O'Neil aka GONe

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I guess we can't really have too much to moan about in terms of fees if that ends up being the case? (Regarding net spend)

Despite the clear oddities of this window on the areas we've improved, or not improved!

 

[Dire Wolf]

That's my take? Surprised at the negativity on his quotes. For me, he's calling out the club for not backing him.

That's how I read it too. I don't see it as him being a fawning yes man, I think they've genuinely misled him/lied to him about their transfer spending plans. That's why I said a couple of weeks ago that he has been just as gaslit by the owners as we have. It's what they did to Lop, so maybe you could say he should have anticipated it, but I genuinely think he's been sideswiped by their shitness.

 

[The Bear]

If those 3 deals take place, what would be our net spend?

It'd still be around £30m profit. £40m+ if Sa goes as well. Obviously if you take the total €30m fee for Larsen then it's just a small €3m profit (before Sa).

In
Doyle €5m
Gomes €15m
Lima €10m
Larsen €3m (loan fee)
Johnstone €12m
Meupiyou €5m
Andre €22m

Total - €72m

Out
Kilman €48m
Neto €60m

Total - €108m

Profit - €36m (£30m)

 

[The Dude]

Maybe playing your plan A tactics in what are essentially two free hits is quite clever...

If he changes things up now and our defensive frailties look less so and we manage to pick up some points over the coming games with a different system we'll soon forget about the capitulation v Chelsea.

It's a big IF though, but it's no different to any other season since promotion in 2018 where we've had to adapt from whatever plan A was...

I guess even Nuno was criticised by some for shelving his plan A. We've always had those who grumbled about shelving four at the back "too early", even though history shows it was the right thing to do.

There'll still be those obsessed with playing a four who'll claim he should have stuck to his guns. Some still circle jerk over Lage's first season FFS.

 

[The Dude]

It'd still be around £30m profit. £40m+ if Sa goes as well. Obviously if you take the total €30m fee for Larsen then it's just a small €3m profit (before Sa).

In
Doyle €5m
Gomes €15m
Lima €10m
Larsen €3m (loan fee)
Johnstone €12m
Meupiyou €5m
Andre €22m

Total - €72m

Out
Kilman €48m
Neto €60m

Total - €108m

Profit - €36m (£30m)

This is what self sustaining looks like I guess. I hope it works. The notion that the only way to stand still is to operate at a loss year on year is ludicrous and completely unsustainable.

Anyone who believes losing £35m year on year is a smart way to run a football club is fucking mental, not to mention entitled.

 

[Johnny75]

That's how I read it too. I don't see it as him being a fawning yes man, I think they've genuinely misled him/lied to him about their transfer spending plans. That's why I said a couple of weeks ago that he has been just as gaslit by the owners as we have. It's what they did to Lop, so maybe you could say he should have anticipated it, but I genuinely think he's been sideswiped by their shitness.

The only reason he was hired was because they did exactly the same thing to Lop. You'd have to be monumentally naive to think it wouldn't happen again.

 

[Wilf Wolf]

We must properly mess with his head

Can I have a PL ready centre back.
Sure, budget will be approx £12m but no more
Cheers, errr going to have to be a player from a relegated club then for that price
Bad news they all want £15m+
Fine, I will change the way we set up then, will need an extra DM.
Aces, got one for you from Brazil for £22m

I guess the thinking could be that we can make money on Andre but not O’Shea though that logic wasn’t applied to Ramsdale wrt to Johnstone. Just adds fuel to the notion they’re making up the transfer policy as they go along.

 

[AndyWolves]

It'd still be around £30m profit. £40m+ if Sa goes as well. Obviously if you take the total €30m fee for Larsen then it's just a small €3m profit (before Sa).

In
Doyle €5m
Gomes €15m
Lima €10m
Larsen €3m (loan fee)
Johnstone €12m
Meupiyou €5m
Andre €22m

Total - €72m

Out
Kilman €48m
Neto €60m

Total - €108m

Profit - €36m (£30m)

@Johnny75 - You always laugh at these calculations? What's missing / wrong? Explain it like i'm 5 please

 

[Johnny75]

@Johnny75 - You always laugh at these calculations? What's missing / wrong? Explain it like i'm 5 please

Net spend just isn't a thing. Amortisation - sales is the true transfer picture.

Our income is not, of course, dictated by player sales but by TV money and commercial income.

If you start with net spend your calculations are laughable already. Bear takes himself seriously with these calculations it makes me laugh and also the people who keep saying 'self sustaining looks like this' equally make me laugh.

It's just the equivalent of the pisshead in the pub that tells you the moon landings were faked because he read it somewhere.

 

[Kenny]

It's just the equivalent of the pisshead in the pub that tells you the moon landings were faked because he read it somewhere.

Waaaaay off topic here but out with my lad in MD a few weeks back and in one pub there was a chap loudly claiming that the cure for every form of cancer is out there but the drug companies hide it as cancer earns them billions .


Right, as you were on P&L...

 

[The Bear]

@Johnny75 - You always laugh at these calculations? What's missing / wrong? Explain it like i'm 5 please

He only does it to try and wind me up

EP specifically asked what the net spend was. I posted it.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

There'll still be those obsessed with playing a four who'll claim he should have stuck to his guns. Some still circle jerk over Lage's first season FFS.

Three things:

1) Lage played three CHs in every game in 2021/22
2) We have been pretty crap for ages with three CHs, alternately stodgy as all hell going forward and looking like a Mark McGhee team on the ball, or still leaking goals despite the extra defender (last season)
3) Continually running back to three CHs because "we can't play four at the back" (who is "we", here?) smacks of Spinal Tap rolling out Stonehenge when their tour is on the rocks. It didn't help them either

 

[The Dude]

The press is certainly more effective than it has been from what I have seen in pre-season and the first couple of games. Of course, pressing Arsenal is fraught with error but against Chelsea we did panic them several times. The issue is protecting the defence when you do it and when you have a bloke like RAN being undisciplined or a teammate failing to cover the gap he leaves, then you're asking for it.

As regards pre-season, it can tell you certain things but we mullered West Ham playing it and swept Leipzig away. It came unstuck with a reserve team playing against Palace so I kind of get why he tried it in a league game. You walk away from Arsenal losing 2-0 and think that's respectable but then get crushed second half v Chelsea and it certainly makes you think.

In a nutshell, we're not good enough defensively to play a high line and will get caught out far too often...

And when the press works in our favour we're not good enough offensively to capitalise...

It's a recipe for disaster. Better players is the obvious solution, but we don't have them.

As GON has alluded to, we have to play to the strengths of the players we have...

I actually think Sa has been made to look worse than he is playing this system, that doesn't suit him or the players in front of him.

 

[AndyWolves]

Net spend just isn't a thing. Amortisation - sales is the true transfer picture.

Our income is not, of course, dictated by player sales but by TV money and commercial income.

If you start with net spend your calculations are laughable already. Bear takes himself seriously with these calculations it makes me laugh and also the people who keep saying 'self sustaining looks like this' equally make me laugh.

It's just the equivalent of the pisshead in the pub that tells you the moon landings were faked because he read it somewhere.

I get your point, but isn't amortisation only really used for FFP/PSR calcs? What bear is showing is money in / money out from a transfer perspective in the truest sense of the word? Obviously not all money gets paid in one big lump, but for the purposes of a forum is sufficient?

Likewise, we would need to know what the net profit / loss is before player trading to be able to know how much revenue / costs are a factor here.

 

[Squeak]

That's how I read it too. I don't see it as him being a fawning yes man, I think they've genuinely misled him/lied to him about their transfer spending plans. That's why I said a couple of weeks ago that he has been just as gaslit by the owners as we have. It's what they did to Lop, so maybe you could say he should have anticipated it, but I genuinely think he's been sideswiped by their shitness.

Well, perhaps it's not that. He has previously and openly said that we have the money for the right player at the right time. We seem to be getting mixed messages, or is it that the goalposts are forever changing as clubs ask for more and more for their players as the deadline approaches?

It's hard to know when to call their bluff or do you simply pay through the nose? Naturally, fans want to see money spent in a false belief it will automatically improve the team.

 

[Johnny75]

I get your point, but isn't amortisation only really used for FFP/PSR calcs? What bear is showing is money in / money out from a transfer perspective in the truest sense of the word? Obviously not all money gets paid in one big lump, but for the purposes of a forum is sufficient?

Likewise, we would need to know what the net profit / loss is before player trading to be able to know how much revenue / costs are a factor here.

People can make up whatever they like. Can't have your own facts though.

And no, amortisation is not just used for PSR and if you wanted to look at a true set of accounts it would get very boring very quickly but the faux nonsense of net spend seems to lead to people saying we can only spend this or that which is utter nonsense.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

And no, amortisation is not just used for PSR and if you wanted to look at a true set of accounts it would get very boring very quickly but the faux nonsense of net spend seems to lead to people saying we can only spend this or that which is utter nonsense.

You get it going the other way too. People saying if we've sold £90m of players with no amortisation in Kilman and Neto, we could spend £450m now on players on 5 year deals

Yeah, you could. I could also spend my entire bank balance on a watch this afternoon if I wanted to but I don't think Mrs DW would be too pleased when I tell her we can't afford any food or petrol next week.

 

[The Bear]

I get your point, but isn't amortisation only really used for FFP/PSR calcs? What bear is showing is money in / money out from a transfer perspective in the truest sense of the word? Obviously not all money gets paid in one big lump, but for the purposes of a forum is sufficient?

Likewise, we would need to know what the net profit / loss is before player trading to be able to know how much revenue / costs are a factor here.

Exactly. It's not directly related to PSR or the accounts. It's just another avenue of profit/loss for the club. It's nice to see how much we spend each window too.

If you really wanted to know how it relates to PSR you'd have to work out the exact amortisation costs for each window, tracking it year by year and calculating the profit once each sale price is taken into account minus what's left on the contract. I can't be arsed to do that though!

 

[Johnny75]

Exactly. It's not directly related to PSR or the accounts. It's just another avenue of profit/loss for the club. It's nice to see how much we spend each window too.

If you really wanted to know how it relates to PSR you'd have to work out the exact amortisation costs for each window, tracking it year by year and calculating the profit once each sale price is taken into account minus what's left on the contract. I can't be arsed to do that though!

Here you go @AndyWolves it illustrates my point perfectly.

 

[The Dude]

Three things:

1) Lage played three CHs in every game in 2021/22

I didn't for a second suggest he did. He did however get shot of the one player (Coady) who made a back three work. It's not until the introduction of Dawson that the defensive unit again looked cohesive.

2) We have been pretty crap for ages with three CHs, alternately stodgy as all hell going forward and looking like a Mark McGhee team on the ball, or still leaking goals despite the extra defender (last season)

I suspect playing a four last season would have been (indeed was v coventry) worse than a back three.

3) Continually running back to three CHs because "we can't play four at the back" (who is "we", here?) smacks of Spinal Tap rolling out Stonehenge when their tour is on the rocks. It didn't help them either

The back four per se, is not the problem. "We" is the current personnel which I believe is and has been for some time the reason we can't play a back four.

Under Nuno, Wolves never had two CB's who didn't look more comfortable in a three.

Under Lage he didn't ditch the three, he just ditched the player who made the three work, so we were no longer capable of playing either formation to a satisfactory level.

Under GON, the three worked okay but Dawson was required to hold the hands of his fellow CB's.

Kilman was never as good without a Coady or a Dawson. He needed his hand holding, I'd have not been happy with him in a four this season holding the hand of Mosquera or Toti.

While Dawson can do the hand holding, he's not mobile enough unless he's in a three.

The personnel needs changing if you wanna play a four, until then it has to be a three...

The hope was, selling Kilman would enable us to bring in a CB capable of holding the hand of his inexperienced defensive partner in a four...

Until that happens, I believe we're stuck with a three.