Are you kidding?

[Wes Tender]

You seem to be avoiding the fact that we have had instant success this season and it's down to

 

> Pardew being perfectly capable of delivering success within 18 months, like all successful modern managers from Wenger to Moyes down to Phil Brown, Owen Coyle and Paul Lambert.

 

> And the fact we have chucked money at the issue. Chucked money left right and centre at the best players in the division and at players better than this division.

 

Sorry, it's not 1981 anymore.

 

Successful managers deliver instantly. Money helps massively, especially in a division like League One. Fact, and fact.

 

 

Pardew has done a brilliant job, we are top two challengers +10 points. But that achievement is not somehow divorced from the money we have chucked at the issue. It's a direct link.

 

 

It winds me up when people desperately pretend that isn't the case and still make out that "money doesn't make any difference" when it is making a difference in front of our very eyes.

 

There is just a little flaw in your argument. There are a couple of caveats in the premise that money thrown at building a team produces success.

 

Firstly, a team of footballing stars does not necessarily mean that success is assured. Sometimes a team full of stars does not gel together, individual egos can produce conflict and disjointed play. What is sometimes preferable is a team of more moderate talent, but one comprised of individuals who give maximum effort and who play for each other. In other words, sometimes the sum of the parts is greater that way than the team of gifted individuals. Naturally, if the team comprises players who cost a fortune because of their footballing prowess and they are true professionals in terms of their efforts and ability to be a team player, that is the best of all worlds. But the lower down the divisions one goes, surely the rarer that type of player becomes?

 

Secondly, a lot depends on the ability of the manager to inspire and control them. Again, players who cost more, often have an ego problem that needs to be handled with diplomacy and tact by the manager, so that a feeling doesn't exist in their minds that they are too good for that team, or that division.

 

Other than that, as a broad sweeping generality, having no money problems is certainly a great benefit to us. As Sophie Tucker famously stated, "I've been rich and I've been poor. Believe me, honey, rich is better".

 

We have known for long enough what it is to be one of the poorest clubs in the country at the level we played. Now that we are one of the wealthiest, it is also somehow reassuring that we are not really throwing money at getting ourselves back to the Premiership. Even with the increased levels of expenditure, the costs are largely recouped by increased income through the turnstiles and financial rewards from our cup runs.

[saint1977]

Partially. I'd probably attribute more to the lack of fitness at the start of the season due to the uncertainty and Pardew's relatively late appointment.

 

The points deduction was a psychological barrier as well as a numerical one, but we were in winning positions in a number of those early-season games only to throw points away late on, so I think the fitness and stamina was a bigger contributor.

 

Points dropped against Millwall, Brentford and Stockport due to lack of fitness... those 6 points would have seen us move ahead of Huddersfield tomorrow night if we were to beat Oldham.

 

Fitness is a massive issue. Pardew and his staff by all accounts work the players hard in training and we are seeing the results - the first ten games we conceded a number of sloppy, lazy late goals , now we are regularly scoring late ones - Yeovil, Brighton and a number of games where we were already winning such as Walsall where we've kept our foot on our opponents. By contrast, the late conceded issue has largely disappeared, which also seems to have coincided partially with Fonte's arrival as he is so calm.

 

Apart from Norwich, we are the best side in that league - Leeds only avoided a hiding due to a disallowed goal and a dreadful ref and Hudds, Carlisle, Walsall and B Rov have all felt our power recently. Sides in good form have pushed us, notably Brighton who will do well under Poyet next year but that's ok. I still think we need to strengthen in CM but then judging by the Jan links to Stock, so do the club.

 

This has been the most enjoyable season since 06/07 and 2002/3 before that. Roll on next season.

[jam]

There is just a little flaw in your argument. There are a couple of caveats in the premise that money thrown at building a team produces success.

 

Firstly, a team of footballing stars does not necessarily mean that success is assured. Sometimes a team full of stars does not gel together, individual egos can produce conflict and disjointed play. What is sometimes preferable is a team of more moderate talent, but one comprised of individuals who give maximum effort and who play for each other. In other words, sometimes the sum of the parts is greater that way than the team of gifted individuals. Naturally, if the team comprises players who cost a fortune because of their footballing prowess and they are true professionals in terms of their efforts and ability to be a team player, that is the best of all worlds. But the lower down the divisions one goes, surely the rarer that type of player becomes?

 

Secondly, a lot depends on the ability of the manager to inspire and control them. Again, players who cost more, often have an ego problem that needs to be handled with diplomacy and tact by the manager, so that a feeling doesn't exist in their minds that they are too good for that team, or that division.

 

Other than that, as a broad sweeping generality, having no money problems is certainly a great benefit to us. As Sophie Tucker famously stated, "I've been rich and I've been poor. Believe me, honey, rich is better".

 

We have known for long enough what it is to be one of the poorest clubs in the country at the level we played. Now that we are one of the wealthiest, it is also somehow reassuring that we are not really throwing money at getting ourselves back to the Premiership. Even with the increased levels of expenditure, the costs are largely recouped by increased income through the turnstiles and financial rewards from our cup runs.

 

You appear to have missed the point of CB Fry's post, which was successful managers deliver success and money helps massively - NOT that throwing money at a team automatically produces success.

[CB Fry]

There is just a little flaw in your argument. There are a couple of caveats in the premise that money thrown at building a team produces success.

 

Firstly, a team of footballing stars does not necessarily mean that success is assured. Sometimes a team full of stars does not gel together, individual egos can produce conflict and disjointed play. What is sometimes preferable is a team of more moderate talent, but one comprised of individuals who give maximum effort and who play for each other. In other words, sometimes the sum of the parts is greater that way than the team of gifted individuals. Naturally, if the team comprises players who cost a fortune because of their footballing prowess and they are true professionals in terms of their efforts and ability to be a team player, that is the best of all worlds. But the lower down the divisions one goes, surely the rarer that type of player becomes?

 

Secondly, a lot depends on the ability of the manager to inspire and control them. Again, players who cost more, often have an ego problem that needs to be handled with diplomacy and tact by the manager, so that a feeling doesn't exist in their minds that they are too good for that team, or that division.

 

Other than that, as a broad sweeping generality, having no money problems is certainly a great benefit to us. As Sophie Tucker famously stated, "I've been rich and I've been poor. Believe me, honey, rich is better".

 

We have known for long enough what it is to be one of the poorest clubs in the country at the level we played. Now that we are one of the wealthiest, it is also somehow reassuring that we are not really throwing money at getting ourselves back to the Premiership. Even with the increased levels of expenditure, the costs are largely recouped by increased income through the turnstiles and financial rewards from our cup runs.

 

 

Thanks for the patronising lecture, but you'll notice I mentioned Pardew before I mentioned the money spent.

 

Thanks for attributing to me a load of cheap arguments I haven't even mentioned. Manager plus cash is what I said, and in that order.

 

Not "cash = definitely win every single game ever" which is how you lamely decided to read it.

 

And sorry, we are "really throwing money at getting ourselves back in the Premiership". In January we signed a player from a division above, for £1.75m who is clearly far too good for this division.

 

And, having already one of the top five strikers in the league on our books we splashed out (wages primarily) on another top five striker who frankly we didn't really need, and he is on our bench most of the time. Pretty sure he'd stroll into any other top six team, including Leeds who wanted to buy him.

 

Half of our bench would stroll into any bottom half CCC team, FFS. One of our reserves spent half the season in the CCC.

 

We are chucking money around like it's going out of fashion.

Edited 19 April, 2010 by CB Fry

[Whitey Grandad]

Thanks for the patronising lecture, but you'll notice I mentioned Pardew before I mentioned the money spent.

 

Thanks for attributing to me a load of cheap arguments I haven't even mentioned. Manager plus cash is what I said, and in that order.

 

Not "cash = definitely win every single game ever" which is how you lamely decided to read it.

 

And sorry, we are "really throwing money at getting ourselves back in the Premiership". In January we signed a player from a division above, for £1.75m who is clearly far too good for this division.

 

And, having already one of the top five strikers in the league on our books we splashed out (wages primarily) on another top five striker who frankly we didn't really need, and he is on our bench most of the time. Pretty sure he'd stroll into any other top six team, including Leeds who wanted to buy him.

 

Half of our bench would stroll into any bottom half CCC team, FFS. One of our reserves spent half the season in the CCC.

 

We are chucking money around like it's going out of fashion.

I agree with you on the whole but he has scored some potentially important goals lately.

[CB Fry]

I agree with you on the whole but he has scored some potentially important goals lately.

 

 

Absolutely - he's been a great signing. But the kind of signing made by a club with tons of cash and even more intent.

 

A bit like when Leeds signed Robbie Fowler, or Newcastle Asprilla, or Man United Berbatov. Great additions to the squad but not really needed at point of purchase if you see what I mean.

 

Don't get me wrong I am not complaining about signing Barnard - quite the opposite!

[Whitey Grandad]

Absolutely - he's been a great signing. But the kind of signing made by a club with tons of cash and even more intent.

 

A bit like when Leeds signed Robbie Fowler, or Newcastle Asprilla, or Man United Berbatov. Great additions to the squad but not really needed at point of purchase if you see what I mean.

 

Don't get me wrong I am not complaining about signing Barnard - quite the opposite!

Yes. I prefer to think of it as insurance.

[bender]

If we didnt have -10 then we would be 1 point of AUTOMATIC (providing we win tomorrow) with a far superior goal difference.

 

Given the fact we didnt have a team at the start of the season, that is awesome.

[Wes Tender]

Thanks for the patronising lecture, but you'll notice I mentioned Pardew before I mentioned the money spent.

 

Thanks for attributing to me a load of cheap arguments I haven't even mentioned. Manager plus cash is what I said, and in that order.

 

Not "cash = definitely win every single game ever" which is how you lamely decided to read it.

 

And sorry, we are "really throwing money at getting ourselves back in the Premiership". In January we signed a player from a division above, for £1.75m who is clearly far too good for this division.

 

And, having already one of the top five strikers in the league on our books we splashed out (wages primarily) on another top five striker who frankly we didn't really need, and he is on our bench most of the time. Pretty sure he'd stroll into any other top six team, including Leeds who wanted to buy him.

 

Half of our bench would stroll into any bottom half CCC team, FFS. One of our reserves spent half the season in the CCC.

 

We are chucking money around like it's going out of fashion.

 

Regardless of whether you mentioned Pardew before, after or not at all, the points that I made still have relevance. Understandably, you don't like anybody picking holes in your broad sweeping generalisations, because as somebody else labelled you, you never accept that you might be wrong.

 

If I misconstrued what you wrote, it could be that you did not express yourself very well. This is quite feasible, as somehow you interpret what I wrote as "cash = definitely win every single game ever". Perhaps you could point out where I said that, or why you lamely reached that conclusion, attributing to me arguments that I never made.

 

But as you're in an argumentative mood, I'll happily challenge your assertion that Pardew has achieved instant success, when it has only been latterly in this season that he has turned things around. I don't dispute the fact that he has done a good job, but we took an eternity to get shot of the -10 points. I grant that there were good reasons of no pre-season, low confidence and no backroom staff, perhaps lack of fitness too, but success was not instant. If your time scale for judging instant success is over a period of 18 months however, then perhaps it has escaped your notice that there is still some considerable time still to go. If for whatever the reason, the wheels fall off by say Christmas and we are around mid-table, will that still count as instant success?

 

Having the money to spend is obviously a massive help if it is spent wisely. Generally, Pardew's players that he has brought in have been good buys. Your assertion that we have spent money like it is going out of fashion is a wonderful bit of hyperbole, but needs putting into context. It might be a lot for this division, but it is small change for ML. Players who could play in the higher divisions need to be paid more to either attract them here or to keep them here for when we get promotion. The cost of these players is pretty well covered by additional receipts through the turnstiles or the cups, as I already pointed out. We are hardly doing a Man City or Chelski, as we are not ramping up massive debt levels buying players we cannot afford.

[Village Saint]

check out the league table

 

Er yes. We are still in with a chance of the playoffs. We would be securely in the playoff places without the grossly unfair 10 point deduction and I rather suspect that by the end of the season we will have made up the one point that will mean that we would have gone up automatically without the deduction. Nice judgement.

[Wes Tender]

Yes. I prefer to think of it as insurance.

 

Me too. Although there are players available to play up front with Lambert, Connolly is getting on and prone to injury. Lallana is capable of playing up front, as is Waigo, but they offer options in midfield which are possibly better. Then there is the question of players being unavailable because they were cup-tied, or extra cover being needed because of the additional burden of cup matches or injuries, or loanees. So it is not difficult to make out a very good case for the purchase of Barnard.

 

And the insurance analogy is also apt, as he is an asset that barring injury, is likely to appreciate in value so that the outlay may be recouped with a tidy profit later if circumstances dictate that he be sold on.

[CB Fry]

Regardless of whether you mentioned Pardew before, after or not at all, the points that I made still have relevance. Understandably, you don't like anybody picking holes in your broad sweeping generalisations, because as somebody else labelled you, you never accept that you might be wrong.

 

If I misconstrued what you wrote, it could be that you did not express yourself very well. This is quite feasible, as somehow you interpret what I wrote as "cash = definitely win every single game ever". Perhaps you could point out where I said that, or why you lamely reached that conclusion, attributing to me arguments that I never made.

 

But as you're in an argumentative mood, I'll happily challenge your assertion that Pardew has achieved instant success, when it has only been latterly in this season that he has turned things around. I don't dispute the fact that he has done a good job, but we took an eternity to get shot of the -10 points. I grant that there were good reasons of no pre-season, low confidence and no backroom staff, perhaps lack of fitness too, but success was not instant. If your time scale for judging instant success is over a period of 18 months however, then perhaps it has escaped your notice that there is still some considerable time still to go. If for whatever the reason, the wheels fall off by say Christmas and we are around mid-table, will that still count as instant success?

 

Having the money to spend is obviously a massive help if it is spent wisely. Generally, Pardew's players that he has brought in have been good buys. Your assertion that we have spent money like it is going out of fashion is a wonderful bit of hyperbole, but needs putting into context. It might be a lot for this division, but it is small change for ML. Players who could play in the higher divisions need to be paid more to either attract them here or to keep them here for when we get promotion. The cost of these players is pretty well covered by additional receipts through the turnstiles or the cups, as I already pointed out. We are hardly doing a Man City or Chelski, as we are not ramping up massive debt levels buying players we cannot afford.

 

 

It's not your points don't have relevence, it's just they are boringly obvious.

 

I think in response to an utterly patronising and arse achingly dull lecture about "it's all about team spirit you know" I am allowed to be glib in return.

 

I don't need to hear it.

 

Pardew has achieved instant success - anything in season one is instant success. Those were the terms of reference I used in August, in September, in January and I got shouted at for being short term.

 

So no, I am not giving that up for bores now trying to claim nine months as "long term success" and proof that "sticking with the manager works". It is nothing of the sort. It's the instant success I was talking about in August, September, October, Janaury. And it happened.

First season is instant success.

 

 

And sorry, we are spending like Chelsea and Man City. If ML wasn't here we couldn't afford to buy a player from the league above.

 

Christ, Fonte was up for sale from a club in administration and no one from the CCC could afford to prise him away from us.

 

Our outlay would no way be covered by gate receipts and prize money. No way on earth.

 

It being "small change for ML" is not the real measure of our spending - it is massively disproportionate for the league we are in and is the dictionary definition of spending money like it is going out of fashion.

 

Measuring what we spend against what we think our benevolent owner can afford is an utterly shameful way to look at the finances of our football club. So you can keep your comment about it being "small change" because that's a disgraceful way to think and can only lead to thoughts of greed and entitlement.

 

 

 

So, along side Pardew and his team spirit (cheers for that) and ability to buy good players (and that) and spending the money wisely (the hat-trick! Have a banana) it is the fact we have spent money like it is going out of fashion that is the reason we have seen this seasons instant success.

 

Edited 19 April, 2010 by CB Fry

[Wes Tender]

It's not your points don't have relevence, it's just they are boringly obvious.

 

I'll have to accept your word that they were obvious to you, but your argument doesn't hold together without them, unless you acknowledge that they are factors and that you have considered them. You cannot accept that everybody takes it as read, as that is an arrogance.

 

I think in response to an utterly patronising and arse achingly dull lecture about "it's all about team spirit you know" I am allowed to be glib in return.

 

I don't need to hear it.

 

But you expect everybody to hear your achingly dull lecture about how Pardew has attained instant success.

 

Pardew has achieved instant success - anything in season one is instant success. Those were the terms of reference I used in August, in September, in January and I got shouted at for being short term.

Yes, this one.

 

So no, I am not giving that up for bores now trying to claim nine months as "long term success" and proof that "sticking with the manager works". It is nothing of the sort. It's the instant success I was talking about in August, September, October, Janaury. And it happened.

First season is instant success.

 

OK. So you have your own little definition of what you consider to be instant success and others have theirs. But of course, yours has to be the only correct one, because it is yours, eh?

 

And sorry, we are spending like Chelsea and Man City. If ML wasn't here we couldn't afford to buy a player from the league above.

Insisting that we are spending like Chelsea and Man City is absurd. As is your implied assertion that it is only a billionaire owner that could afford to splash out on a player costing a mere £1.75 million.

 

Christ, Fonte was up for sale from a club in administration and no one from the CCC could afford to prise him away from us.

 

It could have been a number of reasons other than nobody being able to afford him. Just in case that isn't blindingly obvious too, those reasons could include the fact that some teams might not have needed a CB, having sufficient cover already. We might also have represented a better prospect to some teams on the way down from the fizzy pop division. He might have preferred working with Pardew and not been keen on some other manager/s. He might have visited this area and thought that it was a good place to live, or we sold ourselves and our vision for the future to him better than others. As it stands, if you say that he is of CCC standard or above, are you really trying to say that there are no teams in the higher divisions that could not afford him? Frankly, I find that an incredible assertion..

 

Our outlay would no way be covered by gate receipts and prize money. No way on earth.

 

OK. So provide the figures to prove that our expenditure far exceeds our revenue to prove your stance.

 

It being "small change for ML" is not the real measure of our spending - it is massively disproportionate for the league we are in and is the dictionary definition of spending money like it is going out of fashion.

 

Laughs out loud at the assertion that a billionaire spending for him what is small change and it being called spending money like it is going out of fashion, regardless of whether it is disproportionate in this division. And which dictionary was this, by the way?

 

Measuring what we spend against what we think our benevolent owner can afford is an utterly shameful way to look at the finances of our football club. So you can keep your comment about it being "small change" because that's a disgraceful way to think and can only lead to thoughts of greed and entitlement.

 

You seem to forget that it was you who raised this question of the money and how we (Liebherr) had "chucked" money at buying players and how important it was as a factor in the success of the manager. And now you want to get all precious about how bad it is for people to harbour thoughts of greed and high expectations. Just because you might think those thoughts doesn't mean that everybody shares them. Personally I admire the ethos of Markus Liebherr, precisely that he wishes to have the club run as a going concern without huge levels of debt and unless you can prove that the club isn't being run at break even level, I will believe that is what he is doing and admire him for it.

 

So, along side Pardew and his team spirit (cheers for that) and ability to buy good players (and that) and spending the money wisely (the hat-trick! Have a banana) it is the fact we have spent money like it is going out of fashion that is the reason we have seen this seasons instant success.

 

On the definition of what constitutes spending money like it is going out of fashion, falls your whole argument, as that is only your opinion. It certainly isn't a fact, so quit the sneering; it is that which makes you come across as so arrogant.

[Whitey Grandad]

Christ, Fonte was up for sale from a club in administration and no one from the CCC could afford to prise him away from us.

 

Our outlay would no way be covered by gate receipts and prize money. No way on earth.

Do you not think so? I'd like to see the figures but I would think that we must be close to break-even this season, if the initial purchase costs are not included and assuming a rent-free stadium.

[Wes Tender]

Do you not think so? I'd like to see the figures but I would think that we must be close to break-even this season, if the initial purchase costs are not included and assuming a rent-free stadium.

 

I would have thought so too, but then what do we know, eh, Whitey?

 

So to a certain extent, all this hot air about how we are splashing out loadsamoney on players could well be because we can afford to do it through our income receipts, rather than because of the wealth of our owner.

 

I understand that the break even point in the Fizzy Pop was about 17,000 bums on seats. Although TV revenue might have been greater, as you say, there is not the stadium mortgage or bank overdraft to service and attendance figures and ST sales are substantially ahead of last season's. Plus there was also the revenue from the two cup runs.

 

Until I see concrete evidence from the accounts to prove otherwise, I will assume that we have been trading at a break even level this season.

[Saint_clark]

I genuinely believe, and have done for a while, that our income will have covered our outgoings for this season.

[Thedelldays]

I genuinely believe, and have done for a while, that our income will have covered our outgoings for this season.

even having 2 ex league 1 managers as coaches...the training ground up grade

 

les reed

[Saint_clark]

even having 2 ex league 1 managers as coaches...the training ground up grade

 

les reed

 

Well we haven't paid anything for the training ground yet, have we.

And yes, i'd say match day revenue, including tickets, merchandise sale and sponsorships, would cover our wage bill for the week.

[Whitey Grandad]

even having 2 ex league 1 managers as coaches...the training ground up grade

 

les reed

That would be capital expenditure and not revenue, and it has not happened yet.

[Thedelldays]

That would be capital expenditure and not revenue, and it has not happened yet.

so that wont be paid for at all...?

are we going to raise the ticket prices for this..?

 

and then cortese wages..I have no doubt that he would be on a very large amount

[Whitey Grandad]

so that wont be paid for at all...?

are we going to raise the ticket prices for this..?

 

and then cortese wages..I have no doubt that he would be on a very large amount

Wasn't the talk at the time that Markus was paying for it out of his own pocket? The point about capital expenditure is that it is normally amortised over a period longer than just one season, and we are a 'debt-free' club, whatever that means. We have been splashing a lot of money but we have also been taking a lot from the larger crowds and from the cup runs. The JPT alone would pay the purchase price for Rickie Lambert.