Lee Charnley

[loki679]

No, the test is when that line creeps above zero again.  I would suggest we'll see a point of inflection there and the gradient will once again turn negative.

[Happy Face]

Possibly

 

That's the only reason I thought Ashley might sack Pardew...

 

When action is taken it will be Ashley's investments on the pitch that force his hand.  With the sale of Cabaye the club no longer have any player they could sell at any significant profit.  That fact will worry Mike far more than our abject performances, consistent drubbings, flat lining points total, open top buses or season ticket sales.

 

http://nufc-ashlies.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/ashley-owes-himself-manager-better-than.html

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I'm not starting a debate on this topic really, but it never makes sense to me that we focus on net spending on transfers without the rest of the club's finances... as if transfer spending is it's own self-contained thing.

[Happy Face]

No, the test is when that line creeps above zero again.  I would suggest we'll see a point of inflection there and the gradient will once again turn negative.

 

Perhaps

 

In a little over 1000 days we sold almost a full team of notable players...

 

Milner

N'zogbia

Given

Martins

Duff

Beye

Bassong

Carroll

Nolan

Enrique

 

In the same period since we've sold Ba, Cabaye and Debuchy.

 

I'm cautious about criticising for what they did rather than what they're doing.  It might only be for the reason Wullie mentioned but it's going in a better direction.

[Happy Face]

I'm not starting a debate on this topic really, but it never makes sense to me that we focus on net spending on transfers without the rest of the club's finances... as if transfer spending is it's own self-contained thing.

 

It's been suggested that the tranfer policy is incomings must be paid for by outgoings.  Any other income will be used for servicing debt and a rainy day fund if we're relegation threatened come January.

[Varadi]

We've actually crept off the bottom of the "last 5 years net transfer spend" table this summer:

 

http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-last-five-seasons.html

 

Although if Tiote does go we'll be right back down there.

 

Look at the state of West Ham!

 

 

[loki679]

No major events that might have prompted the sale of a large number of players?  Earthquake maybe?  Nuclear War?  Dammit, I just can't think of anything that may have happened around the time that the likes of Bassong were sold that might have almost forced the club to sell them.

 

Plus, what about, Tavernier, Perch, Best, Forster?  Not to mention the shite we couldn't sell who saw out their contracts.

[jdckelly]

We've actually crept off the bottom of the "last 5 years net transfer spend" table this summer:

 

http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-last-five-seasons.html

 

Although if Tiote does go we'll be right back down there.

 

Look at the state of West Ham!

Soutampton shoot into bottom 3 based on this summers outgoings alone!

[Happy Face]

No major events that might have prompted the sale of a large number of players?  Earthquake maybe?  Nuclear War?  Dammit, I just can't think of anything that may have happened around the time that the likes of Bassong were sold that might have almost forced the club to sell them.

 

Exactly, perhaps we're less of a selling club than those times (and accrued debts) suggested.

 

Though 3 of them went before relegation was a danger.

[Guest chopey]

Sorry mate, it was comic genius. "If you cut off the point where we recieved a 35 million deal from 1 player then the club has a net spend of 35 million over the proceeding four years!"

 

 

You all know what was meant....

 

http://i61.tinypic.com/2i16cn.jpg

 

On a moving average of 10 you can see the change from a steep drop which made us a selling club to a consistent increase which suggests we're investing more than we receive, albeit at a lesser gradient.

 

 

Best graph ever 10/10 well done

[Wullie]

We only like to sell for serious profit because we get so upset at the cost of replacing after factoring in signing on fees etc.

 

We haven't got anyone worth anything now, other than Krul. If you want to use your graphs (that fooled you last season) to convince yourself that that is no longer the approach, that's up to you. But it is.

[Crayola Kid]

I'm not starting a debate on this topic really, but it never makes sense to me that we focus on net spending on transfers without the rest of the club's finances... as if transfer spending is it's own self-contained thing.

 

It's been suggested that the tranfer policy is incomings must be paid for by outgoings.  Any other income will be used for servicing debt and a rainy day fund if we're relegation threatened come January.

 

Happy Face, as someone who pulls an enormous amount of detail from the financial side of how the club is run, can you not factor in some of the cash lost during a transfer, when looking for a net figure over a period of time?

I mean, the agent must be paid for, the player takes a cut, a ten million pound transfer can't net a club ten million pounds, can it?  I think of the movement of money in these deals as being like the movement of water in a game on 'It's A Knockout', spilling out everywhere.

This isn't to say NUFC have spent more than the net amount, but all clubs, because money leaks out every time a player is bought or sold, that's why agents like to tout players around, and why certain agents move certain players as often as possible (or try to at least).

 

Can you put a figure on it?  Sure it will vary, but say it was a ten million pound sale - can anyone hazard a guess as to how much the selling club will bank?

I know clubs have lots of costs, and some people will say that these payments should be lumped in with wages etc, but for me they are solely brought around by the transfer happening and so should come off the net figure when discussing transfer business over a set period.

 

Ten million pound sale, what do you say? 8 mil in the bank? 7? 9.5?

[Kanj]

I like that Happy Face changes the style of every single one of his graphs and charts; you need a branding/style guide for your work, man.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I'LL DO THIS ONE WIV LAYZAZ!!!!

[Kanj]

"Excel is Art, like"

[Happy Face]

I'm not starting a debate on this topic really, but it never makes sense to me that we focus on net spending on transfers without the rest of the club's finances... as if transfer spending is it's own self-contained thing.

 

It's been suggested that the tranfer policy is incomings must be paid for by outgoings.  Any other income will be used for servicing debt and a rainy day fund if we're relegation threatened come January.

 

Happy Face, as someone who pulls an enormous amount of detail from the financial side of how the club is run, can you not factor in some of the cash lost during a transfer, when looking for a net figure over a period of time?

I mean, the agent must be paid for, the player takes a cut, a ten million pound transfer can't net a club ten million pounds, can it?  I think of the movement of money in these deals as being like the movement of water in a game on 'It's A Knockout', spilling out everywhere.

This isn't to say NUFC have spent more than the net amount, but all clubs, because money leaks out every time a player is bought or sold, that's why agents like to tout players around, and why certain agents move certain players as often as possible (or try to at least).

 

Can you put a figure on it?  Sure it will vary, but say it was a ten million pound sale - can anyone hazard a guess as to how much the selling club will bank?

I know clubs have lots of costs, and some people will say that these payments should be lumped in with wages etc, but for me they are solely brought around by the transfer happening and so should come off the net figure when discussing transfer business over a set period.

 

Ten million pound sale, what do you say? 8 mil in the bank? 7? 9.5?

 

i just whack in the amounts reported when a sale happens.  There are no reports of agents fees or owt so not something I could reasonably include and source.

[Kanj]

There isn't a single way to figure out the net cost of transfer Crayola - unless there is a Deloitte or similar independent auditor report that gives an average of the transaction costs to doing a deal. Which always be a % of the amount being publicized versus the amount actually recorded on the books. Assume transaction costs = travel, agent fees, player sign-on bonus, etc. 

[Happy Face]

If you want to use your graphs (that fooled you last season) to convince yourself that that is no longer the approach, that's up to you.

 

 

I've been pretty consistent in saying Pardew is was and always has been a shit manager, from the day we brought him in.

 

Some of his "excuses" have been valid and some of the specific criticisms against him weren't valid imo.

 

The fact he's run out of excuses and stopped winning the bare minimum of games to avoid full throated "Pardew Out" at home games has nowt to do with my graphs.

 

People just seem to like the graphs that bash him/Ashley and dislike the ones that show where they've not actually been too bad.

[Crayola Kid]

I'm not starting a debate on this topic really, but it never makes sense to me that we focus on net spending on transfers without the rest of the club's finances... as if transfer spending is it's own self-contained thing.

 

It's been suggested that the tranfer policy is incomings must be paid for by outgoings.  Any other income will be used for servicing debt and a rainy day fund if we're relegation threatened come January.

 

Happy Face, as someone who pulls an enormous amount of detail from the financial side of how the club is run, can you not factor in some of the cash lost during a transfer, when looking for a net figure over a period of time?

I mean, the agent must be paid for, the player takes a cut, a ten million pound transfer can't net a club ten million pounds, can it?  I think of the movement of money in these deals as being like the movement of water in a game on 'It's A Knockout', spilling out everywhere.

This isn't to say NUFC have spent more than the net amount, but all clubs, because money leaks out every time a player is bought or sold, that's why agents like to tout players around, and why certain agents move certain players as often as possible (or try to at least).

 

Can you put a figure on it?  Sure it will vary, but say it was a ten million pound sale - can anyone hazard a guess as to how much the selling club will bank?

I know clubs have lots of costs, and some people will say that these payments should be lumped in with wages etc, but for me they are solely brought around by the transfer happening and so should come off the net figure when discussing transfer business over a set period.

 

Ten million pound sale, what do you say? 8 mil in the bank? 7? 9.5?

 

i just whack in the amounts reported when a sale happens.  There are no reports of agents fees or owt so not something I could reasonably include and source.

 

Fair enough, and it's the same everywhere (other media, forums), but it's a huge thing to miss when building an overall picture.  If a player takes ten percent (a benchmark I've heard often enough?), then over a period where 50m is taken in sales, there are costs of 5m before any payments are made to agents.

I imagine it to be around 15 percent, but that's without any specific knowledge other than such as you pick up when reading various sources.

 

Shouldnt be used to defend our club when all clubs are in the same boat, but it does suggest money above that received in sales has been spent this year so far.

 

Still, maybe Tiote will cover that

[Guest firetotheworks]

If you want to use your graphs (that fooled you last season) to convince yourself that that is no longer the approach, that's up to you.

 

 

I've been pretty consistent in saying Pardew is was and always has been a s*** manager, from the day we brought him in.

 

Some of his "excuses" have been valid and some of the specific criticisms against him weren't valid imo.

 

The fact he's run out of excuses and stopped winning the bare minimum of games to avoid full throated "Pardew Out" at home games has nowt to do with my graphs.

 

People just seem to like the graphs that bash him/Ashley and dislike the ones that show where they've not actually been too bad.

 

Yes, because they enforce something we all put above graphs; our gut.

[jdckelly]

I'm not starting a debate on this topic really, but it never makes sense to me that we focus on net spending on transfers without the rest of the club's finances... as if transfer spending is it's own self-contained thing.

 

It's been suggested that the tranfer policy is incomings must be paid for by outgoings.  Any other income will be used for servicing debt and a rainy day fund if we're relegation threatened come January.

 

Happy Face, as someone who pulls an enormous amount of detail from the financial side of how the club is run, can you not factor in some of the cash lost during a transfer, when looking for a net figure over a period of time?

I mean, the agent must be paid for, the player takes a cut, a ten million pound transfer can't net a club ten million pounds, can it?  I think of the movement of money in these deals as being like the movement of water in a game on 'It's A Knockout', spilling out everywhere.

This isn't to say NUFC have spent more than the net amount, but all clubs, because money leaks out every time a player is bought or sold, that's why agents like to tout players around, and why certain agents move certain players as often as possible (or try to at least).

 

Can you put a figure on it?  Sure it will vary, but say it was a ten million pound sale - can anyone hazard a guess as to how much the selling club will bank?

I know clubs have lots of costs, and some people will say that these payments should be lumped in with wages etc, but for me they are solely brought around by the transfer happening and so should come off the net figure when discussing transfer business over a set period.

 

Ten million pound sale, what do you say? 8 mil in the bank? 7? 9.5?

 

i just whack in the amounts reported when a sale happens.  There are no reports of agents fees or owt so not something I could reasonably include and source.

clubs usually have to give the total amount spent on agents in a year so thats something

[Crayola Kid]

There isn't a single way to figure out the net cost of transfer Crayola - unless there is a Deloitte or similar independent auditor report that gives an average of the transaction costs to doing a deal. Which always be a % of the amount being publicized versus the amount actually recorded on the books. Assume transaction costs = travel, agent fees, player sign-on bonus, etc. 

 

For sure, the thing is, we all know there are costs but the 'net figure' posts and websites dedicated to 'net figures' never include them.  Elephant in the room.  Net figures as they are given are useful to get a picture of what is being spent and in what direction the investment is going but they arent all they are supposed to be?

[Happy Face]

If you want to use your graphs (that fooled you last season) to convince yourself that that is no longer the approach, that's up to you.

 

 

I've been pretty consistent in saying Pardew is was and always has been a s*** manager, from the day we brought him in.

 

Some of his "excuses" have been valid and some of the specific criticisms against him weren't valid imo.

 

The fact he's run out of excuses and stopped winning the bare minimum of games to avoid full throated "Pardew Out" at home games has nowt to do with my graphs.

 

People just seem to like the graphs that bash him/Ashley and dislike the ones that show where they've not actually been too bad.

 

Yes, because they enforce something we all put above graphs; our gut.

 

Aye,  Like George Bush, people like to go with their gut.

 

Stats matter when they support my argument but they don't matter when it doesn't.

 

If I get a gut feeling I like it if I can look at the stats too, if they support what I felt in my gut then I have evidence, if not then I either need to reconsider or have someone tell me where my stats have misrepresented my view.

 

Wrong to just disregard.

 

Wullie has provided a perfectly reasonable explanation of why sales haven't been as high as previously.  Doesn't alter the fact we've been buying too.  You'd expect that with the TV deal though.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I just don't agree that stats are needed as an indicator, but that they supplement a human or professional response. Stats come in handy to highlight things, definitely and they come in handy when there are fine lines, but when they're stats that fly in the face of the perversely obvious, I don't think there's any point.

[Happy Face]

I just don't agree that stats are needed as an indicator, but that they supplement a human or professional response. Stats come in handy to highlight things, definitely and they come in handy when there are fine lines, but when they're stats that fly in the face of the perversely obvious, I don't think there's any point.

 

It's only obvious if it's your view.

 

Some racists gut feeling would say it's obvious that black people can't swim.  It's clear that no olympic champions are black etc.

 

Non racists would say the evidence of statistical analysis says black people are equally capable of swimming but that fewer black people are taught to swim.

 

...anyway whenever discussion turns to the inherent validity of stats then I bow out.  Prefer the discussion around what the stats suggest (or not).

 

No doubt I'll be back with another chart sooner or later