Roots of our current plight

[Darren]

This has been posted before, but I think it shows why we are where we are now.
http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/sheffield-united-football-club-ltd

In the PL season we spent only 57.6% of turnover on wages = £22.4M. The following season, with a reduced turnover, we spent 77.8% on wages - an absolutely greater figure of just short of £25m.

If McCabe gave Warnock the same financial backing in 06-07 as he gave Robson in 07-08, I rather think we would have got that extra goal we needed to stay up.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Some more recent figures mentioned here:

http://scandinavianblades.webs.com/apps/blog/show/12138414-united-s-gamble

 

[Bladesway]

This has been posted before, but I think it shows why we are where we are now.
http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/sheffield-united-football-club-ltd

In the PL season we spent only 57.6% of turnover on wages = £22.4M. The following season, with a reduced turnover, we spent 77.8% on wages - an absolutely greater figure of just short of £25m.

If McCabe gave Warnock the same financial backing in 06-07 as he gave Robson in 07-08, I rather think we would have got that extra goal we needed to stay up.

Or and look at it another way, perhaps Warnock didn't spend all the money given to him?

 

[Darren]

Some more recent figures mentioned here:

http://scandinavianblades.webs.com/apps/blog/show/12138414-united-s-gamble

Thats very interesting. It's clear that when McCabe did give Warnock money (wages 106% of turnover in 2006) he got us promoted. Contrast that with the previous 4 seasons when wages were as follows (worked out from the site I linked)

2001-02 7.1M
2002-03 8.2M
2003-04 7.9M
2004-05 8.7M

Wages were effectively doubled in 2005-06 and it paid off straightaway

But in 2006-07 turnover increased by 172% and wages by only around 50%. What on earth happened there?

Edit: and the shocking fact is that we were paying more in wages in 2010-11 when we were relegateed than we were in 2005-06 when we were promoted (allowing for inflation, the figures are probably around the same in real terms). That is a measure of just how shit Adams was as a manager.

 

[HoodedClaw]

Robson was a twat, but he did spend the money better than Warnock.

Luton Shelton, Geoff Horsfield, Ahmed Fathi, David Sommeil.

If McCabe had given Warnock the same financial backing as Robson, we would still have gone down as he'd have pissed it on more wank signings.

Warnock was/is great outside the Prem league, he knows how to get good cheap players but not gets all excitable when he has a wad of cash.

I'm also pretty sure that an extra £2.5m spent by Warnock in the prem wouldn't have altered his away tactics.

The difference in wages was probably Beattie, do you think Warnock would have been able to sign him?

 

[Latters]

This has been posted before, but I think it shows why we are where we are now.
http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/sheffield-united-football-club-ltd

In the PL season we spent only 57.6% of turnover on wages = £22.4M. The following season, with a reduced turnover, we spent 77.8% on wages - an absolutely greater figure of just short of £25m.

If McCabe gave Warnock the same financial backing in 06-07 as he gave Robson in 07-08, I rather think we would have got that extra goal we needed to stay up.

You mean we could have signed better players than Luton Shelton or Ahmed Fathi? Get out of here!

 

[Darren]

You mean we could have signed better players than Luton Shelton or Ahmed Fathi? Get out of here!

Yes, if McCabe had allowed Warnock to spend the same % of our turnover as Robson was allowed to spend in 07-08.

 

[Darren]

Robson was a twat, but he did spend the money better than Warnock.

Luton Shelton, Geoff Horsfield, Ahmed Fathi, David Sommeil.

If McCabe had given Warnock the same financial backing as Robson, we would still have gone down as he'd have pissed it on more wank signings.

Warnock was/is great outside the Prem league, he knows how to get good cheap players but not gets all excitable when he has a wad of cash.

I'm also pretty sure that an extra £2.5m spent by Warnock in the prem wouldn't have altered his away tactics.

The difference in wages was probably Beattie, do you think Warnock would have been able to sign him?[/quote

Robson's signings:

Good: Beattie

ok: Naysmith, Speed

rubbish: Lee Hendrie, David Carney, Billy Sharp

 

[Latters]

Yes, if McCabe had allowed Warnock to spend the same % of our turnover as Robson was allowed to spend in 07-08.

To be honest, I wouldn't trust the bloke who shelled out a few million on the aforementioned players with even more money. One of VERY few occasions where I understand McCabe's point of view.

Had we not signed Shelton and Fathi, we could have afforded Beattie that season to replace Hulse. That would also likely have got us the goal that kept us up, at least. Instead, Warnock chose to invest in "development" players (who never actually developed, but that's another matter). I don't think it was a lack of funds, rather a misuse.

If Warnock had made Robson's signings a season early, I think we would have easily had enough to stay up.

 

[HoodedClaw]

Robson's signings:

Good: Beattie

ok: Naysmith, Speed

rubbish: Lee Hendrie, David Carney, Billy Sharp

Indeed but still better than the ones I listed for Warnock.

Yes, if McCabe had allowed Warnock to spend the same % of our turnover as Robson was allowed to spend in 07-08.

Look at you and your crystal ball, I say no he wouldn't and I'll give him more money to spend than Robson

You never answered my question, do you believe Warnock could have signed a player of Beatties calibre for us, given the same money as Robson?

 

[Darren]

Indeed but still better than the ones I listed for Warnock.



Look at you and your crystal ball, I say no he wouldn't and I'll give him more money to spend than Robson

You never answered my question, do you believe Warnock could have signed a player of Beatties calibre for us, given the same money as Robson?

I don't see why not. I don't hold with this idea that certain players will not play for certain managers. If Beattie had been offered £40,000 a week (or whatever the figure bandied about was) in Jan 07, I really can't see him saying "well the money's fab, but no way am I playing for that big nosed bastard".

 

[Darren]

Just by way of comparim, the wages spent by our relegation rivals in 2006-07 were as follows:

WHU: £41.3M
Charlton £34.3M
Watford £17.1M

There are no figures for Fulham or Wigan.

 

[HoodedClaw]

I don't see why not. I don't hold with this idea that certain players will not play for certain managers. If Beattie had been offered £40,000 a week (or whatever the figure bandied about was) in Jan 07, I really can't see him saying "well the money's fab, but no way am I playing for that big nosed bastard".

If that's the case then why didnt he. He had the money to buy better players but I can only see he either chose not to or they weren't interested in coming to us or playing for him. As Latters says if Warnock hadn't pissed it away on Shelton and Fahti, for example, we could have afforded Beattie then.

Why on earth spend around £3.5m on Shelton and Fathi if you can by better players?

It all shows to me that Warnock has no clue when it came to spending "big" so I think it was a great decision, if it was a decision at all and not just a case of Warnock not spending the money.

If its all about the wages then where were all his good calibre signings for QPR when he had even more money to piss away?

 

[Darren]

If that's the case then why didnt he. He had the money to buy better players but I can only see he either chose not to or they weren't interested in coming to us or playing for him. As Latters says if Warnock hadn't pissed it away on Shelton and Fahti, for example, we could have afforded Beattie then.

Why on earth spend around £3.5m on Shelton and Fathi if you can by better players?

It all shows to me that Warnock has no clue when it came to spending "big" so I think it was a great decision, if it was a decision at all and not just a case of Warnock not spending the money.

If its all about the wages then where were all his good calibre signings for QPR when he had even more money to piss away?

I don't know. Perhaps Beattie didn't want to leave. Perhaps Warnock didn't rate him. After all, Beattie had been poor with Everton in the PL and only started ripping defences apart in the 2nd tier. There was a very good argument that his career had peaked at Southampton and he was on his way down (in fact that's more or less what happened to him after 2007 apart from a brief revival at Stoke). I don't recall anyone saying in Jan 07 that we should sign Beattie.

Your argument is a non sequitur. Because Warnock made poor signings with the money he had, it doesn't follow that he would have made poor signings if he had more money. After all, he would have been able to afford better players and there is no reason to think he wouldn't have.

 

[Latters]

I don't know. Perhaps Beattie didn't want to leave. Perhaps Warnock didn't rate him. After all, Beattie had been poor with Everton in the PL and only started ripping defences apart in the 2nd tier. There was a very good argument that his career had peaked at Southampton and he was on his way down (in fact that's more or less what happened to him after 2007 apart from a brief revival at Stoke). I don't recall anyone saying in Jan 07 that we should sign Beattie.

Your argument is a non sequitur. Because Warnock made poor signings with the money he had, it doesn't follow that he would have made poor signings if he had more money. After all, he would have been able to afford better players and there is no reason to think he wouldn't have.

Had he gone for quality over quantity throughout his entire time at the Lane, I think he could have afforded better players.

We could have had three or four great forwards instead of the fifty or so he seemed to sign. Again, I reiterate, I think he had sufficient funds to keep us up, he just didn't spend them wisely. He openly admitted he was building a team for the future with signings like Fathi and Shelton when we had far more pressing issues to see to. I'm not saying he had to sign Beattie specifically, but rather than signing players to develop for fairly hefty sums, why not get an established Premier League forward in who would get into the first team?

 

[Guesty]

As well as he did on the pitch, Beattie was a terrible signing in my opinion. We couldn't afford him, Robson should never have been allowed to sign him and whilst he was bought to get us promoted we failed and ultimately his signing started the chain of events that lead to relegation instead.

 

[Bergen Blade]

He openly admitted he was building a team for the future with signings like Fathi and Shelton when we had far more pressing issues to see to. I'm not saying he had to sign Beattie specifically, but rather than signing players to develop for fairly hefty sums, why not get an established Premier League forward in who would get into the first team?

In our promotion season Warnock did what you suggested, made a couple of signings to make sure we had enough quality to go up, bringing in Flitcroft, Akinbiyi and Horsfield. They were all vastly experienced and 'proven' at that level, but when Warnock started playing them he soon realised they were rocking the boat more than improving us.

That's why he dropped them and went back to the line ups that had got us into a good position, which saw us regain our form.

I think he was scared the same would happen again if he made more high profile signings in 2006/07.

 

[Latters]

In our promotion season Warnock did what you suggested, made a couple of signings to make sure we had enough quality to go up, bringing in Flitcroft, Akinbiyi and Horsfield. They were all vastly experienced and 'proven' at that level, but when Warnock started playing them he soon realised they were rocking the boat more than improving us.

That's why he dropped them and went back to the line ups that had got us into a good position, which saw us regain our form.

I think he was scared the same would happen again if he made more high profile signings in 2006/07.

True, but I suppose that just adds more weight to the claim that Warnock is not good with money to spend. When he does go for "proven" players, he either can't play them or chooses the wrong ones.

 

[HoodedClaw]

I don't know. Perhaps Beattie didn't want to leave. Perhaps Warnock didn't rate him. After all, Beattie had been poor with Everton in the PL and only started ripping defences apart in the 2nd tier. There was a very good argument that his career had peaked at Southampton and he was on his way down (in fact that's more or less what happened to him after 2007 apart from a brief revival at Stoke). I don't recall anyone saying in Jan 07 that we should sign Beattie.

Your argument is a non sequitur. Because Warnock made poor signings with the money he had, it doesn't follow that he would have made poor signings if he had more money. After all, he would have been able to afford better players and there is no reason to think he wouldn't have.

You're being too literal with the Beattie point, the point was about better quality players in general. I'm sure there were better players than Shelton and Fahti available or do you not agree given the measly budget Warnock had to play with?

Why would it not follow that because he made poor signings he would continue to do so, all I can go on is history and his history shows that he's not great at spending "big". Do you base all your decisions on the here and now? you never take into account how things have turned out previously when about to do the same thing again to give you an insight into how it may turn out? Fair play you.

If you feel he would have made better signings if he had more money available, he had much more money available at QPR and where were there non typical Warnock signings?

 

[Darren]

You're being too literal with the Beattie point, the point was about better quality players in general. I'm sure there were better players than Shelton and Fahti available or do you not agree given the measly budget Warnock had to play with?

Why would it not follow that because he made poor signings he would continue to do so, all I can go on is history and his history shows that he's not great at spending "big". Do you base all your decisions on the here and now? you never take into account how things have turned out previously when about to do the same thing again to give you an insight into how it may turn out? Fair play you.

If you feel he would have made better signings if he had more money available, he had much more money available at QPR and where were there non typical Warnock signings?

You kept asking me why he didn't sign Beattie. I just answered your question.

Given the very narrow margin by which we were relegated and however poor NW may be in the transfer market, it's a very difficult argument to make that giving him extra money would not have given him that little extra to keep us up.

Let's go with your view that NW is a complete lunatic in the transfer market. Had he been able to sepend 78% of turnover, he would have been able to indulge his lunacy in buying the likes of Fathi and Shelton AND signed a decent player or two. Just when McCabe released the purse strings in 2005 and made us one of the top second tier spenders, Warnock was able to buy dross (Horsfield, Nalis) and also bring in players who were vital in the promtion bid (Ifill, Gilliespie, Shipperley).

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Thats very interesting. It's clear that when McCabe did give Warnock money (wages 106% of turnover in 2006) he got us promoted. Contrast that with the previous 4 seasons when wages were as follows (worked out from the site I linked)

2001-02 7.1M
2002-03 8.2M
2003-04 7.9M
2004-05 8.7M

Wages were effectively doubled in 2005-06 and it paid off straightaway

But in 2006-07 turnover increased by 172% and wages by only around 50%. What on earth happened there?

Edit: and the shocking fact is that we were paying more in wages in 2010-11 when we were relegateed than we were in 2005-06 when we were promoted (allowing for inflation, the figures are probably around the same in real terms). That is a measure of just how shit Adams was as a manager.

Your figures also prove that in 2002-2003, Warnock achieved 3rd in The Championship, Play Off Final, League Cup Semi Final and FA Cup Semi Final on a similar wage bill to this seasons where we struggled to 5th in League One. Has any manager ever achieved that on such a low wage bill? Yet people still don't rate him as a manager.

 

[Zanzibar]

You kept asking me why he didn't sign Beattie. I just answered your question.

Given the very narrow margin by which we were relegated and however poor NW may be in the transfer market, it's a very difficult argument to make that giving him extra money would not have given him that little extra to keep us up.

Let's go with your view that NW is a complete lunatic in the transfer market. Had he been able to sepend 78% of turnover, he would have been able to indulge his lunacy in buying the likes of Fathi and Shelton AND signed a decent player or two. Just when McCabe released the purse strings in 2005 and made us one of the top second tier spenders, Warnock was able to buy dross (Horsfield, Nalis) and also bring in players who were vital in the promtion bid (Ifill, Gilliespie, Shipperley).

This argument is heading the same way as your assertion that there was no evidence that Wilson ignored United's younger players this last season.
Just accept that you argue for arguments sake....leave it there, you've lost.

 

[Darren]

Your figures also prove that in 2002-2003, Warnock achieved 3rd in The Championship, Play Off Final, League Cup Semi Final and FA Cup Semi Final on a similar wage bill to this seasons where we struggled to 5th in League One. Has any manager ever achieved that on such a low wage bill? Yet people still don't rate him as a manager.

Without decrying NW's achievement, I suspect that the gap between the resources he had available then were not as disproprtionate to the then top teams in D2 compared to how much those clubs will have now compared to us.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I think we got back almost all our expenses on Fathi and about £800,000 on Shelton (what did he cost? £1,8m? How much of that sum did we actually pay?)

In Warnock's mind they were long term signings who may have done well for us if everything had gone according to his plan. I don't think signing those two was what prevented us from signing bigger names.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

In our promotion season Warnock did what you suggested, made a couple of signings to make sure we had enough quality to go up, bringing in Flitcroft, Akinbiyi and Horsfield. They were all vastly experienced and 'proven' at that level, but when Warnock started playing them he soon realised they were rocking the boat more than improving us.

That's why he dropped them and went back to the line ups that had got us into a good position, which saw us regain our form.

I think he was scared the same would happen again if he made more high profile signings in 2006/07.

I think that's a fair point but I don't necessarily think he would have made "high profile" signings in the mould of Beattie, Speed, Hendrie, Ehiogu etc.

I think the type of player he would have tried to sign for us would have been along the lines of Stephen Warnock. Nothing spectacular but a good, solid, proven Premiership player with scope for improvement and a potential resale value. Just 3 or 4 of those type would have surely been enough to improve the team by the one extra goal we needed to stay up.

When he was given a higher wage bill to play with at QPR, that is the type of player he chose to sign (Luke Young, Wright-Phillips, Gabbidon, Anton Ferdinand). His critics will say that those signings failed but they weren't in the relegation zone when Warnock was sacked. It was only when they started signing "big name" players under "big name" managers that they really started to struggle.

We know that he did try to sign Stephen Warnock for us and the reason he wasn't able to was that we couldn't compete on wages with the likes of Blackburn. I suspect the same was true of a few other potential Premiership signings which is why all our signings came from the lower leagues or abroad.

 

[Eskimo]

I happen to agree with Darren. Warnock overall did very well for United. Relegation notwithstanding the club was in a much better position on the pitch and financially than when her arrived. But of course he made some crap signings as well as very many good ones, and some of the poorer signings were big money ones going way back to his Notts County days when he bought Agana from us for £500k ? from us when he was past it.

When he arrived we were a struggling club with potential but nowt to spend looking for an experienced manager. Now we have fritted away Warnock's legacy we are in the same position again...........................

 

[Pinchy]

I'm not bothered about big names; I care about quality. Warnock did not sign the genuine Premiership (not World) Class player that was all we needed to safeguard our position when TEN points clear of the drop. In fact he did not sign a single player of genuine Premiership Class (except perhaps pre-injury Hulse, but that only begs the obvious supplementary question!) either in the post-Promotion close season or in the Premiership season. He chose to rely on determination and commitment. That is never, of itself, enough at any level, still less the top level. Of course, we then dropped like a stone.

It might be McCabe's fault, in large part, but Old Bignose was culpable as well. We have never recovered and it was all too obvious, I'm afraid.

 

[grafikhaus]

Interesting this, and some good points and opinions. It make you realise how many light years we've regressed since 2007 (although I reckon 2009 was the turning point for this club).

Also makes you realise how the PL has powered ahead when you look at some of the names mentioned - Shelton? Fahti? They wouldn't make the bench now. In the Championship.

Regardless of the 'if only's', we were relegated in 2007 because West Ham cheated, simple as.

And as for opinions about Warnock, it reminded me of seeing Chelsea fans leaving the final the other night. 'Benitez? Nothing to do with him.' and ' The players won it tonight, not Benitez.'

Once some people have made their minds up...

 

[SUFC Handsworth]

"Edit: and the shocking fact is that we were paying more in wages in 2010-11 when we were relegated than we were in 2005-06 when we were promoted (allowing for inflation, the figures are probably around the same in real terms). That is a measure of just how shit Adams was as a manager."

That's a bit harsh on Adams, his hands were tied behind his back when he came to the Lane as the 4th manager of that season. It was obvious we needed 2 decent centre-halves and he wasn't given the money to get them. He had to make do with Collins and one or two young loanees. There had been some shocking decisions taken at boardroom level that season which cost United's Championship status more so than some of Adams' failings.

"Robson's signings:

Good: Beattie

ok: Naysmith, Speed

rubbish: Lee Hendrie, David Carney, Billy Sharp"

Billy Sharp had already been signed before Robson arrived and I'm pretty sure he had little to do with the signing of Carney.


As for the money given to Colin in the Prem, it was £10m in the transfer window and he chose to spend only half of it and that was on players that were better equipped to play in the Championship. Players that were available at the time with proven Prem pedigree were Danny Murphy and Stephen Warnock. Murphy especially would have really added something to our workmanlike midfield of the time.

 

[cooperblade]

Also makes you realise how the PL has powered ahead when you look at some of the names mentioned - Shelton? Fahti? They wouldn't make the bench now. In the Championship.
..

Fathi did make the bench in the Championship last season.