Our unluckiest season?

[Snowflake]

Nope. Should have assembled a proper squad rather than spend whatever we did on Brewster.

With that said I think we should keep as many as we have for next season as have good chance of going back up.

Egan's injury is terrible but we were down before that.

Sick of us bemoaning bad luck, takes us back to Tevez mentality again.

and back to 1994 !

 

[Bladesince59]

Bad luck for me is going down when Danny Webber hits the inside of the post against Wigan on the last day of the season at home and we go down on 1 goal difference and on 38 points in 2006/2007. For me that's bad luck that takes some beating,

 

[Isar]

A very big city like Sheffield has failed to have a football club consistently in the top flight for the last 30 years or so is a very poor statistic. We can look at the odd season with some bad luck, but overall luck has no place in success.

 

[SelbyBlade]

I think the three biggest factors of this season, no Henderson, no O'Connell and no fans.

Will all used to talk about the "some of the parts" and therefore acting like a unit. To me that is like an extra player the many injuries this season have taken that away. Then the run of losses acting to drain confidence despite the fact that we should have beaten Leeds, Fulham and WBA (first time round) Sending off against Villa / not sending off v Aresnal and it just kept adding up. We couldn't find an answer to JOC, as you said, until Ampadu lately and definately no fans is like playing with 10 men each week. Hendo made mistakes last season as well losing us points here and there (and a semi final spot) but I feel the defence did feel more confident with him behind them.
The light at the end of the tunnel is that we are becoming a unit again with Ampadu (Jags from now on depending on Egan's injury) and Bash. Bogle & Didzy are offering something.
But next season we will be pretty much back to the squad that got promoted from the Championship except we won't be scrambling for Strikers (Madine, Hogan) we have Burke, Sharp, Didzy, Mousett, Brewster and 22 goal Championship striker McBurnie. We will lose Berge and maybe Egan but can't see anyone else leaving so we have the nuecleus of an excellent Championship squad. Chris Wilder has taken the Bristols and Plymouth Seriously so there is no danger that he will take next season as though we are "on loan" to the Championship. So we should do well next season, where if we score and there is no flag we can celebrate not wait to find out whose toenail is offside.
We can get firing again with crowds back and have another pop at the prem (hopefully without too much turmoil).

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I am not a Blades fan and not trying to pretend I am or cause arguments. I do like Sheffield United and am interested in the views of fans considering the current predicament you find yourself in. Like everyone, I have my own views on where the problems lie in regard to why things are not going well this year but there is one point that I think gets bypassed a little on here and I am interested to hear some views. Also, just for the record, I think CW is a great guy and without doubt deserves the benefit of the doubt and some leeway when considering his job.

Anyway, my point is regarding the transfers in the summer. These have clearly not worked out and particularly Brewster was a disastrous buy for a club needing a striker to retain its place in the PL. Longterm he will probably work out quite well but for this season he was definitely the wrong buy. I continually see the justification for buying Brewster as Blades can't compete with the wages of other clubs. TBH, I see this as nothing but a BS excuse for a monumental fuck up. Approx 56m last summer and approx 64m the season before. Well in excess of 100m. Even with low wages, the more expensive signings are on about 30k a week, about 1.5m a year. I just don't agree Blades can't afford the wages. It was a conscious decision by senior people at the club to spend the money on transfer fees and not on wages. Callum Wilson, Ollie Watkins, Josh King, Neal Maupay are all strikers that Blades could afford to buy and pay their wages but elected not to spend the money this way. There were also lots of loan players available which were well within the Blades budget (just look at Fulham), Lookman looks very good as long as he is not on penalties and they had 7 or 8 loan players start against Everton the other day when they beat them. Baggies with Sam also look to have got some value in recently. Diagne up front, Snodgrass and a few others. All of these players would have improved Sheffield United in my opinion but Sheffield United elected not to spend their money that way, it was not that SU could not afford them. Staying in the PL is worth 130m+ a year, the Championship is worth about 15m. So about 115m difference. That would go a long way to paying increased wages.

My point is that I think someone made an extremely poor strategy decision and chose the wrong direction to take Sheffield United. Having finished 9th I would have thought it was the perfect opportunity to invest in the players required to retain the PL status as opposed to buying players that will return a very hefty profit in a few years time. Some may say this is prudent, I think it was greedy. The PL is expensive to stay in and all clubs know that but the financial rewards are huge. If a club wants to stay in the PL they need to spend a good whack of the cash they get on getting players that deliver results. The dream for clubs and most fans (including me) is to be able to buy and develop young talent and sell at a profit a few years later. But in my opinion, the priority needs to be staying in the PL before making a profit like this.

As I said, I am not trying to cause a fight on here, I am not trying to wind u guys up. It is an awful situation to be in and I do have empathy for u guys and wish u the best but I would appreciate your views on this. BTW, sorry if u feel I posted this in the wrong thread.

You have misunderstood the wages issue. It isn't that the club couldn't have afforded the wages, it was that the club wanted to stick within its wage structure. Wilder didn't want to bring in two or three players earning money that was not compatible with wages paid to current players and the club couldn't afford to up everyone's wages significantly in one go. Another thing that rarely gets mentioned is whether clubs add high wage reduction clauses for relegation, which I assume we do.
You can argue the rights and wrongs of this, especially in hindsight. We have one player refusing to sign his new contract offer (and not even one of our best or key players) and Wilder obviously wanted to avoid the risk of pissing off his squad of loyal, hard working and successful players with high earning additions.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Bad luck for me is going down when Danny Webber hits the inside of the post against Wigan on the last day of the season at home and we go down on 1 goal difference and on 38 points in 2006/2007. For me that's bad luck that takes some beating,

Hitting the post has never been and never will be bad luck.

 

[Mojo]

So called Blades/armchair managers/ know it alls not taking notice of the below?

Yes of course we have been insanely unlucky with injuries ever since the restart after lockdown. Flecky and JOC done in before they even kicked a ball.

I also agree that the unbalanced squad with back ups and fringe players who are nowhere near good enough has also cost us.

 

[nopigfansintown]

The truth, unpalatable for many, is that we winged it for four years under Wilder/Prince. The squad was never good enough to compete for automatic promotion or survival in the PL without an outrageous amount of fortune. We were taking the piss in terms of investment for the first three years of Wilder's tenure, which does have long term implications. We were also selling of our young developable jewels that should've gone through the divisions with us (Che, DCL, Ramsdale). Take last season: we didn't have a back up right back that I'd trust even at Championship level; no back up centre backs that I'd trust at that level either. Only one midfielder that the club owned from January onwards capable of competing with the regular three (Berge). The club didn't own a Championship class goalkeeper; never mind a premier league one. You can go through the signings and I find it difficult to criticise signing players in those positions. The only oddity is Lowe as we already had two LWB (Stevens, Osborn). We actually needed more players in defence and midfield, not less which, of course, our budget wont stretch too. That's just the numbers game. We can criticise the signings that we've made in other positions, but I don't think there's any doubt that we needed players in those positions as well as players in positions we didn't strengthen.. The conclusion for me is that we were always bang in trouble if specific players, in certain areas, got injured (this season any midfielder or central defender).We should count ourselves lucky that it didn't happen earlier in Wilder's tenure

Now we all know the type of players we've brought in and the reason we've brought them in. We wanted to essentially wing it again whilst developing players with resale value. Keep a low wage bill with the knowledge that relegation doesn't cripple us. If we stay up we can continue patching up the weak areas. It's a plan, but one that relies on four years of extreme good fortune becoming five. What has happened is we've been ruthlessly exposed in the areas we haven't improved; whilst the young players haven't adapted as quickly as we'd have liked in the positions we did "strengthen".
Some of the contracts we give out to older players is something that irks me, but there is no way we'd have replaced them (Sharp, McGoldrick, Norwood, Stevens) if we did let them go. Even that make sense in the end.
The conclusion is obvious . We bounce back with a younger squad with less reinforcements needed. This relies on the squad not being decimated upon relegation. It's very difficult not to conclude that the current ownership renders it almost impossible for us to be sustainable as a premier league club in terms of competing on wages and fees. The logic is ineluctable: our strategy of young players on low wages is very difficult, nay on impossible to sustain in the PL.

 

[ChrisBlade]

Hitting the post has never been and never will be bad luck.

I disagree. That chance obviously was a key moment. The margin is minimal. Clean through, I remember thinking “don’t blast it.”

Considering the huge occasion and pressure, it was a very considered, courageous and classy finish. He dinked it over the guy, but then it skidded and spun on a very wet pitch. Both the initial trajectory to goal and the bounce off the post ran oddly due to the skidding surface.

Overall, he chose a decent option and performed it well. If it goes in or not involves fortune. Not all about luck, but luck plays a part. There is not always a black and white dichotomy between skill and failure. Luck greases the edges between the two.

Other example: many years back we won 4-0 at Stoke. It was 3-0 after nine minutes, three goals from corners. Now you might call that well done and no luck. I would feel to have it bunch up that way up and in excess of any statistical likelihood meant we could feel fortunate that day. Still deserved and never mono-causal, but also not correct to discount luck or rate every close miss as not good enough rather than factor in a margin of circumstance, likelihood and fortune.

Different question on a similar philosophy level: is it possible to score too early in a match?

 

[bypassblade]

Bad luck for me is going down when Danny Webber hits the inside of the post against Wigan on the last day of the season at home and we go down on 1 goal difference and on 38 points in 2006/2007. For me that's bad luck that takes some beating,

I can beat that I was sat in a hospital bed that day (suspected heart attack) kicking, heading and punching every ball. If Warnock had said Danny hit the post he'd have scored lol.

 

[bypassblade]

Right I really cannot explain this season's collapse but, it's wiped out 4 years of excellent work, I like Brewster and have nothing against him I just sometimes wonder if we'd have been better spending 23m on say 3 or 4 players and go big when bit more established.

 

[Deaneandagana]

The truth, unpalatable for many, is that we winged it for four years under Wilder/Prince. The squad was never good enough to compete for automatic promotion or survival in the PL without an outrageous amount of fortune. We were taking the piss in terms of investment for the first three years of Wilder's tenure, which does have long term implications. We were also selling of our young developable jewels that should've gone through the divisions with us (Che, DCL, Ramsdale). Take last season: we didn't have a back up right back that I'd trust even at Championship level; no back up centre backs that I'd trust at that level either. Only one midfielder that the club owned from January onwards capable of competing with the regular three (Berge). The club didn't own a Championship class goalkeeper; never mind a premier league one. You can go through the signings and I find it difficult to criticise signing players in those positions. The only oddity is Lowe as we already had two LWB (Stevens, Osborn). We actually needed more players in defence and midfield, not less which, of course, our budget wont stretch too. That's just the numbers game. We can criticise the signings that we've made in other positions, but I don't think there's any doubt that we needed players in those positions as well as players in positions we didn't strengthen.. The conclusion for me is that we were always bang in trouble if specific players, in certain areas, got injured (this season any midfielder or central defender).We should count ourselves lucky that it didn't happen earlier in Wilder's tenure

Now we all know the type of players we've brought in and the reason we've brought them in. We wanted to essentially wing it again whilst developing players with resale value. Keep a low wage bill with the knowledge that relegation doesn't cripple us. If we stay up we can continue patching up the weak areas. It's a plan, but one that relies on four years of extreme good fortune becoming five. What has happened is we've been ruthlessly exposed in the areas we haven't improved; whilst the young players haven't adapted as quickly as we'd have liked in the positions we did "strengthen".
Some of the contracts we give out to older players is something that irks me, but there is no way we'd have replaced them (Sharp, McGoldrick, Norwood, Stevens) if we did let them go. Even that make sense in the end.
The conclusion is obvious . We bounce back with a younger squad with less reinforcements needed. This relies on the squad not being decimated upon relegation. It's very difficult not to conclude that the current ownership renders it almost impossible for us to be sustainable as a premier league club in terms of competing on wages and fees. The logic is ineluctable: our strategy of young players on low wages is very difficult, nay on impossible to sustain in the PL.

Excellent summary - investment & more of it is the key for us to become an established PL team, McCabe for all his faults (and believe me I’m his harshest critic) knew this all too well.

The current owners need to reassess their short / medium & long term investment strategy.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I disagree. That chance obviously was a key moment. The margin is minimal. Clean through, I remember thinking “don’t blast it.”

Considering the huge occasion and pressure, it was a very considered, courageous and classy finish. He dinked it over the guy, but then it skidded and spun on a very wet pitch. Both the initial trajectory to goal and the bounce off the post ran oddly due to the skidding surface.

Overall, he chose a decent option and performed it well. If it goes in or not involves fortune. Not all about luck, but luck plays a part. There is not always a black and white dichotomy between skill and failure. Luck greases the edges between the two.

Other example: many years back we won 4-0 at Stoke. It was 3-0 after nine minutes, three goals from corners. Now you might call that well done and no luck. I would feel to have it bunch up that way up and in excess of any statistical likelihood meant we could feel fortunate that day. Still deserved and never mono-causal, but also not correct to discount luck or rate every close miss as not good enough rather than factor in a margin of circumstance, likelihood and fortune.

Different question on a similar philosophy level: is it possible to score too early in a match?

It comes down to what you consider luck is. As far as I'm concerned a player, at the moment he strikes the ball, has everything within his own power. If he chooses to play a ball that relies on the surface of the pitch going for him and plays a shot that needs a fine margin to creep inside the post, then that is entirely within his control and therefore whatever the outcome it is not down to luck. I wouldn't have said it was a lucky goal had it gone in.

I consider there to be very little overall luck in a game of football. I understand the view of luck from one side, for example United can't control whether their opposition plays well or badly, so they are lucky if they get them on their bad day, but really that isn't luck overall, it's sport, where it's up to the opposition how well they play.

 

[borg elite]

Right I really cannot explain this season's collapse but, it's wiped out 4 years of excellent work, I like Brewster and have nothing against him I just sometimes wonder if we'd have been better spending 23m on say 3 or 4 players and go big when bit more established.

Why has it wiped out four years of excellent work? We'd been floundering in L1 for years without a hope of getting out of it. We then storm out of it with 100 points. The plan then was for sustained growth in a tough league and make an attempt at promotion after we'd established ourselves for a few seasons. Instead we get promoted well ahead of time catching the club on the hop and not at all prepared for the PL. We're now back in the Championship where we would realistically have expected to be anyway at this point but in much better financial shape and the infrastructure largely in place for the PL.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

The truth, unpalatable for many, is that we winged it for four years under Wilder/Prince. The squad was never good enough to compete for automatic promotion or survival in the PL without an outrageous amount of fortune. We were taking the piss in terms of investment for the first three years of Wilder's tenure, which does have long term implications. We were also selling of our young developable jewels that should've gone through the divisions with us (Che, DCL, Ramsdale). Take last season: we didn't have a back up right back that I'd trust even at Championship level; no back up centre backs that I'd trust at that level either. Only one midfielder that the club owned from January onwards capable of competing with the regular three (Berge). The club didn't own a Championship class goalkeeper; never mind a premier league one. You can go through the signings and I find it difficult to criticise signing players in those positions. The only oddity is Lowe as we already had two LWB (Stevens, Osborn). We actually needed more players in defence and midfield, not less which, of course, our budget wont stretch too. That's just the numbers game. We can criticise the signings that we've made in other positions, but I don't think there's any doubt that we needed players in those positions as well as players in positions we didn't strengthen.. The conclusion for me is that we were always bang in trouble if specific players, in certain areas, got injured (this season any midfielder or central defender).We should count ourselves lucky that it didn't happen earlier in Wilder's tenure

Now we all know the type of players we've brought in and the reason we've brought them in. We wanted to essentially wing it again whilst developing players with resale value. Keep a low wage bill with the knowledge that relegation doesn't cripple us. If we stay up we can continue patching up the weak areas. It's a plan, but one that relies on four years of extreme good fortune becoming five. What has happened is we've been ruthlessly exposed in the areas we haven't improved; whilst the young players haven't adapted as quickly as we'd have liked in the positions we did "strengthen".
Some of the contracts we give out to older players is something that irks me, but there is no way we'd have replaced them (Sharp, McGoldrick, Norwood, Stevens) if we did let them go. Even that make sense in the end.
The conclusion is obvious . We bounce back with a younger squad with less reinforcements needed. This relies on the squad not being decimated upon relegation. It's very difficult not to conclude that the current ownership renders it almost impossible for us to be sustainable as a premier league club in terms of competing on wages and fees. The logic is ineluctable: our strategy of young players on low wages is very difficult, nay on impossible to sustain in the PL.

What frustrates me with so much fan reaction to the current situation is that we all knew all this. We all knew when we got promoted that we weren't really good enough and that we didn't have the depth of squad and that we weren't going to be able to buy a PL quality squad within a couple of seasons. We knew we didn't have the big bucks to arrive with a thunder clap.
Some were optimistic about how well we'd cope, some thought we'd struggle, a few even thought we shouldn't have got promotion.

Injuries have tipped the apple cart over. Below par performances have shown our frailties - except the par is the par for the PL, not necessarily par for the players who performed well above expectations last season. Signings haven't been world beaters and haven't even plugged the gaps that have appeared.

Instead of the reaction being, "Damn, I'd hoped we could keep it going another season or two to give us chance to build a squad with quality and depth, ah well it was a decent attempt, let's keep building." It's all "He's wank, he's shit, I want him out of our club, Wilder's to blame for this, why didn't we spend more, why didn't we buy some foreigners, why did we buy him, he's a waste of money."
People don't like being accused of being self-entitled and there's always a string of justification for it, "I knew we needed a midfielder, why didn't Wilder" etc etc, but to me there seems to have been a sudden disconnect from a sensible view of things, which existed before we got promoted.

 

[Koh Samui Blade]

I am not a Blades fan and not trying to pretend I am or cause arguments. I do like Sheffield United and am interested in the views of fans considering the current predicament you find yourself in. Like everyone, I have my own views on where the problems lie in regard to why things are not going well this year but there is one point that I think gets bypassed a little on here and I am interested to hear some views. Also, just for the record, I think CW is a great guy and without doubt deserves the benefit of the doubt and some leeway when considering his job.

Anyway, my point is regarding the transfers in the summer. These have clearly not worked out and particularly Brewster was a disastrous buy for a club needing a striker to retain its place in the PL. Longterm he will probably work out quite well but for this season he was definitely the wrong buy. I continually see the justification for buying Brewster as Blades can't compete with the wages of other clubs. TBH, I see this as nothing but a BS excuse for a monumental fuck up. Approx 56m last summer and approx 64m the season before. Well in excess of 100m. Even with low wages, the more expensive signings are on about 30k a week, about 1.5m a year. I just don't agree Blades can't afford the wages. It was a conscious decision by senior people at the club to spend the money on transfer fees and not on wages. Callum Wilson, Ollie Watkins, Josh King, Neal Maupay are all strikers that Blades could afford to buy and pay their wages but elected not to spend the money this way. There were also lots of loan players available which were well within the Blades budget (just look at Fulham), Lookman looks very good as long as he is not on penalties and they had 7 or 8 loan players start against Everton the other day when they beat them. Baggies with Sam also look to have got some value in recently. Diagne up front, Snodgrass and a few others. All of these players would have improved Sheffield United in my opinion but Sheffield United elected not to spend their money that way, it was not that SU could not afford them. Staying in the PL is worth 130m+ a year, the Championship is worth about 15m. So about 115m difference. That would go a long way to paying increased wages.

My point is that I think someone made an extremely poor strategy decision and chose the wrong direction to take Sheffield United. Having finished 9th I would have thought it was the perfect opportunity to invest in the players required to retain the PL status as opposed to buying players that will return a very hefty profit in a few years time. Some may say this is prudent, I think it was greedy. The PL is expensive to stay in and all clubs know that but the financial rewards are huge. If a club wants to stay in the PL they need to spend a good whack of the cash they get on getting players that deliver results. The dream for clubs and most fans (including me) is to be able to buy and develop young talent and sell at a profit a few years later. But in my opinion, the priority needs to be staying in the PL before making a profit like this.

As I said, I am not trying to cause a fight on here, I am not trying to wind u guys up. It is an awful situation to be in and I do have empathy for u guys and wish u the best but I would appreciate your views on this. BTW, sorry if u feel I posted this in the wrong thread.

You overlook the fact that Fulham and West Brom,Burnley,Brighton,Newcastle even Palace, have spent a lot of their recent history in the Premiership/Championship getting Parachute payments a plenty.They have already adapted Stadiums for Prem and Sky,rebuilt / modernized their Training facilities etc and also have multi-millionaire Owners.The Blades are starting from scratch having spent over 12 years in the lower leagues.We have to gain Class 1 Academy status,can't do this with our "Clubhouse " training facilities, so any decent youngsters are taken away by the big boys.
Many mistakes have been made by management,but we do not yet have the resources to compete with the majority of the Prem.Chris Wilder is "God" to the majority of us Blades, we need him to be given/accept time to rebuild us.
Can't think of many alternatives out there!!!

 

[Kop sufferer]

For what it's worth, what I've learnt this season is the PL, especially the top 10/12 is a hard nut to crack, it can only be achieved with a billionaire, not a peashooter. Where do we go from here? I wish I knew !!

 

[cooperblade]

The truth, unpalatable for many, is that we winged it for four years under Wilder/Prince. The squad was never good enough to compete for automatic promotion or survival in the PL without an outrageous amount of fortune. We were taking the piss in terms of investment for the first three years of Wilder's tenure, which does have long term implications. We were also selling of our young developable jewels that should've gone through the divisions with us (Che, DCL, Ramsdale). Take last season: we didn't have a back up right back that I'd trust even at Championship level; no back up centre backs that I'd trust at that level either. Only one midfielder that the club owned from January onwards capable of competing with the regular three (Berge). The club didn't own a Championship class goalkeeper; never mind a premier league one. You can go through the signings and I find it difficult to criticise signing players in those positions. The only oddity is Lowe as we already had two LWB (Stevens, Osborn). We actually needed more players in defence and midfield, not less which, of course, our budget wont stretch too. That's just the numbers game. We can criticise the signings that we've made in other positions, but I don't think there's any doubt that we needed players in those positions as well as players in positions we didn't strengthen.. The conclusion for me is that we were always bang in trouble if specific players, in certain areas, got injured (this season any midfielder or central defender).We should count ourselves lucky that it didn't happen earlier in Wilder's tenure

Now we all know the type of players we've brought in and the reason we've brought them in. We wanted to essentially wing it again whilst developing players with resale value. Keep a low wage bill with the knowledge that relegation doesn't cripple us. If we stay up we can continue patching up the weak areas. It's a plan, but one that relies on four years of extreme good fortune becoming five. What has happened is we've been ruthlessly exposed in the areas we haven't improved; whilst the young players haven't adapted as quickly as we'd have liked in the positions we did "strengthen".
Some of the contracts we give out to older players is something that irks me, but there is no way we'd have replaced them (Sharp, McGoldrick, Norwood, Stevens) if we did let them go. Even that make sense in the end.
The conclusion is obvious . We bounce back with a younger squad with less reinforcements needed. This relies on the squad not being decimated upon relegation. It's very difficult not to conclude that the current ownership renders it almost impossible for us to be sustainable as a premier league club in terms of competing on wages and fees. The logic is ineluctable: our strategy of young players on low wages is very difficult, nay on impossible to sustain in the PL.

Really good post.

I think you're right when you say "It's very difficult not to conclude that the current ownership renders it almost impossible for us to be sustainable as a premier league club in terms of competing on wages and fees.". The way out of it (assuming there's no takeover) is that we overachieve enough to be a Premier League club during as many of the next 10, 20, 30 seasons as possible. We can then improve the infrastructure, grow the wage bill etc using a combination of PL and parachute money. I don't think dropping out for one season is a huge issue but it could become a big problem (in terms of our ability to improve as a club) if we don't bounce back quickly.

I think circumstances (loss of form, injury) mean that our squad is unlikely to be picked apart by PL clubs. What we don't know at the moment is the extent to which some of our really important senior players can recover their form. If Stevens and Norwood are in terminal decline rather than in a slump and we got more Jimmy Fleck than John Fleck, we've got quite a lot to do in terms of recruitment. There's also the issue of the psychological damage of this season - how quickly can the players regain their confidence and belief?

The other key factor is obviously Chris Wilder. He said he respected but didn't agree with the decision not to spend in January and in interviews since then he's seemed positive. But people close to him and certain journalists are implying there's a bigger problem between him and the board. His stock has fallen to the extent he's less likely to be poached by a bigger club but should we be worried he might walk?

 

[The Vicar]

The Wealthiest owners, who invest in the club = Better players on higher wages = better quality squad = more years in the PL than out of it!

 

[Keef Chedwyn]

So called Blades/armchair managers/ know it alls not taking notice of the below?

So was last season our luckiest season ever or doesn't it work like that?

 

[Oldun]

Hitting the post has never been and never will be bad luck.

Nor is being in a position where one goal is the difference between staying up and going down.

 

[Bladesince59]

The Wealthiest owners, who invest in the club = Better players on higher wages = better quality squad = more years in the PL than out of it!

Summed up perfectly.

 

[bornablade]

So was last season our luckiest season ever or doesn't it work like that?

VAR, goal line technology was against us last season but that opens up another debate.

Brighton away last season - McBurnie shoots, ball hits woodwork and goes in

West Ham home this season - McBurnie shoots, ball hits woodwork and doesn't go in.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

VAR, goal line technology was against us last season but that opens up another debate.

Brighton away last season - McBurnie shoots, ball hits woodwork and goes in

West Ham home this season - McBurnie shoots, ball hits woodwork and doesn't go in.

Hitting the post has never been and never will be bad luck.

Skying the ball into the last row of the kop or hitting the underside of the bar are both not getting your shot on target. If hitting the woodwork is bad luck, so is skying the ball. Who ever says that is bad luck?

 

[bypassblade]

Why has it wiped out four years of excellent work? We'd been floundering in L1 for years without a hope of getting out of it. We then storm out of it with 100 points. The plan then was for sustained growth in a tough league and make an attempt at promotion after we'd established ourselves for a few seasons. Instead we get promoted well ahead of time catching the club on the hop and not at all prepared for the PL. We're now back in the Championship where we would realistically have expected to be anyway at this point but in much better financial shape and the infrastructure largely in place for the PL.

Course it's wiped out 4 years hard work, the players worked their nads off to get here, but we just seem to be going down with a whimper. In the 1st season we should have got out of league 1, 2011/12 but we fell apart when Evans got sent down.

It took us an age to recover from that all because Wilson had no plan B, I would love to see us stay up this season but sadly don't see it this just means CW will have to rebuild and go again.

 

[Ted Danson]

Another excuse - 'wages'.

Are you suggesting that the higher we pay them, the better they'll play? Or the fact that we can't afford higher earning players?

pommpey

Wages is spot on, its not that they play better for more money but that they are better in the first place and have consistently proved it to be able to demand the higher wages.

You should read the book soccernomics, very interesting chapter where it looks at correlation between salaries and league positions and siging on fees and league positions. In conclusion they find a very strong correlation to salaries and league position and absolutely no correlation between signing on fees and league position.

We shouldnt even look at the 23mil we paid for brewster but at what we actually pay him compared to other premiership strikers. Id imagine its very low in comparison.

 

[benn5712]

You have misunderstood the wages issue. It isn't that the club couldn't have afforded the wages, it was that the club wanted to stick within its wage structure. Wilder didn't want to bring in two or three players earning money that was not compatible with wages paid to current players and the club couldn't afford to up everyone's wages significantly in one go. Another thing that rarely gets mentioned is whether clubs add high wage reduction clauses for relegation, which I assume we do.
You can argue the rights and wrongs of this, especially in hindsight. We have one player refusing to sign his new contract offer (and not even one of our best or key players) and Wilder obviously wanted to avoid the risk of pissing off his squad of loyal, hard working and successful players with high earning additions.

The fly in the wages ointment was James Beattie. He did plenty for us, seemed popular with the others (except Morgs who'd scowl when Beattie scored) Bill and Squinny in particular.
On the cusp of automatic promotion, he was sold.
Bonkers.

 

[pommpey]

Wages is spot on, its not that they play better for more money but that they are better in the first place and have consistently proved it to be able to demand the higher wages.

You should read the book soccernomics, very interesting chapter where it looks at correlation between salaries and league positions and siging on fees and league positions. In conclusion they find a very strong correlation to salaries and league position and absolutely no correlation between signing on fees and league position.

We shouldnt even look at the 23mil we paid for brewster but at what we actually pay him compared to other premiership strikers. Id imagine its very low in comparison.

Well, so far, Brewster hasn't exactly enabled his case to go knock on Wilder's door and say, 'hey up boss, about these wages ...' has he?

We're I Wilder I'd be giving him the 'long stare' and ask him to shut the door behind him.

pommpey

 

[DaveBassettsgoneonholiday]

I can beat that I was sat in a hospital bed that day (suspected heart attack) kicking, heading and punching every ball. If Warnock had said Danny hit the post he'd have scored lol.

Doesn't beat that but bad luck on that particular day for me was being sat in a sports bar in Tallin, the only Blade, watching our match while about ten foot away were a large group of West Ham fans watching their lot beat Man Utd and survive.

 

[bypassblade]

Doesn't beat that but bad luck on that particular day for me was being sat in a sports bar in Tallin, the only Blade, watching our match while about ten foot away were a large group of West Ham fans watching their lot beat Man Utd and survive.

now you've got my sympathy vote there mate