This is a fantastic article from David Conn about the rise of Swansea and the way the club is managed. It should be required reading for those now running Leeds United. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/...ea-city-different-route-league-cup?CMP=twt_gu A couple of things really stick out: "The [Swansea] philosophy, still wedded to taking care of the finances, extends to the selection of players â young men being offered their first taste of the Premier League, judged to be hungry for success...We had to get away from the typical British 4-4-2 formation and 6ft 2in players who run around a lot. Most clubs don't have a clear vision, they allow the manager to set the direction, then they change the manager so often, they get stuck in a merry-go-round. We had to go down a different route, to compete with clubs who think spending money is the only way to get success." Plus this: "Jenkins ascribes the loss-making financial whirlpool [in football] as the reason so many clubs are sold to overseas investors, including Cardiff City, now owned by Malaysians, while Swansea are owned by local people, and 20% by the supporters' trust, the envy of fans at many other clubs. "We all take pride in going against the norm, where clubs lose millions of pounds and need owners to pump money in," Jenkins says. "There is no need for it."" Swansea play lovely football, are in profit and have managed to do great things this season despite losing two of their best players (Joe Allen and Scott Sinclair). If they can do it, why can't we?
Credit where it's due, a lot of clubs should take note. How far can this philosophy take a club go do you think? Is mid table safety in the PL( some achievement in itself) as far or can it take a club further? It'll be interesting to see how they progress over the next couple of years.
Great philosophy and takes time to achieve as the manager needs to be hungry and able to get them playing together in a planned routine. Nothing wrong with mid-table prem, as the cash they get is huge for actually being a mid-table outfit. The fans get good football and some great results, and never seem to get battered. Even if this route was taken by GFH it would take a couple of seasons before you started to see the benefit, as almost the whole playing staff needs to be gone, which means running down contracts or paying them off. Bringing in outstanding kids with potential, and experienced players who are able to play a certain way. Liverpool are now going for this method, but everyone knows it'll take time for Rodgers to pull it off, but fans still demand to see a couple of top signings. Arsenal have the same philosophy but the fans are not willing to be also-rans, so demand that the club break their £90k per week wage structure, because they think they should win trophy's. Arsenal are the only realy profitable club in the prem at the moment, because of this policy but its the fans who demand that more and more money be spent. If a club wants top 4 prem position, then they have to throw a lot of cash and big wages at it. Everton are knocking on the door without that sort of cash, and their fans were demanding that Kenwright and Moyes be sacked last season. I have no problems with Leeds adopting this policy, but the owners and management need to tell the fans that its going to be plan. This means sacking Warnock however
Very interesting article indeed! One paragraph caught my eye, as Josh & I had a short discuss re. the Warnock's backroom staff, which I hadn't really thought about ... "We don't bring somebody in to run the club; we feel we have people doing that pretty well. He is here to coach the first team, to work with us". And I hope GFH don't read this & get ideas ... "In their first Premier League season last year, Swansea made a profit of £14.6m, on the enormous £53m increase in income brought by promotion, from £11.7m in the Championship, to £65m. Even the promotions were achieved without a permanent training ground ..." Btw, have you thought of posting this on Waccoe? It deserves a wide LUFC readership, I believe (I'd do it myself, but I'm not allowed to play with the big boys there yet).
Not sure why you highlighted all of that WJ, but for me its the "£11.7m income in the Championship " that makes me pause for thought - as we have 3 x that (and could have more if we were playing well)
Highlighted 3 points for a reason. The first you've covered well, the second was to highlight that it's not THAT much of a priority to buy & upgrade TA, and the original highlight was probably the most important one - the manager doesn't build the club in his image. He has to fit in with the backroom team & philosophy that already exists. Complete opposite way of working to almost every other UK club!
I’ve gone one better than posting on Waccoe and tweeted it directly to David Haigh (not that he’s likely to read it). Good points about the backroom staff. Presumably the likes of Mick Jones are only contracted until the end of the summer, i.e. the same terms as Warnock? On the point about Elland Road and Thorp Arch, I hope that GFH are savvy enough to realise that it doesn’t make business sense to go on paying rent over the long-term. That said if they’ve got £10-15m to spend now I’d rather it was invested in the playing squad. The thing that really struck me is the level of ambition set out by Swansea. They obviously know that they’ll never be one of the big boys but are committed to being the best they can. I’d love it if we shared that kind of ambition. We can’t outspend the likes of Man City and Chelsea, so let’s be known instead as a team that plays the best football in England or that produces the best young players.
With a philosophy like swansea there's no reason we cant be one of the big boys. Remember that we also have owners looking to market us overseas to a relatively un tapped market, and we already have more resources than swansea from the start. We could turn thorpe arch into a super academy and build it all from the ground up
It would take some time to see the benefits of this approach, would your new owners have the patience? If they are looking at oversees investment it might be more likely that the usual quick fix approach would be employed, thus blowing the 'Swansea' philosophy out of the water. Interesting to see how things pan out for you lot.
Interesting read TC but I don't think we 'missed out' on him as such, we couldn't have got anywhere near the £2.2m needed to secure his services Not with Bates in charge! (Here's to hoping that is all in the past)
Man City are actually going for a half way point. Large investment to get success and get the fans in by marketing that success both in the UK and abroad, then use their own turnover and a super academy to sustain that success for the future. I'd expect this on a smaller scale from Leeds. Since GFH-C aren't minted, I'd imagine if they want success they will have to go with a long term strategy and build from the ground up. With a strategy that takes the best from Man City (the top level academy - we have the facilities, now just need the infrastructure) and from Swansea (the long term thinking and a football philosophy that managers and players alike must fit into) we can go a very, very long way - maybe even sustained Champion's League and possibly to the title.
Laugh all you want, we've got the biggest uncontested catchment area of any club in the country, a massive untapped market and we've got massive growth potential, probably the best growth potential of any club in the country.
Joking apart, chaps, did it escape your attention that Kenny Jackett was in with the bricks when Swansea started this new way of thinking? perhaps with time, he'll do the same at 'wall? Any of our esteemed 'wall visitors care to comment?
Unless Millwall's owners have the same philosophy as Swansea's, he'll need to remain there in order to do it. Swansea's approach starts from the top, the manager has to fit in with the whole philosophy
Anybody remember this time a couple of seasons ago, when we were in 2nd place going into Xmas. All of us were begging Bates to invest a bit of cash to ensure we went up. Whilst we were doing nothing except selling and crashing down the league, Norwich's chairman said we wanted to invest to try and get back into the top flight. he did and the club went up and ever since they've just about held their own and don't have big time players, just bought sensible hard working players with brains who can play to a system. Oh thats right they bought 3 of our lads who were in L1 with us, but were always good enough to cut it at mid table prem level. Difference between philosophy between club chairmen. Rip the fans off and sell best players to make me richer, or invest in the future to ensure the club can reap the rewards from being in the prem. stability instead of depression
We made Andy O'Brien a permanent signing and got rid of Neil Collins. We also extended McCartney's loan until the end of the season, and then at various stages loaned in Lichaj, Bannan and Livermore. Compare that to Norwich who made Leon Barnett a permanent signing, as well as signing Wilbraham and Tierney. They also made some decent loans with Pacheco, Henri Lansbury and Vokes. Overall, i wasn't too disappointed not to make any permanent signings that January. What upset me far more was the failure to agree contracts with Johnson and Kilkenny (could even add the likes of Gradel and Howson to that list as well as there contracts were approaching the final 18 months). All these types of players showed massive potential in the performances/results against Liverpool, Man U, Spurs and Arsenal, as well as consistency in both League One and the Championship with good unbeaten runs. It was a young team and with Clayton progressing after loans at the Posh and MK, he could have added competition the following season. There's no doubt with the benefit of that first season back in the Championship and the experience they will have gained, we could have improved dramatically the following season.
