Why we're lucky to have a manager who "treats the club's money as if it were his own."

[The Bohemian]

Some interesting debate since the transfer window concerning the Blades's approach to player acquisition. Let me say from the outset: I fully understand the frustration felt by many supporters regarding the failure to sign a landmark striker – someone with a proven goal record at Div 3 or above. 4 years in the lower divisions is already far too long for a club with a tradition, history and support base such as ours. Stretching that to half a decade is unthinkable.


But before we rant too loudly about the club's apparent reluctance to 'splash the cash' on new singings we should consider where a reckless approach landed us previously (arguably marooned in Div 3).


Someone recently handed me Keith Gillespie's so I decided to browse a few pages. It's actually quite compelling with a tad more substance than expected. Naturally my intrigue peaked at his Blades chapter: he liked Warnock, thought Blackwell was a complete “wanker” (and worse!) and was clearly in awe of Robson.


He tells how, having been released by Leicester in the aftermath of the La Manga rape allegations (he wasn't charged and appears to have been well and truly stitched up by the women involved), he became persona non grata and could not find a club, despite the best efforts of his agent, who appears to have been very influential in his career choices. His old friend Craig Short put a word in for him at The Lane and Warnock agreed to take him on a trial basis, before eventually offering him a one year contract worth £2,500 per week. This was later increased to £3,000 per week and extended by a further year, and later to £3,500 following promotion. Gillespie's agent was furious about the amount offered (he'd obviously forgotten no other club was prepared to sign him) and regularly urged him to object and ask for more. Eventually he convinced Gillespie to ask for a transfer, which was later rescinded – presumably having failed to find another club willing to pay more.


Then in 2007, Gillespie's boat well and truly came in. In the aftermath of relegation, new manager Bryan Robson increased 32 year-old Gillespie's contract to £10,000 per week plus £3,000 appearance money (this being the same Robson who later complained of the club's failure to provide him with enough financial backing). This is just one example of the financial madness that took place in the aftermath of relegation from the Premier League.


In making this point I'm not suggesting that we should hold back from investing in better players capable of making promotion more likely but I wholeheartedly support Clough's and Brannigan's refusal to pay over the odds in transfer fees and wages simply to appease a section of supporters. If the outcome of this approach is the “unthinkable” happening and another season spent in Div 3, I would live with it provided there was evidence of a long-term, sustainable improvement plan with the ultimate objective of returning to and staying in the Premier League.


So for those demanding that the club 'splashes the cash': what are your parameters? How much should the club stake on getting promotion this year? What are the likely consequences of overspending and failing?

 

[wizadry]

Some interesting debate since the transfer window concerning the Blades's approach to player acquisition. Let me say from the outset: I fully understand the frustration felt by many supporters regarding the failure to sign a landmark striker – someone with a proven goal record at Div 3 or above. 4 years in the lower divisions is already far too long for a club with a tradition, history and support base such as ours. Stretching that to half a decade is unthinkable.


But before we rant too loudly about the club's apparent reluctance to 'splash the cash' on new singings we should consider where a reckless approach landed us previously (arguably marooned in Div 3).


Someone recently handed me Keith Gillespie's so I decided to browse a few pages. It's actually quite compelling with a tad more substance than expected. Naturally my intrigue peaked at his Blades chapter: he liked Warnock, thought Blackwell was a complete “wanker” (and worse!) and was clearly in awe of Robson.


He tells how, having been released by Leicester in the aftermath of the La Manga rape allegations (he wasn't charged and appears to have been well and truly stitched up by the women involved), he became persona non grata and could not find a club, despite the best efforts of his agent, who appears to have been very influential in his career choices. His old friend Craig Short put a word in for him at The Lane and Warnock agreed to take him on a trial basis, before eventually offering him a one year contract worth £2,500 per week. This was later increased to £3,000 per week and extended by a further year, and later to £3,500 following promotion. Gillespie's agent was furious about the amount offered (he'd obviously forgotten no other club was prepared to sign him) and regularly urged him to object and ask for more. Eventually he convinced Gillespie to ask for a transfer, which was later rescinded – presumably having failed to find another club willing to pay more.


Then in 2007, Gillespie's boat well and truly came in. In the aftermath of relegation, new manager Bryan Robson increased 32 year-old Gillespie's contract to £10,000 per week plus £3,000 appearance money (this being the same Robson who later complained of the club's failure to provide him with enough financial backing). This is just one example of the financial madness that took place in the aftermath of relegation from the Premier League.


In making this point I'm not suggesting that we should hold back from investing in better players capable of making promotion more likely but I wholeheartedly support Clough's and Brannigan's refusal to pay over the odds in transfer fees and wages simply to appease a section of supporters. If the outcome of this approach is the “unthinkable” happening and another season spent in Div 3, I would live with it provided there was evidence of a long-term, sustainable improvement plan with the ultimate objective of returning to and staying in the Premier League.


So for those demanding that the club 'splashes the cash': what are your parameters? How much should the club stake on getting promotion this year? What are the likely consequences of overspending and failing?

Good post,and i am one of the frustrated types myself,i just want us out of this league and the striker problem has been there for all to see for a long time,i'm not writing Higdon or Mcnults of yet but just hope and prey we have or spend enough to get out of this league which is the minimum our supporters deserve.

 

[BeatleBlade]

Spot on. Also, if we can save a bit of money this year we'll have more to spend next year when we can attract better players with the prospect of Championship football.

 

[Bladesman]

It was pretty clear at the time that Robson was pissing money away left right and center.

I would rather spend money on the right player. Spend a transfer fee on someone like Sam Baldock that will improve what we have.

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

Then in 2007, Gillespie's boat well and truly came in. In the aftermath of relegation, new manager Bryan Robson increased 32 year-old Gillespie's contract to £10,000 per week plus £3,000 appearance money (this being the same Robson who later complained of the club's failure to provide him with enough financial backing). This is just one example of the financial madness that took place in the aftermath of relegation from the Premier League.

Strewth!

 

[blader]

Oh here we go with the 'over the odds' business again. We don't want to spend money for the sake of spending money, and it isn't about setting parameters, but you have to understand that the clubs who spend the most are more often than not successful. It's about being willing to pay the market value, which is miles away from 'over the odds'.

Also, I would argue on this point, if money doesn't equal success, what's the point in anyone getting excited about 'game changing investment'? If spending is irrelevant, then the addition of the prince would be utterly pointless surely?

As stated, there is overwhelming evidence that money = success in football. The statement was 'game changing investment' well really, the game hasn't changed at all has it?

Do you honestly believe Clough has CHOSEN not to spend money? No manager in their right mind would do that! He clearly hasn't been backed,
and has said as much in many an interview.

You can rank clubs by annual spend, and come may the table will have a strong resemblance to that ranking. It's not about 'paying over the odds' it's about selecting the right players and going out and paying what is required to buy them. Wolves 'cherry picked' the crop of league 1 talent and just paid what was required (K-Mac exhibit no.1) which wasn't a hefty fee. There have also been some quality players joining league 1 sides for free, which we have also missed out on.

Football has gone daft, we all know that. However, you have 2 choices: join in and be successful, or maintain your principles and fall behind the rest of the pack.

Leicester have spent large amounts frivolously too, but ask yourself who's position would you rather be in? Modern football is this way, and our tightness is the main reason for our currently low position. I hate it as much as the other blades, but it's time to shit or get off the pot.

 

[stringjunior]

[QUOTE="blader, post: 647651, member: 2318". The statement was 'game changing investment' well really, the game hasn't changed at all has it[/QUOTE]

Yes it has. We wouldn't have been able to attract NC, Beard or what's his face from Liverpool without the investment.

 

[itsinyerblood]

It will be interesting to see if any of the mob who accuse this club of telling lies, of having no ambition, and who take every opportunity to knock the manager and directors, will offer any response to The Bohemian's post?

I never see any concrete analysis from the minds of those who allow their feelings to get in the way of their supposed powers of looking at how any money that's come into this club may have been spent. Oh yes, a 'free' transfer means exactly that, doesn't it? We mustn't consider the wages that might last for anything up to 4 years, we mustn't consider that the clamour to "get rid" of a player isn't as easy as some would have us believe, and then there's the small point of cross-collateralisation, where each season's spend impacts on the next season, then the next season, and so on. Of course this is affected by the perception of success, what's achieved etc, but these are the facts boys and girls.

I notice blader has offered up another of his selective examples of the route to success. It seems Clough hasn't been backed, and he states that Clough has said as much in interviews. Can you provide chapter and verse blader?

Wolves are used as an example of what it takes to be successful, pity that blader didn't include in his scathing analysis that Wolves were still in receipt of parachute payments. This type of selective memory is also seen in the comment that "the clubs who spend the most are more often than not successful". What, you mean like ambitious Portsmouth? Yep, they certainly went for it in a big, big way, whatever happened to them I wonder? And without having access to the accounts of these clubs that are (not) cited as being successful, how does anyone know what the exact state of their business is? How do we know what their relationship is with their bank? Unless, of course, they're bankrolled by someone who doesn't comprehend why it's necessary to follow established patterns of good financial probity. As far as I can see from reading blader's 'analysis' we're advised to spend, spend, spend, while having our heads dug deep in the sand, in the hope that we might achieve success.

Using that incendiary cliche about shitting or getting off the pot might go down well in amateur dramatic circles, it might even impress those who buy into this financial lunacy you admit exists. You say football has gone daft, agree there, but then you also wish us to abandon principles while we enter in this financial madhouse and hope that we don't get burnt in the process? It sounds like a parent who says to their 10 and 11-year-olds that it's ok for them to take drugs but they need to be careful.

I love this forum, if only for the fact that the financial advice I constantly see being offered to the club. Which is where it should remain.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

He clearly hasn't been backed

Clearly we should have been signing Championship players like McGahey and Basham or consistent third tier performers like Alcock, Wallace and Campbell-Ryce. At the very least they should have backed the manager last season by bringing in a Scougall or a Baxter.

Hang on.....

 

[Dkc]

With a few exceptions, I imagine that clubs' league position from the top of the PL to the bottom of Leage Two corresponds pretty well to the transfer fees and wages that clubs pay out. As a very general rule, the more you spend, the more successful you are.

It sounds like the talent was available during the transfer window, but we weren't prepared to spend the cash. Which is fair enough. We have a better management and owners in place, but the money still isn't there. The Prince isn't backing the team with big money signings as many expected. This could well result in another season in League One. We certainly aren't going to run away with it like Wolves did,

 

[Hague Blade]

itsinyerblood The problem with using Portsmouth in these examples is that they won the FA Cup and went on to play in Europe. Yes, their finances were a joke and yes, they've had some hard times since. But they're still in existence, albeit in Div4, and still playing in front of the same 15,000 odd as they always were.

The point is, they had their day in the sun, whereas we continue to exist on the thin gruel of the occasional cup-run and a stab at the play-offs every now and again. We might be financially prudent, but that's not why people follow football clubs. I don't think anyone's entitled to insist that the club 'abandons principles' and gambles - but I can understand entirely why some people would like to see it. The chance of finally, for once in our life times, winning something, and playing at home against Milan in Europe versus the risk of administration, points deduction and playing at one level lower than we are now (which many, many clubs have survived) - I can see why you might take that risk...

 

[itsinyerblood]

itsinyerblood The problem with using Portsmouth in these examples is that they won the FA Cup and went on to play in Europe. Yes, their finances were a joke and yes, they've had some hard times since. But they're still in existence, albeit in Div4, and still playing in front of the same 15,000 odd as they always were.

The point is, they had their day in the sun, whereas we continue to exist on the thin gruel of the occasional cup-run and a stab at the play-offs every now and again. We might be financially prudent, but that's not why people follow football clubs. I don't think anyone's entitled to insist that the club 'abandons principles' and gambles - but I can understand entirely why some people would like to see it. The chance of finally, for once in our life times, winning something, and playing at home against Milan in Europe versus the risk of administration, points deduction and playing at one level lower than we are now (which many, many clubs have survived) - I can see why you might take that risk...

It's your first paragraph that concerns me Hague Blade. I don't merely want SUFC to have a flirtation with the notion of success, then fall like a lead weight until all we can do is fondly remember a time when we were in the spotlight. If that happened we'd be stuck amongst a group of clubs that struggle for survival with absolutely no hope of anything less than playing teams who scrape by on gates of 1500 on a good day. Is that what we should aim for, a momentary glimpse into what life must be like in the top echelons of football? Wouldn't it be preferable to create something that gave us a foundation that meant we could at least consolidate our position in the Premiership in much the same way as Stoke, Sunderland, and Southampton have done? Maybe that's not enough for some, maybe if we do manage to achieve promotion we might be one of those clubs that has a yo-yo existence for a season or two, jumping between the Championship and the Premiership. Better that than being in this deadpool of a division, or does that suggestion lack ambition?

Who knows what the next five years might bring United? My own take is that I'd be far happier knowing that this club has the necessary clout to sustain itself than have a fleeting romance with the back pages of the red tops as we face an inevitable glow that's then exchanged for despair as we slide back down the divisions.

You mention the chase for glory in the same breath as accepting that we could face a slump of epic proportions. I don't know about playing Milan, but consolidation in the Championship would do for starters, then we can have a go at achieving promotion to the Prem. Once we've earned the right to be called a Premiership team, that's the time for thoughts of upping the stakes of ambition to be addressed. Better to have a strategy that can offer us a way forward than to throw the equivalent of dice in the hope that this will meet our needs.

 

[Hague Blade]

I understand your concern itsinyerblood and I'm largely in the same camp.

But there is a major problem with your "jam tomorrow" argument, which is that we've been hearing it ever since 1925 and we're still waiting. A strategy that can offer us a a way forward is fine, and it's the sensible way to proceed, but what happens if the next five years just brings more scuffling around in the lower leagues? And then the same for the next five years after that - what then? A different new strategy to offer us a way forward, and yet another five years to see if it works?

God willing, I've got another 30 odd years left to support United - and whatever the prudent view might be, I can at least see the attraction of rolling the dice to try and see what success feels like (and one might argue that a good few years in the Premier League, winning the FA cup and playing Milan in the UEFA cup (as it was then) is a bit more than just a momentary glimpse...) You say that the risk is that the club drops like a lead weight, and of course Portsmouth did so - but they're only one division below us, seem now to be in reasonable shape, and still play in the same stadium in front of the same crowds. Of course, the third division is dreadful, and obviously we'd prefer to be looking upwards rather than thinking about the risk of dropping down a division - but I think you're somewhat overdoing the doomsday scenario. I don't think anyone wants to gamble the future of the club, but I do believe a legimitate argument can be made that there's a greater need to speculate to accumulate.

We're never going to be high-fliers, that's for sure, and I agree it's more realistic for us to aim to emulate a Stoke, a Southamptoon or a Sunderland - but I would like us to get a move on, and I'd prefer not to have too many more seasons of looking up two divisions at the likes of Burnley or Leicester. I'm as yet unpersuaded by our current strategy, which appears to be to make modest offers for lower league Scottish players or guys that NC knows from Derby - it may be financially sustainable, but is it definitively the best way to achieve what we both want?

 

[Bladesway]

Thought the OP was a bit of a case of stating two polar opposites of the argument to be honest. I would have suggested £2.5k per week for Gillespie was at the far end of low but £10k to play in the Championship for someone like that way over the odds.

There is a middle ground you know. Pay a competitive fee for a player and pay competitive wages. It really doesn't have to be pay nowt or go bust.

Fact is none of us know what we are tabling as a bid but what we do know is year after year we sell our best players and replace them with players who aren't as good. Surely this can only lead in one outcome? I have been saying for years that if you replace good players with less good players, you may end up with a few quid in the bank but you will also end up lower down the table in most cases.

 

[blader]

Clearly we should have been signing Championship players like McGahey and Basham or consistent third tier performers like Alcock, Wallace and Campbell-Ryce. At the very least they should have backed the manager last season by bringing in a Scougall or a Baxter.

Hang on.....

I think this is a very apt post.

1. "Championship players" is a very poor justification. Mcgahey had played 2 games, and Basham wasn't in the team. This is also at a club who's finances were/are in ruin as are rock bottom of the league. So if Basham was seen surplus to requirements there it ain't any great shakes is it? Let's also bare in mind we always signed players from the championship before the prince: chris porter, ryan France, Marcus Williams and other such superstars.

2. Secondly, and most importantly, we have signed 'consistent' league 1 performers. Yes they were consistent, consistently average league 1 players. Wolves 'cherry picked' whereas we have just taken average players from other average league 1 sides (perhaps Alcock as an exception)

And this whole 'free transfers arent free' Which itsinyerblood and many others reel out is just the worst argument I've heard. Crawley have signed 15 players, does that mean ye have even more investment than us?

Who are the two biggest spenders in the league this season? Peterborough and Bristol, well it seems already that is being reflected in their league position.

You can try and wrap it up all you like in the hope of defending the board, but sadly this case of Groundhog Day, means we'll be debating next September how 'this is our years to get out of league 1 again... Probably after selling our best player (if we actually have anyone worth selling now).

 

[Woodwardfan]

Great thread.

My view is that we have at last got a manager who has immense power within the club: all his own staff, his own MD, and his brother as Chief Scout. The club were desperate when they appointed Clough and to this day they believe he is the man to back in the long term. To get him I think they captured his imagination by giving him an unprecedented ( for us) level of power and control over what happens at all levels. Clough was made "Mr United" and he manages our club from top to bottom, through his tried and trusted pals and with the backing of the owners who are "in awe" of him to coin a phrase used above.

Of course I'm guessing all that, but that is how I interpreted the capture of Clough from Day 1 and everything that has happened since, including staff appointments and Clough's ownership of the club strategy, seem to me that Clough has control and influence over the level of investment needed to take the club back to the Premiership over a sensible and prudent time scale. Clough personally suffered power struggles at Derby, as did his father, and he knew exactly what he wanted at his next club.

Listening to Clough over the summer he has said that he has the budget required to do the job of getting promotion. Unlike Blackwell who openly excused his own failings by always complaining about the finances, Clough has personally endorsed the budget available. I started a thread recently saying some things had not gone to plan and that we were after more players because some of the new signings haven't shown up well to date. I reckon, again I'm guessing, that the budget has been increased recently to make the intended three signings in the last window.

What we saw in the window was a manager and MD singing from the same sheet with a common message and belief that they had made serious offers and as much as they judged was needed to do the deals. Even yesterday on the club website, Clough was talking again about the attempts to do the deals, and making the signings in a different form and explaining a likely delay to do with the 93 day loan rule re December games etc. That level of communication to us fans is unprecedented and very much appreciated by me for one. It shows Clough is 100% onside with his brief, and it also shows a respect to us fans.

Clough is here for the long haul and I think he sees an opportunity to emulate his father by transforming a lowly, desperate club. Where he takes us we will see, but if he achieves half as much as his dad that will do me. As "Mr. United" he has a golden opportunity and I hope he's good enough to achieve his own personal career goals. His own career achievements may well be determined by the success or otherwise at Bramall Lane over the next 10 years. We are still at Stage1 don't forget.

 

[grafikhaus]

Spot on. Also, if we can save a bit of money this year we'll have more to spend next year when we can attract better players with the prospect of Championship football.

That could be our board speaking.

Yes, Wolves are still benefitting from parachute payments. And yes, Portsmouth over-stretched themselves. But there is a middle way. Our (latest) decline started in May 2009 when we lost the play-off final. As tragic as that was, it was nothing compared to the wilful breaking up of a very good squad. Since then, it's been a downward spiral.

Last seasons Cup run, excellent (for this level) crowds and Maguire's transfer fee should put us in a very strong position re. finances. But I fear we'll just fritter away this advantage. Anybody who thinks that this season will be 'easier' now that Wolves have gone is deluded. There'll be the usual suspects such as Preston and Orient. Bristol City and Peterborough already look strong. And there will be somebody who will mount a strong challenge. (Barnsley? Donnie? Don't discount Coventry now they're back in the Ricoh.)

I think we all appreciate that 'free' transfers aren't free, but we seem to be going for quantity over quality - a team 'much of a muchness'. We were never going to get/keep Brayford/Maguire, but to miss out on Cody for a poxy £400k was a mistake. Why are we prioritising the spending of £800k on a new pitch over the much-needed striker(s)? Is the current pitch that bad? (No) Do we want the best stadium and pitch in the Third Division next season?

While we continue to tread water, we get left further behind. Could anybody have seen Bournemouth overtaking us in league position and financial clout? Me neither, but they have. Looking at the upcoming fixtures - Rochdale, Colchester, Swindon etc., is anybody convinced we'll storm them? Or maybe get 4-5 points?

Get a proven striker and all will be well. But we show no signs of doing so.

 

[Cyprus Blade]

I don't know anything about running a football club financially but it seems to me we all have to balance our budgets in life - some more successfully than others. QPR may be in the Premiership now but I would not want to see United in the financial position QPR have put themselves in - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...mpetitions-over-Financial-Fair-Play-fine.html

They look to me like another Portsmouth about to happen but the report does highlight some of the enforcement issues of FPP for Premiership clubs which is a different debate altogether.

Its quite clear that the FPP regs are having a major impact on the way clubs are run and the sanctions for breaching them appear increasingly severe. Some clubs clearly are choosing to fly a kite and in doing so are taking major risks to the clubs' future. Personally I am pleased United seem to be working within these constraints. So this means getting Value for Money is more important than ever.( eg. Gillespie for 3k a week seems to me to be good VFM. Gillespie at 10k a week poor value).

Getting the scouting right, selecting the right players to bid for, negotiating the right transfer fees and wages is crucial and I'm not sure we have this aspect nailed down yet ( for example the repeated forays to Blackpool, Derby and Scotland, a tendency to focus on players "we know", the failure to land any of the three transfer "targets" etc - seems limiting, somewhat over cautious and perhaps risk averse). I see this area as a work in progress since the structure and team in there is relatively new but I would hope to see us improve over time to be the canniest team in the league in that regard. At the moment I don't think we are there yet.

Similarly I would hope that at least some of the transfer monies in are used to develop and improve the squad and not used up elsewhere - £850k for a pitch seems to me to be a bit steep.(I seem to remember that a lot of the money we got for selling TC ended up paying off the South Stand and look where we ended up - Division 4).

The resigning of Porter and the signing of Butler seemed odd (to me) given the lack of playing or bench time either have had, and I was getting concerned at what was seeming to me to be a "never mind the quality, feel the width" feel to the squad development (buying players of similar abilities for the same position) though I do I realise the transfer window factors into this "just in case" type of investment. I suppose it does highlight though the importance of getting VFM since a lot of the FPP "allowance" could be blown on a player who adds little, doesn't fit, can't get a game or fails to live up to expectations. Our youth development side should be a great asset to us in this regard I think - Louis Reed being a case in point.

So I was heartened to see an interview with NC on the skysports site yesterday in which he outlined his position in the transfer market :

"The problem we have is that we only want to bring in players who are of a better standard than what we already have, let's not forget we have already got a very good squad of players.

"We want any newcomers to go straight into the starting XI; it is pointless adding to the numbers for the sake of things because we already have two or three not in the matchday 18. We are now looking at loans, with views to permanents in January."

I like what I see in NC and it will take time to get all the backroom pieces slotted in and firing on all cylinders. I cannot see a better alternative to him and I do think he has the potential to be the new John Harris. Apologies to Harry and Warnock fans but I do think Harris was the best manager we have had in my lifetime.

There do seem similarities in style between NC and Harris. Harris though was both canny in bringing forward youth players and astute in the transfer market - eg Len Allchurch in the early sixties, Tony Currie, Alan Woodward, Len Badger, Geoff Salmons, Eddie Colquhoun, Bill Dearden, Trevor Hockey and Gil Reece in his second stint. I think this is where I think NC has still to prove himself. Time will tell. UTB

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

I don't know anything about running a football club financially but it seems to me we all have to balance our budgets in life - some more successfully than others. QPR may be in the Premiership now but I would not want to see United in the financial position QPR have put themselves in - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...mpetitions-over-Financial-Fair-Play-fine.html

They look to me like another Portsmouth about to happen but the report does highlight some of the enforcement issues of FPP for Premiership clubs which is a different debate altogether.

There is a common denominator (see also Bournemouth & Southampton when they were in the financial shit)

 

[Woodwardfan]

I don't know anything about running a football club financially but it seems to me we all have to balance our budgets in life - some more successfully than others. QPR may be in the Premiership now but I would not want to see United in the financial position QPR have put themselves in - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...mpetitions-over-Financial-Fair-Play-fine.html

They look to me like another Portsmouth about to happen but the report does highlight some of the enforcement issues of FPP for Premiership clubs which is a different debate altogether.

Its quite clear that the FPP regs are having a major impact on the way clubs are run and the sanctions for breaching them appear increasingly severe. Some clubs clearly are choosing to fly a kite and in doing so are taking major risks to the clubs' future. Personally I am pleased United seem to be working within these constraints. So this means getting Value for Money is more important than ever.( eg. Gillespie for 3k a week seems to me to be good VFM. Gillespie at 10k a week poor value).

Getting the scouting right, selecting the right players to bid for, negotiating the right transfer fees and wages is crucial and I'm not sure we have this aspect nailed down yet ( for example the repeated forays to Blackpool, Derby and Scotland, a tendency to focus on players "we know", the failure to land any of the three transfer "targets" etc - seems limiting, somewhat over cautious and perhaps risk averse). I see this area as a work in progress since the structure and team in there is relatively new but I would hope to see us improve over time to be the canniest team in the league in that regard. At the moment I don't think we are there yet.

Similarly I would hope that at least some of the transfer monies in are used to develop and improve the squad and not used up elsewhere - £850k for a pitch seems to me to be a bit steep.(I seem to remember that a lot of the money we got for selling TC ended up paying off the South Stand and look where we ended up - Division 4).

The resigning of Porter and the signing of Butler seemed odd (to me) given the lack of playing or bench time either have had, and I was getting concerned at what was seeming to me to be a "never mind the quality, feel the width" feel to the squad development (buying players of similar abilities for the same position) though I do I realise the transfer window factors into this "just in case" type of investment. I suppose it does highlight though the importance of getting VFM since a lot of the FPP "allowance" could be blown on a player who adds little, doesn't fit, can't get a game or fails to live up to expectations. Our youth development side should be a great asset to us in this regard I think - Louis Reed being a case in point.

So I was heartened to see an interview with NC on the skysports site yesterday in which he outlined his position in the transfer market :

"The problem we have is that we only want to bring in players who are of a better standard than what we already have, let's not forget we have already got a very good squad of players.

"We want any newcomers to go straight into the starting XI; it is pointless adding to the numbers for the sake of things because we already have two or three not in the matchday 18. We are now looking at loans, with views to permanents in January."

I like what I see in NC and it will take time to get all the backroom pieces slotted in and firing on all cylinders. I cannot see a better alternative to him and I do think he has the potential to be the new John Harris. Apologies to Harry and Warnock fans but I do think Harris was the best manager we have had in my lifetime.

There do seem similarities in style between NC and Harris. Harris though was both canny in bringing forward youth players and astute in the transfer market - eg Len Allchurch in the early sixties, Tony Currie, Alan Woodward, Len Badger, Geoff Salmons, Eddie Colquhoun, Bill Dearden, Trevor Hockey and Gil Reece in his second stint. I think this is where I think NC has still to prove himself. Time will tell. UTB

Good post. Particularly the point about our signings tending to come from the same sources, and sources which have surely dried up now ( fell out with Derby, Blackpool no old players left).

Overall I'd give the Cloughs, Simon and Nigel a 7/10 for the quality of new signings; maybe that's another thread but probably the weak link in the chain at present. As regards budget, the first thing that comes to United fans' minds, nobody can tell me we are not amongst the top 3 in the division. We should be well placed when recruiting for ths division.

 

[itsinyerblood]

I understand your concern itsinyerblood and I'm largely in the same camp.

But there is a major problem with your "jam tomorrow" argument, which is that we've been hearing it ever since 1925 and we're still waiting. A strategy that can offer us a a way forward is fine, and it's the sensible way to proceed, but what happens if the next five years just brings more scuffling around in the lower leagues? And then the same for the next five years after that - what then? A different new strategy to offer us a way forward, and yet another five years to see if it works?

God willing, I've got another 30 odd years left to support United - and whatever the prudent view might be, I can at least see the attraction of rolling the dice to try and see what success feels like (and one might argue that a good few years in the Premier League, winning the FA cup and playing Milan in the UEFA cup (as it was then) is a bit more than just a momentary glimpse...) You say that the risk is that the club drops like a lead weight, and of course Portsmouth did so - but they're only one division below us, seem now to be in reasonable shape, and still play in the same stadium in front of the same crowds. Of course, the third division is dreadful, and obviously we'd prefer to be looking upwards rather than thinking about the risk of dropping down a division - but I think you're somewhat overdoing the doomsday scenario. I don't think anyone wants to gamble the future of the club, but I do believe a legimitate argument can be made that there's a greater need to speculate to accumulate.

We're never going to be high-fliers, that's for sure, and I agree it's more realistic for us to aim to emulate a Stoke, a Southamptoon or a Sunderland - but I would like us to get a move on, and I'd prefer not to have too many more seasons of looking up two divisions at the likes of Burnley or Leicester. I'm as yet unpersuaded by our current strategy, which appears to be to make modest offers for lower league Scottish players or guys that NC knows from Derby - it may be financially sustainable, but is it definitively the best way to achieve what we both want?

I love the way football fans are beguiled by the chant of "spend, spend, spend". As I mentioned in my previous post, as we don't have access to the accounts of other clubs how does anyone from the "bugger the consequences" camp have a clue what's been spent? The only gauge appears to be the one where a figure upwards of £1mil is an accurate appraisal of the club's ambition. Within that figure I'm including wages and signing on fee of course.

There seems to be more questions than answers from the spend lynchmob. Would any of them care to offer solutions to the problems that follows profligate spending? Please, can any of you lot tell me how we adjust to the disaster of overspending, and that's exactly what it would mean in financial terms. The way Portsmouth's current situation is described, it would seem that things could be far worse for them. That comment about their moment in the sun just doesn't ring of anything worth shouting about, they gambled in a big way and now they're paying for that behaviour in an even worse manner. Happy with that? I wouldn't be. Existing in the here and now is the only reality, not what happened 10, 20, or 40 years ago, otherwise we'd be talking about the fact that Warnock took us to the Holy Land wouldn't we? Yesterday's dreams do not pay the bills that arrive in the post today.

I've no idea whether we'll move forward or not. Like everyone else on here we're all putting our feelings down onto this forum. I just look at what's happening and decide if the actions taken by the club point in the right direction. I hope you have a bit more than 30 years on this mortal coil Hague Blade, but whatever happens during that period, you and I are stuck with this lot for life, that's what following this team means. All the comments I read are based in the here and now. We've only played a few games this season, so why anyone is suddenly becoming doom and gloom merchants is beyond me?

Once more, blader chooses to ignore the fact that Wolves relied on parachute payments, but since when were facts worthy of mentioning when it comes to making a point? By your criteria Man Utd should be in a higher position because they've spent £150mil. Let's see how quickly they trounce the opposition shall we? You made much of the fact that Clough has gone public with his annoyance at not being backed by the club, so as a result of this comment I did ask for examples of Clough mentioning he hasn't been backed, I note that nothing was forthcoming in regard to this. Any reason why? Or was it just an example of adding salt to a wound for effect? Either show examples of what you've said exists or say nothing at all.

All I hear are simplistic reasons, not solutions, to how we're going to move forward. I think our best signing in recent years has been to get Clough on board. I see he's already started to attract detractors, that's the way things are when you manage a club, but he's a refreshing change to what we've had before, and my feeling is that he's got a grip on what he wants to achieve. Whether you and I agree Hague Blade, well we'll have to accept that we have different perspectives on the direction the club should adopt. Probably best to return to this at the end of this season, but now, after only a few games played? Doesn't that suggest panic and a knee-jerk reaction? Best not to join in with this Nuremberg mentality that appears every so often. It's unhealthy and reveals an appetite to comment without a great deal of consideration.

 

[Ted Danson]

As stated, there is overwhelming evidence that money = success in football. The statement was 'game changing investment' well really, the game hasn't changed at all has it?

You can rank clubs by annual spend, and come may the table will have a strong resemblance to that ranking. It's not about 'paying over the odds' it's about selecting the right players and going out and paying what is required to buy them. Wolves 'cherry picked' the crop of league 1 talent and just paid what was required (K-Mac exhibit no.1) which wasn't a hefty fee. There have also been some quality players joining league 1 sides for free, which we have also missed out on.

With a few exceptions, I imagine that clubs' league position from the top of the PL to the bottom of Leage Two corresponds pretty well to the transfer fees and wages that clubs pay out. As a very general rule, the more you spend, the more successful you are.

Theres absolutly no correlation to amount spent on transfers to league position. The only spend that correlates is wages so the amount we pay for players is irrelevant

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

I think this is a very apt post.

1. "Championship players" is a very poor justification. Mcgahey had played 2 games, and Basham wasn't in the team. This is also at a club who's finances were/are in ruin as are rock bottom of the league. So if Basham was seen surplus to requirements there it ain't any great shakes is it? Let's also bare in mind we always signed players from the championship before the prince: chris porter, ryan France, Marcus Williams and other such superstars.

2. Secondly, and most importantly, we have signed 'consistent' league 1 performers. Yes they were consistent, consistently average league 1 players. Wolves 'cherry picked' whereas we have just taken average players from other average league 1 sides (perhaps Alcock as an exception)

And this whole 'free transfers arent free' Which itsinyerblood and many others reel out is just the worst argument I've heard. Crawley have signed 15 players, does that mean ye have even more investment than us?

Who are the two biggest spenders in the league this season? Peterborough and Bristol, well it seems already that is being reflected in their league position.

You can try and wrap it up all you like in the hope of defending the board, but sadly this case of Groundhog Day, means we'll be debating next September how 'this is our years to get out of league 1 again... Probably after selling our best player (if we actually have anyone worth selling now).

Chris Basham made 42 league appearances for Blackpool last season so let's deal in facts shall we?....further to that McGahey actually played 4 games but I'll avoid splitting hairs on that one.

Your agenda against the board is your affair, I have no desire to defend them or try to paint any sort of alternative picture. I simply find your criticism far too presumptuous and early in the season. I have recently witnessed two very solid performances albeit with room for improvement and like the look of many of our new players. Your obsession with how much we spend on our recruits is something I can't relate to.

If Sam Baldock was available for £3m and Nahki Wells was out of contract who would you sign? Bear in mind this is an example only.

 

[MILLERtheBLADE]

An interesting point was presented in a book I read recently: Soccernomics. This was an updated version of a book called 'Why England Lose'.

Transfer fee outlay does not correlate to league position in any real way when taken over a period of years. There are obviously years when a team spends a lot and succeeds, but more often that not, you can't accurately predict how successful a team will be based on transfer spend even when taken with other indicators. On the other hand, a ridiculously strong indicator of league position is wage spend. The teams that spend more on wages finish higher up the league regardless of how much is spent on transfer fees. This is based on the idea that the transfer market is not rational and is distorted by outliers costing a fortune, but the wage market tends to be rational in market terms (Gillespie on 10k a week aside).

It's not an exact science by any means as every now and again a Robson will come along and piss money up the wall which can saddle a team with overpaid players for years to come (giving a high wage bill, but a useless side), but wage spend seems to be the best indicator there is for the long term position of a club.

EDIT: Took me a while to type this, I now see it mirrors what Ted Danson said above!

 

[Revolution]

I am on board with the idea that we should not spend for the sake of it.

But I also see:

- a club that has finished in a lower position than the season before every year since 2009;

- a club that in that timespan has sold its best players before every season save 2011-2, and in a number of January windows;

- a club that scored just over half as many goals last season as it did in 2011-12, and is currently on track (admittedly in a small sample size of games) to score even less this year, with management seemingly incapable of signing forwards who score even semi-regularly

- a club that repeatedly tells us it is going to sign players "better than what we already have" in the transfer window...and doesn't do so.

- a club that (stupidly) promised "game changing investment" and can only point to the signing of a couple of loanees in january as evidence of this investment, while telling us that we will invest when we get promoted...

We have no need to break the bank, but we should be a financial power in this division. We are not behaving like it since 2012, and that is to our detriment.

 

[Ted Danson]

An interesting point was presented in a book I read recently: Soccernomics. This was an updated version of a book called 'Why England Lose'.

Transfer fee outlay does not correlate to league position in any real way when taken over a period of years. There are obviously years when a team spends a lot and succeeds, but more often that not, you can't accurately predict how successful a team will be based on transfer spend even when taken with other indicators. On the other hand, a ridiculously strong indicator of league position is wage spend. The teams that spend more on wages finish higher up the league regardless of how much is spent on transfer fees. This is based on the idea that the transfer market is not rational and is distorted by outliers costing a fortune, but the wage market tends to be rational in market terms (Gillespie on 10k a week aside).

It's not an exact science by any means as every now and again a Robson will come along and piss money up the wall which can saddle a team with overpaid players for years to come (giving a high wage bill, but a useless side), but wage spend seems to be the best indicator there is for the long term position of a club.

EDIT: Took me a while to type this, I now see it mirrors what Ted Danson said above!

Its a good book isnt it, lots of interesting things about Brian Clough in it too, I can see lots of similarities between what it says about Brian in that book and our Nige

 

[MILLERtheBLADE]

Its a good book isnt it, lots of interesting things about Brian Clough in it too, I can see lots of similarities between what it says about Brian in that book and our Nige

It's a cracking read. I really enjoyed the analysis of the penalty shoot outs - though I'm not overly convinced that Iraq will be the world leader in football within 50 years.

 

[Large Mendonca]

I agree with NC about having a capable squad.....in defence and midfield maybe. But upfront we have an unproven striker in McNulty (at this level) and one who needs to get up to speed and fitness PDQ (Higdon). I'm sorry but for a team whose sole aim this year is promotion, that is leaving one hell of a lot to chance.

 

[DazBlade88]

There have also been some quality players joining league 1 sides for free, which we have also missed out on.

Who would you say we missed out on of interest? Out of all the players that have signed for League One teams on a free transfer, I would have been happy with:

Leroy Lita (at a VERY big push)
Billy Knott (Had we not got plenty of central midfielders)
One of Mark Little or Luke Ayling
Jakub Sokolik

I can't see much else.

 

[Hague Blade]

Woodwardfan This is a good thread, isn't it?

People putting forward their viewpoints reasonably, some agreement to disagree, no ad hominems - it'll never catch on.

I've said my piece, and I live 7000 miles away, so I entirely accept that my views are less informed than others,so I'll belt up for now, save for two last thoughts:

itsinyerblood I know I'm childishly over-excited by an FA cup win and a European game against AC Milan, but you seem equally overly concerned about the downside at Portsmouh. What's so bad about where they are now? Are they really so much worse off than Sheffield United?

Ted Danson The correlation of success to wages is a good point. However, hands up all those who can remember the endless recitation by the club of the mantra that we had the biggest wage bill in the division ? So it seems we even screwed that one up, which is why it's hard to believe it's going to different this time if we're just patient and trust in Cloughie.