match thread Reading (A)

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, Stuart said:

Disagree with your list of players who have improved the club. It’s all about opinions though.

But the difference is the amount of money Mowbray has spent compared to how much Farke has - and their respective return on investment.

Transfer fees are impossible to ascertain in an era of undisclosed fees. See above posts listing that Norwich's wage bill is amongst the highest in the league and has been throughout their years as a yo-yo club and beyond.

The budget that Mowbray and Farke has is not comparable. Farke's far outweighs ours. Farke also inherited a club just out of the PL, whereas Mowbray inherited a basket case club destined for relegation with a squad of loanees and retirees. Not comparable in any way, if you apply context, and don't stick to a redundant stat like transfer fees and that alone to back your case. Apply some context, come back with a new argument and then the discussion can move on from "half-full" or "half-empty" because currently you and 47er et al aren't giving anything in the form of fact or context.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Dreams of 1995

[Stuart]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

Transfer fees are impossible to ascertain in an era of undisclosed fees. See above posts listing that Norwich's wage bill is amongst the highest in the league and has been throughout their years as a yo-yo club and beyond.

The budget that Mowbray and Farke has is not comparable. Farke's far outweighs ours. Farke also inherited a club just out of the PL, whereas Mowbray inherited a basket case club destined for relegation with a squad of loanees and retirees. Not comparable in any way, if you apply context, and don't stick to a redundant stat like transfer fees and that alone to back your case. Apply some context, come back with a new argument and then the discussion can move on from "half-full" or "half-empty" because currently you and 47er et al aren't giving anything in the form of fact or context.

So you deny we paid over £10m on three poor strikers. Very easy to say we aren’t talking facts when you simply dismiss the facts.

[K-Hod]

Why does everybody have to belong to a brigade? Can't we just view it as different people with different opinions?

It's a shame, I thought we were past all this 'positive vs negative' nonsense.

Edited September 25, 2019 by K-Hod

[rigger]

Just now, K-Hod said:

Why does everybody have to belong to a brigade? Can't we just view it as different people with different opinions?

It's a shame, I thought we were past all this 'positive vs negative' nonsense.

I was in the boys brigade

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, Stuart said:

So you deny we paid over £10m on three poor strikers. Very easy to say we aren’t talking facts when you simply dismiss the facts.

I deny it, yes. I don't deny we paid over £10m but I don't think they are poor.

A clubs finances goes way and beyond transfer fees paid and is a very, very simplistic way of looking at things. Norwich's and Sheff Utd's expenditure outweighs ours so to say they went up spending less, or that we wasted more money than them, or that they are a model to base ourselves on is wrong because it isn't considering all the facts.

Modern day real-life comparison:

Leave the EU we save circa £350m a week.

Truth: We do, in one respect, but we lose x this way and x this way.

There is always more to a stat than the simple 1 line you are trying to peddle to criticise Mowbray with.

Just now, K-Hod said:

Why does everybody have to belong to a brigade? Can't we just view it as different people with different opinions?

It's a shame, I thought we were past all this 'positive vs negative' nonsense.

You tell me, K-Hod. You provide a contrasting view from other posters and you are labelled "Half-Full Brigade". You try and use a post that applies actual facts, accounts and context and it's dismissed as over enthusiastic happy-clapping nonsense because the other poster has 0 to come back with.

It seems only one side of the "positive vs negative" argument is punished or remarked upon

[Guest]

No way have we paid over £10m for Brereton and Gallagher yet.

Announced transfer fees really do mean bot all in 2019. Clubs more than 90% of the time pay in instalments, and loan money from 3rd parties in advance to get those instalments up front. Brereton will probably have cost around £3m/4m up until this point. But let's say he's on £15,000pw, his wages would be over £750,000 a year anyway. So that £3m/4m fee really isn't much, it's all about the wages.

BB isn't anywhere near the player we need him to be yet, but all it takes for a young English striker to be worth £20m these days is a season of goals, and within three or four years that will come, we'll cash in and have made some decent money on him. But the notion we've actually spent over £10m on Brereton and Gallagher is silly, because we haven't. We only pay a large sum of the remaining £3m/4m upon promotion, and then it'll all be nothing compared to the rich and powerful finance that promotion would bring.

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by JoeHarvey

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, JoeHarvey said:

No way have we paid over £10m for Brereton and Gallagher yet.

Announced transfer fees really do mean bot all in 2019. Clubs more than 90% of the time pay in instalments, and loan money from 3rd parties in advance to get those instalments up front. Brereton will probably have cost around £3m/4m up until this point. But let's say he's on £15,000pw, his wages would be over £750,000 a year anyway. So that £3m/4m fee really isn't much, it's all about the wages.

BB isn't anywhere near the player we need him to be yet, but all it takes for a young English striker to be worth £20m these days is a season of goals, and within three or four years that will come, we'll cash in and have made some decent money on him. But the notion we've actually spent over £10m on Brereton and Gallagher is silly, because we haven't. We only pay a large sum of the remaining £3m/4m upon promotion, and then it'll all be nothing compared to the rich and powerful finance that promotion would bring.

 

True Joe but we are still liable for those payments, as such have effectively 'spent' the money.

Transfer fees are amortised over the length of the contract if I am correct. As such, if we signed Brereton on say a 5 year deal for £10m we'd pay £2m for 5 years, or so it would show in our accounts as. 

[Mashed Potatoes]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

True Joe but we are still liable for those payments, as such have effectively 'spent' the money.

Transfer fees are amortised over the length of the contract if I am correct. As such, if we signed Brereton on say a 5 year deal for £10m we'd pay £2m for 5 years, or so it would show in our accounts as. 

Without seeing the contracts for the deals we can never be sure what the club are liable for. As Joe Harvey pointed out there is likely to be a trigger for payments in the case of promotion to the Premier League ( and also appearances for England) and those potential liabilities can be included in the fees for players that are quoted in the media. But it wouldn't be fair to say that we have "spent" those sums

[philipl]

Great set of posts dreams of 1995.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, JoeHarvey said:

No way have we paid over £10m for Brereton and Gallagher yet.

Announced transfer fees really do mean bot all in 2019. Clubs more than 90% of the time pay in instalments, and loan money from 3rd parties in advance to get those instalments up front. Brereton will probably have cost around £3m/4m up until this point. But let's say he's on £15,000pw, his wages would be over £750,000 a year anyway. So that £3m/4m fee really isn't much, it's all about the wages.

BB isn't anywhere near the player we need him to be yet, but all it takes for a young English striker to be worth £20m these days is a season of goals, and within three or four years that will come, we'll cash in and have made some decent money on him. But the notion we've actually spent over £10m on Brereton and Gallagher is silly, because we haven't. We only pay a large sum of the remaining £3m/4m upon promotion, and then it'll all be nothing compared to the rich and powerful finance that promotion would bring.

 

I think the point is if we had blown the same amount of dosh on another striker we may have got something back for our money by now. At the moment I see nothing that suggests we'll ever get our money back, never mind make a profit,  on Brererton.

[K-Hod]

2 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I deny it, yes. I don't deny we paid over £10m but I don't think they are poor.

A clubs finances goes way and beyond transfer fees paid and is a very, very simplistic way of looking at things. Norwich's and Sheff Utd's expenditure outweighs ours so to say they went up spending less, or that we wasted more money than them, or that they are a model to base ourselves on is wrong because it isn't considering all the facts.

Modern day real-life comparison:

Leave the EU we save circa £350m a week.

Truth: We do, in one respect, but we lose x this way and x this way.

There is always more to a stat than the simple 1 line you are trying to peddle to criticise Mowbray with.

You tell me, K-Hod. You provide a contrasting view from other posters and you are labelled "Half-Full Brigade". You try and use a post that applies actual facts, accounts and context and it's dismissed as over enthusiastic happy-clapping nonsense because the other poster has 0 to come back with.

It seems only one side of the "positive vs negative" argument is punished or remarked upon

Interesting theory. It would hold some weight, that is, if I hadn’t permanently banned someone previously described as ‘negative’ at the weekend. Said poster sent me an angry inbox message, calling me a hypocrite, for not banning a different poster, previously described as ‘positive’. 
 

The best part about it was, that poster had actually received a ban, from me no less!

I do wonder why I bother giving up my free time to this place when my such messages land in my inbox and my impartiality is questioned.

[Stuart]

3 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I deny it, yes. I don't deny we paid over £10m but I don't think they are poor.

A clubs finances goes way and beyond transfer fees paid and is a very, very simplistic way of looking at things. Norwich's and Sheff Utd's expenditure outweighs ours so to say they went up spending less, or that we wasted more money than them, or that they are a model to base ourselves on is wrong because it isn't considering all the facts.

Modern day real-life comparison:

Leave the EU we save circa £350m a week.

Truth: We do, in one respect, but we lose x this way and x this way.

There is always more to a stat than the simple 1 line you are trying to peddle to criticise Mowbray with.

You tell me, K-Hod. You provide a contrasting view from other posters and you are labelled "Half-Full Brigade". You try and use a post that applies actual facts, accounts and context and it's dismissed as over enthusiastic happy-clapping nonsense because the other poster has 0 to come back with.

It seems only one side of the "positive vs negative" argument is punished or remarked upon

You’ve taken this well off piste.

Are you saying our set up under Mowbray is better than Norwich’s under Farke or not?

Edited September 25, 2019 by Stuart

[JacknOry]

Who got banned then? Was Bigdog one, not seen him around for a little while.

[JacknOry]

Norwich will of course be paying bigger wages, they were in the PL not long before last season. Sheff Utd example still stands in my book, they came up from the League 1 the season before we did. 

i think the argument is that it can be done without spending huge sums of money with the correct coaching/managerial setup. 

[K-Hod]

Just now, JacknOry said:

Who got banned then? Was Bigdog one, not seen him around for a little while.

Without wanting to take this off topic, he was banned (not permanently), but he isn’t now.

[Blue blood]

6 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Pretty good actually Stuart.

Our signings since promotion to the Championship:

Gallagher, Downing, Johnson, Holtby, Aradabiyo (loan), Walton (loan), Cunningham (loan), Brereton, Reed (loan), Palmer (loan), Rothwell, Armstrong, Rodwell, Chapman, Davenport.

15 signings I make it, of which 10 have improved the club (Brereton, Palmer, Rodwell, Chapman and Davenport excluded, although 2 unfairly due to injuries) which gives us a success rating of 66%.

Since our current manager/coaching/scouting team has been around we have improved year on year; our ambition has increased to where we are now once again discussing promotion; our youth players are being given first team chances...and succeeding; there is a better link between club and fans (although could be improved); and lastly, but more importantly, we have a manager with many faults, many pros, but at least the man has some damn good integrity and a real desire to improve this club which, for me, is just what I want.

 

 

Firstly you miss out the very hit and miss league 1 season out. (Smart move btw if disingenuous). That missed out clangers such as Whittingham Samuel and Caddis. 

Secondly throwing in Holtby and the City lad as positives, both of whom I think will turn out good btw, but on the basis of one or two appearances each is also a little bit disingenuous. One or two games (have either played 2 games?) is not enough to judge a player on but you massage the stats. 

Thirdly you haven't taken transfer fees into account at all. Bereton was a huge investment in 1 player and a colossal waste of money , likewise Gally for £5 million - I'm not sure we've seen value for money there yet either. So you need to factor in costs of players as well when considering whether they were a good or bad signing. I'd suggest for their fees none of our brought strikers have really matched their price tags. (Maybe Armstrong?) For example Smallwood was a good piece of business - cost nothing and was very useful/good for promotion. Had we spend £2-3 mill on him, for a 1 season wonder, it wouldn't look such a smart move. Fees matter. 

Fourthly, albeit perhaps point 3.5, is that none of the strikers as yet look like replacing Graham. For our favoured 4-2-3-1 formation despite £12+ mill of investment we don't look to have a suitable quality replacement. I hope Gally will do it but am not convinced despite his impressive work rate. Worth considering how the signings have shaped the squad too - or how the lack of signings in positions hurt us. 

The last two seasons I have done an end of season transfer review thread (search it out if interested) where I try to offer a balanced opinion on how well our transfer business has turned out and others do likewise. The consensus from the last 2 seasons was that it was pretty average at best. A couple of good uns amongst a fair bit of dross and failure. Whilst I think (here's hoping it continues) that our dealings are much better this season, the last 2 years show TM has been very average at best in his transfer dealings. I'm really pleased we've begun to pick up on this over the past summer, but the last few seasons need a lot of positive spin to make them out to be successes. 

As an aside you forgot Rodwell. In fairness his time here was very forgettable. 

Finally the point is you can do it fairly cheaply not that no money is spent. The money chucked on strikers alone is double what Norwich spent and goes a long way to countering their extra wages. Also it's not like our wages aren't competitive for the championship. AND money does not equal success as many clubs in this division and the prem have clearly shown. However recently Sheff Utd and Norwich have spent relatively frugally and done very well out of it. The issue are we getting as much value from the market as possible and the answer probably is, in comparison, no. 

Doesn't mean we hate the club, or aren't pleased with our current form, but even compared to Bowyer's recruitment we aren't getting the same bang for our bucks and could be doing better. Admittedly Bowyer's use of said resources was poor but the point is to do with recruitment and we got some steals - Cairney, Gestede, Conway, Duffy for example. And the point was solely this - that we could during TMs overall tenure do better at recruitment. 

 

 

[DeeCee]

Just now, Blue blood said:

Firstly you miss out the very hit and miss league 1 season out. (Smart move btw if disingenuous). That missed out clangers such as Whittingham Samuel and Caddis. 

Secondly throwing in Holtby and the City lad as positives, both of whom I think will turn out good btw, but on the basis of one or two appearances each is also a little bit disingenuous. One or two games (have either played 2 games?) is not enough to judge a player on but you massage the stats. 

Thirdly you haven't taken transfer fees into account at all. Bereton was a huge investment in 1 player and a colossal waste of money , likewise Gally for £5 million - I'm not sure we've seen value for money there yet either. So you need to factor in costs of players as well when considering whether they were a good or bad signing. I'd suggest for their fees none of our brought strikers have really matched their price tags. (Maybe Armstrong?) For example Smallwood was a good piece of business - cost nothing and was very useful/good for promotion. Had we spend £2-3 mill on him, for a 1 season wonder, it wouldn't look such a smart move. Fees matter. 

Fourthly, albeit perhaps point 3.5, is that none of the strikers as yet look like replacing Graham. For our favoured 4-2-3-1 formation despite £12+ mill of investment we don't look to have a suitable quality replacement. I hope Gally will do it but am not convinced despite his impressive work rate. Worth considering how the signings have shaped the squad too - or how the lack of signings in positions hurt us. 

The last two seasons I have done an end of season transfer review thread (search it out if interested) where I try to offer a balanced opinion on how well our transfer business has turned out and others do likewise. The consensus from the last 2 seasons was that it was pretty average at best. A couple of good uns amongst a fair bit of dross and failure. Whilst I think (here's hoping it continues) that our dealings are much better this season, the last 2 years show TM has been very average at best in his transfer dealings. I'm really pleased we've begun to pick up on this over the past summer, but the last few seasons need a lot of positive spin to make them out to be successes. 

As an aside you forgot Rodwell. In fairness his time here was very forgettable. 

Finally the point is you can do it fairly cheaply not that no money is spent. The money chucked on strikers alone is double what Norwich spent and goes a long way to countering their extra wages. Also it's not like our wages aren't competitive for the championship. AND money does not equal success as many clubs in this division and the prem have clearly shown. However recently Sheff Utd and Norwich have spent relatively frugally and done very well out of it. The issue are we getting as much value from the market as possible and the answer probably is, in comparison, no. 

Doesn't mean we hate the club, or aren't pleased with our current form, but even compared to Bowyer's recruitment we aren't getting the same bang for our bucks and could be doing better. Admittedly Bowyer's use of said resources was poor but the point is to do with recruitment and we got some steals - Cairney, Gestede, Conway, Duffy for example. And the point was solely this - that we could during TMs overall tenure do better at recruitment. 

 

 

Up till recently perhaps?

[Blue blood]

35 minutes ago, DeeCee said:

Up till recently perhaps?

Absolutely! Or at least - I hope so. The early signs are promising but need a bit longer to judge imo but so far so good. I always remember Ooijer having a stinker for the first few months before becoming a good addition for us, or Mokoena looking great in a 3 man midfield and limited in a 2. Benni was a 1 season wonder etc. 

So yes, so far so good, although imo the jury is out on Gally for £5 mill but that looks our most questionable deal, which suggests improvements made in this area that all others are looking good. 

I just have real issues with 2 seasons of mediocre/poor recruitment being ignored/airbrushed and people dismissing the idea that there isn't real value to be had in the market out there. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Blue blood

[Leonard Venkhater]

4 hours ago, K-Hod said:

Interesting theory. It would hold some weight, that is, if I hadn’t permanently banned someone previously described as ‘negative’ at the weekend. Said poster sent me an angry inbox message, calling me a hypocrite, for not banning a different poster, previously described as ‘positive’. 
 

The best part about it was, that poster had actually received a ban, from me no less!

I do wonder why I bother giving up my free time to this place when my such messages land in my inbox and my impartiality is questioned.

Keep doing what you think is right. You won't go far wrong.

 

[JBiz]

4 hours ago, JacknOry said:

Norwich will of course be paying bigger wages, they were in the PL not long before last season. Sheff Utd example still stands in my book, they came up from the League 1 the season before we did. 

i think the argument is that it can be done without spending huge sums of money with the correct coaching/managerial setup. 

And that’s a fair argument but it’s key to remember the examples are few and far between.

As for Brereton being a colossal waste of money - I prefer to realise he is 20, and even if he never makes the grade, transfers aren’t infallible.

The thing that winds me up with Brereton - we could be (as a club) on a really good spell, but it’ll still be dragged back to prove the close minded idealism that “we’re fucked”.

I just don’t get why it’s so important, when signed or developed further by the same staff - the Dacks, the Travis and the Lenihans should be worth 5 times what we’ve spent. 

If 7m on a prospect is a “colossal waste of money” then surely 750k on someone who has transformed our attack for 100 appearances, is an absolute master stroke/genius move.

Balanced views surely must acknowledge that, hence why the unbalanced views here seldom do.

We gave Newcastle and Leon, probably twice combined what we will ever give BB, and that’s how I’d justify the terms “colossal waste of money”

At least until BB is released for nowt or paid off in a few seasons, but hindsight makes us all experts.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Harry The Bass

[47er]

5 hours ago, JacknOry said:

Norwich will of course be paying bigger wages, they were in the PL not long before last season. Sheff Utd example still stands in my book, they came up from the League 1 the season before we did. 

i think the argument is that it can be done without spending huge sums of money with the correct coaching/managerial setup. 

That's really what I was trying to say---badly perhaps for which I apologise.

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, Harry The Bass said:

And that’s a fair argument but it’s key to remember the examples are few and far between.

As for Brereton being a colossal waste of money - I prefer to realise he is 20, and even if he never makes the grade, transfers aren’t infallible.

The thing that winds me up with Brereton - we could be (as a club) on a really good spell, but it’ll still be dragged back to prove the close minded idealism that “we’re fucked”.

I just don’t get why it’s so important, when signed or developed further by the same staff - the Dacks, the Travis and the Lenihans should be worth 5 times what we’ve spent. 

If 7m on a prospect is a “colossal waste of money” then surely 750k on someone who has transformed our attack for 100 appearances, is an absolute master stroke/genius move.

Balanced views surely must acknowledge that, hence why the unbalanced views here seldom do.

We gave Newcastle and Leon, probably twice combined what we will ever give BB, and that’s how I’d justify the terms “colossal waste of money”

At least until BB is released for nowt or paid off in a few seasons, but hindsight makes us all experts.

I have seen no one suggest that Dack is anything other than a superb signing.

Ultimately it doesnt make very good debate when everyone agrees I suppose.

You also say that "transfers arent infallible." No one ever said that they are. Or that Mowbray should have a perfect transfer record. Equally that doesnt mean that his signings cant be criticised which in Breretons case is very justified.

[Paul Mani]

17 hours ago, Stuart said:

Disagree with your list of players who have improved the club. It’s all about opinions though.

But the difference is the amount of money Mowbray has spent compared to how much Farke has - and their respective return on investment.

Farke and Norwich are not the rule and £12m isn’t a lot of money to spend in the championship if you want to go up. 

[Stuart]

Just now, Paul Mani said:

Farke and Norwich are not the rule and £12m isn’t a lot of money to spend in the championship if you want to go up. 

It really is a simple question. Don’t overthink it! 

[Paul Mani]

10 hours ago, Blue blood said:

Firstly you miss out the very hit and miss league 1 season out. (Smart move btw if disingenuous). That missed out clangers such as Whittingham Samuel and Caddis. 

Secondly throwing in Holtby and the City lad as positives, both of whom I think will turn out good btw, but on the basis of one or two appearances each is also a little bit disingenuous. One or two games (have either played 2 games?) is not enough to judge a player on but you massage the stats. 

Thirdly you haven't taken transfer fees into account at all. Bereton was a huge investment in 1 player and a colossal waste of money , likewise Gally for £5 million - I'm not sure we've seen value for money there yet either. So you need to factor in costs of players as well when considering whether they were a good or bad signing. I'd suggest for their fees none of our brought strikers have really matched their price tags. (Maybe Armstrong?) For example Smallwood was a good piece of business - cost nothing and was very useful/good for promotion. Had we spend £2-3 mill on him, for a 1 season wonder, it wouldn't look such a smart move. Fees matter. 

Fourthly, albeit perhaps point 3.5, is that none of the strikers as yet look like replacing Graham. For our favoured 4-2-3-1 formation despite £12+ mill of investment we don't look to have a suitable quality replacement. I hope Gally will do it but am not convinced despite his impressive work rate. Worth considering how the signings have shaped the squad too - or how the lack of signings in positions hurt us. 

The last two seasons I have done an end of season transfer review thread (search it out if interested) where I try to offer a balanced opinion on how well our transfer business has turned out and others do likewise. The consensus from the last 2 seasons was that it was pretty average at best. A couple of good uns amongst a fair bit of dross and failure. Whilst I think (here's hoping it continues) that our dealings are much better this season, the last 2 years show TM has been very average at best in his transfer dealings. I'm really pleased we've begun to pick up on this over the past summer, but the last few seasons need a lot of positive spin to make them out to be successes. 

As an aside you forgot Rodwell. In fairness his time here was very forgettable. 

Finally the point is you can do it fairly cheaply not that no money is spent. The money chucked on strikers alone is double what Norwich spent and goes a long way to countering their extra wages. Also it's not like our wages aren't competitive for the championship. AND money does not equal success as many clubs in this division and the prem have clearly shown. However recently Sheff Utd and Norwich have spent relatively frugally and done very well out of it. The issue are we getting as much value from the market as possible and the answer probably is, in comparison, no. 

Doesn't mean we hate the club, or aren't pleased with our current form, but even compared to Bowyer's recruitment we aren't getting the same bang for our bucks and could be doing better. Admittedly Bowyer's use of said resources was poor but the point is to do with recruitment and we got some steals - Cairney, Gestede, Conway, Duffy for example. And the point was solely this - that we could during TMs overall tenure do better at recruitment. 

 

 

I don’t intend on referring to all of this and of course it’s all about opinions but here goes:

The league one signings overall were very good (hence promotion) and Samuel hit 10 goals before being displaced by our current player of the year and then picking up a long term injury.

Holtby and Tosin can be seen as positive signings based on their pedigree and the clubs they’ve played for.

BB is just turned 20. “A colossal waste of money” Wow

Gally £5m and 8 games in a league where Bamfords get traded at 7-10m? 

Rodwell was very good for us in games last season. He’s good player, but a weird guy.

Norwich are one of the exceptions to the rule. This is like bottom half PL teams saying they should be trying to win the league because Leicester did it. Of course there’s a model there but a lot of external things must line up for it to work.

Some of Bowyers signings were excellent.  But they were in a different market. Plus you have the benefit of hindsight. Maybe in a few years you will see the likes of Rothwell, Dack, Armstrong, BB and Gally banging goals in the PL for whoever and think...maybe it wasn’t all that bad after all!

Finally, In the interests of balance you should have mentioned the managers development and integration of youth into our team. 

You may have simply been countering a previous post so I apologise if so. But if you’re neglecting all of this then I fear that is you who is being disengenuous. 

I look forward to your transfer review.