5 Years Nett Spent - An insight into us

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Rudkin should know more about ‘how football works’ than bloom and Benham.  Having a penchant for stats and gambling know how shouldn’t make them any more business savvy than whelan. 

 

Brentford have big calls to make as many contracts come up for renewal.  Brighton have done no better than us over the cycle. Infact we’ve won a trophy and had two seasons in europe. You can’t compare. 

 

 

Bloom and Benham have the intelligence to concede where their knowledge doesn't extend. We appear reluctant and where that knowledge has existed in the likes of Paul Balsom, some of the analysts - they've felt the need to leave. 

 

 

58 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

During the tenure of our owners we have won the PL and FA Cup in 12 seasons.

 

Benham has owned Brentford for 10 seasons, Bloom has owned Brighton for 13 seasons.

 

So in 23 season between them, they have won 0 with their superior knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a strong argument to say both of them have achieved more than Leicester City in 12 seasons on relative terms. 

Edited 3 January 2023 by CosbehFox

[Stadt]

Another point of comparison for Bloom & Benham/King Power.

 

Midtyjlland have won the league 3 times under Benham since he became the majority shareholder in 2014.

 

Bloom bought Union St Gilloise in 2018, they got promoted in 2021 and immediately finished 1st in the top flight in 2022.

 

Since 2016, Leuven's highest finish is 11th in the top flight

Edited 3 January 2023 by Stadt

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, Guest said:

Saved me a post. Brentford were mid-table in League One and Brighton had narrowly avoided getting relegated to League Two when Benham and Bloom took over so there's not really a comparison, not to mention how odd it is to use major trophies won as the barometer of success for clubs coming up from League One.

And we were doing really great when our owners took over …….

 

Whelan is hugely respected within the industry. If she didn’t have the ties to the family then I suspect she would have gone elsewhere by now.  rudkin is indeed a question. I think the issue is trust. It’s a huge thing in se asia.  vichai (and now top) have complete trust in rudkin on the football side. I suspect that this is where our problem lies in that respect. 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Stadt said:

Another point of comparison for Bloom & Benham/King Power.

 

Midtyjlland have won the league 3 times under Benham since he beam the majority shareholder in 2014.

 

Bloom bought Union St Gilloise in 2018, they got promoted in 2021 and immediately finished 1st in the top flight in 2022.

 

Since 2016, Leuven's highest finish is 11th in the top flight

I don’t know enough about danish and Belgian league 2 football to make any comparisons 

 

but I do accept that we haven’t made the most of our situation over the past few years. Perhaps it would have been different without the tragedy  - who knows. Certainly the pandemic hasn’t helped either.  

 

I am someone who has questioned the financial input of the ownership since we won the title. but then again, they made the point that they wanted us to be self sufficient as a club. That should have rung alarm bells because only a handful of clubs around the world are able to be sustained at the highest level on that basis.  we managed to juggle the balls in the air for quite a time - the next 18 months will be pivotal looking to the next decade. And that starts with us not being relegated this season. 

[coolhandfox]

12 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Bloom and Benham have the intelligence to concede where their knowledge doesn't extend. We appear reluctant and where that knowledge has existed in the likes of Paul Balsom, some of the analysts - they've felt the need to leave. 

 

 

There's a strong argument to say both of them have achieved more than Leicester City in 12 seasons on relative terms. 

That's a bold statement care to share your thoughts?

 

[CosbehFox]

38 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

That's a bold statement care to share your thoughts?

 

It's debatable but it's not bold. I wouldn't measure it solely on trophies. 

 

Brentford and Brighton were taken from the bottom half of League 1 to being top half in the Premier League. Brighton hadn't played in the top flight for 34 years and Brentford had since 1947. Both owners have been delivered new stadiums in areas of notorious difficultly - Brighton went from a 6k capacity athletics stadium and Brentford left a dilapidated mess where its biggest income was the advertising on the roofs for planes on the flightpath to Heathrow. 

 

Both have also identified and constructed training grounds in those regions. Both fielded their first English internationals in timeframes similar to their own top flight exile. Brighton's crowds have gone up 500% (6092 in 2009 to 31453 now), Brentford's 300% (5600 in 2007 to 17075 now). 

 

Their relative rises are similar to Leicester's, if not a larger rise. 

 

Interestingly Benham at Brentford is by far  the least wealthy of the PL club owners. Rated highest on the fan satisfactory list survey as well 

 

 

Edited 3 January 2023 by CosbehFox

[coolhandfox]

27 minutes ago, Stadt said:

What league were Brentford in 10 years ago? League 1.

Leicester where there 14 years ago. 

27 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Brentford and Brighton are much smaller clubs and it's taken them a few years to reach a similar level to us (as they've progressed and we've fallen). We're in a mess, the majority of our squad has 18 months or fewer remaining on their deals, we're not very good at getting bodies through the door and our trajectory is downwards.

 

Brighton have got a young squad sourced from all over the world, including a world cup winner they signed for £8m. Our transfer business has effectively ground to a halt.

 

We've had a good run and most of it was predicated on Pearson and his appointment's good work. The level of competence seems to waning each season. We've gone from CL contenders to relegation candidates in about a season and half, yet nothing seems to budge behind the scenes. It's not just Rodgers' mismanagement why we're at this juncture.

Bet they can't wait to reminisce in 25 years about the squad they sourced from all over the world.

 

Football is about winning trophies. 

 

[coolhandfox]

45 minutes ago, Guest said:

Saved me a post. Brentford were mid-table in League One and Brighton had narrowly avoided getting relegated to League Two when Benham and Bloom took over so there's not really a comparison, not to mention how odd it is to use major trophies won as the barometer of success for clubs coming up from League One.

So we weren't in league 1, 14 years ago? 

 

So what is the barometer of success, if not trophies?

[coolhandfox]

10 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

It's debatable but it's not bold. I wouldn't measure it solely on trophies. 

 

Brentford and Brighton were taken from the bottom half of League 1 to being top half in the Premier League. Brighton hadn't played in the top flight for 34 years and Brentford had since 1947. Both owners have been delivered new stadiums in areas of notorious difficultly - Brighton went from a 6k capacity athletics stadium and Brentford left a dilapidated mess where its biggest income was the advertising on the roofs for planes to the flightpath to Heathrow. 

 

Both have also identified and constructed training grounds in those regions. Both fielded their first English internationals in timeframes similar to their own top flight exile. Brighton's crowds have gone up 500% (6092 in 2009 to 31453 now), Brentford's 300% (5600 in 2007 to 17075 now). 

 

Their relative rises are similar to Leicester's, if not a larger rise. 

 

Interestingly Benham at Brentford is by far the least wealthy of the PL club owners. Rated highest on the fan satisfactory list survey as well 

 

 

So success is measured by building work or attendance?

 

Brighton's record attendance was 1958 when 36,747 packed into the Goldstone Ground to witness a 3-0 win over Fulham, so it was not like they had grown the fan base from nowhere. They were just that crap no one wanted to go, similar Brentford had attendances of 30'000+ in the 1950s.

 

These aren't tiny clubs that have come from nowhere.

 

   

 

[Stadt]

13 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Leicester where there 14 years ago. 

Bet they can't wait to reminisce in 25 years about the squad they sourced from all over the world.

 

Football is about winning trophies. 

 

You're being flippant. We've won trophies but does it look like we will in a year's time, 3 years, 5 years? The decision making at board level has been terrible for a few years now and we're being overtaken by these trophyless clubs. 

[coolhandfox]

7 minutes ago, Stadt said:

You're being flippant. We've won trophies but does it look like we will in a year's time, 3 years, 5 years? The decision making at board level has been terrible for a few years now and we're being overtaken by these trophyless clubs. 

They haven't finished about us yet, have they? This year could be the year, but we will see.

 

Does it look like they will win trophies?

 

In what qualifiable metric have they overtaken us? 

 

Yes, we have had a poor 18 months, we have gotten fat and lazy on success and hopefully, this season will be the kick in the balls we need to shake us up. 

 

 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

So we weren't in league 1, 14 years ago? 

 

So what is the barometer of success, if not trophies?

Not "during the tenure of our owners", no.

 

I've had this conversation often enough, usually in reference to Pochettino or some other manager, so I'm not hugely keen to go over it again in any great detail and I don't think it's especially relevant here anyway - I just think the idea that trophies = success and therefore no trophies = no success is stupid. If we finish in the top 4 this season I would consider it a success, just as I consider taking Brighton from League One to the top half of the Premier League a success. If you don't, that's fine.

[CosbehFox]

11 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

So success is measured by building work or attendance?

 

Brighton's record attendance was 1958 when 36,747 packed into the Goldstone Ground to witness a 3-0 win over Fulham, so it was not like they had grown the fan base from nowhere. They were just that crap no one wanted to go, similar Brentford had attendances of 30'000+ in the 1950s.

 

These aren't tiny clubs that have come from nowhere.

 

   

 

That's a nonsense argument about generational attendances relatively to the era. Dick Kerr Ladies got a crowd of 53k in 1920 - does that mean the support for women's football has always existed and the recent crowds are just a 70 year delay? The 1950s was a different team were people who commonly go to differing teams for a fix of football. 

 

They aren't tiny clubs but both of them have spent more years in the third tier than the top flight. Their progression is significant led by owners who have set up foundations to give their club a legacy. We've done a good job of that too but the legacy is increasingly in question. The journey from the clubs traditional pyramid position suggests Brighton/Brentford have had a bigger journey. For example, there's no way ever Leicester City should have been in the third tier, particularly when there are functions such as parachute payments. 

 

To dismiss both of their stadiums as just building work greatly underplays the struggle of both clubs - in particular Brighton. 

[Dahnsouff]

4 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

That's a nonsense argument about generational attendances relatively to the era. Dick Kerr Ladies got a crowd of 53k in 1920 - does that mean the support for women's football has always existed and the recent crowds are just a 70 year delay? The 1950s was a different team were people who commonly go to differing teams for a fix of football. 

 

They aren't tiny clubs but both of them have spent more years in the third tier than the top flight. Their progression is significant led by owners who have set up foundations to give their club a legacy. We've done a good job of that too but the legacy is increasingly in question. The journey from the clubs traditional pyramid position suggests Brighton/Brentford have had a bigger journey. For example, there's no way ever Leicester City should have been in the third tier, particularly when there are functions such as parachute payments. 

 

To dismiss both of their stadiums as just building work greatly underplays the struggle of both clubs - in particular Brighton. 

No, that was because a patriarchal FA banned the womens game in the 1920s and set the womens game back 30 odd years

[Finnaldo]

58 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Leicester where there 14 years ago. 

Bet they can't wait to reminisce in 25 years about the squad they sourced from all over the world.

 

Football is about winning trophies. 

 

46 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

So success is measured by building work or attendance?

 

Brighton's record attendance was 1958 when 36,747 packed into the Goldstone Ground to witness a 3-0 win over Fulham, so it was not like they had grown the fan base from nowhere. They were just that crap no one wanted to go, similar Brentford had attendances of 30'000+ in the 1950s.

 

These aren't tiny clubs that have come from nowhere

To be fair, there’s clearly a wide gap between us and Brentford/Brighton. Throughout our history we’ve yo-yoed between the top and second division, in recent history (the last ~25 years) before our title win we had won two domestic cups, played in Europe and the period between 2003-08 you could define as perhaps our worst ever. 
 

Yet our worst ever coincides with where Brighton & Brentford have spent a good portion of their existence as clubs. 
 

That doesn’t mean by any stretch we have a divine right to be competing at he upper level of the English game or be above Brighton & Brentford, but it’s clear in recent years we’ve been on opposite trajectories and it’s fair that gets questioned at board level. 
 

The issue with judging this all solely by trophies is it gives very little context: yes we won the title in 2016, but it’s famous for the fact is was utterly ridiculous and never expected and a perfect storm of factors we probably won’t see repeated. And if we’re being honest, our FA Cup run was against our form for the whole of our season, and was rescued by probably the worst ever VAR decision I’m yet to see in Chilwell’s goal (there was nothing clear and obvious to overturn it, if we’re honest). 
 

By the same token, Denmark & Greece have been better teams over England in the last 30 years, when realistically they had great runs including a number of non-tangibles (how do you factor home advantage statistically?) whilst England greatly underperformed in that period.  
 

Taking this back to Leicester, with trophies removed, we had two very good seasons taking advantage of our reputation post-title, but now the players who defined our early PL success have either left or aged to the point their effectiveness is rapidly decreasing. And that’s been an issue since post-2018 when we were still technically succeeding. This is catching up with us at this point and failings in our club structure are becoming more bare season on season. 
 

Is this an issue where the man at the top changing has unravelled things? That the slow erosion of values and culture instilled by previous managerial regimes have left us without direction and those in place aren’t strong enough to guide us without it? A mix of both? This debate has been had a million times so I’m not keen on having it again, but either option leads to the fact that higher management haven’t identified and tackled this trend, instead it seems to have been put on the manager to set right (ie the Congerton hire) and it’s simply not worked. Either way, the way we conduct business needs to be reformed in some way or another, and pretty immediately, because I can’t see us getting away with business as usual for another season.

[CosbehFox]

24 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

No, that was because a patriarchal FA banned the womens game in the 1920s and set the womens game back 30 odd years

Exactly my point - there was an if and a but to why the crowds dipped when women's football returned. In the same way, there is an if and a but as to why in the 1950s crowds were as high as they were (post war hype/football wasn't quite as tribal). Same could be said if a point was being made using attendances from the 1980s when they dipped to really low level because of hooliganism. 

 

If I am charting a clubs' growth in attendances however over the last twelve years, it's a fair comparison as the societal influences are 95% the same over that period.  

[FoxesWalk]

On 31/12/2022 at 20:29, Sly said:

 

The five year net spend by Premier League clubs gives some insight in how the table looks and shows why we’ve over performed. 
 

1) Manchester United: £-545.8m

2) Arsenal: £-440.4m

3) Chelsea: £-384m

4) West Ham: £-355.7m

5) Tottenham: £-331.45m

6) Newcastle: £-314m

7) Aston Villa: £-259.97m

8) Wolves: £-248.36m

9) Liverpool: £-216.61m

10) Manchester City: £-213.8m

11) Fulham: £-192.51m

12) Everton: £-168.3m

13) Nottingham Forest: £151.77m

14) Leeds United: £-123.15m

15) Southampton: £-121.93m

16) Crystal Palace: £-72.8m

17) Brighton: £-56.67m

18) Leicester: £-35.48m

19) Bournemouth: £-7.45m

20) Brentford: £100,000

We’ve put the money into long term investments like the training ground and we’re now looking at the stadium.
 

The concerning thing is, why have we needed the loans to finance certain things. 
 

Are we really forking that much out in wages that we’ve crippled ourselves, or are we really not spending like other clubs do in this league to maintain status? 
 

I’m not sure how much longer we can continue along this path though, without further investment or selling the part or all of the club. 
 

Would we ever look at sell, or will we drop back to clubs that spend at a similar level? We can’t rely on selling assets and when we do, that’s needs re-investing into the team. 
 

Half the Championship has a higher 5 year net spend than us. 

Is this transfer only net spend? 

[Death by Football]

24 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

To be fair, there’s clearly a wide gap between us and Brentford/Brighton. Throughout our history we’ve yo-yoed between the top and second division, in recent history (the last ~25 years) before our title win we had won two domestic cups, played in Europe and the period between 2003-08 you could define as perhaps our worst ever. 
 

Yet our worst ever coincides with where Brighton & Brentford have spent a good portion of their existence as clubs. 
 

That doesn’t mean by any stretch we have a divine right to be competing at he upper level of the English game or be above Brighton & Brentford, but it’s clear in recent years we’ve been on opposite trajectories and it’s fair that gets questioned at board level. 
 

The issue with judging this all solely by trophies is it gives very little context: yes we won the title in 2016, but it’s famous for the fact is was utterly ridiculous and never expected and a perfect storm of factors we probably won’t see repeated. And if we’re being honest, our FA Cup run was against our form for the whole of our season, and was rescued by probably the worst ever VAR decision I’m yet to see in Chilwell’s goal (there was nothing clear and obvious to overturn it, if we’re honest). 
 

By the same token, Denmark & Greece have been better teams over England in the last 30 years, when realistically they had great runs including a number of non-tangibles (how do you factor home advantage statistically?) whilst England greatly underperformed in that period.  
 

Taking this back to Leicester, with trophies removed, we had two very good seasons taking advantage of our reputation post-title, but now the players who defined our early PL success have either left or aged to the point their effectiveness is rapidly decreasing. And that’s been an issue since post-2018 when we were still technically succeeding. This is catching up with us at this point and failings in our club structure are becoming more bare season on season. 
 

Is this an issue where the man at the top changing has unravelled things? That the slow erosion of values and culture instilled by previous managerial regimes have left us without direction and those in place aren’t strong enough to guide us without it? A mix of both? This debate has been had a million times so I’m not keen on having it again, but either option leads to the fact that higher management haven’t identified and tackled this trend, instead it seems to have been put on the manager to set right (ie the Congerton hire) and it’s simply not worked. Either way, the way we conduct business needs to be reformed in some way or another, and pretty immediately, because I can’t see us getting away with business as usual for another season.

It's so difficult to quantify success finding a metric that encompasses all teams.  It gets mixed up with size of club, attractiveness of club etc.

I'd say that Greece and Denmark are a bad example as they were playing in the same competitions as England and yet they won something and we won nothing.  By that rationale they were certainly more successful. 

I'd argue that Leicester have been more successful than Brighton/Brentford over the last decade because we massively exceeded our expectations/targets by winning the Premier League whereas the other two have achieved their goals of making it to the premier league and staying there. 

If you use trophies won as the only metric then there's a number of yo-yo teams who win a league every other year then get relegated again who could be considered successful.

When it comes down to it, the only metric that matters is league position right now and both Brighton and Brentford are above us and I agree our Leadership team need to get their fingers out and try and address that.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

5 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

The issue with judging this all solely by trophies is it gives very little context: yes we won the title in 2016, but it’s famous for the fact is was utterly ridiculous and never expected and a perfect storm of factors we probably won’t see repeated. And if we’re being honest, our FA Cup run was against our form for the whole of our season, and was rescued by probably the worst ever VAR decision I’m yet to see in Chilwell’s goal (there was nothing clear and obvious to overturn it, if we’re honest). 

Couldn’t let this go unchallenged. It’s absolute nonsense and the decision was roundly lauded for being correct in the aftermath of the final.

[Stadt]

On 03/01/2023 at 12:57, Stadt said:

Brentford and Brighton are owned by fans of their respective clubs who made their fortunes in football gambling. Their net worth is nowhere near Top's but because they're actually aware how football works they can leverage their knowledge for their clubs. Top, Whelan and Rudkin don't have have that knowledge so we're more at the mercy of our manager than most clubs. That was fine when Pearson & co were in charge because, quite rarely for a manager these days, Pearson was interested in long term club building efforts.

 

When you have a self-serving manger with no long term track record at clubs you encounter problems. Signings are scattergun, contracts are mismanaged, finances are stretched. Sound familiar?

 

On 03/01/2023 at 14:44, Stadt said:

What I probably missed out on was their recruitment provides excellent value for money because they're so into analytics. We seem to dabble then number ourselves with shit signings a strong analytics culture would swerve. I'm sure the junior analysts would have tried to veto the Vestergaard, Bertrand and Perez signings but we ended up with them anyway.

 

Rudkin was an academy coach and has worked his way up, maybe he is uniquely qualified for the for the Leicester job amongst the 100s of DOFs across the world and we couldn't get anyone better but I doubt it.

 

We're in a sticky situation and there seems to be this meek acceptance that nothing should change at director and board level. If everybody stays in their posts they'll be at a championship club sooner rather than later.

 

On 03/01/2023 at 14:57, Stadt said:

Another point of comparison for Bloom & Benham/King Power.

 

Midtyjlland have won the league 3 times under Benham since he became the majority shareholder in 2014.

 

Bloom bought Union St Gilloise in 2018, they got promoted in 2021 and immediately finished 1st in the top flight in 2022.

 

Since 2016, Leuven's highest finish is 11th in the top flight

It's a shame I was right 

[Dan]

This thread is a good example of outcome bias. We would obviously all take the trophies over what Brighton have so far achieved but that doesn't change the fact they were, and now abundantly are on a better trajectory than us. I see people saying they think Brighton will drop off "when they lose players" but they've already lost probably more starters than we lost in less of a period of time, from less of a position of original strength and they're still going strongly. The difference with Leicester and Brighton, and Brentford as well is that the genius of those two clubs is unpoachable, it comes right from the top and it's why neither will drop off, like others could well do, like us, Southampton and Swansea did.

Edited 11 August 2023 by Dan LCFC