The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

Moneyball is misunderstood.

Basically it comes down to...

1. Not basing personell choices on emotion, but rather some kind of data. In other words, evidence over feeling.

2. Making the best use of money available by buying young players with upside and selling older players when they reach an age of probably decline and then, this is key... reinvesting.

3. Stop believing in football myths. These would include "playing attractive football" instead focus on maximising points per match. Also, stop buying stars and start by replacing your worst player. Also, pass to another player instead of kicking to goal on corner kicks.

4. Don't give a new manager control over a transfer budget. Stats show they make poor decisions with money because all they care about is the very short term and clubs should be run for the long term.

That kind of thing.

Charlton has NOT tried Moneyball. They tried the Watford model. The closest thing to Moneyball is Southampton. Overall, it has worked quite well for them. Many, including myself, consider them the best run club in England the last decade.

After. That was 8 season ago and the Moneyball began in 2010 with a new owner. And not joking. Educate yourself. Google search "best run club Southampton" and you will see it is not just my opinion.

NapaAddick said:

Moneyball is misunderstood.

Basically it comes down to...

1. Not basing personell choices on emotion, but rather some kind of data. In other words, evidence over feeling.

2. Making the best use of money available by buying young players with upside and selling older players when they reach an age of probably decline and then, this is key... reinvesting.

3. Stop believing in football myths. These would include "playing attractive football" instead focus on maximising points per match. Also, stop buying stars and start by replacing your worst player. Also, pass to another player instead of kicking to goal on corner kicks.

4. Don't give a new manager control over a transfer budget. Stats show they make poor decisions with money because all they care about is the very short term and clubs should be run for the long term.

That kind of thing.

Charlton has NOT tried Moneyball. They tried the Watford model. The closest thing to Moneyball is Southampton. Overall, it has worked quite well for them. Many, including myself, consider them the best run club in England the last decade.

No disrespect intended but that sounds like you’ve spent more time reading books on the subject than you have watching football.

Moneyball is only successful if the right people are in charge of it. It also doesn’t work if everyone is trying to do it at the same time.

Covered_End_Lad said:

Napa and Doucher make my day, two of the most narrow minded people I've ever (kind of) met. I would love to be able to stick to an argument directly contradicting every fact.

It would be pretty dull on hear if everyone just agreed with each other. They are offering different ways of looking at things, though many would disagree with them, it does not make them narrow minded.

NapaAddick said:

Moneyball is misunderstood.

Basically it comes down to...

1. Not basing personell choices on emotion, but rather some kind of data. In other words, evidence over feeling.

2. Making the best use of money available by buying young players with upside and selling older players when they reach an age of probably decline and then, this is key... reinvesting.

3. Stop believing in football myths. These would include "playing attractive football" instead focus on maximising points per match. Also, stop buying stars and start by replacing your worst player. Also, pass to another player instead of kicking to goal on corner kicks.

4. Don't give a new manager control over a transfer budget. Stats show they make poor decisions with money because all they care about is the very short term and clubs should be run for the long term.

That kind of thing.

Charlton has NOT tried Moneyball. They tried the Watford model. The closest thing to Moneyball is Southampton. Overall, it has worked quite well for them. Many, including myself, consider them the best run club in England the last decade.

Im pretty sure Driessen’s whole job was to sit in front of a screen and find cheap players who the numbers said would work out, it doesn’t work. Simple.

Todds_right_hook said:

Covered_End_Lad said:

Napa and Doucher make my day, two of the most narrow minded people I've ever (kind of) met. I would love to be able to stick to an argument directly contradicting every fact.

Cut napa some slack, he lives 5,500 miles away and yet decides out of all the clubs in the world, to support our very own charlton pathetic and is bound to think differently

Actually, thinking about it, naps mate, you are from California and support charlton. You are mental

But, unlike most of us, he is in California which, I feel obliged to admit, does have marginally better weather than Northern Ireland - admittedly, it is only infinitesimally better, and we manage to have almost as many "tanned" lovelies (and ladies as well)...

NapaAddick said:

Moneyball is misunderstood.

Basically it comes down to...

1. Not basing personnel choices on emotion, but rather some kind of data. In other words, evidence over feeling.

2. Making the best use of money available by buying young players with upside and selling older players when they reach an age of probably decline and then, this is key... reinvesting.

3. Stop believing in football myths. These would include "playing attractive football" instead focus on maximising points per match. Also, stop buying stars and start by replacing your worst player. Also, pass to another player instead of kicking to goal on corner kicks.

4. Don't give a new manager control over a transfer budget. Stats show they make poor decisions with money because all they care about is the very short term and clubs should be run for the long term.

That kind of thing.

Charlton has NOT tried Moneyball. They tried the Watford model. The closest thing to Moneyball is Southampton. Overall, it has worked quite well for them. Many, including myself, consider them the best run club in England the last decade.

Which is why it doesn't work for me. The character of the players is very important and that isn't covered by stats. Character builds team spirit. Leave that out of the equation and you'll struggle.

cantersaddick said:

NapaAddick said:

Moneyball is misunderstood.

Basically it comes down to...

1. Not basing personell choices on emotion, but rather some kind of data. In other words, evidence over feeling.

2. Making the best use of money available by buying young players with upside and selling older players when they reach an age of probably decline and then, this is key... reinvesting.

3. Stop believing in football myths. These would include "playing attractive football" instead focus on maximising points per match. Also, stop buying stars and start by replacing your worst player. Also, pass to another player instead of kicking to goal on corner kicks.

4. Don't give a new manager control over a transfer budget. Stats show they make poor decisions with money because all they care about is the very short term and clubs should be run for the long term.

That kind of thing.

Charlton has NOT tried Moneyball. They tried the Watford model. The closest thing to Moneyball is Southampton. Overall, it has worked quite well for them. Many, including myself, consider them the best run club in England the last decade.

Southampton have not used moneyball. There are some overlaps but some huge differences.

I have read a lot about how they are run and Led Reed's role in it. I dream of creating a similar setup at Charlton.

Yes they use data very heavily and Les has his black box room or whatever they call it. However, the data is used in a very different way to moneyball. At Soton the scouting comes first and is the most detailed around. The analysis and data is used to back it up. What's special about Soton is how they bring the analysis the data the scouting the system all together.

Their system is built on contingency planning. They are realistic about their place in modern football they accept they will lose players so they have a list of 5+ getable targets for every position on and off the pitch from striker to manager to analyst to physio.

They have a philosophy and system in their club ethos. They recruit managers and players that fit them and their way of doing things.

They recognise experience is important and try and get a mix of youths experience. They certainly don't actively sell old players and replace with younger.

Yeah but does this black box room have a laptop with Football Manager on it?

sillav nitram said:

Still no word from @Airman Brown or @Redhenry

Probably just nothing to say, might not have any update.

If this takeover ever happens and I stress the if -then you just know it will be to someone who is barely any better or richer than the current plankton. Barnsley being taken over by billionaires ffs....... You can't make this shit up.

AFKABartram said:

I genuinely hate what football has become

Non-League is the way forward.

cantersaddick said:

NapaAddick said:

Moneyball is misunderstood.

Basically it comes down to...

1. Not basing personell choices on emotion, but rather some kind of data. In other words, evidence over feeling.

2. Making the best use of money available by buying young players with upside and selling older players when they reach an age of probably decline and then, this is key... reinvesting.

3. Stop believing in football myths. These would include "playing attractive football" instead focus on maximising points per match. Also, stop buying stars and start by replacing your worst player. Also, pass to another player instead of kicking to goal on corner kicks.

4. Don't give a new manager control over a transfer budget. Stats show they make poor decisions with money because all they care about is the very short term and clubs should be run for the long term.

That kind of thing.

Charlton has NOT tried Moneyball. They tried the Watford model. The closest thing to Moneyball is Southampton. Overall, it has worked quite well for them. Many, including myself, consider them the best run club in England the last decade.

Southampton have not used moneyball. There are some overlaps but some huge differences.

I have read a lot about how they are run and Led Reed's role in it. I dream of creating a similar setup at Charlton.

Yes they use data very heavily and Les has his black box room or whatever they call it. However, the data is used in a very different way to moneyball. At Soton the scouting comes first and is the most detailed around. The analysis and data is used to back it up. What's special about Soton is how they bring the analysis the data the scouting the system all together.

Their system is built on contingency planning. They are realistic about their place in modern football they accept they will lose players so they have a list of 5+ getable targets for every position on and off the pitch from striker to manager to analyst to physio.

They have a philosophy and system in their club ethos. They recruit managers and players that fit them and their way of doing things.

They recognise experience is important and try and get a mix of youths experience. They certainly don't actively sell old players and replace with younger.

I believe it really is moneyball, in terms of spirit. As I said, Moneyball is misunderstood. It is NOT about trying to come up with a formula to run players on the field by numbers. It is using large scale data to put the ODDS in your favor. Even Billy Beane does not believe a number can be created to quantify football players like WAR and OPS does in baseball. He has said so, repeatedly.

Reed brings em in young and sells them at higher values. That is the core of moneyball, right there. He thinks of players and the academy like "return on investment," which is really what moneyball IS. Not in dollars only, but in points per match. He is very data driven, more about rules to operate the club by, than specific stats for players. But it really is the closest thing to moneyball. Or, actually, Soccernomics, which is the offshoot of moneyball. "Contingency planning," having a Sporting Director above the manager (Beane is above Oakland's manager,) and not allowing the manager to run player personnel decisions... pure Moneyball.

I agree with you, I also dream of that setup at Charlton. Why? Because Southampton know how to run a club of mid-size better than anyone, anywhere, imho. And I want to emulate that. It sure beats what we have.