David Icke - Son of God Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malandro Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? Because any player who does well is going to be tempted away by clubs with more ambitious salary scales, and it's only the bargains that turn out not to be bargains that will stay? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The net transfer total isn't particularly important when trying to assess a team's level, but teams DO tend to finish pretty much in order of wage bill. We're in a decent position here because our % of turnover committed to wages is just about where we'd want it to be, with a little bit of headroom perhaps, and we're turning a profit. Question: Do you think Arsenal are a well-run club, and would you like to think of Newcastle being run in that way? Also: Do you think it is a necessary trait of a chairman that he is willing to plough his own money into the club in order to make it ever more ambitious? Or should the money for transfers and wages come from within the club? If someone slightly richer and more reckless than Mike Ashley came in and offered to subsidise transfers and wages to boost us up the league, but we'd be dependent on his cash and vulnerable if he fucked off, would you prefer that? I'd rather our level of ambition was dictated by the actual size of the club, tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Novocastrian Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 He bought us as a platform for his gash sportswear empire, he (or one of his cronies) admitted that ages ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malandro Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 He bought us as a platform for his gash sportswear empire, he (or one of his cronies) admitted that ages ago. One look at SJP proves this. I don't think he has any ambition for the club beyond plugging SD and clawing back the money he lost by not undertaking due diligence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable. when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 He bought us as a platform for his gash sportswear empire, he (or one of his cronies) admitted that ages ago. One look at SJP proves this. I don't think he has any ambition for the club beyond plugging SD and clawing back the money he lost by not undertaking due diligence. Nail on head. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Novocastrian Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 He bought us as a platform for his gash sportswear empire, he (or one of his cronies) admitted that ages ago. One look at SJP proves this. I don't think he has any ambition for the club beyond plugging SD and clawing back the money he lost by not undertaking due diligence. I think that was his original intention but the success of the 'model': buy younger, or damaged/maverick, players with a sell on fee and put them on relatively low wages has, I think, changed his outlook. As long as he can keep them coming in and has a compliant,semi-competent, manager who can keep us in the top flight the cunt is literally printing money. Once the TV moolah starts rolling in and we continue making a profit he has no need to jeopardise the status quo by doing anything risky like attempting to win a trophy or crazy shit like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable. when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ? Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club? Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better. We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Another question (though nobody's answered the previous two yet): If we displayed more 'ambition' and bought our way up the league, but it meant we ended up spending 85% of our turnover on wages, would you like that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
afar Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable. when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ? Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club? Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better. We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going. LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consortium of one Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 So this latest crisis we're in makes it open season to question/criticise/abuse Ashley's ownership and his financial strategy again. That's fine of course, but what is the suggested alternative this time, bearing in mind he won't be changing course any time soon ? Is it fairy godmother Arabs, fanzine editors wanting our pension pots or perhaps another "Geordie" knight in shining armour dashing to our rescue? I could always start raising money again to mount a takeover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malandro Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Another question (though nobody's answered the previous two yet): If we displayed more 'ambition' and bought our way up the league, but it meant we ended up spending 85% of our turnover on wages, would you like that? I doubt it but that's not what anybody is asking for. What many supporters want to to see is an NUFC that tries to punch its weight, something more ambitious than the small time mentality we have now. A middle ground that reflects the size of the club, not the owners' bargain basement business philosophy. Oh, and get that SD shit off the stadium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Jerusalem Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 With the players that have gone out compared to those coming in, can we assume that the wage figure is now well below 50m per year? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable. when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ? Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club? Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better. We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going. LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills. And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? Because any player who does well is going to be tempted away by clubs with more ambitious salary scales, and it's only the bargains that turn out not to be bargains that will stay? Until that starts to happen regularly then that's conjecture. Ba is the only person who has shown any real desire to leave and he was apparently offered terms that would've almost gave him parity with our highest earner. I don't quite understand why the board are coping flack for adopting a sensible wage structure. We've been down the road of paying grossly over inflated salaries to players whose performances and/or ability haven't justified them. It got us into trouble and was clearly unsustainable. Why do it again? Our position in that wages table is being obsessed over but whether 1st, 13th or 20th, it's completely moot. The figure that does count for something is wages to turnover. 70% is hypothesised to be the tipping point between a club that can cope and one that is in danger and we're not a million miles off that. The only way we can really begin to pay more is to increase turnover. I think there are some very justified criticisms of the board, for example the extremely ponderous way we approach transfer windows which seems to be borne out of a belief we can come out on top in the sagas that pass for negotiations nowadays when all evidence points to the fact that clubs are getting wise and preferring to play hard ball with us, but our wage structure? Christ, it's one of the things the current owners have got very, very right. It's flexible enough to allow us to reward players who perform well (as we did with Tiote in his first season and Krul last year) but won't see us get taken for mugs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? I think you may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I think our transfer is very good on a number of aspects: - we are getting value for money - we are buying players just before or in their prime - the characters coming into the club are professional - our first team looks very good on paper ("eleven purples") There are also some quite obvious problems with it: - we do not focus on the positions that need strengthening, but on getting a bargain, meaning we can literally go for years without filling a position - we do not place value in building a squad, so beyond the first team are players with neither much ability nor potential - despite publicly stating we invest heavily in youth we barely ever do and we have no apparent structure to bring young players through My entire point is that if Ashley was willing to trust the football people around him, and back them accordingly to even an average Premiership level in relation to our club size/revenue/potential we could work on the weak points of the policy effectively and be so much better for it. In my opinion Mike Ashley just seems on some kind of mission to prove you can run a Premiership club at a profit, which would be great news if we were shareholders, but is in reality not so much considering we are fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Another question (though nobody's answered the previous two yet): If we displayed more 'ambition' and bought our way up the league, but it meant we ended up spending 85% of our turnover on wages, would you like that? I doubt it but that's not what anybody is asking for. What many supporters want to to see is an NUFC that tries to punch its weight, something more ambitious than the small time mentality we have now. A middle ground that reflects the size of the club, not the owners' bargain basement business philosophy. Oh, and get that SD s*** off the stadium. So as long as we built a squad of value-for-money players to the limit of our sensible expenditure on wages, you'd be happy with that? Because that's as ambitious as it's healthy to be unless you just want a sugar daddy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable. when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ? Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club? Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better. We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going. LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills. And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league. There's some homework for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the fucking finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!! As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying fuck about anything but the football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? Because any player who does well is going to be tempted away by clubs with more ambitious salary scales, and it's only the bargains that turn out not to be bargains that will stay? Until that starts to happen regularly then that's conjecture. Ba is the only person who has shown any real desire to leave and he was apparently offered terms that would've almost gave him parity with our highest earner. I don't quite understand why the board are coping flack for adopting a sensible wage structure. We've been down the road of paying grossly over inflated salaries to players whose performances and/or ability haven't justified them. It got us into trouble and was clearly unsustainable. Why do it again? Our position in that wages table is being obsessed over but whether 1st, 13th or 20th, it's completely moot. The figure that does count for something is wages to turnover. 70% is hypothesised to be the tipping point between a club that can cope and one that is in danger and we're not a million miles off that. The only way we can really begin to pay more is to increase turnover. I think there are some very justified criticisms of the board, for example the extremely ponderous way we approach transfer windows which seems to be borne out of a belief we can come out on top in the sagas that pass for negotiations nowadays when all evidence points to the fact that clubs are getting wise and preferring to play hard ball with us, but our wage structure? Christ, it's one of the things the current owners have got very, very right. It's flexible enough to allow us to reward players who perform well (as we did with Tiote in his first season and Krul last year) but won't see us get taken for mugs. Stay up and our TV money will go up by a considerable amount while costs should stay fairly stable I guess then we'll see if there is any ambition. Dave too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the f***ing finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!! As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying f*** about anything but the football. Well go find yourself some kind of Meca Shepherd who'll happily run the club into the ground and maybe win a trophy along the way then. Not to care whether the club is in a healthy state or not is pretty fucking daft isn't it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the f***ing finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!! As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying f*** about anything but the football. fans at most clubs do it now after what happened to leeds and pompey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Another question (though nobody's answered the previous two yet): If we displayed more 'ambition' and bought our way up the league, but it meant we ended up spending 85% of our turnover on wages, would you like that? I doubt it but that's not what anybody is asking for. What many supporters want to to see is an NUFC that tries to punch its weight, something more ambitious than the small time mentality we have now. A middle ground that reflects the size of the club, not the owners' bargain basement business philosophy. Oh, and get that SD shit off the stadium. It's very difficult to define that middle point though isn't it? I mean, we already buying people like Cisse and Debuchy... you could argue we have found the middle ground already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts