Being competitive in the Championship

Fonzie · Jul 20, 2020

If I'm paying double, then I presume the owners will be inputting double also?

Let's take a look at the number of professionals on our books.

Walton
Collins
Radlinger

Williams J
Ludewig
Cavare (as of Jan)
Diaby
Anderson
Sollbauer
Halme
Sibbick
Williams B
Oduor
Pinnilos (as of whenever)

Brown
Thomas
Mowatt
Dougal (as of recently)
Styles
Ritzmaier
Bahre
McGeehan
Palmer
Wolfe
Bird
Green
Simoes
Thiam (As of recently)

Woodrow
Chaplin
Schmidt
Wilks (as of January)
Miller
Adeboyejo

There are 34 names listed there without including the odd academy lad who has only played a few minutes (Marsh etc).

I'm well aware that we have to cut our cloth accordingly - and I've no issues that we don't throw money about. But if we are to do this, we have to absolutely maximise the money we do spend.

3 goalkeepers?
3 right backs?
3 left backs?
5 centre halves?
6 wingers?
8 midfielders?
6 forwards?

It's just madness.

Edit: but most importantly, we have to get the absolute best deal we can when selling players. Not letting them go 13 minutes before the end of the transfer window without adequate replacements lined up. Or letting them go for stupidly low amounts just because there's 12 months left on their deal.

DannyWilsonLovechild · Jul 20, 2020

Fonzie said: ↑

If I'm paying double, then I presume the owners will be inputting double also?

Let's take a look at the number of professionals on our books.

Walton
Collins
Radlinger

Williams J
Ludewig
Cavare (as of Jan)
Diaby
Anderson
Sollbauer
Halme
Sibbick
Williams B
Oduor
Pinnilos (as of whenever)

Brown
Thomas
Mowatt
Dougal (as of recently)
Styles
Ritzmaier
Bahre
McGeehan
Palmer
Wolfe
Bird
Green
Simoes
Thiam (As of recently)

Woodrow
Chaplin
Schmidt
Wilks (as of January)
Miller
Adeboyejo

There are 34 names listed there without including the odd academy lad who has only played a few minutes (Marsh etc).

I'm well aware that we have to cut our cloth accordingly - and I've no issues that we don't throw money about. But if we are to do this, we have to absolutely maximise the money we do spend.

3 goalkeepers?
3 right backs?
3 left backs?
5 centre halves?
6 wingers?
8 midfielders?
6 forwards?

It's just madness.

Edit: but most importantly, we have to get the absolute best deal we can well selling players. Not letting them go 13 minutes before the end of the transfer window without adequate replacements lined up. Or letting them go for stupidly low amounts just because there's 12 months left on their deal.
Click to expand...

Its even greater madness when you then consider we've ended up playing a system where quite a few players are out of their natural positions.

The owners took on from Cryne his notion of running one system/formation and style through the academy and having a consistent coaching ethos to set them up for the first team.

We've played so many different systems this season under 3 different coaches that its not the case at all. It may be they've conveniently forgotten about that, or they just don't understand the sport in which they are "invested".

But to often play a narrow diamond when we recruited and retained so many wingers is "crazy". Just like when we acquired around 7 no10's last time we were in the championship and ended up selling all of them because they didn't fit the system.

Red CB · Jul 20, 2020

Its interesting that without a doubt the squad is top heavy & needs pruning ,but by the same token as soon as the season is over & the transfer silly season starts there will be fans on here demanding incoming players . Its not always easy to move players on whilst they are still under contract, but we have a nucleus of young talent that need to be involved , Palmer , Wolfe , Marsh immediately come to mind & moving out the dead wood is more important initially than bringing in new players

TitusMagee · Jul 20, 2020

Sheriff said: ↑

I understand exactly what the figures represent, being a Chartered Accountant by profession. I have also previously worked on a finance review for a Championship level club in which I helped draft a business plan for them, and have seen the inner workings of a football club far closer than most, including attending their Board meetings and reviewing player contracts (both eye-opening experiences).

The figures you quoted were largely irrelevant to the post I made, for which the general point was that you don't need to fund continual losses as a Championship club, and describing a model under which our club could be run which would give us the best chance of achieving both aims, which also highlighted where we currently fail in this regard. The points made still stand - if you have limited funds you find ways to maximise the value of your individual investment decisions. We are currently failing to do this and, as you've subsequently pointed out in the discussion re Pinnock, we've also advertised to the outside world that we'll sell a player at pretty much any cost if he's in the final year of his contract and turns down a new deal, thus allowing other clubs to take advantage of this in any transfer dealings. Not exactly an optimal strategy to adopt, IMO. I accept the general logic of trying to get value for players as their contracts expire, but applying a black and white approach in that way, and sticking blindly to it regardless, doesn't result in the best decisions.

Ultimately, managing cashflow is far more critical for football clubs than their reported profits and losses, particularly in the way that player contracts are capitalised and amortised, which means that player trading accounts look very different to the cashflow impact of transfer fees which are paid in instalments. I did a review of the latest BFC company accounts when they were published, which is on here somewhere, and it was actually difficult to work out the status of the recent transfer business from them, although IIRC, the bulk of it was visible in the relative movement of debtors and creditors vs the comparatives.

The two examples I gave you were of clubs who had very obviously managed to get promoted to the Premier League without chucking stupid amounts of money at the playing squads, relative to others, primarily via outstanding coaches getting the most out of limited resources. They currently represent the most recent examples of this type of success. It is entirely feasible for BFC to adopt a similar approach to establish themselves as a stable Championship club and build from there. Look at our relative fortunes compared to Millwall since we beat them in the playoff final for another example of the type of progress I'm talking about.

We've clearly gone backwards as a club under the new owners. In an earlier post you said that we're operating the same model now as the one we had under Patrick Cryne, which is not the case. We've taken than basic model and stripped out the underlying (very fundamental) requirement to attempt to be competitive in the division we're playing in, in favour of an almost entirely formularised approach to generating player profits, broken only once since they took over when they signed Solbauer. In doing so, we've become blind to the fact that the impact of whatever theoretical profits the spreadsheet approach generates for you are diminished when you're content as a club to chuck half your annual income away by surrendering meekly to relegation each time you get promoted.

As for the other question which you are now trying to get people to focus on, the reason no-one answered this is that it was overshadowed by you stating, as fact, the incorrect assertion that an owner had to "be prepared to fund huge losses over a long period of time", which is the point everyone picked out to challenge. The answer to this question for me is that my chosen investment as a supporter of BFC is directly correlated to the expectations I have for the club to try to achieve beyond its means. I can't set a figure on it, as there are a huge amount of variables to this, but I can safely say that a continuation of the misguided management we've seen from the ownership will cut it dead pretty quickly.

I can only provide you with my experience from the current season. After Stendel's sacking, I was so angry that I had no desire to use my season ticket for a number of games (again well documented already on this board). I had started to go back to games prior to lockdown, but my decision on a new season ticket for next season was very much subject to how the Board set the pricing and timing of renewals. I can safely say that if there'd been an early bird renewal window ending in April at similar pricing levels to recent seasons, I would not have renewed because this season has been such an infuriating experience from a Board with zero ambition to compete. As it happened, Coronavirus changed the landscape for everything and the offering of a cheap season ticket for next year was one I felt I could take a chance on. Again, there would have been zero chance of me renewing if I'd somehow let the early-bird window pass and would have to renew at full price.

So currently, my 'price elasticity' as a supporter is as restricted as it has ever been. In fact, I don't think I've ever previously considered whether or not I would renew. It was only ever a question of when and how much. This year, only the discounted price of £250 has kept me as a season ticket holder for another season. As for next season, I have no idea, but I will fundamentally need to see evidence that the ownership have the same ambitions as I do, and at present I'd say we are as far apart on that as it's possible to be.
Click to expand...

One of the best posts I think I have ever read on here, thank you!

Old Gimmer · Jul 20, 2020

Sheriff said: ↑

I understand exactly what the figures represent, being a Chartered Accountant by profession. I have also previously worked on a finance review for a Championship level club in which I helped draft a business plan for them, and have seen the inner workings of a football club far closer than most, including attending their Board meetings and reviewing player contracts (both eye-opening experiences).

The figures you quoted were largely irrelevant to the post I made, for which the general point was that you don't need to fund continual losses as a Championship club, and describing a model under which our club could be run which would give us the best chance of achieving both aims, which also highlighted where we currently fail in this regard. The points made still stand - if you have limited funds you find ways to maximise the value of your individual investment decisions. We are currently failing to do this and, as you've subsequently pointed out in the discussion re Pinnock, we've also advertised to the outside world that we'll sell a player at pretty much any cost if he's in the final year of his contract and turns down a new deal, thus allowing other clubs to take advantage of this in any transfer dealings. Not exactly an optimal strategy to adopt, IMO. I accept the general logic of trying to get value for players as their contracts expire, but applying a black and white approach in that way, and sticking blindly to it regardless, doesn't result in the best decisions.

Ultimately, managing cashflow is far more critical for football clubs than their reported profits and losses, particularly in the way that player contracts are capitalised and amortised, which means that player trading accounts look very different to the cashflow impact of transfer fees which are paid in instalments. I did a review of the latest BFC company accounts when they were published, which is on here somewhere, and it was actually difficult to work out the status of the recent transfer business from them, although IIRC, the bulk of it was visible in the relative movement of debtors and creditors vs the comparatives.

The two examples I gave you were of clubs who had very obviously managed to get promoted to the Premier League without chucking stupid amounts of money at the playing squads, relative to others, primarily via outstanding coaches getting the most out of limited resources. They currently represent the most recent examples of this type of success. It is entirely feasible for BFC to adopt a similar approach to establish themselves as a stable Championship club and build from there. Look at our relative fortunes compared to Millwall since we beat them in the playoff final for another example of the type of progress I'm talking about.

We've clearly gone backwards as a club under the new owners. In an earlier post you said that we're operating the same model now as the one we had under Patrick Cryne, which is not the case. We've taken than basic model and stripped out the underlying (very fundamental) requirement to attempt to be competitive in the division we're playing in, in favour of an almost entirely formularised approach to generating player profits, broken only once since they took over when they signed Solbauer. In doing so, we've become blind to the fact that the impact of whatever theoretical profits the spreadsheet approach generates for you are diminished when you're content as a club to chuck half your annual income away by surrendering meekly to relegation each time you get promoted.

As for the other question which you are now trying to get people to focus on, the reason no-one answered this is that it was overshadowed by you stating, as fact, the incorrect assertion that an owner had to "be prepared to fund huge losses over a long period of time", which is the point everyone picked out to challenge. The answer to this question for me is that my chosen investment as a supporter of BFC is directly correlated to the expectations I have for the club to try to achieve beyond its means. I can't set a figure on it, as there are a huge amount of variables to this, but I can safely say that a continuation of the misguided management we've seen from the ownership will cut it dead pretty quickly.

I can only provide you with my experience from the current season. After Stendel's sacking, I was so angry that I had no desire to use my season ticket for a number of games (again well documented already on this board). I had started to go back to games prior to lockdown, but my decision on a new season ticket for next season was very much subject to how the Board set the pricing and timing of renewals. I can safely say that if there'd been an early bird renewal window ending in April at similar pricing levels to recent seasons, I would not have renewed because this season has been such an infuriating experience from a Board with zero ambition to compete. As it happened, Coronavirus changed the landscape for everything and the offering of a cheap season ticket for next year was one I felt I could take a chance on. Again, there would have been zero chance of me renewing if I'd somehow let the early-bird window pass and would have to renew at full price.

So currently, my 'price elasticity' as a supporter is as restricted as it has ever been. In fact, I don't think I've ever previously considered whether or not I would renew. It was only ever a question of when and how much. This year, only the discounted price of £250 has kept me as a season ticket holder for another season. As for next season, I have no idea, but I will fundamentally need to see evidence that the ownership have the same ambitions as I do, and at present I'd say we are as far apart on that as it's possible to be.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.

Fonzie · Jul 20, 2020

Red CB said: ↑

Its interesting that without a doubt the squad is top heavy & needs pruning ,but by the same token as soon as the season is over & the transfer silly season starts there will be fans on here demanding incoming players . Its not always easy to move players on whilst they are still under contract, but we have a nucleus of young talent that need to be involved , Palmer , Wolfe , Marsh immediately come to mind & moving out the dead wood is more important initially than bringing in new players
Click to expand...

Completely agree - there's no reason why Palmer and Wolfe can't be trusted as back ups initially before hopefully moving into the side later in a season.

That way, you can invest more money in your starting line up, rather then spreading it too thinly.

Stahlrost · Jul 20, 2020

Fonzie said: ↑

3 goalkeepers?
Click to expand...

As many posters know (and were probably bored senseless by it!) I used to joke on here about how we should sign 5 goalkeepers. But this season, if you take into account the youngsters, we've actually had 5 professional goalkeepers on the books. Utter madness to squander wages in this way. A goalkeeper is the one position where loans are always available, even outside the normal loan window, so there's no need to worry too much about injuries/suspensions. We proved that last season when we signed Jordan Smith for 1 game at Accrington.

A club with our resources needs a number 1 'keeper, and a decent back up. Jack Walton has proved that he could be either, and Brad Collins too. So why sign Radlinger? Nothing against him, but he just wasn't needed. Had either Collins or Walton got injured, we could have played the other one with a youngster (or Bobby Hassell ) on the bench. If another injury or suspension cropped up, we would have to get an emergency loan.

Having 3 potential 1st team 'keepers, plus 2 youngsters, was just throwing money away. Utter incompetence.

Being competitive in the Championship

Fonzie Well-Known Member

DannyWilsonLovechild Well-Known Member

Red CB Well-Known Member

TitusMagee Well-Known Member

Old Gimmer Well-Known Member

Fonzie Well-Known Member

Stahlrost Well-Known Member

Share This Page

ABOUT US

RELATED LINK

CONTACT US

CHANGE STYLE

Being competitive in the Championship

Fonzie Well-Known Member

DannyWilsonLovechild Well-Known Member

Red CB Well-Known Member

TitusMagee Well-Known Member

Old Gimmer Well-Known Member

Fonzie Well-Known Member

Stahlrost Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches