Objective opinions on our investment

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

Since the Prince took over in 2013, there have been a fair few quotes in the media from Kevin McCabe and Jim Phipps and what they would do, what they've done and where it will take us .

Below is a reminder of the some of what has been said, all of which I will quote so it's not paraphrased, or not changed by my own opinion.

The question I would like to ask people, is, looking at things since then, were the initial quotes and statements accurate? Has this materialised? And are we better off?

Polite and friendly answers only please, which ever side of the question your opinion lies, I'm only here to make friends remember

So, here goes:

"This is game-changing for this club and the funds being invested in the team are substantial."-Kevin McCabe

"The money being made available is for investment at first-team level and that means building a squad that can get us back to the upper echelons of English football." -Kevin McCabe

"I would also say to our supporters that this also ensures we can keep our own young players, hopefully on longer contracts"-Kevin McCabe

"This is an investment in which the only option is to do what you must do to get to the Premier League"-Jim Phipps

"One of the things we were keen to do, was to avoid the mistake many foreign owners make when they assume ownership, which is to make decisions as though they understand English football. Our investment style is relatively humble; we’re ambitious people, but we realise we don’t know everything."-Jim Phipps


So, have the funds we've invested been "substantial"? We spent a lot of cash on John Brayford, but we received a lot of cash for Harry Maguire.

Have we just been unlucky? Have the board invested their trust and money with the likes of Clough and he wasted it? My mind drifts back to the last JTW window where we apparently made 4 permanent bids for players, all at the last minute, all rejected, and we were left with no one.

Our it seems very easy for us to sell our players, but then we end up coming across a hell of a lot of hitches when trying to get people in.

Would Nigel Adkins, strong CV and track record that he has, REALLY have seen our defence, and through his own doing, not strengthened it until the end of September? I find that hard to believe.

What does everyone else think?

I think first the Prince and now Adkins saw SUFC as a challange , but both have found it , as a poisioned chalise.

We have too many people thinking they know business acumen , but no ethos of business football . IMO we are in a PR good health , but actually in a NHS mess, never mind all the tranformation for change at BDTBL.

The bottom line is , i dont think we have the actual investment , we are led to believe ( maybe incorrectly ) , . I wouldnt say the board are bluffing , but as Frank Muir used to say Call My Bluff.

If the board have been in anyway misleading to Adkins , the guy will walk. We will see , but luck in this instance does not come into it.

UTB

 

[Revolution]

This might not be many fans' idea of "game-changing", but without the investment we would likely be an absolute mess. People might hate this league, but save for some horrendous mismanagement by a manager out of his depth we've been in no danger of a collapse financially or on a footballing side of things, while clubs like Pompey have plummeted and others like Coventry have gone through various off the field turmoil that's transferred onto the pitch. It's too easy to take what the Prince & Co have done for granted. If the Prince withdrew from the club tomorrow we would be royally fucked.

I'm not sure this is true. Every club with our size of support (and some who are smaller) that has been in Admin are now above us in the League with the exception of Portsmouth, whose debts were so massive that the situation was much more dire. There's Bradford as well, but they are smaller and like Pompey they've been in a sodding cup final.

The club might go down if it went into admin, but it would not die. We have too many fans (and thus potential revenue) for that to happen. At worst we would be like Pompey. We would not be Stockport or, Heaven forbid, Hereford.

Of course the big counter argument is that we would not own a ground, but that can be worked around as Millers fans will testify.

As to the main issue, I have no doubt that money has been pumped in, but:

1. the amounts paid in do not match the rhetoric

2. Our use of that money has been very poor on the whole.

 

[Revolution]

By the way:

"I would also say to our supporters that this also ensures we can keep our own young players, hopefully on longer contracts"-Kevin McCabe

This quote sickens me but does not surprise me.

 

[cooperblade]

Wolves had £16m parachute payments that season, 3 times our turnover at about £30m !

I had to laugh at people before that season started saying they were the next Portsmouth. I had no doubt they would walk the league.

And still reported a loss of £30m - what they did had to be the ultimate gamble. Literally promotion or bust.

I think the problem (or one of the problems) with United has been that the directors have been too open and said too many things which raise false expectations and can make them look silly later on.

Things like...

Selahattin Baki @PATRIOTS1899

Now if anyone wants to take Murphy and Kennedy away from us they can do so in playstation or football manager. UTB!

 

[BushBlade]

And still reported a loss of £30m - what they did had to be the ultimate gamble. Literally promotion or bust.

I think the problem (or one of the problems) with United has been that the directors have been too open and said too many things which raise false expectations and can make them look silly later on.

Things like...

Selahattin Baki @PATRIOTS1899

Now if anyone wants to take Murphy and Kennedy away from us they can do so in playstation or football manager. UTB!

No, not literally promotion or bust. The majority shareholder or owner (I'm not sure which he is) who I think is called Steve Morgan provided the necessary funds.

He's no more likely to put them into admin as KM is, for the same reasons.

 

[UnitedBlade]

And still reported a loss of £30m - what they did had to be the ultimate gamble. Literally promotion or bust.

I think the problem (or one of the problems) with United has been that the directors have been too open and said too many things which raise false expectations and can make them look silly later on.

Things like...

Selahattin Baki @PATRIOTS1899

Now if anyone wants to take Murphy and Kennedy away from us they can do so in playstation or football manager. UTB!

They didn't make that loss in the year they were promoted from L1, maybe the year before when they were relegated.

They made an operating profit of £5.7M. Their wage bill was a whopping £20M, ok not all that was first team players but I imagine a big chunk was. I don't think they gambled at all. They got a good manager and players that would walk the league and that's what they did. Their owner is considerably more wealthy than KM and the Prince combined as well.

I agree Sela's tweet doesn't help.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

This summer, despite our ridiculously bulky squad, we have added significantly while barely trimming any of it.

.

Out:
Michael Doyle (released)
Ben Davies (released)
Ian Turner (released)
Sam Berry (released)
Jason Paling (released)
Kyle Scarisbrick (released)
Jamie Murphy (£1.7 mil-ish)
Dominic Calvert Lewin (Loan)
David Brooks (Loan)
CJ Hamilton (Loan)
Julian Banton (Loan)
George Willis (Loan)

In:
Martyn Woolford (Free)
Billy Sharp (£500k- ish)
Connor Sammon (Loan)
David Edgar (Loan)

Why do people make things up to try to make a point? It was good post until then.

In answer to the OP, terms like “game-changing” are subjective but, the collection of quotes from the OP painted a different picture to what we’re actually seeing. I’m sure the accounts will show money has been spent BUT:

1. It’s been spent on quantity over quality.
2. Too much has gone on sacking and replacing managers
3. It hasn’t prevented the sale of our best young players as stated at the time.

So whilst no doubt the number crunchers can justify the comments by looking at the money being lost, I think the fans still have the right to feel let down as the club has failed to achieve what it purportedly set out to do (build a squad to climb back to the “upper echelons” and stop selling off our best young talent).

Without the investment, I don’t think we’d have got Adkins and I don’t think Clough would have been able to sign so many players last term. I suspect the Maguire and cup money would have been completely swallowed up in running costs without the reinvestment for Brayford and Done.

I think another thing worth considering is how the league has changed over the last few years. In 2011-12, you could pick up the better players in this league for around £500k or less (pigs signing O Grady and Madine for not much being an example). The trickle down effect from the top leagues and the stockpiling of young players by the top clubs has made it harder to make that type of signing these days. You just don’t get as much player for your money. For example, we were rumoured to have bid £900k for Clarke and Wilson a couple of years ago. 2 years earlier, I’m not sure a cash-strapped league 1 club would have been able to turn that down.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Mentioning Bristol, Brentford & Bournemouth is interesting as they all played decent football, had stability, decent managers who have been given time & a measure of investment [some substantial]. For the last 3 seasons all we have had is a measure of investment but alongside systematically selling our better players, which probably equals limited investment.
!

Cotteril had about the same time as Clough but succeeded where Clough failed. Brentford and Bournemouth both changed managers during their promotion season. I think they just recruited better on the playing front and as you say, didn’t sell their best players.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Out:
Michael Doyle (released)
Ben Davies (released)
Ian Turner (released)
Sam Berry (released)
Jason Paling (released)
Kyle Scarisbrick (released)
Jamie Murphy (£1.7 mil-ish)
Dominic Calvert Lewin (Loan)
David Brooks (Loan)
CJ Hamilton (Loan)
Julian Banton (Loan)
George Willis (Loan)

In:
Martyn Woolford (Free)
Billy Sharp (£500k- ish)
Connor Sammon (Loan)
David Edgar (Loan)

Why do people make things up to try to make a point?

You're not seriously suggesting that loaning out and releasing a bunch of youngsters that have barely (if ever) appeared in the first team and the reserve keeper (of 4 on the books) is somehow trimming the first team squad? Doyle and Davies were the only attempts to willingly trim the squad – Turner was simply covering the gap Long's loan created. That doesn't remotely constitute trimming the squad.

Why do people make ludicrous suggestions to try and make a point?

 

[1danewhitehouse]

You're not seriously suggesting that loaning out and releasing a bunch of youngsters that have barely (if ever) appeared in the first team and the reserve keeper (of 4 on the books) is somehow trimming the first team squad? Doyle and Davies were the only attempts to willingly trim the squad – Turner was simply covering the gap Long's loan created. That doesn't remotely constitute trimming the squad.

Why do people make ludicrous suggestions to try and make a point?

So just to check the rules. Loans in count as adding to the squad but loans out don't count as trimming?

Meanwhile releasing a player doesn't count as trimming if they are a player in the same position as we have one returning from loan? So what about the end of a loan? I guess Woolford and Sammon is not adding to the squad because they are merely replacing the departing Steven Davies and Jason Holt?

The numbers are the numbers. We released 3 senior pros and a handful of kids, loaned out some more kids and sold our best player and sent a couple of loans back to their parent clubs. Whilst bringing in 2 loans, a free transfer and buying one player. That nowhere near tallies with adding significantly whilst doing hardly any trimming.

 

[Revolution]

You're not seriously suggesting that loaning out and releasing a bunch of youngsters that have barely (if ever) appeared in the first team and the reserve keeper (of 4 on the books) is somehow trimming the first team squad? Doyle and Davies were the only attempts to willingly trim the squad – Turner was simply covering the gap Long's loan created. That doesn't remotely constitute trimming the squad.

Why do people make ludicrous suggestions to try and make a point?

You said we added significantly. That's not true either. 4 in, 4 out isn't it? Plus we have lost loan players like Davies and Holt.

Or what 1danewhitehouse said.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

You said we added significantly. That's not true either. 4 in, 4 out isn't it? Plus we have lost loan players like Davies and Holt.

Or what 1danewhitehouse said.

Three first teamers in of significantly better quality, one of dubious quality. One first teamer out (of questionable value) and one squad member out. Plus the Murphy deal which, to repeat, we had not planned or wanted. In terms of Davies & Holt, are you suggesting they would be in our current first team?

I really don't understand why it's so difficult to accept that in Sharp, Sammon and Edgar that we have three highly paid individuals of higher quality that we have brought in this summer that have significantly improved the squad.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

So just to check the rules. Loans in count as adding to the squad but loans out don't count as trimming?

Meanwhile releasing a player doesn't count as trimming if they are a player in the same position as we have one returning from loan? So what about the end of a loan? I guess Woolford and Sammon is not adding to the squad because they are merely replacing the departing Steven Davies and Jason Holt?

The numbers are the numbers. We released 3 senior pros and a handful of kids, loaned out some more kids and sold our best player and sent a couple of loans back to their parent clubs. Whilst bringing in 2 loans, a free transfer and buying one player. That nowhere near tallies with adding significantly whilst doing hardly any trimming.

We're talking about the first team squad here.

Turner out, Long in - no change in squad total
Doyle/Davies released - Sharp/Woolford signed = no change in squad total
Davies/Holt sent back from temporary loans - Edgar/Sammon signed on long loans = no change in squad total
Murphy sold - no replacement, one player down.

I'll also accept DCL's loan out, because he is genuinely a member of the first team squad, as opposed to the collection of players you've for some reason added as though they are in the first team squad (they clearly aren't).

So in summary, we have effectively trimmed our squad by player, while adding to the quality in the areas we strengthened. Sorry – significantly adding to the quality. We have lost quality out wide with Murphy's sale.

Trimming our large squad by two isn't significant – and in the case of Murphy, isn't trimming in an area we want to. We are a club overburdened with players we desperately need to move on to give us any kind of flexibility going forward.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

You said we added significantly. That's not true either. 4 in, 4 out isn't it? Plus we have lost loan players like Davies and Holt.

Or what 1danewhitehouse said.

What I meant was significantly adding to the squad in terms of its quality – perhaps that wasn't clear. We're significantly stronger up front, and despite his mare yesterday in Edgar I feel we have a centre back of significantly better quality than the rest at the club.

 

[Revolution]

Three first teamers in of significantly better quality, one of dubious quality. One first teamer out (of questionable value) and one squad member out. Plus the Murphy deal which, to repeat, we had not planned or wanted. In terms of Davies & Holt, are you suggesting they would be in our current first team?

I really don't understand why it's so difficult to accept that in Sharp, Sammon and Edgar that we have three highly paid individuals of higher quality that we have brought in this summer that have significantly improved the squad.

Oh, the Murphy deal doesn't count because we didn't plan it?

The jury is very much out on Sammon.

I'd rather have Holt than Reed because I'm unfashionable and like end product.

There is probably an improvement, but it ain't that significant.

I agree Edgar is better than what we have despite yesterday.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I think the balance is slightly better now than it was at the end of last season but the original post I quoted seemed to suggest that we hadn't really trimmed whilst we had been adding to the squad significantly. Your later reply seems to be about net trimming but not net adding. Overall, we have less contracted professionals than at the end of last season. We have the same number of loan players. We have loaned some players out who are on the periphery and we have generated approximately 3 times what we've paid in transfer fees. Given that the thread is about investment, I think those are the important points.

Quality is subjective. Whilst I thought it was right to get rid of Doyle, I think he offered a lot more last season than Woolford will this. So far I'm not sure Woolford is any better than Davies was. In fact, I think he might be worse.

We've improved up front but lost our best winger.

Despite his recent clangers, Edgar does give us some much needed improvement at the back.

 

[Bladesman]

It would be so depressing if we'd done in all our investment on sacking shite managers and amassing shite players like they were going out of fashion.

And as you point out, the teams with genuinely game changing investment tend to purchase game changing players who genuinely change games.

They then go up.

Wolves also show exactly how to do things when being relegated. Immediately hired a manager with a great track record (which we finally have done after 5 years) and went about cherry picking the best players from the teams in their league. Like McDonald.

We've tried to do it to a certain extent with the likes of Baxter and Done, but we've never really gone after it like these guys have.

That is what we should have done in our second season or at least when the prince first came onboard. This season we have gone one better and actually got a manager who could deliver us back to back to promotions but it just seems we haven't done enough in the transfer market.