just pulled off arguably the greatest coup of the transfer window in signing Shaqiri, we really don't have much to complain about. I do share some of your concerns. I have felt for years that as soon as we faced a long spell without Ryan it would have a massive impact. However, I think we can make up for it in other areas and I'm willing to trust Hughes on MVG and give the guy time to settle. Thanks for getting what i was trying to say. I'm not saying we should spend silly money on nobodys but more saying we surely need to invest more to cover positions like CDM where we lost one of our best players. I dont think Coates has ever let us down by the way
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Sept 2, 2015 13:25:32 GMT
In which case I don't think we necessarily need massive levels of investment. We are nearly there. We would have finished top 8 last season were it not for injuries. When has Saint Peter ever let us down before? I'm not saying we will finish top 8 this season, but we are in really safe hands. Given we have just pulled off arguably the greatest coup of the transfer window in signing Shaqiri, we really don't have much to complain about. I do share some of your concerns. I have felt for years that as soon as we faced a long spell without Ryan it would have a massive impact. However, I think we can make up for it in other areas and I'm willing to trust Hughes on MVG and give the guy time to settle. Thanks for getting what i was trying to say. I'm not saying we should spend silly money on nobodys but more saying we surely need to invest more to cover positions like CDM where we lost one of our best players. I dont think Coates has ever let us down by the way With replacing Nzonzi I'm not sure. I think it is a case of two things. Firstly, those type of players are hard to find. Secondly, I think they have basically decided they aren't desperate so don't need to rush. I think when the right players is available, we are willing to spend. If we don't improve this season, we still have a solid base from which to build. Look at the other two teams in the top 8. Swansea have a similar strategy to us. They are not splashing the cash around. Southampton have spent a lot, but that is because they keep losing players. The teams below us are the ones splashing out because they have to catch up with us. Personally, I still think most will finish below us.
|
|
|
Post by peterthornesboots on Sept 2, 2015 13:36:57 GMT
People are trying to read too much into these "net spend" figures.
Splashing large amounts of money on transfer fees is no guarantee of success.
I see it as good / shrewd business that we have a low net spend.
Also, this idea that Hughes isn't being backed in the transfer market ... we broke our record transfer fee this window!
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 2, 2015 13:38:15 GMT
Maybe in future when we rock up to discuss terms when signing a player, and the selling club wants £5million, we offer them £10 million - as that will keep the people on the Oatcake happy? This omits show much we spend on 'frees' (as Peter Coates continually tells us). Don't players and agents try and recoup a similar amount to the normal market transfer fee as part of any signing deal. Maybe we paid say £3 million for Johnson. Maybe £6-8 million for Diouf. £4-5 for Affelay? It's all not public (compared to a deal between two clubs), but it's all money spent. As these fees are spread over the life of the contract it isn't spent yet! That's why clubs find it so attractive, because Affelay's £4m will be £1m each year i.e. £3m will fall into those years when the t.v. monies flow in(assuming we're not relegated). How do you know that the signing on fee isn't paid upfront?
|
|
|
Net spend
Sept 2, 2015 13:48:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by potterblade on Sept 2, 2015 13:48:06 GMT
Question: How does transfer net spend relate to the "Richest Clubs" list you see every year now? I believe we are top 30 currently but will a low net spend improve our ranking? Which would be valuable in itself as good PR.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Sept 2, 2015 13:50:23 GMT
Maybe in future when we rock up to discuss terms when signing a player, and the selling club wants £5million, we offer them £10 million - as that will keep the people on the Oatcake happy? This omits show much we spend on 'frees' (as Peter Coates continually tells us). Don't players and agents try and recoup a similar amount to the normal market transfer fee as part of any signing deal. Maybe we paid say £3 million for Johnson. Maybe £6-8 million for Diouf. £4-5 for Affelay? It's all not public (compared to a deal between two clubs), but it's all money spent. As these fees are spread over the life of the contract it isn't spent yet! That's why clubs find it so attractive, because Affelay's £4m will be £1m each year i.e. £3m will fall into those years when the t.v. monies flow in(assuming we're not relegated). For accounting purposes they are, doesn't mean they aren't paid upfront.
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Sept 2, 2015 14:29:40 GMT
As these fees are spread over the life of the contract it isn't spent yet! That's why clubs find it so attractive, because Affelay's £4m will be £1m each year i.e. £3m will fall into those years when the t.v. monies flow in(assuming we're not relegated). How do you know that the signing on fee isn't paid upfront? Signing on fees are paid upfront, but for the purpose of club accounts all figures ie transfer fee, signing on fee and the likes are amortised over the length of the contract.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 2, 2015 14:34:59 GMT
How do you know that the signing on fee isn't paid upfront? Signing on fees are paid upfront, but for the purpose of club accounts all figures ie transfer fee, signing on fee and the likes are amortised over the length of the contract. Are all signing on fees paid up front? Didn't Stoke pay KJ's fees over the contract to ensure the work shy fatherless person(lazy bar steward!) did some work on the pitch?
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Sept 2, 2015 14:38:41 GMT
Signing on fees are paid upfront, but for the purpose of club accounts all figures ie transfer fee, signing on fee and the likes are amortised over the length of the contract. Are all signing on fees paid up front? Didn't Stoke pay KJ's fees over the contract to ensure the work shy fatherless person(lazy bar steward!) did some work on the pitch? Ken got a big £2mill cheque off Sunderland for moving as that's what he would of earned more at Sunderland if he stayed there than signing for Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 2, 2015 14:39:03 GMT
Signing on fees are paid upfront, but for the purpose of club accounts all figures ie transfer fee, signing on fee and the likes are amortised over the length of the contract. Are all signing on fees paid up front? Didn't Stoke pay KJ's fees over the contract to ensure the work shy fatherless person(lazy bar steward!) did some work on the pitch? That's called wages isn't it? Based on that the fees are up front, I think the net spend maybe massively underestimated as we seem to bring in lots of 'frees'.
|
|
|
Net spend
Sept 2, 2015 14:42:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by mattador78 on Sept 2, 2015 14:42:19 GMT
To aak what has been the net spend of pompey leeds and qpr in the seasons they were relegated because obviously it must be less than 5 million or alternatively what has been the net spend of the teams relegated over hughes tenure as manager all must be below 5 million thats why they got relegated isnt it?
|
|
|
Post by colinroberts1 on Sept 2, 2015 14:47:49 GMT
self sustaining and not putting the club in financial danger will do me.
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Sept 2, 2015 14:52:35 GMT
It's all a bit symptomatic of a desire for instant gratification. I'd much rather we continue with a mixed approach: some polishable diamonds, potential, some experience {Johnson} and the odd transfer busting Shaqiri signing {who still has resale value}. We're already at 'a' next level in terms of purchases to where we were a couple of years ago. Evidenced by the international depth of the squad, the increasing asset value {potential} of Bojan, Arnautovic, Muniesa etc. And we're now selling our players to Champions League Clubs... Even those harshly regarded as surplus by some {Bardsley, Sidwell, Odemwingie, Walters} don't feel like Deadwood, more victims of our improvement. Our current crop of players will attract bigger and better quality players, we're becoming a credible and viable option. I trust Hughes and co. to know a player and we've proved that we can play the long game in pursuing targets. The signing of Shaqiri provides the answers to your 1,2,3. I don't buy into the assumption that Hughes isn't being backed. He's signed up to a long term deal and all the indications {for me} are that there is/was and will be good cash on offer, but thankfully Hughes is only using it for what he deems to be the right signing. the shaq signing was covered by selling two of our best players it was but the attempt at signing Shaq in january proves the money was there it didn't need nzonzi or bego to go to finance it. The fact we tried to keep both of them proves that Hughes wanted nzonzi bego and Shaq in the same team but they didn't want to stay.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 2, 2015 14:57:43 GMT
The opening post demonstrates that we have possibly the most astute management in football. I can only think of Southampton who may be better.
We've had 2 9th places and have strengthened the depth of the squad to its best ever. There are people on here who decry some of the signings, but they will be silenced when we have a run of injuries.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 2, 2015 15:07:59 GMT
self sustaining and not putting the club in financial danger will do me. If we were relegated this season and the t.v. money stopped, gates dropped by several thousand, the Academy needed ongoing funding etc. would we not be "putting the club in financial danger ......" then?
|
|
|
Post by santy on Sept 2, 2015 15:21:40 GMT
Southampton got to the top 8 with a net profit, not a net spend on transfer activity.
Therefore the problem is clear.
We're still spending too much money on transfers.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Sept 2, 2015 15:31:06 GMT
Its a completely wrong argument. Last season we spent 70% of income on Players salaries which made us 2nd highest in the league behind QPR. Our income has increased but so has the size of the squad. I think we will be close to 70% again this season and just about be breaking even. That ALL that counts. This Net transfer spending bollocks is just one part of the equation. That's because our income is so low;One of the lowest in the EPL.Though wages are 70% of income, total wages were 15th in the EPL so they are not the most attractive. The real issue is how much the owners could put into the club but aren't. We have had FFP quoted but these rules are being relaxed as they are very difficult to enforce legally? But you know the main reason our Income is so low. Its because our gate receipts are one of the lowest caused by freezing season ticket prices for 7 years in a row. Our matchday income is pitiful really but thats a boon to all supporters So in a weird way, fans asking for us to splash the cash on transfers should also be calling for higher ticket prices at Stoke! I doubt youll find a single fan that wants to pay more to watch Stoke at the Brittania
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 2, 2015 15:47:04 GMT
That's because our income is so low;One of the lowest in the EPL.Though wages are 70% of income, total wages were 15th in the EPL so they are not the most attractive. The real issue is how much the owners could put into the club but aren't. We have had FFP quoted but these rules are being relaxed as they are very difficult to enforce legally? But you know the main reason our Income is so low. Its because our gate receipts are one of the lowest caused by freezing season ticket prices for 7 years in a row. Our matchday income is pitiful really but thats a boon to all supporters So in a weird way, fans asking for us to splash the cash on transfers should also be calling for higher ticket prices at Stoke! I doubt youll find a single fan that wants to pay more to watch Stoke at the Brittania Yes, if ST's rose, sales would fall as North Staffs is one of the poorest areas in England. Of course, advertising, shirt sales etc. are also very low. No, I doubt the changed policy of the owners from spending £20m a season on players to £3m? This, at a time when existing t.v. monies have risen enormously. Next year isn't a one-off but a continuation of current increases. We were told CW development was taking all the money but surely that's been finished now? The question is, if W.B.A. can spend over £20m and spent heavily before the current manager, then why can't we?
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Sept 2, 2015 16:06:16 GMT
You will shortly receive a number of emails that state that net spending on transfer fees does not correlate with success and that free transfers are ace It's been consistently shown for decades that net spending DOES correlate with success! Look at the teams at the top of the table and then look at the teams at the bottom. What's the difference? Net spend! wrong, read Soccernomics for example, they show an equation that links wages relative to average against premier league position, the R squared coefficient is .88 which means it is a very good predictor. It is wages that matter as this is what drives player choices and performance not transfer fees. Net spend is a particularly useless measure as it is after fees in so doesn't tell us what true investment has been made even gross spend is better. Other reasons why transfer fees are a bad predictor is new managers waste money, certain nationalities and hair colours attract higher fees, international performance distorts value and it is easier to get a bargain on a transfer fee than in salary negotiations. With our low net spend we have improved the quality of our team and our league position over the last three years, believe net spend matters if you will but better look at wages
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 2, 2015 16:13:06 GMT
It's been consistently shown for decades that net spending DOES correlate with success! Look at the teams at the top of the table and then look at the teams at the bottom. What's the difference? Net spend! wrong, read Soccernomics for example, they show an equation that links wages relative to average against premier league position, the R squared coefficient is .88 which means it is a very good predictor. It is wages that matter as this is what drives player choices and performance not transfer fees. Net spend is a particularly useless measure as it is after fees in so doesn't tell us what true investment has been made even gross spend is better. Other reasons why transfer fees are a bad predictor is new managers waste money, certain nationalities and hair colours attract higher fees, international performance distorts value and it is easier to get a bargain on a transfer fee than in salary negotiations. With our low net spend we have improved the quality of our team and our league position over the last three years, believe net spend matters if you will but better look at wages Last time, I looked at our wages spend, we were 15th in the EPL. So, if you think we're outspending rivals on wages you are wrong. W.H.U., Everton, Newcastle and others must offer better wages than us. So, I don't doubt your statistics but we've a very low net spend on transfers and relatively low wages too! The double whammy!
|
|
|
Post by ChrisKamarasPerm on Sept 2, 2015 16:22:21 GMT
Biscuit boy will go mad when he reads this thread.
|
|
|
Net spend
Sept 2, 2015 16:28:10 GMT
via mobile
Post by colinroberts1 on Sept 2, 2015 16:28:10 GMT
self sustaining and not putting the club in financial danger will do me. If we were relegated this season and the t.v. money stopped, gates dropped by several thousand, the Academy needed ongoing funding etc. would we not be "putting the club in financial danger ...then? just out of curiosity; what have you seen in the last 2 seasons that make you worry so about relegation ? not saying we'll never getting relegated, I'm quite optimistic about this season though, and excited about the team we're putting together.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 2, 2015 16:31:00 GMT
Biscuit boy will go mad when he reads this thread. GO mad?
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Sept 2, 2015 16:31:25 GMT
The reason for the low net spend will become obvious on day one next season................filled in corners with plush leather heated seating, an innovative champagne & Wrights Pie Bar, individual headphones to go with a new sound system, supermodels to replace stewards. Plus Yarmalenko in a Stoke shirt.Well done PC (sorry Sir PC).
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 2, 2015 16:59:03 GMT
If we were relegated this season and the t.v. money stopped, gates dropped by several thousand, the Academy needed ongoing funding etc. would we not be "putting the club in financial danger ...then? just out of curiosity; what have you seen in the last 2 seasons that make you worry so about relegation ? not saying we'll never getting relegated, I'm quite optimistic about this season though, and excited about the team we're putting together. Just Ryan missing and no replacement. Why we didn't get Lescott for a couple of seasons as cover, I don't know?
|
|
|
Net spend
Sept 2, 2015 17:07:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by colinroberts1 on Sept 2, 2015 17:07:12 GMT
Just Ryan missing and no replacement. Why we didn't get Lescott for a couple of seasons as cover, I don't know? agreed, I think he'd have been a really good signing, but once his boyhood club came in there was only 1 place he was ever going. just hope geoff learns to jump for headers at the back post and quick !!
|
|
|
Post by daviddunn on Sept 2, 2015 18:41:04 GMT
Borrinni £9 mill v Diouf £0 :-)
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Sept 2, 2015 20:41:16 GMT
Do some people check their brains at the door when they come on here? "Net Spend" is definitely not a good indicator of progress. Apart from the obvious examples of people throwing silly money at players (Andy Carroll 35 million????), "Net Spend" does not take any existing players into account nor the club's ability to scout, train, motivate and strategize. HYPOTHETICAL (i.e. not real) EXAMPLE: Say our only sale of the window is Begovic for 8 million. Jack Butland bought a few years ago at a bargain price. Developed. Grows in stature, skill and experience. Comes into the team and performs as well as any 8 million rated keeper. We use the money from Bego to buy 2 bargain Bojan/Muniesa types along with some young unknown but promising dutch keeper all for a total of 8 million. Our "Net Spend" is ZERO.
Would anyone in their right mind really suggest that the team would not be in a better situation after those transactions?
On the other hand, if the team spent tons of cash on 5-6 superstar players for a "Net Spend" of 100 million, but the players just did not gel and failed to perform, how could that be considered progress?
I for one will judge our progress by what happens on the field, and so far, I'm yet to be convinced. BUT, it's way to early to rush to judgement!
|
|