Signings: The Howe Era

[Heron]

After 20k posts ro whatever I still don't know how the forum works on this app

 

So what percentage of players have been good signings and what percentage does that equate to in terms of expenditure?

 

 

This is £787.25m according to TranferMarkt to help you calculate (add the values of success signings up and then divide that total by £787.25m)

 

 

Edited April 26 by Heron

[Andy]

Good to delete this by request now, aye?

[midds]

Anyone??

[Fak]

To what extent do you believe the new signings have the skills and knowledge to perform their job effectively?

[midds]

So - how many players have been shit and what % of the total sum have we wasted on them? That right? 

[Wallsendmag]

All I take from that is that we've spent over £787m on football players since Eddie Howe was appointed. And that's before we bring in agents fees, signing on fees, bonuses and wages into the bargain which takes it to over £1Bn.

 

Regardless of how we are doing. The game is fucked. That's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Leemond]

Lewis Hall is on twice.

[bobbydazzla]

4 minutes ago, Fak said:

To what extent do you believe the new signings have the skills and knowledge to perform their job effectively?

 

"Under 'weaknesses', you've put 'eczema'”

 

[Wallsendmag]

2 minutes ago, Leemond said:

Lewis Hall is on twice.

 

Cos he was here on loan then we signed him permanently.

[Guillaume]

3 minutes ago, Leemond said:

Lewis Hall is on twice.

So is Matt Targett

[Wallsendmag]

Just now, Guillaume said:

So is Matt Targett

 

Same reason as Hall.

[Andy]

Undeniable successful signings for me are

 

Isak

Tonali

Gordon 

Barnes

Bruno

Tino

Botman

Hall (permanent but not loan)

Targett (on loan but not permanent)

Burn

Trippier

Pope

 

So 12 of them. 

 

I've had a few drinks today and don't know what question 2 is even asking of me

[Abacus]

Just now, Andy said:

Undeniable successful signings for me are

 

Isak

Tonali

Gordon 

Barnes

Bruno

Tino

Botman

Hall (permanent but not loan)

Targett (on loan but not permanent)

Burn

Trippier

Pope

 

So 12 of them. 

 

I've had a few drinks today and don't know what question 2 is even asking of me

You need to calculate the money percentage of the successful signings compared to overall spend.

 

@Heron there's a great idea for a thread here, but it's a bit too complex.

 

And then Fak turned up with his "English humour".

[Heron]

14 minutes ago, midds said:

So - how many players have been shit and what % of the total sum have we wasted on them? That right? 

Aye but the opposite way around. How many players have been successes and how much of the total was spent on them.

[Heron]

3 minutes ago, Abacus said:

You need to calculate the money percentage of the successful signings compared to overall spend.

 

@Heron there's a great idea for a thread here, but it's a bit too complex.

 

And then Fak turned up with his "English humour".

Happy for it to be redone if Admin are @Andy...

 

 

[Abacus]

But, I'm going to have to exclude a few players from this. If we just go straight up hits to misses, and can leave people out that are neither one nor the other that's a simpler task. 

 

I could argue about Wood all day, for instance.

[Heron]

25 minutes ago, Andy said:

Good to delete this by request now, aye?

Sorry, the first time it wasn't allow me to clear my attachments or write text in the post box so had to create and try to clear then edit. Think that was originally removed so I out it back on.

 

 

Edited April 26 by Heron

[Wallsendmag]

I think you could argue that football is the most simplistic game in the world. Probably why it's the most popular.

 

If you take into account we've spent £700m on new players in the last 4 years why do we find it so hard to score goals and stop them going in at the other end?

 

Is it the coaching or is it down to the players the manager has signed?

[Heron]

So for example I think of the £787.25m we've spent £510.45m which has been successful (64%).

 

Main contributors to poor signings are Elanga and Woltemade - both of which the jury is out for me moreso next year, then Wissa, as much as I'm a positive, tolerant kinda guy (I like to think) & Vlachadimos offered nothing and suspect will not offer anything.

 

I think Woltemade has already offered some return but not enough to meet the price tag or improve us and likewise for Elanga.

 

Meanwhile, Minteh we made decent money from, Trippier and Burn we spent pennies on and got excessive amounts more in return to what we paid.

 

Osula and Pope and such like we have got what we paid for in my opinion.

 

 

Edited April 26 by Heron

[Wolfcastle]

All I know is if thats not backing, lord give me so unbacking.

[Abacus]

Feels like we're making this game up on the fly. I'd say Wood was a hit, for what he did for us, then afterwards not so much until we got our money back.

 

I'd also say Targett was a massive hit on loan, until we bought him permanently. Which I'm not sure the club were all that convinced about making permanent even at the time. Even though I thought it would be a great idea 

 

But in terms of big money spending, mostly fine to great till this summer. And even then, I don't think you can write the likes of Wolt off.

 

Agree Heron though re Vlach, but even then that clearly wasn't something EH was on board with, having allegedly lost Anderson in the process.

[TBG]

Top 5

 

1. Trippier

2. Isak

3. Bruno

4. Hall

5. Minteh

[Heron]

19 minutes ago, Andy said:

Undeniable successful signings for me are

 

Isak

Tonali

Gordon 

Barnes

Bruno

Tino

Botman

Hall (permanent but not loan)

Targett (on loan but not permanent)

Burn

Trippier

Pope

 

So 12 of them. 

 

I've had a few drinks today and don't know what question 2 is even asking of me

So 12 would put you in the 26-50% bracket for number of players and 417.7m decent expenditure so 53%

[Heron]

Purpose of this "game" or poll was to establish whether or not Eddie Howes signings have overall been good or bad and benefitted the squad or our finances.

 

Thus far it would suggest that the majority of signings have been good and the money spent and/or made has been good.

 

Last summer appears to be the main stickler (I'd presume) in terms of goods signings and good expenditure.

 

Which then poses three questions for me:

 

1) If people think thay is the case is it because Eddie Howe signed these players without a DoF, and prior signings were done with a DoF?

 

2) If prior signings were done with a DoF, does that mean Howes perceived inability or perceived lack of desire to work with a DoF is a myth?

 

3) If it's that you believe Howe cannot or will not work with a DoF then why has he been employed and why has he remained employed whilst DoFs have come and gone?

 

I mean...to be transparent here - I'm just trying to get to the heart of just two of the criticisms of Howe that I consistently read and consider to be both contradictory and unfounded.

 

I think if we can establish what we're actually criticsing Howe for and have the data to back it up it'll become far more palatable for folk like me.

 

 

Edited April 26 by Heron

[Deuce]