At a time when Fulham have just spent £11m on a striker with no Premiership experience, it's a little disconcerting to see Mick McCarthy announce that the club are relying on freebies and borrowed players once again this term. Despite last season's refreshingly impressive campaign, and the multi-million pound sale of Aaron Cresswell to West Ham United, the lack of investment in a squad that, by this division's standards is fairly thin, does not exactly bode well for 2014/15. Between the disappointing and often-divisive tenures of Jim Magilton, Roy Keane and Paul Jewell, where many supporters turned on one another, parts of Portman Road resembled a Transformers film; empty, lacking emotion and devoid of purpose. Yet our promotion bid, ambitious though it was, reinvigorated the support and gave us optimism for the future. That is why the board's failure to grant McCarthy the means to influence the transfer market with cold, hard cash strikes me as a decision that could see us curtail any progress we have made since McCarthy's arrival. The crux of the matter is FFP. At least that's the reason Marcus Evans has given Mick as he hopes to reduce spending and enable the club to 'break even'. It's an idealistic notion in this division because 11 of the 12 clubs who have been promoted over the past four seasons have spent money in the transfer window and, usually, a lot of it. While I don't condone big-spending and running clubs at massive losses, I don't think Ipswich are in as much trouble as the board make out, certainly not as bad as some of our fellow league rivals. Of course I don't have full access to all the statistics, which may undermine my point, but looking at the previous release of accounts, we made a loss of £9.8m. However, that number was factored before the sale of Aaron Cresswell. In terms of net spend in the transfer market over the past five years; we made more money than spent, by a margin over £11m. Also, the best way of making a lot of money, and more than breaking even, would be to secure promotion. Mick didn't have a transfer budget last season and improved the club dramatically, surely now is the time, when other clubs are becoming slightly more conservative, to spend some cash on players that Mick wants to bring in, but cannot because of this stubborn refusal to splash out? After all, in its simplest equation, promotion equals a lot of money. Looking back over the past few seasons, spending money in the summer usually equates to promotion. I know it sounds odd as a statement but it almost needs reiterating because this division has the perception of being a notoriously unpredictable league where money does not guarantee success. While I agree the division is tough, much more so than the Premier League, the Championship can be easily navigated by throwing millions of quid at a club. Look at the figures. Last season, Leicester City spent money, mostly undisclosed transfer dealings, to top the Championship. Yes, they also spent a lot of money in the previous few years, and that has led to promotion and the spending has given them a strong squad, capable of staying up. QPR, last season's favourites for the second division title, achieved promotion through the courtesy of the play offs, and some fortuitous performances. But an overhaul of their squad and some big signings in Charlie Austin and Matt Phillips did lead to an instant return to the top flight. The summer before that produced a big outlay for Cardiff City, spending big to clinch the title. Hull City, who finished runners-up that year, spent over £2.5m alone on Nick Proschwitz and even Crystal Palace spent north of £1m to gain promotion, admittedly not as much as some of their other competitors, yet they still spent cash. Needless to say the pattern continues. In 2011/12, Reading topped the table and splashed out on four permanent signings. Even Southampton, with their lauded academy, had to spend money to get back into the Premier League, securing the services of James Cork, Danny Fox and Steve de Ridder. Don't forget West Ham either. The heavily-fancied Hammers spent a fair amount to reclaim their Premier League position, an ambition helped realised by bringing in the likes of Kevin Nolan and Gary O'Neill. Let's go back one more season to when QPR, Norwich City and Swansea went up and, yes, all three clubs spent cash to get there (and a lot of it). So the logic that spending less would mean improvement is flawed. Of course it would be naive of me to state that spending money guarantees promotion, as there are of course several other factors to consider. Evans would testify to that. He handed Roy Keane £11m over the course of a couple of years, with the remit to achieve promotion and Keane couldn't even manage a top-half finish. While that alone could serve a warning against big-spending, it also goes some way to prove that Roy Keane just isn't a very good football manager. McCarthy, one would assume, can spend money better. Of course, the budget is set to allow more generous wages, enticing players without a club to join ours. Yet remember, these are players without a club, and that usually means they didn't impress their former employers. While moulding a team out of freebies and loanees can sometimes lead to promotion, this is not a reliable method. Of the 12 clubs that went up over the past four seasons, only Burnley failed to spend big money on transfers. One argument against spending is that why spend cash when we have some talented youngsters in the academy? We've recently increased our spending to secure a Category 1 rating, so why not make use of our young players? It's always nice to see a club giving youth a chance, and our club has relied upon that ideology more prevalently than neutrals probably think. I don't see Mick as one of those managers who completely ignore the young players; he is willing to give them a chance. My fear is that our young players have a tendency to be sold off for a big fee at the first indication the player could have potential in the game and so, with the likes of Jack Marriott, Bryon Lawrence, Alex Henshall and others tipped for impressive careers, how long will they remain at the club if they're any good? By failing to give McCarthy another transfer budget, Evans is forcing the manager to field youngsters and hope to make a quick, big sale on them after they've played for the club. This way of thinking is, for me, one of the main reasons why we're still in this division after 12-odd years. We seem content in treading water with a status of feeder club, and when Evans says he wants to cut spending and run at a profit, something that will take years to achieve and will likely end in relegation than promotion, it's the sales of our best and young players that is going to get us to this ideal model. Results and performances will naturally be affected as a result. The recent free signings of Cameron Stewart, Bartosz Bialkowski and Jonathan Parr will not raise many eyebrows from our rivals, but they all offer a degree of experience. Purchasing quality, which often costs money, seems less of a gamble and more of a necessity as we already possess a good, experienced manager and a team that, while containing a strong team spirit and some talented individuals, desperately needs an injection of creativity and some much-needed cover in crucial areas of the pitch. As aforementioned, we're making more money through transfers than losing it, and with Cresswell now leaving, this summer strikes me as the best opportunity to reinvest some of that money on a transfer budget so Mick can pursue players of a high enough calibre to improve on last season's standings because, without spending, this club is going to regress. (Hey guys, hopefully I'll be able to make more of an appearance and post a few articles more frequently. Off to work right now, so won't be available to reply for a little while as yet.)
Nuggets my old mate...how are you? As usual a well written piece and you make some good points. I'm not sure that spending cash would really change our fortunes that much but it would be nice to actually go in for a quality contracted player and make a rival team weaker by nabbing one of their best assets. With FFP now in full swing I think that there will be a larger number of better players available for free than ever before. Clubs will not be renewing contracts for most players on their current wage and everybody will be looking at ways of saving money. Players themselves will work out that they are more likely to secure a higher wage if they let their contract run out than if they are involved in a transfer that includes a fee. For this reason, combined with clubs trying to save, you will find a better calibre of player on the Bosman list and so it's not all doom and gloom if that's the transfer strategy we have. I don't think that Evans has said to Mick that he can't spend any cash and I feel that if the right player came along (contracted or not) and the deal was do-able, then money would be available. I for one am happy at our current method of slowly but surely improving the squad without putting us in jeopardy and as long as Mick is in charge I think we'll do alright. Mick reminds me of Van Gaal a bit, he looks more at the character of a person rather than their skill level, and I reckon having harmony within the dressing room can go a long way to making a successful team. Don't be a stranger bud
Ipswich Town and Cash Never go well together! Just look at the Burley years, the Magilton, Keane and to a lesser extent Jewell era as evidence of this! I'm more than happy with the current set up and I strongly believe that we have a fantastic manager who thrives on small transfer budgets.
I think yes it would be nice to have a bit of extra dough but it by certainly doesn't mean success. Building a team is far more important, whilst I would like to see a team with more quality in it that we currently have, I like the fact we are being sensible and building within our means. Our squad does look bang average there are very few (if any) players in that team who fill you with excitement at the prospect of going to see them play. As JWM says we have never been good with money see Burely, Magilton and Keane. We spend millions under Keane in particular and went backwards. And although you've outlined clubs have spent alot of money, I'd argue most clubs who spend big at this level struggle, team spirit is far more important. Burnley went up last season and spent very very little, Leicester struggled for years despite paying big bucks but last summer they spent very little and this seemed to build a spirit in the camp. Nottingham Forest have been spending big bucks for a while and have struggled, QPR spent big but only went up through the playoffs. I'd say that the clubs who have gone up over the past few seasons haven't been the biggest spenders in the league, yes there's a few in there who have spent more than the average but very few maybe with the exception of QPR who have spent alot of money and gone up. The key to all of those teams has been building a team over a few seasons IMO.
San Diego Cheers mate; I'm alright thanks, yourself? Yeah, you make some valid points, particularly about FFP increasing the chances of getting a good player on a freebie. I guess Mick proved last season that he can improve a club by spending next-to-nothing, and he is the type of manager to go for a character that fits in the dressing room. Yet I feel that by denying him a transfer budget, his options are limited and we could miss out on a perfect player, even if it would require a fee of £500k-£1m. The squad does look thin, and relying on freebies and loanees doesn't bode well for the future, in my opinion anyway. Hopefully you're right in thinking Evans will finance a deal if Mick requests it, but I have the suspicion he wants Mick to utilise the younger players we have and avoid spending any money in the window yet again. The days where he would throw money at managers are gone, which part of me likes yet McCarthy is the type of manager who, if given money, can deliver results. After all, he spent almost £7m alone in Wolves' promotion season of 2008/09. Johnnywarksmoustache Haha, no we don't go well with money from recent examples, but I don't think that should deter us from making bids for players. I'm not advocating the silly amounts of cash spent on one player like some managers seemed to do, but rather if a player comes up for £500k-£1m margin, why shouldn't we go for him? While Mick does do well with limited budgets, he did require a big outlay for when Wolves went up, as I've mentioned. Itfcptc I agree that building a team spirit is a crucial factor in getting promotion, and of course all promoted clubs have to have some degree of teamwork and a positive environment. However, by denying Mick money, he's not going to be able to bring in the calibre of player he'd possibly like. I'm sure if he had a transfer budget he would still spend money efficiently, and he wouldn't betray his values in player character. It's true we've had a recent poor record with money but I think Mick is a better calibre of manager than Jim Magilton and Roy Keane. With Burley, it was the Premier League and he went for foreign imports with big reputations, and big price tags, that couldn't adapt and deliver. Jim was a novice manager at the time, he had two seasons of decent, consistent success, on a shoestring budget, but as soon as he was handed cash, he spent it frivolously and, with the benefit of hindsight, naively. As for Keane, my opinions were well-documented at the time, and they remain the same, in that he was out of his depth as our manager and his methods, ideology and transfer dealings were extremely underwhelming and disappointing. I believe Mick would spend the money efficiently. As you said, our squad looks average, and if it takes the odd £500k deal to bring in a quality, well-suited player, then I don't think Mick should be denied that, but, judging by his comments to the media, it seems like he's going to have to go without.
If we are going to fund a cat 1 academy then we definitely should be looking to make more use of the youngsters. It's all part of our long term plan to be more self sufficient, for want of a better phrase. It could take some time before we see the players that get you out of your seat but I think it's more about producing them ourselves than buying them in. Nobody really knows if there is a transfer budget or not. It could be a smokescreen from Mick and Marcus to keep the prices down. Remember how we were being taken for mugs when Evans' cash first arrived? I still feel that if Mick was to ask and the deal was right he would be allowed to make a decent purchase or two. And yes mate, I'm doing great.
Difficult one this hey. With money we have thrown so much down the toilet on transfer fees, signing on fees and wages the past few years. Revenue has dropped off the pitch too. Mick has done a fine job with limited resources. He's signed some very good players on a free transfer - Berra for instance, and used the loan market well - signing McGoldrick up after a good loan spell, and Jonny boy from Palace. There will be more transfer activity coming in, but fees will be very very minimal if not all free transfers. Should we sign players of Berra's class on a free then fine. Players will be weighing up plenty of offers at the minute, and we'll know our hand in around a month. Then, I think we'll sign a couple of very good loanees up. Whether it will be enough for top 6 is anyones guess. As pointed out by Nuggets above and myself on another article, Fulham are blowing £11 mill on one player. Other clubs are spending a bucket tonne compared with us! However, what we do have is a top 3 or 4 manager, a team that has a good spine and isn't 12 in and 15 out. Continuoty is key to success I often think. This is pretty much Micks side now too, so I am hopefuly but it's clear we're up against fierce opposition this time around.
Haha, I see Spanish still retains his sarcasm. Good to see you mate, relishing some potential debates coming up (hopefully). However, it seems to be a time of guarded optimism and slight positivity these days. Who would have thought it?
