Eddie Howe

[Toon1892]

11 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

The logic that we should settle around where our wage bill is in the league, with anything higher being a manager miracle and anything lower is bad management is nonsense.

A prime example is Joelinton.

 

He is one of the best midfielders in the league and wants to be compensated like one of the best midfielders in the league. We can’t afford that yet due to FFP.

 

Therefore it is likely that we will have to sell him and buy a player that isn’t as good as Joelinton but who’s wages we can afford.

 

The wage bill is the key metric amongst any sport finances.

[The College Dropout]

16 minutes ago, Toon1892 said:

Let’s agree to disagree then. If you think it’s sustainable for the 8th highest wage bill to consistently get top 4. I’m not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

You're ignoring what i've said and the evidence I have provided to fit a false narrative of consistently getting top 4.

 

[Toon1892]

This is why the top clubs are bringing in a wages to turnover ratio. To even better their stance as the top 6. Once that is brought in it’ll be so difficult to compete.

[The College Dropout]

15 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

The logic that we should settle around where our wage bill is in the league, with anything higher being a manager miracle and anything lower is bad management is nonsense.

You have to take other teams performance into consideration. And miracles and bad management are too simplistic and extreme.

 

But fundamentally yes - every club should settle around their wage bill. Significantly higher or lower performance means something extreme has happened at squad, management and leadership level. E.g. it has all gone to pot at Chelsea from the top to the bottom. Same for Everton. We got nearly everything right last season from top to bottom as did Brighton.

[Matt1892]

18 minutes ago, Toon1892 said:

Why? Over the long term that’s what happens. Welcome to the premier league.

 

Yes we need to increase the wage bill to become more competitive.

 

Generally the teams with the better players finish higher up the table. Generally the better players cost more money on a weekly basis. 
 

It’s how sport works. Sorry to break that to you.

There are more intricacies to it than purely the wage bill, for example not every players ability is a true reflection of the wage they earn, as well as some players earning more dependent on age, seniority and their status before joining the club, such as arriving on a free transfer etc.

I don’t think anyone would argue that Everton have a better squad of players compared to Brighton, due to the latter having the superior scouting network that has allowed them to bring in high quality players at a lower cost, yet by your logic Everton being lower than them is down to manager magic.

 

 

[Matt1892]

8 minutes ago, Toon1892 said:

A prime example is Joelinton.

 

He is one of the best midfielders in the league and wants to be compensated like one of the best midfielders in the league. We can’t afford that yet due to FFP.

 

Therefore it is likely that we will have to sell him and buy a player that isn’t as good as Joelinton but who’s wages we can afford.

 

The wage bill is the key metric amongst any sport finances.

Edit your original post rather than quoting the same post multiple times.

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Matt1892 said:

There are more intricacies to it than purely the wage bill, for example not every players ability is a true reflection of the wage they earn, as well as some players earning more dependent on age, seniority and their status before joining the club, such as arriving on a free transfer etc.

I don’t think anyone would argue that Everton have a better squad of players compared to Brighton, due to the latter having the superior scouting network that has allowed them to bring in high quality players at a lower cost, yet by your logic Everton being lower than them is down to manager magic.

 

 

This is true for all clubs. If the quality for £££ ratio is bad, that's because of poor contract management by those clubs leadership. That's Everton, Chelsea. That's a failure.

 

Brighton is one of the best-run clubs in the league top to bottom. So they are exceeding their financial output. If Man Utd used their resources as efficiently, they would be challenging for the CL year-in year-out. What's so hard to understand?

[Matt1892]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

This is true for all clubs. If the quality for £££ ratio is bad, that's because of poor contract management by those clubs leadership. That's Everton, Chelsea. That's a failure.

 

Brighton is one of the best-run clubs in the league top to bottom. So they are exceeding their financial output. If Man Utd used their resources as efficiently, they would be challenging for the CL year-in year-out. What's so hard to understand?

Again, it isn’t a simple case of being 7th regarding wage bill so we should be 7th in the league. In the same was a as saying we have the 7th most expensive squad in the league so should be 7th.

 

there are more factors to it than that, which you have agreed with with your example of Man Utd and Brighton.

[Toon1892]

1 minute ago, Matt1892 said:

Again, it isn’t a simple case of being 7th regarding wage bill so we should be 7th in the league. In the same was a as saying we have the 7th most expensive squad in the league so should be 7th.

 

there are more factors to it than that, which you have agreed with with your example of Man Utd and Brighton.

Yes but my point is over the short term your position can fluctuate from season to season in comparison to your wage bill. 
 

Over the long term there is a clear trend between league position and wage bill.

 

Hence if we want to consistently get into the top 4 we need to increase our wage bill. That goes for all clubs. Brighton included.

 

Our board and owners are well aware of this.

[Dr Venkman]

3 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

So many people regard Howe in a stratosphere that is just unproven. 

Who are these people? And what does this even mean?

[rutland]

Villa doing very well for a minimum spend.

[Toon1892]

4 minutes ago, rutland said:

Villa doing very well for a minimum spend.

They are! Although there wage bill is joint 6th highest in the league (40% higher than ours). They will probably end up finishing 5th? So not too dissimilar to their wage bill. 

[Thumbheed]

1 hour ago, Toon1892 said:

I’m not sure everything went our way last season. We had the 4th highest injuries in the league. Often to key players such as Isak and Wilson. (Key last year). https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/premier-league-injury-table-22-23-liverpool-chelsea-arsenal-man-utd
 

We also had some unfortunate suspensions at key times to Pope and Bruno. 
 

If Isak and Wilson weren’t coming back from injury slightly out of form we would have won that cup final.

 

Proof of bold- I’m a chartered accountant so I just looked at the accounts. But a quick summary which isn’t entirely accurate but still demonstrates the points- https://www.givemesport.com/premier-league-wage-bill/

You shouldn’t really look at net spend since the takeover. That only compensated for the lack of net spend under Ashley. As a chartered accountant, the far better measure is gross wage costs to compare budget to budget.

 

The bottom line is Howe has done an incredible job since he took over. I don’t believe there would have been many managers to have been able to do what he has done.

 

Unfortunately fans then set their expectations based on the amazing work he’s done. We’re now back in line this season with our gross wage ranking. (Still pretty amazing given the amount of injuries and fixtures and suspensions we’ve had this season).

 

Stay patient and keep the faith…

Some fans set their expectations and get riled up when we're exactly on course to achieve those expectations. 

 

 

[The Prophet]

I can't even remember what is being debated.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

3 hours ago, Toon1892 said:

Our wage budget was closer to 20th place than 4th place. That has only happened a handful of times.

 

You've taken the absolute Value rather than then position here haven't you? So we have a wage bill that is £60m higher than Luton but £70m less than Chelsea?

 

I'd prefer to say that we need to outperform 5 teams relative to payroll in order to get top 4 but would need to underperform 9 teams to be relegated. Closer to 4th than 18th.

 

If you take the figures you quoted as being more or less true I'd ignore the Manchester Clubs as they have to pay higher wages just for being City or Manure and I'd ignore Chelsea as they are just plain nuts.

 

Spurs/Villa/Liverpool are the wages that should be sustainable for being competitive in and around the top 4 every year. I think Arsenal have overspent and over the next few years you'll see the 3/4 below them catch up as they stay relatively still

[KaKa]

2 hours ago, Myleftboot said:

Eddie?

 

Yeah, apparently he was also mentioned in discussions prior to Pochettino, as he is admired from a number of their football people in house.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

50 minutes ago, Toon1892 said:

A prime example is Joelinton.

 

He is one of the best midfielders in the league and wants to be compensated like one of the best midfielders in the league. We can’t afford that yet due to FFP.

 

Therefore it is likely that we will have to sell him and buy a player that isn’t as good as Joelinton but who’s wages we can afford.

 

The wage bill is the key metric amongst any sport finances.

 

You're ignoring the Premier League tax here. There are better midfielders in Europe and beyond than Big Joe who wouldn't cost what we will need to pay him. With a good scouting team and an ability to cycle players in and out every 2,3,4 years you could be ultra competitive without paying top Premier League wages.

[Toon1892]

35 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

You're ignoring the Premier League tax here. There are better midfielders in Europe and beyond than Big Joe who wouldn't cost what we will need to pay him. With a good scouting team and an ability to cycle players in and out every 2,3,4 years you could be ultra competitive without paying top Premier League wages.

I’m really not. 
 

There is no guarantee you’ll sign one of those players on high wages and they won’t flop in the premier league.

 

Theres a reason a proven player usually has a higher salary than an unproven player.

 

Yes signing those unproven players regularly over the long term on lower wages would be amazing. But there hasn’t been a team able to do that long term and it can sometimes backfire- see Everton.

[The College Dropout]

 

 

41 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

You've taken the absolute Value rather than then position here haven't you? So we have a wage bill that is £60m higher than Luton but £70m less than Chelsea?

 

I'd prefer to say that we need to outperform 5 teams relative to payroll in order to get top 4 but would need to underperform 9 teams to be relegated. Closer to 4th than 18th.

 

If you take the figures you quoted as being more or less true I'd ignore the Manchester Clubs as they have to pay higher wages just for being City or Manure and I'd ignore Chelsea as they are just plain nuts.

 

Spurs/Villa/Liverpool are the wages that should be sustainable for being competitive in and around the top 4 every year. I think Arsenal have overspent and over the next few years you'll see the 3/4 below them catch up as they stay relatively still

This is the most reliable data on football wages 

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1762492809121280064/photo/3

 

We need to outperform 3 teams to finish top 4. 2 to finish 5th. 1 of which is Chelsea.

[Interpolic]

And player absence means absolutely nothing in this absurdly black and white world you won't stop banging on about.

 

All that matters is wages.  Doesn't matter if the players earning those wages are available to play football or not.

[mighty__mag]

 

Without even checking yet, I'd put my house on it, that it's either Edwards or Hope.

 

Edit: I was wrong, Simon Bird, such a pathetic question to ask Eddie.

 

 

Edited March 1 by mighty__mag

[Toon1892]

7 minutes ago, Interpolic said:

And player absence means absolutely nothing in this absurdly black and white world you won't stop banging on about.

 

All that matters is wages.  Doesn't matter if the players earning those wages are available to play football or not.

Don’t think you’ve read the full posts. I’m saying Howes done a good job given the wage budget and the number of injuries. 
 

Sorry if that’s rattled you.

[The College Dropout]

Just now, Interpolic said:

And player absence means absolutely nothing in this absurdly black and white world you won't stop banging on about.

 

All that matters is wages.  Doesn't matter if the players earning those wages are available to play football or not.

Never claimed wages are everything. It gives us *some* context. Our wage bill is as close to Arsenal, as West Ham's is to us. All things being equal, we should be somewhere in between (obviously things have changed since March 2023 financially too). A particularly bad ride with injuries and CL football we'll be closer to the chasing pack, maybe behind 1 or 2 - totally understandable. But more than that is pretty bad like.

 

I think the European football for West Ham & Brighton inparticular will be a huge disadvantage for both. Brighton have a ton of injuries too. I back us to catch both.

[The College Dropout]

Toon1892 the accountant using estimates about wages rather than financial accounts.

[Interpolic]

14 minutes ago, Toon1892 said:

Don’t think you’ve read the full posts. I’m saying Howes done a good job given the wage budget and the number of injuries. 
 

Sorry if that’s rattled you.

 

Eh? I wasn't even on about you. 

 

I'm referring to posts in recent days saying anything below 7th is a failure because we've the 7th highest wage bill in the league. With no weight given to us having suffered 200 more injury days than the nearest team and 1000 days more than the two teams above us. 

 

It's a ridiculously reductive argument that has been an absolute fucking bore to read all week.