Football 2010-2011

[ampersand]

Pardew has been given a 5 1/2 year contract!!!

Gives him enough time to take them to league 1

[Cardboard Box City]

"We would not fear Barcelona" - no, you'd just get beat.

[funkymp]

Few people talking bout this on f365, but this whole 5 1/2 year contract. No way Ashley gave him it if he was thinking of getting rid of him / possibiliy of sacking at some point in the future while he's still the owner.

So surely Ashley must be thinking that he himself won't last that long, which means that the new owners would have to give Pardew a bloody good pay off if they want to get rid of him. If this is in anyway true and actually happens - nice way to do your friend a bloody good favour

[eFestivals]

"We would not fear Barcelona" - no, you'd just get beat.

quite possibly, but they'd do better than Real did.

[jump]

Few people talking bout this on f365, but this whole 5 1/2 year contract. No way Ashley gave him it if he was thinking of getting rid of him / possibiliy of sacking at some point in the future while he's still the owner.

So surely Ashley must be thinking that he himself won't last that long, which means that the new owners would have to give Pardew a bloody good pay off if they want to get rid of him. If this is in anyway true and actually happens - nice way to do your friend a bloody good favour

Edited December 9, 2010 by jump

[eFestivals]

Few people talking bout this on f365, but this whole 5 1/2 year contract. No way Ashley gave him it if he was thinking of getting rid of him / possibiliy of sacking at some point in the future while he's still the owner.

So surely Ashley must be thinking that he himself won't last that long, which means that the new owners would have to give Pardew a bloody good pay off if they want to get rid of him. If this is in anyway true and actually happens - nice way to do your friend a bloody good favour

nah, surely it's about Ashley wanting to turn Newc into a WBA-style yo-yo club .... I reckon it's probably the way to make the most money out of a footie club short of going for the big-time and getting very lucky with it working out.

And of course Pardew is just about the perfect manager for that - someone with a good record of getting out the Champs, but also with a record of being unable to stay in the Prem.

[Cardboard Box City]

quite possibly, but they'd do better than Real did.

[The Nal]

Mike Ashleys scientific approach to appointing a manager.

[eFestivals]

Only because they'd go with a five man midfield and park the bus

yeah, cos that's what they did last two times they played them, eh?

A team doesn't get a 2-2 draw with Barca by 'parking the bus'.

[Cardboard Box City]

yeah, cos that's what they did last two times they played them, eh?

A team doesn't get a 2-2 draw with Barca by 'parking the bus'.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Cardboard Box City

[jump]

Mike Ashleys scientific approach to appointing a manager.

[ralph250]

nah, surely it's about Ashley wanting to turn Newc into a WBA-style yo-yo club .... I reckon it's probably the way to make the most money out of a footie club short of going for the big-time and getting very lucky with it working out.

[eFestivals]

At home. An under-performing Barce if memory serves too. And then away from home needing a win.

I won't bother discussing what a team does or doesn't do to get any sort of result against Barcelona. In fact, what do you know about how anyone gets a result against them?

At home. Definitely NOT an under-performing Barca, they were awesome!

What do I know? More than enough to know that your 'parking the bus' comment was laughable.

Me and Lionel Messi, we both know how good Walcott is.

[Cardboard Box City]

What do I know? More than enough to know that your 'parking the bus' comment was laughable.

[ampersand]

Me and Lionel Messi, we both know how good Walcott is.

[ralph250]

At home. An under-performing Barce if memory serves too.

[eFestivals]

Sorry Neil but that'd be a shit strategy and far too uncertain to rely on it as a model. The money difference just isn't there and imo likely to be far lower.

Parachutes from next season will be £48m over 4 years (16,16,8, instead of the existing which was about £12m for 2. Strong presumption the same rules would apply though regards teams gaining promotion, in that if a team gained promotion at first time of asking, then the second payment would be shared out to the rest of the football league (though primarily the chamionship clubs depending on league position, then filters down).

So if yo-yoing, they'd gain £16m, which would be completely negated by loss of tv money, long term sponsorship viability, likelihood of high turnover of players, likelihood that players sales would be lower due to not doing well enough to stay up, that they'd been relegated, that players would probably incorporate relegation release clauses etc.

Just don't see the money benefit in it over retaining regular premiership football.

What you've missed from your considerations there is that the costs to a club are hugely different between the Champs and the Prem, from wages, transfer fees, and other bits and pieces.

If the financial benefits - remember, the benefits are profits, not turnover (which is as good as meaningless by itself) - of the Prem were as great as you're suggesting then a well-run-financially and not-stupidly-ambitious club such as West Brom would put far more financial effort into trying stay up then they've habitually been doing. They turned a profit of £10M in 07/08 when in the Champs, which is more than they were making when in the Prem (according to here, and is a profit that most Prem clubs would love to have!

I'd say that for Newc with their far bigger stadium, the financial benefits of yo-yo-ing would be far greater than for WBA, and going by this my take is right.

I wouldn't bet on him being a great manager for yo-yoing personally.

Bizarre decision to sack Hughton and completely bizarre appointment imo.

Oh, I'm not saying things will necessarily work out in the way I'm suggesting they might be trying to work things, but I don't think that idea can be ruled out.

As you say, it's a bizarre decision to sack Hughton, so there's got to be a reason why they're acting in such a bizarre way (aside from Newc just being bizarre at every turn). Given the money that Ashley says he's pumped into the club (while thinking he wouldn't have to - he cocked up on the due diligence somehow) along with its huge fall in value and still no real interest from anyone to buy it, yo-yo-ing is about the only way Ashley will see some money back in a shortish time.

[eFestivals]

in what way would Arsenal open up against them that would mean they were more likely than Madrid to get a result?

Did I say they'd be more likely to get a result than Real? Nope.

And for all your claims of you knowing everything about Euro footie and me knowing nothing, you're completely wrong about Barca being poor at the Emirates as Ralph has also pointed out.

Edited December 9, 2010 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

Theres no way arsenal could beat barc over 2 legs. They both only know how to play football one way and barcelona are better. I wouldnt count out real madrid however. The classico was one sided, but only because barca scored early, if you have a team capable of frustrating them like chelsea and inter in recent years, they are not invincible.

[eFestivals]

Theres no way arsenal could beat barc over 2 legs.

In the main I agree with that - if Arsenal are up against Barca then I very much doubt they'll win.

But football is a funny old game, and the seemingly impossible happens with all teams at times, so it's not a guaranteed win for Barca.

[Steve P]

Only because they'd go with a five man midfield and park the bus would.

[ralph250]

What you've missed from your considerations there is that the costs to a club are hugely different between the Champs and the Prem, from wages, transfer fees, and other bits and pieces.

If the financial benefits - remember, the benefits are profits, not turnover (which is as good as meaningless by itself) - of the Prem were as great as you're suggesting then a well-run-financially and not-stupidly-ambitious club such as West Brom would put far more financial effort into trying stay up then they've habitually been doing. They turned a profit of £10M in 07/08 when in the Champs, which is more than they were making when in the Prem (according to here, and is a profit that most Prem clubs would love to have!

I'd say that for Newc with their far bigger stadium, the financial benefits of yo-yo-ing would be far greater than for WBA, and going by this my take is right.

Edited December 9, 2010 by ralph250

[eFestivals]

Far from definitive given the small sample though. One clubs comparitive figures between the two leagues.

Whys that £10m West Brom profit double the amount they made the previous year (when they were also in the Champs), short of capital income?Players giving them one season to get back up and when failing getting moved on. eg. Kamara and Koumas went for around £11m combined.

Higher prem transfer prices isn't as applicable if main strategy is to get relegated. They're not going to make the investment.

Wage differences are only applicable if can sell those players or have negotiated reduced wages if relegated. Newcastle didn't do that, and considering according to those figures they had a 75% wages/turnover ratio in the prem. Coloccini is reportedly on £80k, Barton £60k, Nolan £50k, Enrique £50k, Jonas £50k, Xisco 50k etc.

I'd be shocked if they made lower losses at all last year, short of the £20m+ net transfer income from selling the likes of Martins, Bassong, Duff. If yo-yoing unlikely to have the squad to realise those kind of sales each year you're relegated though.

With probable lower season ticket uptake, lower general tickets, lower attendances. I'm still be doubtful.

Equally you've negated the effect of the improved overseas deal.

Just don't see it personally, at least not as viable strategy.

I agree it's a small sample - but currently there's only really WBA that could be said to be a proper yo-yo club.

And I realise that within what they've been doing there's all sorts of anomilies which might be skewing the numbers. But as you so rightly point out, if the strategy is to yo-yo (and only that), why make the investment. WBA were, IMO, being cautious rather than specifically planning to yo-yo - but if a club was to plan to just yo-yo, they could work things more to their financial advantage.

According to here, Newc spent just £4M on players on just two players in the summer, which wouldn't be a huge amount for any bigger club in the Champs, let alone the Prem. They also took two on frees, and one on loan - admittedly these won't have small wages - but also shipped 11 players out; that's probably a break-even, or perhaps even a cost reduction for Newc.

None of that sounds like a club with any real ambition to stay up. Yet under Hughton it looked they were going to stay up without any problem (they might have been hovering near the relegation places by the end of the season, but not too likely to actually be in them), so why change when within the contexts everything was going great?

Having had 5 managers in 3 years isn't going to attract any decent player who has other offers, the much-needed stability they were slowly getting under Hughton has been blown, and all for replacing him with a manager who just about no one thinks will do better while many think he'll do worse. Why?

Putting all these things together, the only answer that makes any real sense is to yo-yo cos Ashley wants some money back, or that Ashley is completely insane. Given that he likes money a LOT and runs his other business in a sane manner, then the secopnd of these can be ruled out.

It's got to be about yo-yo-ing, I can't see how it's about anything else. I guess how the rest of the season goes will get to show if I'm right - and if I am, then I expect Carroll to be sold in January.

Edited December 9, 2010 by eFestivals

[ralph250]

I agree it's a small sample - but currently there's only really WBA that could be said to be a proper yo-yo club.

And I realise that within what they've been doing there's all sorts of anomilies which might be skewing the numbers. But as you so rightly point out, if the strategy is to yo-yo (and only that), why make the investment. WBA were, IMO, being cautious rather than specifically planning to yo-yo - but if a club was to plan to just yo-yo, they could work things more to their financial advantage.

According to here, Newc spent just £4M on players on just two players in the summer, which wouldn't be a huge amount for any bigger club in the Champs, let alone the Prem. They also took two on frees, and one on loan - admittedly these won't have small wages - but also shipped 11 players out; that's probably a break-even, or perhaps even a cost reduction for Newc.

None of that sounds like a club with any real ambition to stay up. Yet under Hughton it looked they were going to stay up without any problem (they might have been hovering near the relegation places by the end of the season, but not too likely to actually be in them), so why change when within the contexts everything was going great?

Having had 5 managers in 3 years isn't going to attract any decent player who has other offers, the much-needed stability they were slowly getting under Hughton has been blown, and all for replacing him with a manager who just about no one thinks will do better while many think he'll do worse. Why?

Putting all these things together, the only answer that makes any real sense is to yo-yo cos Ashley wants some money back, or that Ashley is completely insane. Given that he likes money a LOT and runs his other business in a sane manner, then the secopnd of these can be ruled out.

It's got to be about yo-yo-ing, I can't see how it's about anything else. I guess how the rest of the season goes will get to show if I'm right - and if I am, then I expect Carroll to be sold in January.

Edited December 9, 2010 by ralph250

[Cardboard Box City]

Did I say they'd be more likely to get a result than Real? Nope.