| Here is a clue for everyone on 00:39 - Sep 17 with 1070 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Burnley owners need Dyche to keep them in the Premier league. They need the money from the club income to pay off the debt the owners borrowed to buy the club.
Swansea city owners used their own money to buy the club and did not lumber the club with debt. |  |
|  |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 11:54 - Sep 17 with 959 views | Catullus |
Ultimately, as Burnlay have showed, stability can be a very good thing. They stuck with Dyche when relegated and he took them back up.
Consistently chopping and changing, it's like relying on luck, if we try enough different pieces things will click into place. Sometimes that works, sometimes that just costs clubs a fortune and delivers nothing good as we know only too well from Bob Bradley onwards! |  |
| |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 12:36 - Sep 17 with 915 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 11:54 - Sep 17 by Catullus |
Ultimately, as Burnlay have showed, stability can be a very good thing. They stuck with Dyche when relegated and he took them back up.
Consistently chopping and changing, it's like relying on luck, if we try enough different pieces things will click into place. Sometimes that works, sometimes that just costs clubs a fortune and delivers nothing good as we know only too well from Bob Bradley onwards! |
But that argument suggests we should have stuck with Bob Bradley. Doesn’t it?
As I said on another thread, Dyche has “runs on the board” when it comes to his record. Sticking with a proven manager is a perfectly acceptable option.
He got them promoted from the Championship proving he could do it previously, and he broke numerous long standing club records prior. Who else would they have realistically been able to get in with a better record? |  |
| |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 13:09 - Sep 17 with 895 views | Evs |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 12:36 - Sep 17 by Dr_Parnassus |
But that argument suggests we should have stuck with Bob Bradley. Doesn’t it?
As I said on another thread, Dyche has “runs on the board” when it comes to his record. Sticking with a proven manager is a perfectly acceptable option.
He got them promoted from the Championship proving he could do it previously, and he broke numerous long standing club records prior. Who else would they have realistically been able to get in with a better record? |
Dr P,
How do see Potter's tenure at Brighton to date? Brighton took a chance, arguably, on a manager with one season in The Championship (a 10th place finish), and reportedly paid us £3m in compensation.
Genuinely interested in your views on this one. |  | | |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 13:18 - Sep 17 with 862 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 13:09 - Sep 17 by Evs |
Dr P,
How do see Potter's tenure at Brighton to date? Brighton took a chance, arguably, on a manager with one season in The Championship (a 10th place finish), and reportedly paid us £3m in compensation.
Genuinely interested in your views on this one. |
Don’t take much notice of them really.
Potter is a solid pair of hands though.
Has spent €160m on transfers in his time there, which puts them in the top 10 spenders. You could argue they should be pushing more towards mid table but I’m sure they won’t care that much as long as they keep getting the TV money each year.
Good start to this season, but they have had a kind start getting wins against Watford, Brentford and Burnley.
Solid I’d say on the whole, helped by an enormous amount of spending. | |
| |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 14:35 - Sep 17 with 832 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 13:18 - Sep 17 by Dr_Parnassus |
Don’t take much notice of them really.
Potter is a solid pair of hands though.
Has spent €160m on transfers in his time there, which puts them in the top 10 spenders. You could argue they should be pushing more towards mid table but I’m sure they won’t care that much as long as they keep getting the TV money each year.
Good start to this season, but they have had a kind start getting wins against Watford, Brentford and Burnley.
Solid I’d say on the whole, helped by an enormous amount of spending. |
What was Potter s net spend? Ben White was sold for £50m for example. You are presenting data as if you are representing the owner. I cannot think of any other big sales to be honest.
Potter has benefited from good 'trading' rather than just 'spending'.
Potter sadly did poorly at the lower level at Swansea. Why any scout would select Mckay is is a mystery. I have not met one single fan than thinks buying his for £1.5m was a good idea. Three players unfamiliar to tacking and a headless chicken. Wasting that £7m cost the club their bet shot at promotion all be it is a state of transition. | |
| |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 15:13 - Sep 17 with 799 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
That's not really applicable to us. Dyche took them up, took them down and then took them back up.
I'm sure we would have retained Rodgers had we been relegated and nobody came in for him.
Why would you want consistency when the manager's only record with you is failure? |  |
| |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:10 - Sep 17 with 697 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 14:35 - Sep 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
What was Potter s net spend? Ben White was sold for £50m for example. You are presenting data as if you are representing the owner. I cannot think of any other big sales to be honest.
Potter has benefited from good 'trading' rather than just 'spending'.
Potter sadly did poorly at the lower level at Swansea. Why any scout would select Mckay is is a mystery. I have not met one single fan than thinks buying his for £1.5m was a good idea. Three players unfamiliar to tacking and a headless chicken. Wasting that £7m cost the club their bet shot at promotion all be it is a state of transition. |
I don’t believe in the notion of net spend, as I explained to you yesterday.
Our net spend in our first 6 Premier League seasons was roughly zero.
Which from a net spend point of view would be the same as just keeping all our players when we went up, signing nobody for the duration of our stay and just extending contracts.
I doubt we would have lasted 2 seasons. They are different markets, where players have different values, so the notion of net spend (all players per dollar value being equal) is a fallacy. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Here is a clue for everyone on 22:16 - Sep 17 with 686 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:10 - Sep 17 by Dr_Parnassus |
I don’t believe in the notion of net spend, as I explained to you yesterday.
Our net spend in our first 6 Premier League seasons was roughly zero.
Which from a net spend point of view would be the same as just keeping all our players when we went up, signing nobody for the duration of our stay and just extending contracts.
I doubt we would have lasted 2 seasons. They are different markets, where players have different values, so the notion of net spend (all players per dollar value being equal) is a fallacy. |
I used the google definition of net spend. Fees incoming from Transfers minus fees outgoing in transfers.
For the three pre season for Brighton with potter in charge Brighton have spent 147m and brought in £84m based on Transfermkt data. A net spend of + £63m or £21m per season.
Brighton's debts to its owner are horrendous. Not sure how much of this is due to the newish stadium.
https://theathletic.com/news/b | |
| |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 22:27 - Sep 17 with 665 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 22:16 - Sep 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I used the google definition of net spend. Fees incoming from Transfers minus fees outgoing in transfers.
For the three pre season for Brighton with potter in charge Brighton have spent 147m and brought in £84m based on Transfermkt data. A net spend of + £63m or £21m per season.
Brighton's debts to its owner are horrendous. Not sure how much of this is due to the newish stadium.
https://theathletic.com/news/b |
That is indeed what net spend means.
But as I said, I don’t believe in the notion of net spend showing anything of any note. Ben White is not £50m worth of talent lost, players are more expensive if they play for a Premier League club, even more so if they are British.
That then gives you £50m to spend in markets where you can get excellent players for a fraction of the price.
It’s akin to selling your decrepit, cramped, tiny flat in London and buying a brand new beachside mansion in Vietnam for a tenth of the price. You can’t judge the improvement of that property purely on net spend, what you acquire would be infinitely better than what you sold and your net spend heavily in the minus.
Different markets. | |
| |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 08:14 - Sep 18 with 587 views | jackrmee |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 22:27 - Sep 17 by Dr_Parnassus |
That is indeed what net spend means.
But as I said, I don’t believe in the notion of net spend showing anything of any note. Ben White is not £50m worth of talent lost, players are more expensive if they play for a Premier League club, even more so if they are British.
That then gives you £50m to spend in markets where you can get excellent players for a fraction of the price.
It’s akin to selling your decrepit, cramped, tiny flat in London and buying a brand new beachside mansion in Vietnam for a tenth of the price. You can’t judge the improvement of that property purely on net spend, what you acquire would be infinitely better than what you sold and your net spend heavily in the minus.
Different markets. |
If you don't think Brighton should count White in net transfers out, as he's not £50M lost, then Arsenal can't count him in transfers in either, as he's not £50M gained.
Net transfers are net transfers.
It surely doesn't go by how much you think the players are worth?
Net transfers are facts. Something you seem to love when it suits you. |  |
| |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 09:12 - Sep 18 with 565 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 08:14 - Sep 18 by jackrmee |
If you don't think Brighton should count White in net transfers out, as he's not £50M lost, then Arsenal can't count him in transfers in either, as he's not £50M gained.
Net transfers are net transfers.
It surely doesn't go by how much you think the players are worth?
Net transfers are facts. Something you seem to love when it suits you. |
Eh? I’m not quite sure you understood what was written.
Of course Ben White counts in net spend.
I said I don’t put too much importance on net spend telling us anything interesting regarding the quality of the squad due to the different markets.
I thought it was an easy enough point to understand. Maybe I needed to dumb it down a bit some for some. | |
| |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:08 - Sep 19 with 472 views | WalterBoyd |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 08:14 - Sep 18 by jackrmee |
If you don't think Brighton should count White in net transfers out, as he's not £50M lost, then Arsenal can't count him in transfers in either, as he's not £50M gained.
Net transfers are net transfers.
It surely doesn't go by how much you think the players are worth?
Net transfers are facts. Something you seem to love when it suits you. |
Brighton will be a tough one on Wednesday, make no mistake. | | | |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:11 - Sep 19 with 460 views | union_jack |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:08 - Sep 19 by WalterBoyd |
Brighton will be a tough one on Wednesday, make no mistake. |
4th in the PL ATM. |  |
| |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:21 - Sep 19 with 449 views | KeithHaynes |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:08 - Sep 19 by WalterBoyd |
Brighton will be a tough one on Wednesday, make no mistake. |
5-0 Brighton or 1-0 Swansea. |  |
| |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:23 - Sep 19 with 446 views | jackrmee |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:11 - Sep 19 by union_jack |
4th in the PL ATM. |
Huge win against Leicester today again.
Potter is an excellent manager. We were lucky to have him. Shame he didn't stay a bit longer. He's going to the very top IMO. | |
| |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:42 - Sep 19 with 436 views | WalterBoyd |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:21 - Sep 19 by KeithHaynes |
5-0 Brighton or 1-0 Swansea. |
Depends on the starting 11 of both teams. I know which one I'd prefer. | | | |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:50 - Sep 19 with 430 views | jackrmee |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:42 - Sep 19 by WalterBoyd |
Depends on the starting 11 of both teams. I know which one I'd prefer. |
Brighton will go weak I reckon.
They are doing so well in the league. Potter did the same here. He wants to try different things. He's a potterer and will want to try different tactics etc. He can't do that in the league any more.
I'm pretty sure we will go strong.
How strong will depend on how tired the boys are.
I think RM's plan has changed slightly, after having to use players he didn't want to in order to mastermind that comeback. | |
| |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 22:15 - Sep 19 with 421 views | WalterBoyd |
| Here is a clue for everyone on 21:50 - Sep 19 by jackrmee |
Brighton will go weak I reckon.
They are doing so well in the league. Potter did the same here. He wants to try different things. He's a potterer and will want to try different tactics etc. He can't do that in the league any more.
I'm pretty sure we will go strong.
How strong will depend on how tired the boys are.
I think RM's plan has changed slightly, after having to use players he didn't want to in order to mastermind that comeback. |
Brighton weak, would be challenge for our best. We need to concentrate on the league and no real strength in depth.So I see us losing this one.
I do realise some of our fans ( not you Jackrmee) want our best 11 starting every match but it is what it's. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
