Why is it all about the money?

[Babylon]

Which is you investigate before purchase.

Indeed, but we rely on others to do that.

but would it be the money i spent that was the basis of my disapointment?

It would be a combination of things. Disapointment of not seeing what you wanted, anger at your Mrs for not researching the concert enough, annoyance at the wasted cash that could have been spent on the concert he's playing next week, which he will do all his songs at.

It's not all about money, but it is something that gets factored in.

[marbelladave]

About value for money,

A few years ago when I was still living in Spain, I would travel to England to see a game, typically about 8/10 times a season. Even on the easy trips I would be on the go for 20+ hours, the cost was silly, air fairs, uk travel, tickets and the rest. Not to mention the credit card bills as Mrs M hit the shops while I was away!

And you know what, it was value for money! The expectation and anticipation, a degree of 'rarity' value and a team that, poor though they often were, were clearly trying their best. We undoubtably lost more games than we won, yet I enjoyed every minute of it and do not begrudge the cost one bit.

Compare that to this season, much easier to get to games. minimal travel costs, etc, etc, yet by mid January I was fed up and had had enough. Turning up and watching a bunch of overpaid clowns going through the motions week after week, clearly not giving a shit just wore me down and by late January I just quit going.

Despite that our league position and results this season are actually better than in the seasons I travelled from Spain, but I still have no great desire to go to games, even if we win the next couple of games and get into a playoff spot it will just prove how thoroughly the players were taking the piss earlier in the season.

[Saxondale]

Every thread about a players ability almost immediately refers to how much they cost...why?

Whether a player cost a thousand or a million really doesnt matter does it, or do we only judge players based on their ability divided by their cost?

For the most part, the players dont decide how much they will be paid, how much the transfer fee will be etc, thats all down to agents, managers and club CEO's. Im sure given the opportuntiy most of us would try to increase our income if someone offered us a job.

At the end of the day, how much Mills cost is irrelevant, if he isnt playing well enough to be in the side, then he isnt in the side. If Pantsil is getting x thousand pounds a week but is 2nd or 3rd choice, why do i care? The amount they cost is just part of the overall budget of the club, i dont decide if the beer or pies are good based on their price, so why do we think that about players?

Fair point.

But... the only way to stop this being the case would be for the clubs to no longer disclose any transfer / wage / financial information.

As long as this information remains available in the public domain, fans will naturally follow the business dealings of their club as closely as the team's performance.

Fans consider their club's transfer kitty their own and consider it spent on their behalf - hence the scrutiny and expectations.

[Captain...]

Fair point.

But... the only way to stop this being the case would be for the clubs to no longer disclose any transfer / wage / financial information.

As long as this information remains available in the public domain, fans will naturally follow the business dealings of their club as closely as the team's performance.

Fans consider their club's transfer kitty their own and consider it spent on their behalf - hence the scrutiny and expectations.

This didn't used to be the case though, I never thought whether Mark Blake as record siging at 360,000 was value for money, nor Mark Draper, it was just a case of yay, we have signed someone, or oh my god, we spent a million on a player .

Then that was back in the day when you built teams rather than bought them.

Also whatever happened to tribunals to decide on a fair transfer fee, were they only applicable when a player was out of contract? I guess that went out the window with the bosman ruling, but at least it gave an independent assessment of transfer fees in the current market.

[Lobsterboyuk]

Who has ever tried to buy a team and actually fully achieved success that matches the expectation?

Thankfully seems our owners realise this now and NP will have a fair crack at doing this old school - building and remodelling a group of individuals into a team that can achieve...

[Saxondale]

This didn't used to be the case though, I never thought whether Mark Blake as record siging at 360,000 was value for money, nor Mark Draper, it was just a case of yay, we have signed someone, or oh my god, we spent a million on a player .

Then that was back in the day when you built teams rather than bought them.

Also whatever happened to tribunals to decide on a fair transfer fee, were they only applicable when a player was out of contract? I guess that went out the window with the bosman ruling, but at least it gave an independent assessment of transfer fees in the current market.

I agree.

We never used to churn through the volume of players either. Like you said, we used to build a team.

I suppose squads used to be smaller too. You used to have the first team and the reserve team. Now it's all about squad rotation and having 'plenty of options'.

I think the media have created this obsession with transfer fees. I'd happily have a team full of free transfers! Nugent? Danns? You'll do for me.

[Number 6]

Course we care, we pay lots of money to follow this club. If I gave my brother £50 for his birthday and he bought something he could have got for £10 at the same quality, I'd feel a tad disappointed that my gift was wasted. Obviously the vast sums being thrown about are more that just fan revenue but the principle still applies.

Surely after seeing what has happened to Pompey and Rangers this season too, people are allowed to be worried about expenditure?

[davieG]

There's always been some talk about transfer fees mostly when a record was broken, for us that would've been Alan Clarke who we bought (£150K) in 1968 and sold him (£160K) in 1969 and David Nish sold (£225K) in 1972 for what were then British transfer records. I also remember Trevor Francis moving for £1mill+ making big, big headlines but as you say there were far fewer transfers and this is one of my major dislikes of the modern game footballers are so transient now just as you get to know them so many move on and it's nearly always for more money, but I don't blame them it's the system that's messed up with fans last in the queue for consideration of what is best for the game.

[Captain...]

Perhaps we should have spent more time researching his background because it seems plenty of people in the game new about his temperament and it was just that his actual ability as CB was less than satisfactory, certainly not £3mill better than Hobbs even on Hobbs worse days and i didn't rate Hobbs.

Whichever way you look at it Mills is poor value for money.

Yes Mills was poor value for money, but it is not the first time we or any other team have spent money on someone for them not to perform to that standard, this is why it is much riskier than buying a kettle, to go back to a previous analogy, and you don't get a money back guarantee if it is not satisfactory.

Then we have also signed Danns and Nugent for free, Kasper and Marshall a million each, these have already gone up in value, the others signed this season also seemed like a fair price and we could more than likely make a profit if we sold them.

I guess we are getting away from the op's point, almost proving it.

At the moment everything in football comes down to money, even if we get promoted the first thing people will think about is will we pay off the loan to AFI, how much will we need to spend to stay up, if we don't go up, can we afford to keep the players we have on the wages they are on, will we need to sell before we can buy, how much can we get for Mills.

Some people obsess over money as much as the actual perfomances.

[Guy]

Jessie J says it's not about the money but of course it is! We've splashed a lot of it about and got very little in return so that is why there is a lot of unresty on the subject on here - and Man.City might be finding the same thing to their cost also, very soon! - no trophy and runners up only (second is nowhere?!) unless the Man. Utd juggernaut gets derailed before May, unlikely!

[stourbridgefox]

I think as fans of the club we have every right to question the way it is run, which includes financially.

The problems arise when the players on the pitch are made accountable for what was spent on them. As many others have said, I cannot imagine anyone in any walk of life turning down a big contract if it was offered. Would Matt Mills have told Sven that actually he would play for around a third of what he was being offered? Of course he wouldn't.

Another thing, while the Premier League has provided a massive incentive for clubs to borrow to finance short-term success, clubs did go bankrupt before the Premier League. I can think of three examples off the top of my head. Tottenham and Sunderland (I believe) both became bankrupt in the 1980s and...

in 1919 Leicester Fosse became bankrupt due to the loss of revenue caused by World War One! The club reformed as Leicester City as we all know.

So we have actually become bankrupt twice!

[stourbridgefox]

Just had a quick look at Wikipedia about Sunderland and Spurs and can't find any mention of bankruptcy in the 1980s.

Is my memory totally out? Can anyone clarify this situation?

What other clubs went into administration before the Premier League era?

[davieG]

Just had a quick look at Wikipedia about Sunderland and Spurs and can't find any mention of bankruptcy in the 1980s.

Is my memory totally out? Can anyone clarify this situation?

What other clubs went into administration before the Premier League era?

Middlesboro' did in the 80s as I remember seeing pictures of the gates chained up at Aysome Park, I don't remember Sunderland or Spurs going bankrupt.

found this on Wiki -

On 21 May 1986, the club called in the Provisional Liquidator and shortly afterwards, the club was wound up. In August, Rioch and 29 other non-playing staff were sacked by the Official Receiver and the gates to Ayresome Park were padlocked. Some players left, while others stayed under Rioch and coach Colin Todd. Without the £350,000 capital required for Football League registration, the death of the club was announced on Tyne Tees Television, and it seemed inevitable that the club would fold permanently. However, Steve Gibson, a member of the board at the time, brought together a consortium involving Bulkhaul Limited, ICI, Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and London businessman Henry Moszkowicz. With ten minutes to spare, Middlesbrough F.C. avoided missing the deadline and completed their registration with the Football League for the 1986–87 season with both a change of crest to the current version and a change of name to Middlesbrough Football and Athletic Club (1986) Ltd. With the gates to Ayresome Park having been closed by the bailiffs, Middlesbrough were forced to play their opening game of the season at Hartlepool United's home ground, Victoria Park.^[15]

Considering the difficulty there is in finding examples of clubs going under pre PL I think it's fair to say it wasn't a significant issue compared to recent years whether that's solely down to the PL who knows.

[stourbridgefox]

Ok thanks for that. Not that much difference between Sunderland and Middlesboro is there? :-/

With Spurs, didn't Ossie Ardiles overspend massively on a failed 'total football' experiment and get them into trouble?

[stourbridgefox]

Don't want to go off topic but I suppose the reason why it is all about money is because clubs risk administration if they get it wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)

There's a list of clubs which have gone into admistration since 1984.

[Guest BlueBrett]

At the end of the day, how much Mills cost is irrelevant, if he isnt playing well enough to be in the side, then he isnt in the side. If Pantsil is getting x thousand pounds a week but is 2nd or 3rd choice, why do i care? The amount they cost is just part of the overall budget of the club, i dont decide if the beer or pies are good based on their price, so why do we think that about players?

Is that the reason he isn't in the side though? I haven't heard Pearson say so explicitly. You'd like to think that would be the only possible reason but with Nigel's piss poor communication skills who knows. Certainly doesn't feel like a run of the mill (no pun intended) struggling for form so not in the side situation.

If it isn't purely down to form then the money we paid for him does become more relevant because it comes down to whether the 'other reason', whatever it is, is more significant than 4 million quid. Nigel obviously thinks so but without being in possession of the facts how are we supposed to make that judgement? Riles me.

I know some have suggested that there must be some kind of appearance clause in his contract and that's why he hasn't been playing but I just don't buy that. When you pay as much money as we did for a player with such a high profile at this level why the hell would you write an appearance clause into the contract? Surely all parties would just assume that he was going to play regularly, making any such clause a total nonsense.

[ealingfox]

Jessie J says it's not about the money but of course it is! We've splashed a lot of it about and got very little in return so that is why there is a lot of unresty on the subject on here - and Man.City might be finding the same thing to their cost also, very soon! - no trophy and runners up only (second is nowhere?!) unless the Man. Utd juggernaut gets derailed before May, unlikely!

The thing is even if City finish 2nd, this season still represents significant progress for them - top for 5 months, thrashed United at OT, CL experience etc. With us, I reckon the biggest gripe people had is that arguably until now we had seen nothing suggesting significant progress and that's when heads ought to roll rather than just for missing out on the immediate objective, I hope both us and Man City can have the level-headedness to recognise that. I realise that the levels of investment mean that success is required ASAP, but although its a cliche, money can't buy success, at least not in a simple transaction.

As for players and money, what I think people underestimate is the team aspect of a side. A player who is thought to be worth £5 million for example ( ) is worth as much because of the quality they show in their particular group of players, playing a certain way in a certain formation etc. There is no guarantee that the quality they show when put into a different system will be equal or greater, at least not without the time to adapt and learn. I'm thinking of one Andy Carroll as a prime example of this. Of course some players will, but this is surely in part to do with the new system being even more suited to their role and abilities than the old one.

[wellyfox]

I would think the cost has everything to do with it.

Had we spent 2mill in the summer on the same players we would have 14mill still in the bank to spend.

Also they would not be on 30 to 40k a week(reputed) then praps ticket prices could go down.

All down to value for money.

[Captain...]

I think as fans of the club we have every right to question the way it is run, which includes financially.

I am not sure if I agree with that, we can moan and grumble, it always used to be about not having enough money spent on the squad, now it is too much money spent on the squad.

But I don't think we have the right to actually question it, especially as we don't know the ins and outs and the financial reasons for the decisions made.

We can question the footballing wisdom of a transfer policy of bringing in 7 players on loan in a desperate bid to get to the premiership, but financially we don't know whether that was a gamble worth taking because we don't know what funds were available, how much was spent on bringing in these players on loan, and whether the risk was worth the reward, they knew it wasn't a guarantee and they knew what they stood to lose if it failed, but fortunately we didn't get stuck with deadweight like Bednar and Kirkland and the outlay was fixed and budgetable, and arguably worth taking the risk rather than getting forced into over spending in the always inflated January transfer market, and being stuck with a premiership player on prem wages and being unable to pay them.

My point is we don't have the knowledge to question the way someone runs the club financially, because they will not disclose the money they spend and the reasons for doing so, nor will they reveal what funds they have available and how they are going to spend them.

I know some have suggested that there must be some kind of appearance clause in his contract and that's why he hasn't been playing but I just don't buy that. When you pay as much money as we did for a player with such a high profile at this level why the hell would you write an appearance clause into the contract? Surely all parties would just assume that he was going to play regularly, making any such clause a total nonsense.

Why would it be nonsense, Reading want 5 million, we don't want to risk that amount of money in case it doesn't work out, he is not good enough or he gets injured, so we make a counter offer of 3.5 million. They say look we know he will be a success, we know he will be an ever present in your team and lead you to promotion in fact we are so confident that he will prove to be a 5 million pound player for you we will agree to your fee of 3.5million and when he makes 35 appearances for you this season, thus proving his worth, you can pay the rest.

It is a pretty common deal, and it is all gambling really, we are both gambling on the player actually being an instant success. I don't think that this clause is the reason why he is not in the team, it may be a happy coincidence, it may not exist, but he is not in the team because he fell out with Pearson.

I would think the cost has everything to do with it.

Had we spent 2mill in the summer on the same players we would have 14mill still in the bank to spend.

Also they would not be on 30 to 40k a week(reputed) then praps ticket prices could go down.

All down to value for money.

...and we would have a squad of 10 players, or a really shit squad.

[stourbridgefox]

I am not sure if I agree with that, we can moan and grumble, it always used to be about not having enough money spent on the squad, now it is too much money spent on the squad.

But I don't think we have the right to actually question it, especially as we don't know the ins and outs and the financial reasons for the decisions made.

You make a good point. I have spent 17 years bitching on about the lack of ambition of various boards...and the last 5 years having sleepless nights about Mandaric's dodgy dealings or the Raksriaksorn's apparently bottomless pockets.

Before Mandaric, at least the Foxes Trust had a presence on the board so we always knew how broke we were. Mandaric got rid of them and now we have to rely on snippets, propaganda and paranoia for our information.

While I want a successful side and I realise that most of the time this requires investment, I fully understand people getting a bit jittery about the unprecedented levels of spending and debts we have and the fact that it has not yet bore any fruit.

[Lambert09]

With his price tag Mills was always going to seem a falure. I do wonder what people would have thought about him if he was a free. IMO thats why Nugent was able to hit the ground running...a lot of the pressure was taken off of him by others. Sometimes I wish every transfer was Undisclosed......but then again im too nosy and concerned about my clubs finances

[Guy]

The thing is even if City finish 2nd, this season still represents significant progress for them - top for 5 months, thrashed United at OT, CL experience etc. With us, I reckon the biggest gripe people had is that arguably until now we had seen nothing suggesting significant progress and that's when heads ought to roll rather than just for missing out on the immediate objective, I hope both us and Man City can have the level-headedness to recognise that. I realise that the levels of investment mean that success is required ASAP, but although its a cliche, money can't buy success, at least not in a simple transaction.

As for players and money, what I think people underestimate is the team aspect of a side. A player who is thought to be worth £5 million for example ( ) is worth as much because of the quality they show in their particular group of players, playing a certain way in a certain formation etc. There is no guarantee that the quality they show when put into a different system will be equal or greater, at least not without the time to adapt and learn. I'm thinking of one Andy Carroll as a prime example of this. Of course some players will, but this is surely in part to do with the new system being even more suited to their role and abilities than the old one.

While your take on a player's worth to a team is perhaps a more debatable one, I agree with your A/B comparison of us and Man. City. The blue Mancs have made great strides, relatively speaking that they could've only have dreamt of 5-10 years ago, even if they look set to be pipped to the title by the red half of the city - as Mancini seems to think at any rate!! All the same they have certainly landed in terms of now being one of the big four, obviously at Liverpool's expense.

On the other hand the Man City of the Championship (supposedly us!) have more or less been treading water since this time last season once we realised by this stage last year that we were not going up. Not surprisingly all the loanees (Naughton, Van Aaholt, Yakubu, Bruma, etc) left us last summer, whereas Sven probably got them in as elaborate loanees hoping they would stay if we went up. It was a gamble that ultimately didn't pay off and which lead to us really splashing the big cash about on lesser players last summer more than any other reason. Only Kasper was a true bargain, while Nugent and Danns were frees.The fact that we are still only slightly better off this season than at this stage of last season (6th place pending after all maybe!) is still not wholly acceptable really given the money spent and the wages that certain players are on (Beckford, the invisible men Pantsil and Mills) - especially from the owners point of view but also us, as fans who pay our money to see the team. We were slightly lording it as joint promotion favourites with West Ham back in August but have had a significant knock back since then with all the money that's been spent, people's expectations of us from all over as a consequence of that and with a very modest season to show for it......our track record against the majority of teams below the half way mark in the table, until this month had been appalling! 6th place should be the very least we should expect really rather than talking it up as some kind of huge triumph like we are doing now!

[davieG]

With his price tag Mills was always going to seem a falure. I do wonder what people would have thought about him if he was a free. IMO thats why Nugent was able to hit the ground running...a lot of the pressure was taken off of him by others. Sometimes I wish every transfer was Undisclosed......but then again im too nosy and concerned about my clubs finances

They were undisclosed any figures bandied about are just conjecture based on the supposed inside knowledge of media reporters.

As for Mills I never felt he was 'here' and he had some significant weaknesses and not just his distribution so for me it wasn't about how much he cost.

[marbelladave]

They were undisclosed any figures bandied about are just conjecture based on the supposed inside knowledge of media reporters.

As for Mills I never felt he was 'here' and he had some significant weaknesses and not just his distribution so for me it wasn't about how much he cost.

For me it is not about how much he is costing, more a question of 'could we have done better with the money'.

That's a definite yes for me!

[stourbridgefox]

I liked Sven but I think Pearson would've got better players at half the outlaw.

Freudian slip there...outlay!!