Silly Season January 2014

mkrudden · January 29, 2014

caught said:
Don't think I've seen a transfer rumour article that doesn't mention the object of the rumour until the fourth paragraph before. Nor one that reverses a player's age by five years. Seems like a goer.

Who cares?

Never seen him play like

but who cares?

Buy him!

billytoffee · January 29, 2014

SeenityNigh said:
These require an a priori assumption to fit your argument. I could craft a similarly cynical argument if you'd like to discuss:

In the US, it is widely known that children from wealthier families attend (on average) better rated colleges and universities. Wealthier families tend to have houses with more bathrooms than families who are less wealthy. Therefore, to improve the educational outcomes of children, families should build more bathrooms in their houses.

Yes but the more bathrooms you have the more chance you have of finding a turd floating in one of the bogs!

And that Is all I have to say about that

Brennan · January 29, 2014

uknightbreed said:
wether there good or bad we do have players who can play as striker. mirallas vellios naismith
we also have players who can play left back , distin barry garbutt

for me the big issue - not getting another defencive midfielder is sheer madness.

Vellios can't even score for the reserves mate, he's not good enough. If we're including him we may as well include George Green.

SerenityNigh · January 29, 2014

davek said:
That's not really analogous though is it?

Look, we have a situation where we have a surplus in player trade going to a destination other than to the manager to spend. If we have more of a busy schedule next season then that situation is destabilized and pressure mounts to provide cash to the manager.

That's not being cynical, it's being logical.

Laughing at the accusation I'm being cynical when the evidence of taking in more money than paying out is there for all to see. The burden of explanation lies with you, I feel.

Analogous? Only if you mean equally silly. For us to have a conversation on this, we'll have to consider other items as well.

First, the budget to run a football team is larger than just players and wages.

Second, player sale proceeds does not equal purchasing budget (although this appears to be your basic presumption). Maybe clubs like Tottenham and Everton need to sell players to buy new (because of limited resources), but when have Chelsea or City not pursued a player because they were waiting to sell dead weight? To assume that incoming and outgoing transfer budgets should be equal (for any club ) is an inane assumption at the very least.

Third, you presume that "transfer budget" losses are fueling hidden profits for select executives. As entirely possible as this may be, where's the evidence suggesting this is a reasonable conclusion? All I see is a club that is broke; look around and see that most clubs sell their assets (talented players) to fund operating losses.

Fourth, players signing contract extensions (unless they resign for the same wage) naturally consume transfer budget (or is there a separate wage budget I should be aware of?). A £20,000 weekly wage increase is £1,000,000 annually; unless I'm missing something quite essential, a "transfer budget" that does not consider player wages, etc, is not any kind of budget at all.

I could probably go on, but that's unnecessary. Of course there has been more money coming in from player sales than there has been going out with incoming transfer. Any person with two lobes can see that. It's the conclusions drawn from this that are entirely cynical.

You may be entirely right that some board members are sucking money out of the club through player sales. You may even be right that they secretly fancy a Newcastle--6th place and a Cup Final loss keeps you from spending extra money--so that they can suck dry the club without unnecessary interference. But logic suggests that the club is broke. Logic suggests that the board is unable to capitalize on other revenue streams to help support the club. Logic suggests that the club is fundamentally conservative when it comes to transfer budgets and top-four aims, having observed the lesson of Leeds. You may be entirely correct with your conclusions, but logic does not suggest them.

Where's the VIBRAC money Bill?

Librarian · January 29, 2014

SerenityNigh said:
Analogous? Only if you mean equally silly. For us to have a conversation on this, we'll have to consider other items as well.

First, the budget to run a football team is larger than just players and wages.

Second, player sale proceeds does not equal purchasing budget (although this appears to be your basic presumption). Maybe clubs like Tottenham and Everton need to sell players to buy new (because of limited resources), but when have Chelsea or City not pursued a player because they were waiting to sell dead weight? To assume that incoming and outgoing transfer budgets should be equal (for any club ) is an inane assumption at the very least.

Third, you presume that "transfer budget" losses are fueling hidden profits for select executives. As entirely possible as this may be, where's the evidence suggesting this is a reasonable conclusion? All I see is a club that is broke; look around and see that most clubs sell their assets (talented players) to fund operating losses.

Fourth, players signing contract extensions (unless they resign for the same wage) naturally consume transfer budget (or is there a separate wage budget I should be aware of?). A £20,000 weekly wage increase is £1,000,000 annually; unless I'm missing something quite essential, a "transfer budget" that does not consider player wages, etc, is not any kind of budget at all.

I could probably go on, but that's unnecessary. Of course there has been more money coming in from player sales than there has been going out with incoming transfer. Any person with two lobes can see that. It's the conclusions drawn from this that are entirely cynical.

You may be entirely right that some board members are sucking money out of the club through player sales. You may even be right that they secretly fancy a Newcastle--6th place and a Cup Final loss keeps you from spending extra money--so that they can suck dry the club without unnecessary interference. But logic suggests that the club is broke. Logic suggests that the board is unable to capitalize on other revenue streams to help support the club. Logic suggests that the club is fundamentally conservative when it comes to transfer budgets and top-four aims, having observed the lesson of Leeds. You may be entirely correct with your conclusions, but logic does not suggest them.

Where's the VIBRAC money Bill?

You would never pay wages out of asset sales in any business. Wages are paid out of income, and income went up this year.

SerenityNigh · January 29, 2014

Librarian said:
You would never pay wages out of asset sales in any business. Wages are paid out of income, and income went up this year.

I don't know many business that look at single-year budgets to make long-term decisions. Most look at multiple years at once. If you can't accurately project income for the next 5-years, how can you justify increasing expenses over the same 5-years?

Netromelo · January 29, 2014

Bafetimbi Gomis would be a great signing. His contract is up after the season, so he won't cost much at all. It's also worth mentioning that this is a player who has scored 12 goals or more every season for the last 8 seasons, including his 14 goals so far this season. He's a guaranteed goalscorer for sure, and that's what we need.

Goat · January 29, 2014

SerenityNigh said:
I don't know many business that look at single-year budgets to make long-term decisions. Most look at multiple years at once. If you can't accurately project income for the next 5-years, how can you justify increasing expenses over the same 5-years?

Well surely they have business plans, which will predict us finishing 17th, when we dont finish 17th and the club gets record TV deals, you would surely expect some sort of spend in some form.

None of it makes any sense, the lack of published accounts only gives us some degree of guess work, but even that wont give us a true picture, it wont have the 41m worth of sales or indeed the massive increase in TV deal, we as fans can only guess, I worked it out, our wage bill hasnt increased, prior to Baines new contract, but our prizemoney and "profits" from sales had soared and yet we are still loaning players, which is bad business, its the same deal as the rent or buy discussion with regards homes.

Librarian · January 29, 2014

SerenityNigh said:
I don't know many business that look at single-year budgets to make long-term decisions. Most look at multiple years at once. If you can't accurately project income for the next 5-years, how can you justify increasing expenses over the same 5-years?

The increased income is based on a TV deal, it's contracted across the Premier league. In-so-far as any team can predict income increases, it's relatively stable. We could get relegated, if that's what you're suggesting? You get more money for finishing higher and qualifying for CL but that's probably reflected in player contracts.

USABlue · January 29, 2014

Netromelo said:
Bafetimbi Gomis would be a great signing. His contract is up after the season, so he won't cost much at all. It's also worth mentioning that this is a player who has scored 12 goals or more every season for the last 8 seasons, including his 14 goals so far this season. He's a guaranteed goalscorer for sure, and that's what we need.

I'd be on board as well. Like you mentioned Gomis is a proven goal scorer with experience which is exactly what we need right now. We need someone who's ready now, the summer would be a better time to bring in a younger striker like michy,etc

lmurkder · January 29, 2014

SerenityNigh said:
These require an a priori assumption to fit your argument. I could craft a similarly cynical argument if you'd like to discuss:

In the US, it is widely known that children from wealthier families attend (on average) better rated colleges and universities. Wealthier families tend to have houses with more bathrooms than families who are less wealthy. Therefore, to improve the educational outcomes of children, families should build more bathrooms in their houses.

Good point well made.

SerenityNigh · January 29, 2014

Librarian said:
The increased income is based on a TV deal, it's contracted across the Premier league. In-so-far as any team can predict income increases, it's relatively stable. We could get relegated, if that's what you're suggesting? You get more money for finishing higher and qualifying for CL but that's probably reflected in player contracts.

There is base income from the PL TV rights, and there is additional income for finishing position. And there is further income received for competing in Europe. How much future income are you willing to leverage against debt to make it work out? Maybe the board are pansies, unwilling to spend what they have, but a 1-year increase in TV money doesn't necessarily mean an increased budget. It may instead mean more debt payment--which may have the effect of stabilizing future budgets, which although not as sexy as a transfer splash, can be just as beneficial in the long term.