The "do they mean us?" thread pt 4

[Happy Fox]

Peter Risdale crying in his hovis

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68551806

We've got teams at the top of our division paying five times more in wages than we [Preston North End] are, and that's showing because they're at the top end of the Championship - and they're doing that based on parachute payments that are coming down from the Premier League.

"The top three teams are Leicester City, Leeds United and Ipswich, then Southampton are fourth. Three of those four came down last year and have got parachute payments.

[Danizen]

3 minutes ago, Happy Fox said:

Peter Risdale crying in his hovis

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68551806

We've got teams at the top of our division paying five times more in wages than we [Preston North End] are, and that's showing because they're at the top end of the Championship - and they're doing that based on parachute payments that are coming down from the Premier League.

"The top three teams are Leicester City, Leeds United and Ipswich, then Southampton are fourth. Three of those four came down last year and have got parachute payments.

To be fair, I remember us having the same attitude when QPR, Wigan and Reading got relegated in 2013. QPR were buying players and putting them on Champions League money. I thought we'd never be able to compete with that but we went and won the league. 

[MPH]

9 minutes ago, Happy Fox said:

Peter Risdale crying in his hovis

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68551806

We've got teams at the top of our division paying five times more in wages than we [Preston North End] are, and that's showing because they're at the top end of the Championship - and they're doing that based on parachute payments that are coming down from the Premier League.

"The top three teams are Leicester City, Leeds United and Ipswich, then Southampton are fourth. Three of those four came down last year and have got parachute payments.

 

 

 

And what's his excuse for Ipswich who were you know, only promoted to the champ at the beginning of the season?

[Babylon]

48 minutes ago, LVFox said:

From a purely business budgeting point of view, not having awareness of the levers you have to pull to comply with FFP and the impact of not being able to pull all/some of those levers is horrificly naive and pretty close to a dereliction of duty for those with key financial decision responsibilities. 

 

It wouldn't be accepted at my place of work, and the fact it seems to have been at a PL side (at the time) is abysmal.

The levers were always selling players; the club have admitted as much when regularly discussing our MO.

 

The problem is, as I mentioned above we went from a team stacked with bankable assets, to the market being decimated by covid and not as much money being there. Awful injuries, loss of player form, further rapid changes to FFP, players running down contracts more to regain power.

 

We added to our own issues, with hindsight we should never have backed Rodger's in the one summer window, but keeping our players and buying others was everything people wanted us to do. 

 

 

[LVFox]

7 minutes ago, Babylon said:

The levers were always selling players; the club have admitted as much when regularly discussing our MO.

 

The problem is, as I mentioned above we went from a team stacked with bankable assets, to the market being decimated by covid and not as much money being there. Awful injuries, loss of player form, further rapid changes to FFP, players running down contracts more to regain power.

 

We added to our own issues, with hindsight we should never have backed Rodger's in the one summer window, but keeping our players and buying others was everything people wanted us to do. 

 

 

This is the key issue, I'd argue our main plan was to sell players, but when that doesn't happen, the lever should have been, we keep what we have and don't spend recklessly. Instead, we spent way over in 21/22 and will pay the price. Its pure negligence, ostrich style.

[orangecity23]

Peter Ridsdale angry about Leeds spending loads of money, or just angry he can't afford some quality rented fish for his office at Preston 😄

[splinterdream]

1 hour ago, Happy Fox said:

Peter Risdale crying in his hovis

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68551806

We've got teams at the top of our division paying five times more in wages than we [Preston North End] are, and that's showing because they're at the top end of the Championship - and they're doing that based on parachute payments that are coming down from the Premier League.

"The top three teams are Leicester City, Leeds United and Ipswich, then Southampton are fourth. Three of those four came down last year and have got parachute payments.

For all those on the defensive, is he blaming teams like ours or is he blaming the system in general? Of course you cant take away the parachute payment system as it currently stands, but more money shpuld filter down, then there wouldnt be such a gulf, we'd all agree with that right?

[coolhandfox]

It's not about how much you have, but what you do with what you have.

[Plastik Man]

43 minutes ago, orangecity23 said:

Peter Ridsdale angry about Leeds spending loads of money, or just angry he can't afford some quality rented fish for his office at Preston 😄

I was gonna mention his goldfish!🤣

 

He should just chill out and feed the goldfish!

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, pmcla26 said:

Did we reject any bids in summer 2021? I don't remember anyone making offers for Cags, Ndidi or Tielemans. 

Clubs don't generally bid unless they've spoken to the agent and received encouragement

 

we should have been requesting that youri and cags sign new deals or that we'd consider offers for them. both had two years left at that point.  we could definitely have sold one of them that summer if not both.

[pmcla26]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Clubs don't generally bid unless they've spoken to the agent and received encouragement

 

we should have been requesting that youri and cags sign new deals or that we'd consider offers for them. both had two years left at that point.  we could definitely have sold one of them that summer if not both.

Where was the interest in them though? Cags' agent was trying to get him a move, so I'm sure he made contact with plenty of clubs. 

 

We could have sold but it would have been below their market value at the time, something which no one thought was necessary as we couldn't foresee relegation in 2 seasons time. 

[Ric Flair]

3 hours ago, Babylon said:

We were probably forced to spend when we really didn't want to in the January, because of us struggling. I think they would have preferred to just bank the cash. 

 

They've said a lot of times that player trading was their MO. Injuries that has really dented some of our assets like Ndidi, Ricardo and Justin... oh and even Maddisons ongoing hip problems. Barnes has a bad injury it took some time to get over. Chuck in Tielemans and Soyuncu running down contracts. And a raft of saleable assets was no longer there. 

 

I have sympathy there, but you reap what you sow. And we've got rid of Rennie to reorganise the backroom medical team to, I presume, please, Rodger's, and it was a shambles. 

Unless I'm way off I still don't think our transfers in in 2022/23 would have dented much on the P&L as spread over 5 years Faes, Kristiansen, Souttar and Tete's loan fee would have been about £10-11m + signing on fees and wages for half a season so max about £20m ?

 

That's quite possibly why we had to balance the books even further with the June sale of Maddison but we are still being told to get ready for us having breached in 2022/23.

 

If all of what is being reported turns out to be correct, it seems that we were pretty much destined to breach unless for a dramatic change in our income during the season, which although there are variables I don't see how it could have transpired and that's with selling Fofana and clearing £35-40m in the P&L on him (about the equivalent of the drop in revenue from the previous year as the difference of European football and a higher league position).

[ClaphamFox]

13 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Unless I'm way off I still don't think our transfers in in 2022/23 would have dented much on the P&L as spread over 5 years Faes, Kristiansen, Souttar and Tete's loan fee would have been about £10-11m + signing on fees and wages for half a season so max about £20m ?

 

That's quite possibly why we had to balance the books even further with the June sale of Maddison but we are still being told to get ready for us having breached in 2022/23.

 

If all of what is being reported turns out to be correct, it seems that we were pretty much destined to breach unless for a dramatic change in our income during the season, which although there are variables I don't see how it could have transpired and that's with selling Fofana and clearing £35-40m in the P&L on him (about the equivalent of the drop in revenue from the previous year as the difference of European football and a higher league position).

If/when it becomes clear that we breached in the period ending June 2023, presumably our defence will be twofold: 1) That we didn't gain a sporting advantage because we were relegated at the end of the period, unlike Everton and Forest, who survived; and 2) That we made more of an effort in 2022/23 to comply by significantly restricting our transfer spending while Everton and Forest spent more than us. Therefore it could be argued that we effectively relegated ourselves by imposing strict spending limits on ourselves in the summer of 2022 while our rivals were splashing the cash. Receiving the same punishment as Everton under those circumstances may strike some as perverse - what's the point of trying to comply if your actions lead to relegation and you then get clobbered with the same punishment as a club that survived anyway?

 

When Rob Tanner was on the podcast the other week, he said the club is 'quietly confident' that we have a strong case to make. I'm less optimistic, but we shall see...

[Ric Flair]

36 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

If/when it becomes clear that we breached in the period ending June 2023, presumably our defence will be twofold: 1) That we didn't gain a sporting advantage because we were relegated at the end of the period, unlike Everton and Forest, who survived; and 2) That we made more of an effort in 2022/23 to comply by significantly restricting our transfer spending while Everton and Forest spent more than us. Therefore it could be argued that we effectively relegated ourselves by imposing strict spending limits on ourselves in the summer of 2022 while our rivals were splashing the cash. Receiving the same punishment as Everton under those circumstances may strike some as perverse - what's the point of trying to comply if your actions lead to relegation and you then get clobbered with the same punishment as a club that survived anyway?

 

When Rob Tanner was on the podcast the other week, he said the club is 'quietly confident' that we have a strong case to make. I'm less optimistic, but we shall see...

Stefan Borson said it wasn't much of a defence though, I'd be surprised if it got us off the hook (if we have breached)

[davieG]

They'll want to make an example of us.

 

That'll teach you to try and get above your station leave it all to the Super 6

[ClaphamFox]

23 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Stefan Borson said it wasn't much of a defence though, I'd be surprised if it got us off the hook (if we have breached)

True, but he also made it clear that we're still in uncharted water with all of this and nobody really knows what's going to happen. He also said that Leicester's case is not 'vanilla' because we got relegated.

 

9 minutes ago, davieG said:

They'll want to make an example of us.

 

That'll teach you to try and get above your station leave it all to the Super 6

The PL might indeed want to make an example of us, but it isn't up to them. If we breach our case will be decided on by an independent three-person panel of judges/lawyers. The PL can make its submissions and we can make ours. The PL does not decide the outcome. 

Edited 13 March by ClaphamFox

[Craig]

Whilst we have not gained a sporting advantage in terms of actually avoiding relegation, they will still say we have gained a sporting advantage in single matches in our attempt to avoid relegation. 

 

If we had finished bottom with zero points maybe there would be a case for it, but we didn't. I don't see how it's anything other than flimsy mitigation.

[Stadt]

When we splurged in 21/22 with our highest net spend - we spunked it on players who weren't likely to first choices. Daka, Vestergaard and Soumare weren't what we needed at the time particularly. If we'd have just loaned in a CB instead of spending circa 17m on an obvious back up we'd have been far better off. It was gamble signing those three and we didn't have to make a bet like that.

 

A proper RW should have been the priority.

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Unless I'm way off I still don't think our transfers in in 2022/23 would have dented much on the P&L as spread over 5 years Faes, Kristiansen, Souttar and Tete's loan fee would have been about £10-11m + signing on fees and wages for half a season so max about £20m ?

 

That's quite possibly why we had to balance the books even further with the June sale of Maddison but we are still being told to get ready for us having breached in 2022/23.

 

If all of what is being reported turns out to be correct, it seems that we were pretty much destined to breach unless for a dramatic change in our income during the season, which although there are variables I don't see how it could have transpired and that's with selling Fofana and clearing £35-40m in the P&L on him (about the equivalent of the drop in revenue from the previous year as the difference of European football and a higher league position).

We won't find out until we know how much we are over it. If we are £10 or £20m over, then it impacted it a lot. 

 

Again, our losses might be big, but the P&S  is a different story. Much of it will come down to how they see all the loans and whether they accept they are for infrastructure.

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Stefan Borson said it wasn't much of a defence though, I'd be surprised if it got us off the hook (if we have breached)

Off the hook maybe not, but they absolutely do take into account mitigating circumstances. 

 

If, for instance, we miss out on P&S by £20m, and can show that relegation directly meant we lost £20m worth of sponsorship and prize money (wasn't the shirt sponsor £16m and they walked before the end of the deal because of relegation), prior to the June P&S. When they have already found Everton guilty of breaking it, they absolutely must take that into account.  

[MPH]

We have till the end of June to flog someone! Where’s del boy when you need him?!

[pmcla26]

21 minutes ago, Stadt said:

When we splurged in 21/22 with our highest net spend - we spunked it on players who weren't likely to first choices. Daka, Vestergaard and Soumare weren't what we needed at the time particularly. If we'd have just loaned in a CB instead of spending circa 17m on an obvious back up we'd have been far better off. It was gamble signing those three and we didn't have to make a bet like that.

 

A proper RW should have been the priority.

Vestergaard was signed to be first-choice for that season, he just performed poorly so Amartey over took him in the pecking order (wrongly, IMO). Evans' injury problems had began and Fofana was out for the season. 

 

Daka made sense as the heir to Vardy. 

 

Soumare was a waste of money. 

 

Lookman was good enough for RW anyway, the mistake was not signing him permanently. 

Edited 13 March by pmcla26

[ClaphamFox]

Just now, MPH said:

We have till the end of June to flog someone! Where’s del boy when you need him?!

Walking his dog on Sandbanks Beach.

[Stadt]

36 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Vestergaard was signed to be first-choice for that season, he just performed poorly so Amartey over took him in the pecking order (wrongly, IMO). Evans' injury problems had began and Fofana was out for the season. 

 

Daka made sense as the heir to Vardy. 

 

Soumare was a waste of money. 

 

Lookman was good enough for RW anyway, the mistake was not signing him permanently. 

Iheanacho had just scored 12 in 16 PL nineties, the heir to Vardy signing made sense but it wasn't an immediate priority. Vardy scored 15 league goals too so he wasn't obviously on the wane. We did need a striker and I like Daka, it wasn't an overly expensive deal, the one we should be making but that was a low priority move.

 

Vestergaard was bad recruitment, he'd played for a Southampton side that from memory had conceded 60+ in consecutive seasons. He was obviously very slow, you're right we panicked after Fofana's injury but he's a totally different style of player. He was turning 28 and we gave him a 3 year deal on big wages. We unnecessarily lumbered ourselves with him and given Rodgers immediately picked Amartey instead it was unnecessary.

 

Soumare, on paper an exciting signing but his pressure numbers at Lille were really poor and our the scouts should have clocked the switching off and lack of effort - maybe in a functional title winning side it was just masked. In theory he's very saleable still but the wages we whacked him hamstrung us.

 

If we prioritised a RW (Lookman was historically a LW and on loan), Perez only started 15 games, scored 2 and assisted 1 - which would have been sensible we wouldn't have the headroom to make mistakes like Vestergaard.

 

Strategically spending the most (net) that we ever have on non-starters is just bizarre and as we know now the knock on effect is tremendous.

[orangecity23]

In my mind, the explanation that makes the most sense for signing Vestergaard, is Rodgers asking for something "like Harry Maguire" when getting a new centre back, because he knew Maguire worked well in his system previously, and he was desperate for more height at the back to cover up the fact he was an appalling failure at coaching defensive set piece organisation. (Interestingly, when he got to buy a centre back again, he went for Souttar, once again desperately trying to inject more height at the back)

 

Of course, he forgot that he got fofana in the first place because his pace was very useful for covering the fact he wasn't very good at coaching and organised high line defense either and needed recovery pace desperately, so when that was immediately exposed with Vestergaard playing that role he just chucked Jannick under the bus and went back to Amartey, who was merely below average at both aspects.

Edited 13 March by orangecity23