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

[judge]

I know we've agreed that transfer fees are for show, and wages are for dough, but I couldn't resist a quick look through the list of club record transfer fees. Proves nothing, of course, but you might use it to argue that Sheffield United have never shown sufficient "ambition" for a club of its size, stature and support

Discounting the various Premier League super clubs, who've spent more on one player than we've spent on transfers in 125 years, it's still a long and pretty depressing list - and it may not even be complete - I gave up when I got past 20 clubs:

Dirty Leeds - 18 million; Southampton - 15 million; QPR - 12.5 million; Swansea and Middlesborough - 12 million; Cardiff - 11 million; Fulham - 10.5 million; Portsmouth, Bolton, Stoke, WBA, Hull - 10 million; Norwich - 8.5 million; Blackburn and Leicester - 8 million; Wolves, Wigan and Palace - 7 million; Birmingham - 6.25 million; Pigs - 5.7 million; Ipswich - 4.8 million; Charlton - 4.75; Forest - 4.5 million

I'd argue Beattie was good value for the £4 million - Ched less so at 3, Claude Davis absolutely not at 2.5, and then you're into joke fees like 2 million for Henderson, 1.85 for Luton Shelton, and 1.75 for Akinbiyi. Maybe it's a good job we've never really splashed the cash - we don't exactly have a great track record....

great post and the fact we have never spent much money is illustrated quite sharply by the way we talk of some of those signings you list above as if they are huge sums of money when in fact in football terms they are small fry ,a good chunk of that money was spent from the premiership prize money and the rest was from the parachute payments ,our fans are quite vocal that that money was wasted and i agree but all of those premiership signings were gambles and im afraid that is what you got at the time for that money and the low wages we were paying

 

[oldblade]

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...

We were financially prudent in the seasons leading up to our promotion to the premier league. That prudence appeared to come to a shuddering halt for a while following our relegation back to the championship and as far as I can see did little to improve our position.

Bradford City are another example of a club that seemed to lose control of their spending and succeeded in spending their way out of the premier league and created an environment that made further relegations almost inevitable.

It's not just about paying the market value for a player (as suggested by blader). First of all that player needs to be the right player for our team. One that fits in and will improve it. There are probably hundreds of players that are better than the ones we currently have, but many of them might not actually improve the team because they wouldn't fit in.

As has been said by others on this forum, it's not only what you spend that is important, it's what you spend it on.

 

[The Bohemian]

I know we've agreed that transfer fees are for show, and wages are for dough, but I couldn't resist a quick look through the list of club record transfer fees. Proves nothing, of course, but you might use it to argue that Sheffield United have never shown sufficient "ambition" for a club of its size, stature and support

Discounting the various Premier League super clubs, who've spent more on one player than we've spent on transfers in 125 years, it's still a long and pretty depressing list - and it may not even be complete - I gave up when I got past 20 clubs:

Dirty Leeds - 18 million; Southampton - 15 million; QPR - 12.5 million; Swansea and Middlesborough - 12 million; Cardiff - 11 million; Fulham - 10.5 million; Portsmouth, Bolton, Stoke, WBA, Hull - 10 million; Norwich - 8.5 million; Blackburn and Leicester - 8 million; Wolves, Wigan and Palace - 7 million; Birmingham - 6.25 million; Pigs - 5.7 million; Ipswich - 4.8 million; Charlton - 4.75; Forest - 4.5 million

I'd argue Beattie was good value for the £4 million - Ched less so at 3, Claude Davis absolutely not at 2.5, and then you're into joke fees like 2 million for Henderson, 1.85 for Luton Shelton, and 1.75 for Akinbiyi. Maybe it's a good job we've never really splashed the cash - we don't exactly have a great track record....

This has to be looked at in the context of the growth in TV revenue, which has almost doubled since we were relegated from the Premier League. It's probably reasonable to link revenue to transfer fees paid out by individual clubs. The majority of those on your list have been in the top tier more recently than The Blades, so I expect we would have been in the mix with those clubs who've spent around £8m had we stayed up for a few more years.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

I know we've agreed that transfer fees are for show, and wages are for dough, but I couldn't resist a quick look through the list of club record transfer fees. Proves nothing, of course, but you might use it to argue that Sheffield United have never shown sufficient "ambition" for a club of its size, stature and support

Discounting the various Premier League super clubs, who've spent more on one player than we've spent on transfers in 125 years, it's still a long and pretty depressing list - and it may not even be complete - I gave up when I got past 20 clubs:

Dirty Leeds - 18 million; Southampton - 15 million; QPR - 12.5 million; Swansea and Middlesborough - 12 million; Cardiff - 11 million; Fulham - 10.5 million; Portsmouth, Bolton, Stoke, WBA, Hull - 10 million; Norwich - 8.5 million; Blackburn and Leicester - 8 million; Wolves, Wigan and Palace - 7 million; Birmingham - 6.25 million; Pigs - 5.7 million; Ipswich - 4.8 million; Charlton - 4.75; Forest - 4.5 million

I'd argue Beattie was good value for the £4 million - Ched less so at 3, Claude Davis absolutely not at 2.5, and then you're into joke fees like 2 million for Henderson, 1.85 for Luton Shelton, and 1.75 for Akinbiyi. Maybe it's a good job we've never really splashed the cash - we don't exactly have a great track record....

And nearly everyone of them has either been in administration or very close to it reporting significant unsustainable losses.

 

[Hague Blade]

And nearly everyone of them has either been in administration or very close to it reporting significant unsustainable losses.

Flatulent_Bob I'm sorry but that's an open goal... Do you know what's also true about all of them (except Portsmouth, who've won the cup and played in Europe)?

They're all playing at a higher level than Sheffield United...

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Flatulent_Bob I'm sorry but that's an open goal... Do you know what's also true about all of them (except Portsmouth, who've won the cup and played in Europe)?

They're all playing at a higher level than Sheffield United...

Then you've answered the original question. You'd rather financial recklessness and risk of administration in return for place in a higher league. I wouldn't hence I'm happy with Cloughs position.

 

[Hague Blade]

oldblade You're right(ish) about the change in financial prudence following our relegation, but the problem is that the manager who was allowed to do the big spending was hopeless. We've got a decent manager now - maybe it's time to loosen the purse strings a little?

And the Bradford example isn't a great one either - last time I looked, they're higher placed in the same division as us! I would very much hope and believe we'll go up before them, but there's a clear tendency in this thread to overdo the doom and gloom about administration, and relegations, and financial turmoil.

The Bohemian Yours is a fair point, and it's true that timing has meant we've missed the real gravy train, hence our relatively meagre transfer spend. That said, I know Beattie wasn't everyone's cup of tea - but 34 goals in 62 games wasn't a bad return. Sometimes, even in football, you do get what you pay for...

 

[Latters]

Flatulent_Bob I'm sorry but that's an open goal... Do you know what's also true about all of them (except Portsmouth, who've won the cup and played in Europe)?

They're all playing at a higher level than Sheffield United...

Exactly. You don't watch football with your pen, pad and calculator at the ready, worrying that if we keep spending like this we'll post an even bigger loss next year. You watch the players on the pitch. Do you look back with fondness at the season we broke even, or cheer every time we sell a player at a profit? Hardly. It is league position, not financial position that makes football interesting and fun to be a fan of.

I want us to sign good players that will get us promoted, and then do the same again next season. Would I worry myself silly how it might bankrupt us? Not really. If the football I'm watching is good, I don't care. The realistic worst case scenario is we go into administration. Then what? We dust ourselves off and go again. The likelihood of our club ceasing to exist because we spend a few million on transfer fees is slim to none.

But hey, at least I've still got a club to support, unlike, erm...

 

[Hague Blade]

@

Then you've answered the original question. You'd rather financial recklessness and risk of administration in return for place in a higher league. I wouldn't hence I'm happy with Cloughs position.

You're exaggerating for effect, so I'll do the same: you'd really rather make sure the electric bill gets paid on time than try and get promotion ? Enjoy that.

Why so emotive - it's not about "financial recklessness", it's about spending more of the club's money on better players to give ourselves a greater chance of getting promoted. I do want Clough/the club to spend some money buying or loaning a decent striker (and of a better quality than Derby cast-offs like Steven Davies). That doesn't mean I want recklessness and financial Armageddon.

There's a spectrum - not everyone has to be 100% slasher or clapper; it is possible to be somewhere along that spectrum, and you and I just happen to be at different places.

 

[blader]

I would like to present some evidence for the argument that spending more provides a better final league standing. As i aren't an expert in digging out data, I have used the first data set I could come across for this example. Below is the 2012/13 Premier league table ranked by wages, followed by the actual final Premier League standings. Can anyone spot the correlations? Now the only real anomaly is QPR, who are the true definition of 'reckless spending' other than that, the case seems to hold up in the first example I found.



I don't want/need us to spend loads of money, but to spend as much as the other big spenders in the league would be a nice start. Whilst we can debate the abilities of our players, it cannot really be argued that spending doesn't equal success on the pitch. I am certain this correlation would be replicated up and down the leagues, as football becomes even more money-focused it's only going to get more exaggerated.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Exactly. You don't watch football with your pen, pad and calculator at the ready, worrying that if we keep spending like this we'll post an even bigger loss next year. You watch the players on the pitch. Do you look back with fondness at the season we broke even, or cheer every time we sell a player at a profit? Hardly. It is league position, not financial position that makes football interesting and fun to be a fan of.

I want us to sign good players that will get us promoted, and then do the same again next season. Would I worry myself silly how it might bankrupt us? Not really. If the football I'm watching is good, I don't care. The realistic worst case scenario is we go into administration. Then what? We dust ourselves off and go again. The likelihood of our club ceasing to exist because we spend a few million on transfer fees is slim to none.

But hey, at least I've still got a club to support, unlike, erm...

Slim to none? Don't be so sure. The few that escaped being completely turned over were very lucky and frankly I don't want that sort of circus associated with my club. I want it run properly and to buy players when we can afford them. I do care about the financial well being of my club thank you. If you don't that's up to you but I'm glad you're not chairman.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

I would like to present some evidence for the argument that spending more provides a better final league standing. As i aren't an expert in digging out data, I have used the first data set I could come across for this example. Below is the 2012/13 Premier league table ranked by wages, followed by the actual final Premier League standings. Can anyone spot the correlations? Now the only real anomaly is QPR, who are the true definition of 'reckless spending' other than that, the case seems to hold up in the first example I found.

View attachment 9377 View attachment 9378

I don't want/need us to spend loads of money, but to spend as much as the other big spenders in the league would be a nice start. Whilst we can debate the abilities of our players, it cannot really be argued that spending doesn't equal success on the pitch. I am certain this correlation would be replicated up and down the leagues, as football becomes even more money-focused it's only going to get more exaggerated.

The Premier League isn't a very good comparison really is it....

 

[blader]

The Premier League isn't a very good comparison really is it....

Why is it different?

 

[Hague Blade]

Slim to none? Don't be so sure. The few that escaped being completely turned over were very lucky and frankly I don't want that sort of circus associated with my club. I want it run properly and to buy players when we can afford them. I do care about the financial well being of my club thank you. If you don't that's up to you but I'm glad you're not chairman.

But this is nothing more than a question of taste - you want the bills paid on time, and no financial circus. Others might prefer a bit less focus on the books, and a bit more focus on success on the field. What makes you right, and others wrong - there are no points awarded for financial well-being.

And "very lucky" ? Come on, it's a myth - due sympathy to Bradford P.A., Third Lanark, Maidstone and the like - but when was the last time a decent-sized club went to the wall? It never happens.

 

[Cyprus Blade]

not an English club I know but haven't Glasgow Rangers been in a bit of trouble because of financial mismanagement ?

 

[Maidenhead]

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...

I don't really want a day in the sun.

I'd rather build in a sustainable way until we can have a whole holiday in the sun.

 

[Maidenhead]

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. .

I'm bored with this whole Coady arguement.

When we enquired about him Liverpool wanted a poxy million pounds so, quite rightly in my opinion, we moved on to other targets.

Coady wasn't as good as many peoples fond memories suggest and he's hardly pulling up trees with Huddersfield Town.

We moved on and it's time this arguement was moved on

 

[Hague Blade]

Cyprus Blade You're right about Rangers, of course, but they're now top of the Championship and will be back in the SPL next season. They played their last home game in front of 35,000. Again, for the record, I don't support Utd gambling everything and running the risk of complete financial ruin: I just think it's fair that some might shrug their shoulders at this sort level of discomfort, and regard it as not that big of a deal.

Maidenhead We'd all like that. But it seems a very long time coming, and some of us might be more impatient, and take a different view of how much to risk in order to get that whole holiday.

 

[Maidenhead]

Cyprus Blade You're right about Rangers, of course, but they're now top of the Championship and will be back in the SPL next season. They played their last home game in front of 35,000. Again, for the record, I don't support Utd gambling everything and running the risk of complete financial ruin: I just think it's fair that some might shrug their shoulders at this sort level of discomfort, and regard it as not that big of a deal.

Maidenhead We'd all like that. But it seems a very long time coming, and some of us might be more impatient, and take a different view of how much to risk in order to get that whole holiday.

I've waited over 40yrs for a major triumph and I would like to think I have another 25 or 30 to go.

I would rather be watching an unsuccessful United in 30 yrs than not have one to watch at all although they once won a cup and played in Europe

 

[The Bohemian]

I don't really want a day in the sun.

I'd rather build in a sustainable way until we can have a whole holiday in the sun.

I'd like both. We've had many days "in the sun" during our frequent visits to the national stadium over the past decade - mostly without a cloud in sight. Playing at Wembley generally means a measure of success has been achieved, irrespective of the result on the day. Last year's semi-final was a fantastic memory, etched deep and I believe signalled the start of a new era of progress for the Blades.

We've got a classy Manager who has united the supporters and been backed by the board to build the team as he sees fit. It seems to me that most supporters are saying broadly the same thing but with different emphasis, which is that we expect to see continued sustainable investment in the team and the Academy. In particular we'd like Cloughie to sign a good striker with a proven goal record to make promotion very likely this season.

 

[Hague Blade]

I'd like both. We've had many days "in the sun" during our frequent visits to the national stadium over the past decade - mostly without a cloud in sight. Playing at Wembley generally means a measure of success has been achieved, irrespective of the result on the day. Last year's semi-final was a fantastic memory, etched deep and I believe signalled the start of a new era of progress for the Blades.

We've got a classy Manager who has united the supporters and been backed by the board to build the team as he sees fit. It seems to me that most supporters are saying broadly the same thing but with different emphasis, which is that we expect to see continued sustainable investment in the team and the Academy. In particular we'd like Cloughie to sign a good striker with a proven goal record to make promotion very likely this season.

This. Well put, sir.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

@


You're exaggerating for effect, so I'll do the same: you'd really rather make sure the electric bill gets paid on time than try and get promotion ? Enjoy that.

Why so emotive - it's not about "financial recklessness", it's about spending more of the club's money on better players to give ourselves a greater chance of getting promoted. I do want Clough/the club to spend some money buying or loaning a decent striker (and of a better quality than Derby cast-offs like Steven Davies). That doesn't mean I want recklessness and financial Armageddon.

There's a spectrum - not everyone has to be 100% slasher or clapper; it is possible to be somewhere along that spectrum, and you and I just happen to be at different places.

Always looking for improvement via the cheque book is short termist, unless you've significantly deeper pockets than all your rivals. It also harms the club in other ways due to its immediate results now nature.
It stops youth coming through, ie if we'd signed Coady then Reed and DiMaio opportunities will be limited, as well as costing a lot of money. Again Coady would have cost 1.5 million and then higher wages than both those kids so even if you include Basham's total cost it's still more and you stop them developing wasting what you've already done. Sure they aren't as good, yet but you have to have faith that they will be, else why have an academy if you can't going to give them a fair chance.

 

[judge]

I'm bored with this whole Coady arguement.

When we enquired about him Liverpool wanted a poxy million pounds so, quite rightly in my opinion, we moved on to other targets.

Coady wasn't as good as many peoples fond memories suggest and he's hardly pulling up trees with Huddersfield Town.

We moved on and it's time this arguement was moved on

Coady was their player of the month in his first month

He was sold for 375,000 pounds way out of our price range

We just sold a player for 2.5 million pounds

 

[alcoblade]

Always looking for improvement via the cheque book is short termist, unless you've significantly deeper pockets than all your rivals. .

Agreed, and good point. However, you'd hope that we'd have deeper pockets than our rivals right now, but it's not totally obvious that we have. That's what some are frustrated about.

For context, I found the suggestion that we should "break the bank" ......"pull out all the stops"....."insert other ways of blowing someone else's money" to sign Brayford, a bit silly.

UTB

 

[Cyprus Blade]

Cyprus Blade You're right about Rangers, of course, but they're now top of the Championship and will be back in the SPL next season. They played their last home game in front of 35,000.

I ran into a group of Rangers supporters when they were in town for their friendly with the pigs and had a long chat with them over a beer or two. They firmly believed that they had been shafted and never believed the punishment put on them would happen - but it did. Yes they are progressing back and have fantastic support ( I think they hold the world record attendance for a fourth tier match) but none of the guys an lasses I spoke to thought that the risk had been acceptable or that the punishment had done anything other than harm and weaken the club. They were highly critical of the financial management of the club but, funnily enough, the perception of injustice had hardened the clubs support not weakened it.

 

[Silent Blade]

And "very lucky" ? Come on, it's a myth - due sympathy to Bradford P.A., Third Lanark, Maidstone and the like - but when was the last time a decent-sized club went to the wall? It never happens.

Leeds City (managed by Herbert Chapman) were kicked out due to financial irregularities in 1920 but then the league allowed their replacement to be L**ds United

 

[Revolution]

Leeds City (managed by Herbert Chapman) were kicked out due to financial irregularities in 1920 but then the league allowed their replacement to be L**ds United

Not quite. Port Vale took over their remaining fixtures. Leeds United were elected the following season.

And that was due to illegal payments. Not insolvency.

 

[Silent Blade]

Not quite. Port Vale took over their remaining fixtures. Leeds United were elected the following season.

And that was due to illegal payments. Not insolvency.

Cheers for the correction

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

But this is nothing more than a question of taste - you want the bills paid on time, and no financial circus. Others might prefer a bit less focus on the books, and a bit more focus on success on the field. What makes you right, and others wrong

The fact that's it's a business and should be run properly irrespective of what other clubs do?

 

[Hague Blade]

The fact that's it's a business and should be run properly irrespective of what other clubs do?

Of course. That's why we all follow the Blades - to see that the club is properly run, as a business. How satisfying.

I honestly don't feel a need for that degree of rectitude. Are all of the clubs mentioned above, and there were more than 20 of them without even including the likes of City, Chelsea et al, not properly run ? If so, that's more than 25% of professional clubs in England dismissed at a stroke - is it really the case that Utd's own corporate governance is so much more important?

Isn't football at least to some extent escapism ?