Steve Bruce

[Michael118]

Terry - £77,000 pw

Snodgrass - £42,000 pw

Lansbury - £40,000 pw

Hogan - £35,000 pw

Taylor - £32,000 pw

Hourihane - £30,000 pw

Bjarnason - £25,000 pw

Johnstone - £12,000 pw

Bree - £1,200 pw

Total £294,200pw / £15m per season (not including Whelan, Onomah & Elmohamady).

 

15m per season is 47 times the average Championship player's wages recorded in 14/15.

Average weekly wage for a Championship player in 14/15 = £6,235

Average weekly wage for Terry, Snodgrass, Lansbury, Hogan, Taylor, Hourihane, Bjarnason, Johnstone & Bree in 2017/18 = £32,688

Edited January 11, 2018 by Michael118

[Stevo985]

9 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Poor Bruce, has had to work wonders with a shoe string budget....

Over achieving... almost.

Another straw man.

Nobody is saying this.

[bannedfromHandV]

2 hours ago, vreitti said:

I don't think we've lowered the wage bill at all, quite the opposite. That being a major factor in Bruce not having had more money to spend, e.g. on transfers. Hence, the many loans.

He has (slightly) IMO improved the squad. Results have been decent, but I really don't know who to compare with, since RDM only got 11 games. Best if I don't say anything about the performances. 

The net spend has been proven to be negative. "Investment" is an altogether different issue, and far more complicated, again IMHO. 

Translated for everyone else:

'I fully accept, in the face of stone cold facts that actually yes, Bruce hasn't spent that much money but do you seriously expect me to back down now after I've made it so abundantly clear that I believe him to be the anti-christ, hell no, not me'

 

[DaveAV1]

The money spent as listed above is probably factually correct, however it isn’t that simple. Whether you have £50m in cash or £50m in assets (Players) it is still £50m. So if as a new manager you chose to liquidate some assets and reinvest the cash, then that’s fine. The things to then consider are did you get good value, both in and out,  and how well have you managed the assets you’ve inherited? 

It isn’t that easy to say yes we did well with that player, or badly with another player until it actually comes to them being sold, however I doubt that if we had to sell the players that we’ve bought from that list, we would see anything like £23m. As far as the players we’ve sold are concerned, it is normal for a relegated club to have to sell, either for financial reasons, or just because players want to leave. The skill is to end up with a better squad overall for the job at hand, ie promotion. There is an argument, a bloody good one, that RDM left an unbalanced squad, basically without a midfield. However in my opinion, we have been left with a squad without a solid spine. Particularly upfront but equally in central defence, where again we have no depth and have two players with a combined age of around 70!

As far as assets inherited that haven’t been sold, some are indisputably worthless, in fact worse than worthless, I’m looking at you Micah, to name but one. But there are other players that there is an argument to say haven’t been used as well as they might be. What ever anyone thinks about Ross McC, I would argue that the situation wasn’t handled in the best way for the club. Going public in the way in which Bruce did, virtually made him unsellable. I know that in all probability RMC was unprofessional and could well have had other problems, but surely it would have been better to keep quiet and wait for a desperado club in January to come in, even if we just got a couple of mill and took him off the wage bill. Without all the hullabaloo I’m pretty sure someone would have taken him, bloody hell we spent £12m on him a few months earlier. If you just write that off, then the difference between the ins and outs is wiped out at a stroke.

Finally, for anyone still awake, there is the use of the academy players. I don’t believe that Steve Bruce has used that asset anywhere near as well as he should have. He only uses the young players when he is ansolutely desperate. That is no great surprise, as he hasn’t done that,  to my knowledge,  at anytime during his career.

I’m sure that his transfer income to out goings will be mentioned plenty times in support of him, not least by himself. But it doesn’t really tell the full story. 

[Michael118]

39 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Another straw man.

Nobody is saying this.

Steve Bruce:

"The club will try to help me, I know they will. I'm due to see the chairman. He's talking to me. Money is an issue because of FFP - still.

"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see how much money the club has spent over the years.

"We spent £2m in the summer and took in £20m. Personally, I'm in credit. But I've still got a hole to look at.

"I understand it's difficult at a club like this.

"And I know the people here will do the best they can. We begged, stole and borrowed in the summer.

"We got in Josh Onomah, Sam Johnstone and Robert Snodgrass - all on loan, all good players.

"That's the situation we are in - and that's what we are facing.

"And that's when I, as a manager, earn my money." 

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/881619/Aston-Villa-News-Steve-Bruce-Tony-Xia-Transfer-Budget-January-EFL-Championship

[vreitti]

36 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Translated for everyone else:

'I fully accept, in the face of stone cold facts that actually yes, Bruce hasn't spent that much money but do you seriously expect me to back down now after I've made it so abundantly clear that I believe him to be the anti-christ, hell no, not me'

 

Give it a rest "pal". 

[Stevo985]

5 minutes ago, Michael118 said:

Steve Bruce:

"The club will try to help me, I know they will. I'm due to see the chairman. He's talking to me. Money is an issue because of FFP - still.

"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see how much money the club has spent over the years.

"We spent £2m in the summer and took in £20m. Personally, I'm in credit. But I've still got a hole to look at.

"I understand it's difficult at a club like this.

"And I know the people here will do the best they can. We begged, stole and borrowed in the summer.

"We got in Josh Onomah, Sam Johnstone and Robert Snodgrass - all on loan, all good players.

"That's the situation we are in - and that's what we are facing.

"And that's when I, as a manager, earn my money." 

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/881619/Aston-Villa-News-Steve-Bruce-Tony-Xia-Transfer-Budget-January-EFL-Championship

Great.

None of that says what JV suggested in his post.

[Stevo985]

3 hours ago, vreitti said:

The net spend has been proven to be negative. "Investment" is an altogether different issue, and far more complicated, again IMHO. 

Well, no. 

If you're talking about financial investment, particularly in this context, it basically comes down to wages and transfer fees. Which we have more or less proven is a negative investment SINCE Bruce became manager. 

I already gave you an out by pointing out the real argument is Bruce's performance vs the VALUE of the squad.

Go with it.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Stevo985

[Michael118]

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Great.

None of that says what JV suggested in his post.

Not word for word but more or less.

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, Michael118 said:

Not word for word but more or less.

Not even close.

JV suggested people were claiming Bruce was "working wonders" on a "shoe string budget"

None of what you've quoted is anywhere near that. And none of what Bruce says is actually untrue either.

[Michael118]

34 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Not even close.

JV suggested people were claiming Bruce was "working wonders" on a "shoe string budget"

None of what you've quoted is anywhere near that. And none of what Bruce says is actually untrue either.

The principle is the same.

He's trying to 'keep a lid on it' but at the same time isn't respecting the reality of the situation which is he's in a far better position than 90% of teams in the division. For me it comes across as disingenuous.

[Vive_La_Villa]

7 hours ago, praisedmambo said:

That's the thing though...there hasn't been massive investment for Bruce bar Scott Hogan. RDM wasted bonkers amounts of money on the likes of McCormack, Gollini and Tshibola.

If Hogan had worked out for Bruce it could have made all the difference to our current limping state. 

I just don't think we've had massive investment under Bruce.

I agree. That's why I didn't mention Bruce's investment. More the clubs investment. 

A lot of money had already been spent before Bruce joined. So regardless of what we think of the signings the owner and board may expect Bruce to do better with what he already has combined with what he was able to spend. 

[Dave J]

7 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I think you were trying to say that we should include wages into "investment" too.

Which I totally agree with. But if we're at £(11)m since Bruce came in, then I would guess that the extra wages we've incurred from Bruce's signings will be comfortably offset by the wages we've saved from outgoing players plus that £11m received from sales.

 

 

I think a better argument would be that Bruce has an expensive squad. Whether he's made the signings or not, the value of the squad is large relative to the league we are in. That is pretty indisputable. So should Bruce be doing better given the value of the squad he has? Yes he probably should be.

But the argument that Bruce has SPENT a huge amount of money since he's been here is demonstrably not true.

Regardless of his net spend - the day he walked through the door of VP he inherited a strong squad and subsequently added to this last January  - and without any question should be doing better than he is right now - I don't think probably comes into the equation tbh with you.

Any notion that he has not had the tools for the job is simply nonsense in my view and for the record I am not suggesting this is what you refer to. 

People refer to him improving the club since he has been here - yes clearly the table does not lie - however when you consider how long  it's taken him to get here and then compare the time afforded to RDM - I don't think this indicates a chasm of difference in there managerial ability and indeed Bruce probably would have gone himself last season had RDM not been sacked earlier.

for me Bruce gets a fairly charmed ride probably based on his previous promotions from the C'ship 

[TRO]

8 hours ago, villa89 said:

He certainly isn't and even the 'Pro Bruce' people would probably agree with that. I'd just be shocked, and delighted, if he was sacked after getting promotion.

I will be delighted to see his departure.....when its a clear as daylight, we have a better manager to come in.

for me the obsession with sacking him is negated by the excitement of a much better version.....until that becomes clear, i wil stay with the devil we know.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Dave J said:

Regardless of his net spend - the day he walked through the door of VP he inherited a strong squad and subsequently added to this last January  - and without any question should be doing better than he is right now - I don't think probably comes into the equation tbh with you.

Any notion that he has not had the tools for the job is simply nonsense in my view and for the record I am not suggesting this is what you refer to. 

People refer to him improving the club since he has been here - yes clearly the table does not lie - however when you consider how long  it's taken him to get here and then compare the time afforded to RDM - I don't think this indicates a chasm of difference in there managerial ability and indeed Bruce probably would have gone himself last season had RDM not been sacked earlier.

for me Bruce gets a fairly charmed ride probably based on his previous promotions from the C'ship 

I don't disagree with much, or possibly any, of this.

But to reiterate the OP was that Bruce had had lots of investment since he arrived, purporting the myth that he's spent loads of money, which isn't actually true. Whether he's top of the league or bottom doesn't really come into that.

[DCJonah]

9 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Thanks for digging up the facts.

Can't wait to see what golden nugget he comes up with next in response.

From the guy with the 'sometimes they go in sometimes they don't' tactical analysis. 

[DCJonah]

Talking about cutting the wage bill and negative net spend just ignores so much. 

If people don't think Bruce inherited and then was able to invest and sign a squad better than the vast majority of teams in the league then they are clearly choosing to stick their head in the sand, which i can only assume is to downplay the expectations that the manager should be under.

[TRO]

I am never going to argue that money does make a big difference in helping to get the right players......but.

our approach over the years to player recruitment imo has been disjointed.

in so many area's we have got things wrong.....costing the club fortunes.

We seem to buy the best players at other clubs as opposed to the right players for us....there is a subtle difference.

Its almost been a case of buying players with little comeback in terms of criticism ,seeking a safe bet.......as opposed to building a balanced team.

When Sir Ron built his team they were second tier players from other clubs, but BLENDED in to a team.....we ( the fans) hadn't heard of most of them....some strikers converted to centre halves, some wingers converted to full backs.

blimey the fans on here would have had a field day.....but they ( the players) bought in to it and were HUNGRY.....desperate to win.

Ron, even in those days had journalists taking the **** with his mantra of 110% work rate......We fans could see the transformation in fortunes, so went with it......it was a little bit like the Leicester story.....it was a well oiled machine that had spinkles of magic in Brian Little and later Gary Shaw, Tony Morley.

Workrate is a massively important feature, that sometimes gets overlooked or taken for granted or even dare i say disrespected.....its crucial and on occasions despite going through the motions we do not reach the standard required,that in the main is where our consistency falls short.

i am not sure us as fans today, could accept a plan like Ron had to rebuild the team....i think there would be too much resistence.

Sorry for slightly digressing.

Edited January 12, 2018 by TRO

[dn1982]

So going off of some of the figures on here Bruce has had £24m to spend and added a few high earners to the mix aswell. I’d say that’s him being well backed. Especially for a Championship team. It’s not as much as RDM but it’s a lot more than the majority of the Championship. You can bang on about net spend all you like but I’d rather have kept some of those players than signing some of the ones Bruce has. Bruce inherited a decent squad and has been given money to improve it. Anything other than automatic is below expectation. Bring on Saturday to find out if we have turned a corner. 

[villan_007]

6 hours ago, Michael118 said:

Terry - £77,000 pw

Snodgrass - £42,000 pw

Lansbury - £40,000 pw

Hogan - £35,000 pw

Taylor - £32,000 pw

Hourihane - £30,000 pw

Bjarnason - £25,000 pw

Johnstone - £12,000 pw

Bree - £1,200 pw

Total £294,200pw / £15m per season (not including Whelan, Onomah & Elmohamady).

 

15m per season is 47 times the average Championship player's wages recorded in 14/15.

Average weekly wage for a Championship player in 14/15 = £6,235

Average weekly wage for Terry, Snodgrass, Lansbury, Hogan, Taylor, Hourihane, Bjarnason, Johnstone & Bree in 2017/18 = £32,688

Bree 1200 pw?? Where are you getting these figures from??