The on topic thread

[NUFC Tiger]

It's good business no? They're still bringing through English talent like Ward-Prowse, Targett etc. from the famed academy and found cheaper foreign talent to play with them and improve their results on the pitch. In 2-3 years time when Ward-Prowse gets snapped up by a City or United for £25m they'll bring in another cheaper foreigner with HG talent still coming through supporting them. They're the exact template progressive clubs should follow, and if they did England would be back to a top 10 nation in world football. Problem is out of the 72 football league clubs only about 4 clubs (MK Dons, Spurs, Southampton, Crewe, perhaps Villa will go that way now they have Sherwood) look to operate in such a way. Like I've said many times the problem isn't with City or Chelsea, with the riches they have and pressure that goes with playing there their U21 talent has to be extreme top level (Hazard) to even get a look in. It's the clubs like Stoke, Newcastle, QPR etc. who are bringing in bog average players from all over the world and regressing as football clubs!

Southampton are definitely a model of success and that is great business by them but is it a sustainable one? No one can tell if a young player will develop into a star or whether potential shown as a junior will materialise into ability as a senior player. What is the point for Southampton to keep developing talent if they will be poached by bigger teams in 1-3 years and they need to start from scratch? Will they (should they) be content to be like Everton in recent times and trying to crack into that top bracket without ever establishing themselves?

Its all well and good to make talent (I think every club would love to produce their own players - especially if they are quality like some of the Southampton lads have been) but if you lose talent to the established top order, how can you realistically expect to progress? Whether youth or buying foreign talent, there is always a degree of gamble involved.

Also I think its unfair to say that only the big clubs have to deal with pressure. Promoted clubs or lower tier PL teams have just as much pressure to remain in the PL given how lucrative the league has become. Why should they have to (in their eyes) be forced to play more English/U21 players if they feel/can sign better quality players from abroad?

Just on ourselves, while we've picked up a few duds over the years (every club does) by and large (when we do actually spend money), we 'generally' do quite well in the transfer market with foreign acquisitions (at least in recent times anyway).

End of the day the clubs will run themselves however they choose fit with or without regulations in place. Some will try and be cost effective and take chances on older guys or foreigners over youth. But at the end of the day supporters of clubs like Sunderland, Newcastle, QPR & Villa (clubs with fan bases or financial support) have to surely get pissed with the way clubs like Southampton & Swansea have so easily passed their clubs running it in a correct way. 5-7 years ago neither of those 2 clubs had any right to be above at least 3 of the 4 mentioned but they've turned it around big time. Surely their supporters should be hoping their clubs get run the same way

Can't speak as a fan of the other teams but as a Toon fan, my (and many others) frustration starts and ends with Mike Ashley.

When looking at sides like Swansea and Southampton with admiration, there is a pang of jealousy because many of us feel that Newcastle (as a club) has more potential to be a top side (IMO) than those 2 and yet finds itself languishing under Mike Ashley's model of running the club. IF we had an owner who genuinely wanted to progress the club and we were signing hacks like we did under Freddy Shepherd, then I think many would agree with you but when we've chosen to spend money, we've generally done alright - the fundamental issue is Ashley has no ambition for the club other than pocketing easy money With no ambition, there is no real need to improve things (in Ashley's eyes) because that generally costs money.

A lot of Toon fans also don't really care for England's national side (or the FA) either from what I've read and seen. Hodgson, Capello and even Erikson very rarely ever graced the north east/St James' to watch our games or to see any of our players who were playing well at the time. Won't even go into the Owen saga.

Would you rather your club be run like Southampton/Swansea or Newcastle/Sunderland?

This isn't a right now sort of prospect. Would you rather be a Newcastle/Sunderland supporter going forward with the same practices as now, or would you like to see an overhaul of things and move forward in another direction?

Obviously both Newcastle and Sunderland fans would choose (if they could) to have things run differently to the present - both clubs are guilty of poor management (stemming from the ownership of the club).

That being said, I think your criticism of our academy is a bit harsh too given we've had plenty (8) of our academy graduate players appear in the PL this season. Had a quick look and we've had academy graduates start 69 times so far this season and 21 further appearances off the bench; so its more than just token 5/10 min cameos off the bench - we're giving kids a chance, perhaps not by desire but out of necessity given our horrible injury list this season. Regardless, I'd reckon we'd be one of the better (top 10 at least) for appearances by academy players this season.

FYI - here's a thread I made late last year on the topic (at the time, we were ranked 4th behind Man Utd, Spurs and Arsenal). If not for injuries to guys like Aarons (only 3 sub apps this season) and Dummett (out for the season), the number of appearances would be much higher I suspect.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/academy-graduate-players.1083871/

How is this loaded?

Scenario 1: spend money on more older players and finish 12th-20th
Scenario 2: spend money on youth facilities and development and see what happens?

Scenario 1: clubs like Sunderland, Bolton, Portsmouth, Newcastle
Scenario 2: Southampton, Swansea, Fulham (post-Magath), Brentford, Crewe, MK Dons

It's not a who would you rather on March 25, 2015. It's going forward as a club which business model would you prefer?

Not saying it is an exact science. Just look at Crewe and MK Dons, they've had mixed levels of success in the league. But they're seeing that throwing money at things won't put them ahead of the competition so what's the point

You're probably talking generally here but Newcastle very rarely buy 'older' players - Ashley's model is to buy cheap and young foreign (and local occassionaly) talent, develop them and sell them on for profit. I actually support Ashley's vision of buying promising young talent on those rare occasions he needs to buy (not so much the selling aspect but he generally gets good prices back - if only he reimbursed the money!)

Just on business models, I think one of the thing good things Mike Ashley has done is make the club financially viable. We are one of the few teams in recent years to post successive profits - probably helps when Ashley is so tight fisted - though he also forgoes plenty in commercial and matchday revenue by polluting St James' Park with all his (free of charge) Sports Direct banners!

 

[Zidane98]

I guess cause £10m will still be a bargain for a player of Cechs ability and he'll have a heap of suitors willing to pay that price. 32 isn't that 'old' for a keeper.

10m isnt a bargain when Cech wants out and has 1 year left on his contract. Better off to wait another year and get him for free. He won't be signing a new deal.

 

[Sub_Zero]

Can never take WC's posts seriously

 

[NUFC Tiger]

He scored 3 in his first 5 including one on debut (also hit the post with a nice trap and turn, so could have been even better). He scored on the weekend against Chelsea, and has had very decent chances against Leicester and Chelsea that he missed. Has been injured, and hasn't started a game since January, so has 4 in 13 starts - the same number as Suarez in his debut season for Liverpool. How he plays in the next 8 games will determine what we do with him I think.

We spent 10m on him so I think we'd be reluctant to sell for less than 5-6m, and I'm not sure whether he commands that sort of price at the moment so we may be likely to keep hold of him. But if you do a Soton and offer us silly money - say, 8m - we'd bite your hand off.

I'd be pretty keen at $5-6m though not sure about $10m. We've apparently been chasing Andre Ayew pretty hard too I believe. I guess it will depend what happens with Perez (who's got a list of admirers) and potentially Cisse who's fast approaching the age where he won't offer any significant resale value.

I personally think there is more chance of Hull sneaking into the champions league places this season than Mike Ashley sanctioning the spending of silly money, the greedy grub!

 

[chef]

10m isnt a bargain when Cech wants out and has 1 year left on his contract. Better off to wait another year and get him for free. He won't be signing a new deal.

I guess you could do that, but you'd just miss out on him as someone else will buy him. Not a great way to do business IMO.

Is WC the only one not to think £10m a great price for Cech?

 

[Zidane98]

I guess you could do that, but you'd just miss out on him as someone else will buy him. Not a great way to do business IMO.

Is WC the only one not to think £10m a great price for Cech?

I think that is about what he is worth if he was still your regular first choice keeper and had a couple of years left on his contract. You will have little negotiating power with his contract expiring and Cech publicly stating he will leave.

But who knows. Maybe PSG will pay the asking price. If they think Luiz is worth 48m they will probably bid 15m for Cech.

 

[chef]

I think that is about what he is worth if he was still your regular first choice keeper and had a couple of years left on his contract. You will have little negotiating power with his contract expiring and Cech publicly stating he will leave.

But who knows. Maybe PSG will pay the asking price. If they think Luiz is worth 48m they will probably bid 15m for Cech.

I guess we'll see buddy, I reckon there's going to be quite the queue for big Petes services and with the mutual respect between club and player this transfer will be smooth.

And as you said there may even be a club desperate enough for his services to pay over the £10m we'll probably get.

 

[jod23]

I guess you could do that, but you'd just miss out on him as someone else will buy him. Not a great way to do business IMO.

Is WC the only one not to think £10m a great price for Cech?

Id snap your arm off for Cech for 10m. Even with Migs turning it around and been excellent the past 3-4 months. Cech is world class. I thought we would definitely be into him had Migs continued that poor form but now that he has turned it around I dont think a first choice GK is on the list for the summer. We will be looking for a backup though I think.

 

[Cruyff14]

The German kit is ****ing sex.

 

[wadistance]

The German kit is ******* sex.

it kills me to say it, but I think the white bayern kit from this season is the equal best kid in world football, along with the CSKA kit of this year

 

[Cruyff14]

The white one is OK.

Big fan of Chelsea's home kit.

 

[ADL9798]

Id snap your arm off for Cech for 10m. Even with Migs turning it around and been excellent the past 3-4 months. Cech is world class. I thought we would definitely be into him had Migs continued that poor form but now that he has turned it around I dont think a first choice GK is on the list for the summer. We will be looking for a backup though I think.

I think you're right. Still not sure that I'm 100% confident in Mignolet yet though!

 

[moomba]

Thought this was quite interesting. Not so much for the "biggest club" wankfest, but how different clubs perform in different categories.

I'll edit this post with a description of the categories in a bit.

 

[jod23]

Huh?

Chelsea and Arsenal have a bigger global fan base than Liverpool.

 

[jod23]

Also how are they measuring the crowd bit??

Is it in sheer numbers? Stamford Bridge holds 41,837 and Anfield holds 45,522. So how are Chelsea ranked 3rd and Liverpool 10th? I mean we sell out Anfield every week.

Goodison - 40,221
Villa Park - 42,788
White Hart Lane - 36,230

Etc etc

So if it's going by sheer numbers then that graph is off. Also what does that have to do with a football club. Not all teams can have a huge stadium. Im sure if Liverpool and Chelsea had bigger stadiums, they would sell them out. Same with Spurs, they have a rather small stadium. I bet if they bumped that 36k to around 45k they would still sell out games.

It's circumstance and stadium size. That shouldnt matter in judging clubs.

 

[moomba]

HERE'S HOW WE WORKED IT OUT

Crowds

We ranked all clubs on the size of their average gates during this season to reflect contemporary pull. Then we ranked each club by the size of their biggest historic gates. Their overall crowd rank is an aggregate of current pull and also potential based on past highs.

Global fanbase

We added up the total number of fans and followers for each club on Facebook and Twitter — by far the most popular global social media platforms. Every club has official accounts.

Trophies

We counted ‘major’ trophies won by each club, giving points for each; 10pts for each European Cup/Champions League win, 8pts for each top-division English title, 5pts for each FA Cup or other European trophy win, and 3pts for each League Cup win. No ‘one-off’ trophies such as the Charity Shield are considered because they are not the product of multi-match competitions. And being a losing finalist does not count for points either — here at Sportsmail, winning is everything, second is nowhere.

Average league finish

The average league finish position for each of the clubs since 1888-89.

Player quality

We counted the number of players from each club who have played for England, all-time, ranking the clubs by total. This reflects historic ‘bigness’. We then ranked the clubs by the number of players provided to the 2014 World Cup — a measure of modern ‘bigness’. The overall ranking is an aggregate of these two.

Income

We ranked the clubs by their income for the most recent season available.

The biggest clubs have generally had the most money and been able to buy and pay the best players.

 

[jod23]

Lol, facebook and twitter. Huge in depth research there then.

 

[SM]

Thought this was quite interesting. Not so much for the "biggest club" wankfest, but how different clubs perform in different categories.

I'll edit this post with a description of the categories in a bit.

View attachment 119035

No idea how we score better for crowds than clubs like Soton and West Ham.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Would be interested in seeing how the crowd rankings are determined (guessing must be on % of stadium filled out?).

Given we regularly pack out St James' (even with a drop in attendances due to Ashley), I'm curious how they see City, Chelsea, Everton and (surely some kind of sick, depraved joke) Scumberland ranking better than us (especially when Scumberland can't even sell out home games for the derby!).

 

[Zidane98]

I guess they have come up with some sort of crowd size - money spent / success ratio. Which is silly really.

 

[Flameboy]

Lol, facebook and twitter. Huge in depth research there then.

It is strange though how Liverpool have nowhere near the numbers of United (and even Chelsea & Arsenal) on social media.

United: 63.5 million (Facebook likes)
Chelsea: 41
Arsenal: 32
Liverpool: 24.6

 

[glenferry23]

It is strange though how Liverpool have nowhere near the numbers of United (and even Chelsea & Arsenal) on social media.

United: 63.5 million (Facebook likes)
Chelsea: 41
Arsenal: 32
Liverpool: 24.6

Yes that struck me as odd as well, given Liverpool's popularity in Asia in particular.

 

[Flameboy]

Yes that struck me as odd as well, given Liverpool's popularity in Asia in particular.

Maybe they're not as big as we think they are?

I wonder how many bites this will get, haha.

 

[glenferry23]

Maybe they're not as big as we think they are?

I wonder how many bites this will get, haha.

Just from personal travels throughout Asia, their following is massive. Absolutely massive. Have spent a few years living and traveling through Asia, and off the top of my head I would say they are most popular in:

- Thailand (United and City not far behind)
- Vietnam
- Malaysia (Chelsea seem very popular here too)
- The Philippines

Have seen plenty of support for them in India and China too, probably on par with Arsenal and United there. Taiwan was mostly Chelsea although I don't remember much, was too drunk.

Hong Kong is predominantly United but with Liverpool not too far behind. Singapore and Indonesia seem to be Arsenal. Thaksin's reign at City still sees them very popular in Thailand.

Only been a handful of times to Sri Lanka and Pakistan, but again Liverpool have a marked presence there.

But overall, they have a huge global following but perhaps not the club isnt active enough on social media to reflect this.

 

[ADL9798]

It is strange though how Liverpool have nowhere near the numbers of United (and even Chelsea & Arsenal) on social media.

United: 63.5 million (Facebook likes)
Chelsea: 41
Arsenal: 32
Liverpool: 24.6

Could be that Liverpool have individual official twitter/facebook accounts for about 20 different countries, all posting in the local language. This might carry more appeal for people living in Malaysia for example, who might not speak English and would therefore derive little to no benefit from following an English language account - I think Chelsea have 2 or 3 additional accounts but I'm not sure that Arsenal or United do this? Still probably wouldn't bridge the gap entirely but might account for some of the difference.

Talking social media in sport in general, a friend of mine works in sports marketing and he remarked that it's a huge challenge for people in his industry to get an individual to go from casually 'liking' a page or twitter account etc, to actually actively engaging the team/sport and most importantly (from the administrators perspective) spending their money on that team/sport. It's clear from the sell out games Liverpool play in 80-100,000 seater stadiums wherever they go around the world that their ability to convert these casual supporters into paid up consumers (I hate that word in this context) is extremely high, hence their continued ability to negotiate extremely high value commercial sponsorship deals despite their lack of success relative to the other commercial giants in the game.