New Manager Speculation

[Rob182]

On 4/12/2018 at 18:42, DaveAV1 said:

Pepe may want to come to resurrect his career.....

I hear he does great chicken.

[sexbelowsound]

I was of the opinion that Bruce would be given the chance in the Premier League if we get there but now i'm not so sure.

I think our runs of poor form after making it to second have really damaged his credibility. He is great when defending a lead but when we need goals his tactics are bordering on the amateurish.

It might have been one team to get us up, one to stay up but I also think that extends to the manager.

[Rob182]

28 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

It was in reference to the ongoing misunderstanding that SB has spent a lot of money.

He has not, that is a fact.

He spent 'big' on one player. 

There are a lot of things to reasonably debate about SB but to accuse him of having spent lots of money is not one of them.

Surely wages are taken into consideration when determining what he has spent on players? In which case, he has spent 'big on at least two players. Terry and Hogan. We're probably spending a fair chunk of weekly wages on Jedi, Whelan and Snodgrass too. 

[bannedfromHandV]

48 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

Surely wages are taken into consideration when determining what he has spent on players? In which case, he has spent 'big on at least two players. Terry and Hogan. We're probably spending a fair chunk of weekly wages on Jedi, Whelan and Snodgrass too. 

Given that you never truly know it's generally not factored in, people look at confirmed transfer spending, of which there hasn't been 'much' during SB's tenure.

Sunderland probably have a really high wage bill for the division, would you therefore say that they should be pulling up trees too?

[villa4europe]

Its not the amount hes spent that is the worry its what its been spent on and how he has used those players

Every danger we have scouting issues

But based on what we have bought under bruce would you trust him to but in the quality we would need next season? Or 2/3 gems that would enable us to develop them and sell for profit should the worst happen

Or do you think the links to livermore etc would happen? 

[Mark Albrighton]

Yeah I’d factor in player wages as part of the equation when discussing whether the manager has spent wisely. 

It’s regularly used as a stick to beat MON with so it’s only fair it applies to all managers.

I wouldn’t put Jedinak’s wages on Bruce though @Rob182, he’s another one of Roberto’s boys.

[rubberman]

2 hours ago, sexbelowsound said:

I was of the opinion that Bruce would be given the chance in the Premier League if we get there but now i'm not so sure.

I think our runs of poor form after making it to second have really damaged his credibility. He is great when defending a lead but when we need goals his tactics are bordering on the amateurish.

It might have been one team to get us up, one to stay up but I also think that extends to the manager.

Yep - if we'd been in Wolves position, or cruised up in second I'd be giving him a go in the PL, but stumbling up (hopefully) through the playoffs from 4th and I can see him getting a thanks and bye.  That is IF there is an obviously better replacement available.

[Rob182]

16 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Given that you never truly know it's generally not factored in, people look at confirmed transfer spending, of which there hasn't been 'much' during SB's tenure.

Sunderland probably have a really high wage bill for the division, would you therefore say that they should be pulling up trees too?

If by 'pulling up trees', you mean challenging for promotion, then yes. I would say that all relegated Premier League teams should be aiming to go back up on the first attempt, or finishing in a play-off place at minimum.

Sunderland have massively underacheived in comparison to their spending (wages or transfer fees). Hull probably have too, although I don't think the extent of their spending is as bad as Sunderland's.

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, Rob182 said:

If by 'pulling up trees', you mean challenging for promotion, then yes. I would say that all relegated Premier League teams should be aiming to go back up on the first attempt, or finishing in a play-off place at minimum.

Sunderland have massively underacheived in comparison to their spending (wages or transfer fees). Hull probably have too, although I don't think the extent of their spending is as bad as Sunderland's.

Okay, I don't think Sunderland have actually spent that much this past 12 months though I could be wrong, I can't say I've followed them that closely.

Their squad is dogshit, much the same as ours was when we came down, if you think that squad should be challenging for promotion then there's little point continuing this conversation.

[AntrimBlack]

17 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Given that you never truly know it's generally not factored in, people look at confirmed transfer spending, of which there hasn't been 'much' during SB's tenure.

Sunderland probably have a really high wage bill for the division, would you therefore say that they should be pulling up trees too?

Based on that, they probably should. The difference is, they have spent badly on wages and players, Bruce has spent, and you must include wages, both wisely and, less so, badly, like any manager.

But, importantly, his spending has got us into the playoffs, that is the difference between us and Sunderland.

But, in my opinion, there is a debate as to whither, with the money afforded him, we should have got automatic promotion.

In my opinion, he should have. But if he gets us promoted through the playoffs, job done no problem.

It would, however, still effect my opinion as to whether he would be the man to take us any further.

[bannedfromHandV]

15 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

Based on that, they probably should. The difference is, they have spent badly on wages and players, Bruce has spent, and you must include wages, both wisely and, less so, badly, like any manager.

But, importantly, his spending has got us into the playoffs, that is the difference between us and Sunderland.

But, in my opinion, there is a debate as to whither, with the money afforded him, we should have got automatic promotion.

In my opinion, he should have. But if he gets us promoted through the playoffs, job done no problem.

It would, however, still effect my opinion as to whether he would be the man to take us any further.

So you would look at Sunderlands squad, and think to yourself, 'man, that is a promotion winning team right there' right?

Or are you just applying the usual backward logic of high wages = good players?

Money does not equal success.

[Rob182]

21 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Okay, I don't think Sunderland have actually spent that much this past 12 months though I could be wrong, I can't say I've followed them that closely.

Their squad is dogshit, much the same as ours was when we came down, if you think that squad should be challenging for promotion then there's little point continuing this conversation.

That's a very narrow-minded stance, if you don't mind me saying.

You don't know much about Sunderland's spending in the last 12 months (which was the team you decided to bring into the discussion, and the 'past 12 months' wasn't even mentioned until this post of yours), and you can't accept my view that in-line with their wages, which should be classed as ongoing 'spending' they should be at least aiming for play-offs, so you want to stop the conversation. You may as well have put your fingers in your ears and walked away shouting "la la la laaa".

Just doing a quick google search and looking at Sunderland's squad, I'd imagine that all of the following were signed up on decent lower-Premier League wage deals: Rodwell, Gibson, Cattermole, O'Shea, Jermain Lens & Brian Oviedo. With the following players probably also getting a fairly reasonable wage also: McNair, Galloway, McGeady, McManaman, Wilson, Watmore, Kone & Jones.

As @AntrimBlack has said, the difference between us and Sunderland is that we seem to have made some good signings, whereas theirs seem to have all been fairly poor - or least not good enough to turn their ageing wreck of a squad round.

[Rob182]

2 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

So you would look at Sunderlands squad, and think to yourself, 'man, that is a promotion winning team right there' right?

Or are you just applying the usual backward logic of high wages = good players?

Money does not equal success.

Do you honestly believe that? Really... Honestly? 

 

Of course money does not equal instant success, or success in the form of silverware, but money in football is the one thing that makes the biggest difference. That's clear for even the youngest, Man-City-top-wearing football fan.

Generally the balance of teams from top to bottom will show you the highest spending down to the lowest, except for in the anomoly situations like Leicester winning the league under Ranieri, or Wolves spending little and winning the league (but having huge backing in the form of one of the richest companies in the world and having fingers in the richest pies in the world).

[bannedfromHandV]

Just now, Rob182 said:

That's a very narrow-minded stance, if you don't mind me saying.

You don't know much about Sunderland's spending in the last 12 months (which was the team you decided to bring into the discussion, and the 'past 12 months' wasn't even mentioned until this post of yours), and you can't accept my view that in-line with their wages, which should be classed as ongoing 'spending' they should be at least aiming for play-offs, so you want to stop the conversation. You may as well have put your fingers in your ears and walked away shouting "la la la laaa".

Just doing a quick google search and looking at Sunderland's squad, I'd imagine that all of the following were signed up on decent lower-Premier League wage deals: Rodwell, Gibson, Cattermole, O'Shea, Jermain Lens & Brian Oviedo. With the following players probably also getting a fairly reasonable wage also: McNair, Galloway, McGeady, McManaman, Wilson, Watmore, Kone & Jones.

As @AntrimBlack has said, the difference between us and Sunderland is that we seem to have made some good signings, whereas theirs seem to have all been fairly poor - or least not good enough to turn their ageing wreck of a squad round.

But you are saying that due to having a high wage bill they should be challenging for promotion, like one automatically dictates the other - that's narrow minded.

Sunderland's spending in the past 12 months has been less than £2m apparently, so no, I do not accept that because they have high wages (bearing in mind, that's being spent on the likes of Jack Rodwell and Darron Gibson, amongst other complete jokes) they should be challenging for promotion.

Using our high wage bill as a stick to beat SB with is irrelevant in my view, he inherited most of that cost much as Coleman has at Sunderland, the wages he's added have been spent on decent quality and hence why we ARE challenging for promotion.

 

Interestingly (and not directly related), transfermarkt.com has us pretty much where we are in terms of the value of our squad:

 

	Fulham FC	24	25,3	17	£96.30m	£4.01m
	Wolverhampton Wanderers	25	25,0	17	£87.30m	£3.49m
	Aston Villa	29	28,2	16	£79.20m	£2.73m
	Middlesbrough FC	22	28,0	9	£74.57m	£3.39m
	Hull City	30	26,2	17	£56.21m	£1.87m
	Sheffield Wednesday	29	28,2	18	£54.61m	£1.88m
	Cardiff City	30	28,1	29	£50.90m	£1.70m
	Leeds United	29	25,4	21	£50.31m	£1.73m
	Derby County	23	28,6	11	£46.08m	£2.00m
	Sunderland AFC	28	26,0	14	£45.23m	£1.62m
	Nottingham Forest	30	27,3	17	£45.09m	£1.50m
	Norwich City	25	26,2	17	£42.30m	£1.69m
	Bristol City	25	26,2	10	£40.55m	£1.62m
	Reading FC	28	27,0	18	£40.37m	£1.44m
	Birmingham City	25	27,3	7	£34.11m	£1.36m
	Brentford FC	23	24,7	15	£32.94m	£1.43m
	Queens Park Rangers	28	25,8	12	£30.15m	£1.08m
	Ipswich Town	29	25,5	12	£20.75m	£715k
	Bolton Wanderers	29	28,3	8	£20.30m	£700k
	Sheffield United	27	27,3	10	£18.97m	£703k
	Barnsley FC	28	24,3	13	£17.46m	£624k
	Preston North End	25	25,6	8	£12.65m	£506k
	Millwall FC	29	26,2	11	£12.33m	£425k
	Burton Albion	25	27,6	7	£8.01m	£320k

[bannedfromHandV]

2 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

Do you honestly believe that? Really... Honestly? 

 

Of course money does not equal instant success, or success in the form of silverware, but money in football is the one thing that makes the biggest difference. That's clear for even the youngest, Man-City-top-wearing football fan.

Generally the balance of teams from top to bottom will show you the highest spending down to the lowest, except for in the anomoly situations like Leicester winning the league under Ranieri, or Wolves spending little and winning the league (but having huge backing in the form of one of the richest companies in the world and having fingers in the richest pies in the world).

Okay cool, that's why Burnley are 2 points behind Arsenal, despite Arsenal spending more on one player than Burnely have on their first XI.

It's why Leicester won the league.

It's why Cardiff are going to get promoted.

I can go on.....

[Rob182]

Maybe you just got a sudden rush of blood to the head when posting your 'Okay cool' response @bannedfromHandV, as you must not have seen that I even referenced the Leicester that won the league in my post, as there will always be the anomolies that go against the rule. Look at the list of the highest to lowest spenders that you just posted, it's very similar to the actual league table in most cases, but with Hull and Sunderland (surprise, surprise), appearing at the wrong end of the table, as is their underacheivement this season, and Milwall & Preston at the other end, due to their overacheivement.

I haven't once said that Sunderland's squad is one that should be challenging for promotion, so you've twisted my post nicely there. But I've said that they, as a football team, (and as a team that has just dropped out of the richest league in the world) should be aiming for Top 6/ promotion. Whether that means bringing in a more competent manager to get their squad of partial Premier League quality players firing whilst bringing in new blood to improve them, or whether that means shipping out high earners in any way possible (loan/ sale/ sale with Sunderland paying part of their wages for the new club) and starting from scratch with a largely new squad. Whatever way a relegated club choses to approach their first season in the Championship, they should be aiming to get back up first time.

I haven't used anything as stick to beat SB with, by the way. I joined the discussion half-way through, to simply argue that Bruce hasn't spent big on just 'one player'. It's at least two, with the money we pay Terry. He chose to go for an experienced free-transfer on large wages, instead of using that money to bring in other players for the same combined amount. Again, I'm not disputing that the signing of Terry was a good one, in case you see a nice chance to further twist my words. 

[bannedfromHandV]

6 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

Maybe you just got a sudden rush of blood to the head when posting your 'Okay cool' response @bannedfromHandV, as you must not have seen that I even referenced the Leicester that won the league in my post, as there will always be the anomolies that go against the rule. Look at the list of the highest to lowest spenders that you just posted, it's very similar to the actual league table in most cases, but with Hull and Sunderland (surprise, surprise), appearing at the wrong end of the table, as is their underacheivement this season, and Milwall & Preston at the other end, due to their overacheivement.

I haven't once said that Sunderland's squad is one that should be challenging for promotion, so you've twisted my post nicely there. But I've said that they, as a football team, (and as a team that has just dropped out of the richest league in the world) should be aiming for Top 6/ promotion. Whether that means bringing in a more competent manager to get their squad of partial Premier League quality players firing whilst bringing in new blood to improve them, or whether that means shipping out high earners in any way possible (loan/ sale/ sale with Sunderland paying part of their wages for the new club) and starting from scratch with a largely new squad. Whatever way a relegated club choses to approach their first season in the Championship, they should be aiming to get back up first time.

I haven't used anything as stick to beat SB with, by the way. I joined the discussion half-way through, to simply argue that Bruce hasn't spent big on just 'one player'. It's at least two, with the money we pay Terry. He chose to go for an experienced free-transfer on large wages, instead of using that money to bring in other players for the same combined amount. Again, I'm not disputing that the signing of Terry was a good one, in case you see a nice chance to further twist my words. 

Okay man, let's agree to disagree, pretty sure we're moving into off-topic territory anyway.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

2 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

But you are saying that due to having a high wage bill they should be challenging for promotion, like one automatically dictates the other - that's narrow minded.

Sunderland's spending in the past 12 months has been less than £2m apparently, so no, I do not accept that because they have high wages (bearing in mind, that's being spent on the likes of Jack Rodwell and Darron Gibson, amongst other complete jokes) they should be challenging for promotion.

Using our high wage bill as a stick to beat SB with is irrelevant in my view, he inherited most of that cost much as Coleman has at Sunderland, the wages he's added have been spent on decent quality and hence why we ARE challenging for promotion.

 

Interestingly (and not directly related), transfermarkt.com has us pretty much where we are in terms of the value of our squad:

 

	Fulham FC	24	25,3	17	£96.30m	£4.01m
	Wolverhampton Wanderers	25	25,0	17	£87.30m	£3.49m
	Aston Villa	29	28,2	16	£79.20m	£2.73m
	Middlesbrough FC	22	28,0	9	£74.57m	£3.39m
	Hull City	30	26,2	17	£56.21m	£1.87m
	Sheffield Wednesday	29	28,2	18	£54.61m	£1.88m
	Cardiff City	30	28,1	29	£50.90m	£1.70m
	Leeds United	29	25,4	21	£50.31m	£1.73m
	Derby County	23	28,6	11	£46.08m	£2.00m
	Sunderland AFC	28	26,0	14	£45.23m	£1.62m
	Nottingham Forest	30	27,3	17	£45.09m	£1.50m
	Norwich City	25	26,2	17	£42.30m	£1.69m
	Bristol City	25	26,2	10	£40.55m	£1.62m
	Reading FC	28	27,0	18	£40.37m	£1.44m
	Birmingham City	25	27,3	7	£34.11m	£1.36m
	Brentford FC	23	24,7	15	£32.94m	£1.43m
	Queens Park Rangers	28	25,8	12	£30.15m	£1.08m
	Ipswich Town	29	25,5	12	£20.75m	£715k
	Bolton Wanderers	29	28,3	8	£20.30m	£700k
	Sheffield United	27	27,3	10	£18.97m	£703k
	Barnsley FC	28	24,3	13	£17.46m	£624k
	Preston North End	25	25,6	8	£12.65m	£506k
	Millwall FC	29	26,2	11	£12.33m	£425k
	Burton Albion	25	27,6	7	£8.01m	£320k

The Transfermarket Value of Fulham and Wolves have gone up as the season has progressed, due to the form and performance of their players etc.

The ACTUAL value, as quoted from a few sources, has us with the most expensive squad, at the start.

Ours may have dropped due to shite like McCormack pretty much being a write off.

 

EDIT: Don't want it to seem like I am picking on your posts @bannedfromHandV lol.

It's just that you have the ones I want to comment on. (As I was looking at these lists a couple of days ago and one had us with the most expensive)

Edited April 19, 2018 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN

[DCJonah]

In regards to spending, there has to be a few things taken into account when it comes to expectations. For example, there was no fee to pay for terry, but then i don't think any other team in this league could have signed him. Snodgrass, again no fee but again I doubt many other teams could have signed him. So he hasn't spent a fortune, however due to wages and the club we are at this level, he has been able to assemble a squad that is vastly superior to the majority in this league. 

[bannedfromHandV]

12 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

In regards to spending, there has to be a few things taken into account when it comes to expectations. For example, there was no fee to pay for terry, but then i don't think any other team in this league could have signed him. Snodgrass, again no fee but again I doubt many other teams could have signed him. So he hasn't spent a fortune, however due to wages and the club we are at this level, he has been able to assemble a squad that is vastly superior to the majority in this league. 

Birmingham offered Terry more than we did in terms of salary.