The complication is that those players are much more likely to be retained and used at their club. Either that or parachute clubs will be in for them. If Ross Stewart had come up with Rotherham we couldn't have competed against Southampton.
When the **** hits the fan with more frequency regarding to debt and FFP we’ll be more than fine. That makes this all worth while, if we don’t reach the promised land at least we’ll still have club to support. We’re in a great place for longevity and I’ll never understand those that don’t see it that way. Put your own £3bn in if you can do better.
My question in response to that would be- is signing players solely of the profile of Hemir and Mayenda (i.e. not first team ready) an inherent part of the transfer policy or is it an impression given by a single transfer window? In earlier windows, players like Clarke and Ballard came in who slotted fairly quickly into the starting 11. Rusyn and Aouchiche (as well as Dack and Bellingham), who can be considered to be ready for the first team based on the number of games they've played elsewhere, came in during the same window as Hemir and Mayenda and Styles who's played over 100 times for Barnsley came in during the most recent window.
Good post mate. Very well thought out and argued. I do have a bit of a challenge back though. When you say we have seen consistent progress since KLD has come in I disagree. I think we have seen a regression this season, on and off the pitch. It is looking like being for a whole season too, not just a bump in the road. (I say that whilst getting more optimistic we will beat Leicester tonight!). Let me explain myself. I think there are 3 things that have gone wrong. 1 is player recruitment. 2 is coach treatment / appointment. 3 is player / coach performance. All these things look quite stark to me this season. Player recruitment, in my opinion, has been on the slide in that last 12/18 months. When KLD landed we got a raft of players thet either hit the ground running, or you could understand pretty quickly the value to the team. Stewart, Cirkin, Matete, Baath, Evans, Roberts, Pritchard, Hume. There were dodgy ones too such as Defoe and Alves. That looks a pretty solid mix of incomings to me. Next we build again with Clarke on a perm, Ballard, and some good loans in Diallo, Michut and Gelhardt. We also sign some uncut gems, Bennette, Lihadji, Bass, Anderson, Ekwah and Dajaku. Mix looks ok again at the time if not in hindsight. We have a cracking season. This time around we seem to have got the mix wrong. Rusyn, Seelt, Mundle, Bellingham, Hjelde, Pembele, Mayenda, Hemir, Triantis, Dack, Aouchiche, Bishop, Burstow, Styles. That seems very lopsided to me and has cost us. I also feel our use of loans has gone backwards for the first time. I do also look at the number of UK experienced players we signed at the outset versus this season. Feels a bit of a shift has happened. I class that as a recruitment process in need of a bit of refinement. Coaches. People have different views on Mowbray. Mine is it was a premature call and it was compounded by not having a placement in mind. The 2 week process was a poor show, borderline incompetence, and the second time we have done it. Then we all know how Beale turned out. I think the decision making process on coaches has been proven poor this season and that indicates a weakness in the structure element of our model creeping in. Again improvement rather than overhaul, but improvement nonetheless. Performance. I think all 3 coaches have struggled tactically to give us an edge now that teams know about us and our strengths. Whether the players are capable is also a consideration of course, but I do look at things all 3 did / are doing and question the validity. Then players. Roberts has been off the level of last season. I think Hume has been too in spells. Ekwah is one who has worried me this season. I would even suggest Patterson has been below last season form. This is where I point to squad balance. We dont have a keeper to push Patterson, we all know how light we are in CM so Ekwah has played too much. Then there is Roberts who coaches could have taken out for Ba, or Seelt who could have played for Hume. None of this means I would scrap the model as you describe it. I do though think the end of season review needs to be challenging at the structural level with some adult and honest conversations had. It may be time for an upgrade or two at that level, depending upon the finish to the season. At the very least an improvement plan in one or two areas, it cant only be head coaches where blame lies.
Having re-read my first post and subsequent ones on this thread, it does seem as if I think the club can do no wrong. That's certainly not the case and I'd probably largely agree with you on those three points. I am fairly forgiving and experience has taught me never to make assumptions about why thing have happened so I'm prepared to consider the possibility that at least some of the gaps in the squad are due to a lack of availability, particularly in the case of the centre forward but less so with regard to a second goalkeeper. Its possible that restrictions of the budget have exacerbated that lack of availability. It is, of course, also possible that it's all down to poor performance on the part of the people responsible for recruitment. The Head Coach situation has definitely been messy. I wasn't desperate for Mowbray to go but I thought initially that they were maybe being ruthless and decisive. Then it dragged on. I still think Beale should have been given more time but the weird backlash against him made him staying untenable. Maybe the recruitment people should have considered the PR side of that appointment more. I'd imagine (breaking my own rule and making an assumption) that an organisation on this scale would have a rigorous review process and that they will look back on this season and make any changes necessary to improve performance. I think that Speakman and Harvey (and KLD) do have to shoulder some of the blame for this season being a comparative disappointment. Like you say, not everything is the fault of the Head Coach. However, if we're going to keep referring to the 'model', I think its important that we are aware that there is a distinct difference between poor performance in certain areas (which can be rectified) and the 'model' being flawed.
The thinking behind the "model" is optimistic at best and naïve at worst. Rapidly replacing all your experienced players with kids who have played little or no senior football is a massive gamble. There have been successes, but also a few failures, or players who are currently miles away from the 1st team. This is impacting our performance this season. but I've said it before - finishing 6th was a massive anomaly and ultimately he worst thing that could have happened in our 1st season in this division. The big test is this summer - when we lose Clarke and possibly Neil/Ballard how we replace them is massive - I don't accept that in Seelt, Mundle, Rigg etc we already have their replacements at the club. We need to move up a level in terms of the players we bring in. £40m for 2 players (for example) should equal 4 signings at £10m each to raise the levels of quality in the 1st team whilst allowing the younger lads to develop. Imagine signing experienced at quality at CB, CDM, ST, LW for £10m each and creating a real spine to the team whilst the likes of Rigg, Ba, Aouchiche, Mundle, Mayenda etc etc can develop around them? No net outlay, but an overall uplift in quality (despite losing 2 of our best players) That is how the model was sold, that will be how people will judge.
'That is how the model was sold, that will be how people will judge.' Are you sure about that, I don't remember anyone selling it that way.
The problem with signing 4 £10M players is that you have 4 £10M players wages which might stretch that budget a bit. I agree that this is the way to go and that we will have planned for that, first however we have to sell a player for £40M.
True, but we can't go on forever with a 15k pw wage ceiling. That's fine for the younger lads and the academy lads, but when you bring in quality you have to pay for it and (I believe) the dressing room accepts that.
I agree Edit or Addendum really Tne reason I agree is that we must show the current crop of young lads that if you strive to be the best you can be then you will be rewarded, either by a big money move or a better contract. The ball is then firmly in the younger players court.
I don't, but it's been well documented that our wage ceiling is around the 15k mark albeit I think Clarke is on about 17k Stewart was on about 3 or 4k per week but wanted north of 20k, hence why we sold him There will be others on here with more info than me, I'm just going by the multitude of reports online.
Just wondering that myself tbh. All kinds of facts are being posted about 'the model' and I'm not even sure the club have said they have one. Could be wrong, I've not paid that much attention, everything in football is flexible ... that's the nature of it. Man Utd have Jonny Evans starting for them Hang on, that 15k ceiling only last 10 minutes
I don't think there's any evidence for that to be the case though. The whole point of operating in this way is that there has to be progression. As the team improves and progresses up the league, the more money will become available to pay higher wages. That being said, I'd imagine that there will still be a focus in the transfer policy on bringing in players for as little as possible and maximising their value- that's how transfer policy contributes to making the club sustainable.
I'd argue that selling the likes of Clarke and Ballard for a profit of around £30m means you can then uplift the quality of the players you buy. We got lucky with those 2 and the fees we pay. Surely the point of the model is to re-invest that money on better players? Sticking with £1-2m signings will only line the pockets of the club's owners
Hang on, where is the evidence that our current owners have taken any money out of our club, from information I have seen the opposite appears to be the case. Or have I misunderstood your comment about lining pockets?
I'm not necessarily saying that you stick to £1-2m signings but if you want sustainability, you have to make income greater than expenditure so you get players in who's value you can increase. You don't just sell a couple of players for a big fee and then say right, we're dropping thar policy. It defeats the object of it. The thing to add to this is that if you develop a reputation for giving young players a chance, you can entice them to sign on the basis that they might get a big move and higher wages further down the line.
Isn't all of that just guesswork and, tbf,saying we 'got lucky' with players isn't too generous is it? Can we also say we 'got unlucky' with other players in that case? And, as for lining the owners pockets ... that's pure RTG The accounts are out at the end of April, you'll probably find he's personally covering our losses.
Maybe we have to stop thinking in an immediate return to the Premier League, that boat sailed last season due mainly to injuries to key players in the run up to the play-offs. I don't think we are likely to sell one player for 40m or even 2 for 20m just yet to spend it on 3 or 4 players to hopefully lift the overall quality, it would be a gamble and a recipe for disaster imo. Our coaching set up is the first area to be seriously considered, get that right first and we are on our way. Beale was a shocking appointment, another like that and we are be more likely to facing a return to L1 rather than the Premiership. Yes we have lost 5 or 6 games in a row, but in all of those games despite the dodgy team selections etc . all have been close run, and even a return of 3 or 4 points would have made all the difference, so things are not so critical that we have to gamble away the future, to calm the nerves of some in the short term.
