(01-03-2020, 10:02 PM)optimistic_red Wrote: There is no debate on this thread.
Some people think the club have not invested wisely and risk not gaining promotion, others think this is the best year we have had in many, so they cant be doing that bad.
No one is likely to change opinion and we've heard all the arguements.
"Some people think the club have not invested wisely and risk not gaining promotion"
That is the crux of the argument, or debate as I would much rather call it; and lets face it, there as been no animosity or personal insults flying around, which is exactly how debates should be conducted.
Lets deal with the "invested wisely" bit first.
Does everyone accept that we are working under very tight financial constraints and we do not have a bottomless pit of money to throw around?
I think the answer to that is a resounding "No"; the unfortunate consequence of that denial is the bitterness and frustration which comes into the open when we miss out on players because we cannot afford them.
Why can we not afford them?
The reason has very little to do with transfer fees and a lot more to do with the wages being demanded by players we target.
We have a very healthy transfer surplus of around 25m which means in theory we can go out and spend big money on a player or two.
The stark reality of the situation is the bigger fee you pay the more the player wants in wages; and we cannot afford to pay the wages.
We paid 25m in wages on income of 22.6m according to our last accounts, that equates to wages being 111% of income; that was reduced from wages being 124% of income in the accounts from the season before.
More income is being generated and there has been a concerted effort to get rid of the deadwood; I am not sure what more the Club can do on that front.
On that basis, which is quite factual, you would have to accept that the Club is working within a very tight fiscal framework.
So, lets now look at how the "invested wisely" applies to the signings we have made within that very tight fiscal framework; as Modesto and Anigo have been the subject of a good deal of irrational vitriol, that limits us to the last three windows.
I think it fair to say that we can split this assessment into two parts: the permanent signings and the Loan signings.
Most of the loan signings we have made during those three windows have been appalling; there is no other way of describing that situation.
The only mitigation as far as that is concerned is that we are not committed to keeping the players and we only pay a percentage of their wages; whilst that is an unwelcome distraction it is hardly disastrous.
On the other hand, most of the permanent signings have been a great success; modest fees paid for players like Sow, Samba, Silva and Ribeiro have been tremendous value for money, likewise Ameobi on a free.
Chema looked very good but could not settle, which was unfortunate, but you cant keep players against their will and we did make a profit on him; so he was value for money.
Some players like Adomah have been less successful but he was a free and a gamble worth taking; others we have not seen very much of, not that that stops people writing them off.
Signing players is far from the exact science some would have you believe; it is a lot more difficult than signing players on a computer game.
Clubs with far more resources than us have fared considerably worse than we have; you only have to look at the red half of Manchester to see that.
Clubs like Leicester and Norwich, who are held up as shining examples of how to deal in the transfer market, sign their fair share of players who do not work out.
Clubs like Brentford, who are singled out by some as the model Club as far as transfers are concerned, have a huge turnover of players (22 in and 18 out pre season), which suggests their policy is based more on hope rather than the over hyped moneyball system they employ; a good number of those players signed fail and get moved on, some increase in value and get sold for good money, but it is stretching credulity to breaking point to suggest they are any better in the market than we are.
As factual as all that is, it does not matter one jot because the most important aspect of the defining statement is "...and risk not gaining promotion"
The merest hint that we might miss out on promotion because we did not break the bank in January has some out in a cold sweat.
The problem with that level of entitlement is that logic and rationality fly out of the window; rather than enjoy the fact we have come a very long way in a short space of time, there has to be scapegoats for perceived failures.
I feel sorry for people who take that standpoint because no matter what success we have or when we have it, those people will always be disappointed.
