The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
Gotta wonder why they have gone for Barnsley. Worrying for them. Don't see this as good news for BFC.1
-
All the while Soccernomics is heralded as the future it assumes that the person making the decisions is clairvoyant. If that is a Sporting Director then if you get the wrong one in it all falls flat.
Look at us and the players we signed. They all fit into the Socceronimics principle. They were all young with potential sell on profits. Polish Pete (as a replacement for Kermorgant - a early 20s player for a mid 30s player) was just one example. The reality, though, is that Kermorgant had so, so much more to offer and Pete never did and, almost certainly, never will.
This is why the blanket suggestion to buy them in young and sell them when they peak (which I’m assuming you got from Lyon’s successes as described in the book) is rubbish if the one person that is deemed irreplaceable is not up to the job. Lyon, it could be argued, were successful for no more than the fact that they had a fantastic ‘Director of Football’ and when he left the whole model failed to work. I.e. it all relies on the success of one person. Just like a football club like Man Utd relied on Sir Alex Ferguson. Sure they changed Coaches and players (several times over) but when the Manager left the club fell apart.
Moneyball or Socceronmics is only as good as the chap that heads it up. This has never been more evident with KM being the only constant at Charlton as managers and players came and went (mostly young players too) yet the club has, literally, performed worse each season than the one before.
So, I put it to you that Moneyball and/or Soccernomics is a load of old rubbish. The only people that were successful as a result of it were those that managed to sell books that convinced Americans that this is how the English and European Game can be conquered.
To date no American has managed or bought a football club that has won anything of worth in Europe. However I will concede that they have sold a shedload of books ‘proving’ how it can be done.
Go figure, as our friends ‘across the pond’ like to say.11 -
I wonder if the Chinese have ever visited Barnsley - if they had I'm sure they would have gone down the road & bought Leeds instead.EdgeleyAddick said:Gotta wonder why they have gone for Barnsley. Worrying for them. Don't see this as good news for BFC.
1 -
I wanted to emphasise my point!sillav nitram said:ElfsborgAddick said:
Non-League is the way forward.AFKABartram said:I genuinely hate what football has become
He’s not deaf!ElfsborgAddick said:
Non-League is the way forward.AFKABartram said:I genuinely hate what football has become
1 -
On the contrary, it's about the club. If you have a load of.... would you take it to Leeds, the third biggest club in the country after Man U and Liverpool? If they have so much cash, why have they not bought Newcastle or Charlton?golfaddick said:
I wonder if the Chinese have ever visited Barnsley - if they had I'm sure they would have gone down the road & bought Leeds instead.EdgeleyAddick said:Gotta wonder why they have gone for Barnsley. Worrying for them. Don't see this as good news for BFC.
0 -
But why? The Chinese like red so Barnsley fit that profile. If they, really, are going to spend an absolute fortune what difference does it make where the club are based in another country?golfaddick said:
I wonder if the Chinese have ever visited Barnsley - if they had I'm sure they would have gone down the road & bought Leeds instead.EdgeleyAddick said:Gotta wonder why they have gone for Barnsley. Worrying for them. Don't see this as good news for BFC.
If Barnsley are successful (definition to be confirmed) they will sell out their ground and so why would the Chinese Billionaire care about their history. I’m not being funny but Man City hadn’t won the league since before most of us were born that doesn’t seem to have held them back from being highly successful and having fans all over the world, many of whom will have no idea of the geography or history of Manchester.
This is the way of modern football now. Even Chelsea hadn't won the English title since 1955 yet now they are one of the big boys.4 -
As with the RD scenario. You just have to ask, WHY? It may be honourable, but the BFC fan I have spoken to is very concerned. They pride themselves on the locality, social interaction and working together (ring any bells?)0
-
I can accept EVERY bit of what you just said as a potential counter-opinion.kings hill addick said:All the while Soccernomics is heralded as the future it assumes that the person making the decisions is clairvoyant. If that is a Sporting Director then if you get the wrong one in it all falls flat.
Look at us and the players we signed. They all fit into the Socceronimics principle. They were all young with potential sell on profits. Polish Pete (as a replacement for Kermorgant - a early 20s player for a mid 30s player) was just one example. The reality, though, is that Kermorgant had so, so much more to offer and Pete never did and, almost certainly, never will.
This is why the blanket suggestion to buy them in young and sell them when they peak (which I’m assuming you got from Lyon’s successes as described in the book) is rubbish if the one person that is deemed irreplaceable is not up to the job. Lyon, it could be argued, were successful for no more than the fact that they had a fantastic ‘Director of Football’ and when he left the whole model failed to work. I.e. it all relies on the success of one person. Just like a football club like Man Utd relied on Sir Alex Ferguson. Sure they changed Coaches and players (several times over) but when the Manager left the club fell apart.
Moneyball or Socceronmics is only as good as the chap that heads it up. This has never been more evident with KM being the only constant at Charlton as managers and players came and went (mostly young players too) yet the club has, literally, performed worse each season than the one before.
So, I put it to you that Moneyball and/or Soccernomics is a load of old rubbish. The only people that were successful as a result of it were those that managed to sell books that convinced Americans that this is how the English and European Game can be conquered.
To date no American has managed or bought a football club that has won anything of worth in Europe. However I will concede that they have sold a shedload of books ‘proving’ how it can be done.
Go figure, as our friends ‘across the pond’ like to say.
I will say this though, in counter-response, when was the last time an English owner won anything of value?
So if you are right and moneyball is rubbish, then I can equally say that the English style of running a club is also rubbish. So even if you don't wanna go the direction of moneyball, I hope you come up with something better than the English style of running a club, where managers are moved in and out and blow through transfer budgets time and again.
PS- ManU is American owned and has won titles under American ownership. Five to be exact, which I am guessing is more than all English owners combined over that period. And Arsenal and Liverpool are American owned and even though neither live up to their potential, each do better than any English owned club, year in and year out. The best known English owner is Mike Ashley of Newcastle. I hope you are not hanging your hat on that for English football ownership success.1 -
Does anyone else just power scroll through this thread now, only stopping at Airman Brown or RedHenry posts?
63 -
Probably the worst post so far. Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal throw money at anyone and everyone and wait for something to stick. You’re proving his point, nothing about what they do is moneyball. I’d argue that English billionaires aren’t dumb enough to buy football clubs, we’ll leave that to the Americans, Russians and Arabs who flush money down the toilet half the time.NapaAddick said:
I can accept EVERY bit of what you just said as a potential counter-opinion.kings hill addick said:All the while Soccernomics is heralded as the future it assumes that the person making the decisions is clairvoyant. If that is a Sporting Director then if you get the wrong one in it all falls flat.
Look at us and the players we signed. They all fit into the Socceronimics principle. They were all young with potential sell on profits. Polish Pete (as a replacement for Kermorgant - a early 20s player for a mid 30s player) was just one example. The reality, though, is that Kermorgant had so, so much more to offer and Pete never did and, almost certainly, never will.
This is why the blanket suggestion to buy them in young and sell them when they peak (which I’m assuming you got from Lyon’s successes as described in the book) is rubbish if the one person that is deemed irreplaceable is not up to the job. Lyon, it could be argued, were successful for no more than the fact that they had a fantastic ‘Director of Football’ and when he left the whole model failed to work. I.e. it all relies on the success of one person. Just like a football club like Man Utd relied on Sir Alex Ferguson. Sure they changed Coaches and players (several times over) but when the Manager left the club fell apart.
Moneyball or Socceronmics is only as good as the chap that heads it up. This has never been more evident with KM being the only constant at Charlton as managers and players came and went (mostly young players too) yet the club has, literally, performed worse each season than the one before.
So, I put it to you that Moneyball and/or Soccernomics is a load of old rubbish. The only people that were successful as a result of it were those that managed to sell books that convinced Americans that this is how the English and European Game can be conquered.
To date no American has managed or bought a football club that has won anything of worth in Europe. However I will concede that they have sold a shedload of books ‘proving’ how it can be done.
Go figure, as our friends ‘across the pond’ like to say.
I will say this though, in counter-response, when was the last time an English owner won anything of value?
So if you are right and moneyball is rubbish, then I can equally say that the English style of running a club is also rubbish. So even if you don't wanna go the direction of moneyball, I hope you come up with something better than the English style of running a club, where managers are moved in and out and blow through transfer budgets time and again.
PS- ManU is American owned and has won titles under American ownership. Five to be exact, which I am guessing is more than all English owners combined over that period. And Arsenal and Liverpool are American owned and even though neither live up to their potential, each do better than any English owned club, year in and year out. The best known English owner is Mike Ashley of Newcastle. I hope you are not hanging your hat on that for English football ownership success.3 - Sponsored links:
-
Sorry, could you repeat that?ElfsborgAddick said:
I wanted to emphasise my point!sillav nitram said:ElfsborgAddick said:
Non-League is the way forward.AFKABartram said:I genuinely hate what football has become
He’s not deaf!ElfsborgAddick said:
Non-League is the way forward.AFKABartram said:I genuinely hate what football has become
1 -
The part about US owners of ManU, etc, had NOTHING to do with Moneyball, nor was it intended to address that. Your point is the very definition of "straw man." It was a response to him saying that American owners have not won anything. My counter-response is that they win a whole lot more than any English owners do. Which is correct. I also contend that if a foreign owner was willing to spend like mad here the way Russians, Arabs and Chinese, you would not be complaining one damned bit.cafc_harry said:
Probably the worst post so far. Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal throw money at anyone and everyone and wait for something to stick. You’re proving his point, nothing about what they do is moneyball. I’d argue that English billionaires aren’t dumb enough to buy football clubs, we’ll leave that to the Americans, Russians and Arabs who flush money down the toilet half the time.0 -
Oh dear!! On page 209 I mentioned that very surprisingly Barnsley have been taken over. I log back in this morning to see 3 pages of posts have been added. I rushed to open the thread that news of our takeover must have broken, only to see a full blown debate on 'Money-Ball' et-al.
I take it that our supposed takeover is still going through DD, or not, has started, or not. Has not started, or it has!!! Oh well what an anti-climax!0 -
Indeed, look at what we have been lowered to. I guess we can have a discussion of FFP Rules next, if we want to get even less relevant.Redmidland said:Oh dear!! On page 209 I mentioned that very surprisingly Barnsley have been taken over. I log back in this morning to see 3 pages of posts have been added. I rushed to open the thread that news of our takeover must have broken, only to see a full blown debate on 'Money-Ball' et-al.
I take it that our supposed takeover is still going through DD, or not, has started, or not. Has not started, or it has!!! Oh well what an anti-climax!0 -
If there's one thing Russell Slade taught us, it's that we have to be patient.18
-
And Belgians!cafc_harry said:
Probably the worst post so far. Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal throw money at anyone and everyone and wait for something to stick. You’re proving his point, nothing about what they do is moneyball. I’d argue that English billionaires aren’t dumb enough to buy football clubs, we’ll leave that to the Americans, Russians and Arabs who flush money down the toilet half the time.NapaAddick said:
I can accept EVERY bit of what you just said as a potential counter-opinion.kings hill addick said:All the while Soccernomics is heralded as the future it assumes that the person making the decisions is clairvoyant. If that is a Sporting Director then if you get the wrong one in it all falls flat.
Look at us and the players we signed. They all fit into the Socceronimics principle. They were all young with potential sell on profits. Polish Pete (as a replacement for Kermorgant - a early 20s player for a mid 30s player) was just one example. The reality, though, is that Kermorgant had so, so much more to offer and Pete never did and, almost certainly, never will.
This is why the blanket suggestion to buy them in young and sell them when they peak (which I’m assuming you got from Lyon’s successes as described in the book) is rubbish if the one person that is deemed irreplaceable is not up to the job. Lyon, it could be argued, were successful for no more than the fact that they had a fantastic ‘Director of Football’ and when he left the whole model failed to work. I.e. it all relies on the success of one person. Just like a football club like Man Utd relied on Sir Alex Ferguson. Sure they changed Coaches and players (several times over) but when the Manager left the club fell apart.
Moneyball or Socceronmics is only as good as the chap that heads it up. This has never been more evident with KM being the only constant at Charlton as managers and players came and went (mostly young players too) yet the club has, literally, performed worse each season than the one before.
So, I put it to you that Moneyball and/or Soccernomics is a load of old rubbish. The only people that were successful as a result of it were those that managed to sell books that convinced Americans that this is how the English and European Game can be conquered.
To date no American has managed or bought a football club that has won anything of worth in Europe. However I will concede that they have sold a shedload of books ‘proving’ how it can be done.
Go figure, as our friends ‘across the pond’ like to say.
I will say this though, in counter-response, when was the last time an English owner won anything of value?
So if you are right and moneyball is rubbish, then I can equally say that the English style of running a club is also rubbish. So even if you don't wanna go the direction of moneyball, I hope you come up with something better than the English style of running a club, where managers are moved in and out and blow through transfer budgets time and again.
PS- ManU is American owned and has won titles under American ownership. Five to be exact, which I am guessing is more than all English owners combined over that period. And Arsenal and Liverpool are American owned and even though neither live up to their potential, each do better than any English owned club, year in and year out. The best known English owner is Mike Ashley of Newcastle. I hope you are not hanging your hat on that for English football ownership success.
0 -
Is Roland Douche a billionaire? Thought he was only worth a trifling £400M.Henry Irving said:
And Belgians!
0 -
As usual your maths (please note the use of the "s") is way out.NapaAddick said:
Is Roland Douche a billionaire? Thought he was only worth a trifling £400M.Henry Irving said:
And Belgians!
1.6bn euros4 -
I'm sure we come could up with a long list... us English are not immune to stupidity.cafc_harry said:
Probably the worst post so far. Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal throw money at anyone and everyone and wait for something to stick. You’re proving his point, nothing about what they do is moneyball. I’d argue that English billionaires aren’t dumb enough to buy football clubs, we’ll leave that to the Americans, Russians and Arabs who flush money down the toilet half the time.NapaAddick said:
I can accept EVERY bit of what you just said as a potential counter-opinion.kings hill addick said:All the while Soccernomics is heralded as the future it assumes that the person making the decisions is clairvoyant. If that is a Sporting Director then if you get the wrong one in it all falls flat.
Look at us and the players we signed. They all fit into the Socceronimics principle. They were all young with potential sell on profits. Polish Pete (as a replacement for Kermorgant - a early 20s player for a mid 30s player) was just one example. The reality, though, is that Kermorgant had so, so much more to offer and Pete never did and, almost certainly, never will.
This is why the blanket suggestion to buy them in young and sell them when they peak (which I’m assuming you got from Lyon’s successes as described in the book) is rubbish if the one person that is deemed irreplaceable is not up to the job. Lyon, it could be argued, were successful for no more than the fact that they had a fantastic ‘Director of Football’ and when he left the whole model failed to work. I.e. it all relies on the success of one person. Just like a football club like Man Utd relied on Sir Alex Ferguson. Sure they changed Coaches and players (several times over) but when the Manager left the club fell apart.
Moneyball or Socceronmics is only as good as the chap that heads it up. This has never been more evident with KM being the only constant at Charlton as managers and players came and went (mostly young players too) yet the club has, literally, performed worse each season than the one before.
So, I put it to you that Moneyball and/or Soccernomics is a load of old rubbish. The only people that were successful as a result of it were those that managed to sell books that convinced Americans that this is how the English and European Game can be conquered.
To date no American has managed or bought a football club that has won anything of worth in Europe. However I will concede that they have sold a shedload of books ‘proving’ how it can be done.
Go figure, as our friends ‘across the pond’ like to say.
I will say this though, in counter-response, when was the last time an English owner won anything of value?
So if you are right and moneyball is rubbish, then I can equally say that the English style of running a club is also rubbish. So even if you don't wanna go the direction of moneyball, I hope you come up with something better than the English style of running a club, where managers are moved in and out and blow through transfer budgets time and again.
PS- ManU is American owned and has won titles under American ownership. Five to be exact, which I am guessing is more than all English owners combined over that period. And Arsenal and Liverpool are American owned and even though neither live up to their potential, each do better than any English owned club, year in and year out. The best known English owner is Mike Ashley of Newcastle. I hope you are not hanging your hat on that for English football ownership success.2 -
Nothing new to report then?2
- Sponsored links:
-
The tax bill passed the Senate moments ago.king addick said:Nothing new to report then?
0 -
Still no takeover then? Bugger1
-
The silence Is deafening from @airmanbrown I reckon something's happening and he's sitting biting his lip as he's reading this ... C'mon Rick throw the dog a bone. It's Christmas3
-
A smart club would step up from money ball and when they sell a player for £10m they would buy (say), two young players for £5m who are better than the two worst players they have.
After a few years they would sell a player for £100m and buy two young players for £50m etc etc.1 -
I must admit I only scim read these days but is there any reason to believe something is imminent?
I thought Red Henry said an interesting offer had been made but turned down? Are we just assuming the interested party will persist?
Hasn't the Australian bid stalled?
Apologies if I missed something more encouraging.0 -
Like Southampton do.Redrobo said:A smart club would step up from money ball and when they sell a player for £10m they would buy (say), two young players for £5m who are better than the two worst players they have.
After a few years they would sell a player for £100m and buy two young players for £50m etc etc.0 -
Wouldn’t say it’s deafening, VOTV is out Saturday so I’m sure he’d rather us buy that than reveal all he knows on here a few days before release_MrDick said:The silence Is deafening from @airmanbrown I reckon something's happening and he's sitting biting his lip as he's reading this ... C'mon Rick throw the dog a bone. It's Christmas
0 -
Well if we don't get new owners soon it won't be long until we know whether you are right.ElfsborgAddick said:
Non-League is the way forward.AFKABartram said:I genuinely hate what football has become
0 -
Yeah and it’s the swimsuit edition...J BLOCK said:
Wouldn’t say it’s deafening, VOTV is out Saturday so I’m sure he’d rather us buy that than reveal all he knows on here a few days before release_MrDick said:The silence Is deafening from @airmanbrown I reckon something's happening and he's sitting biting his lip as he's reading this ... C'mon Rick throw the dog a bone. It's Christmas
4 -
@Airman Brown in a two piece?Fumbluff said:
Yeah and it’s the swimsuit edition...J BLOCK said:
Wouldn’t say it’s deafening, VOTV is out Saturday so I’m sure he’d rather us buy that than reveal all he knows on here a few days before release_MrDick said:The silence Is deafening from @airmanbrown I reckon something's happening and he's sitting biting his lip as he's reading this ... C'mon Rick throw the dog a bone. It's Christmas
5
