The Price of Success

[Villa'Zawg]

I don't think there would be much argument with the view that we lacked variety and creativity in the squad compared to the highest ranked teams in the league. The question then is why don’t we have as much variety and creativity in the squad?

Paulie's view appears to be that we shouldn't have spent as much on the defence, even though we lost arguably our 3 best defenders for nothing and still ended up with the 4th tightest defence in the league, conceding fewer goals than every team other than Chelsea, Man Utd and Liverpool.

I think his view is also that the manager should have made better decisions and got it right first time thereby saving £25m which could have been spent elsewhere in the squad. In an ideal world he would be right.

Although if you examine other team’s progress they didn't follow Paulie's method. What they did was spend as much money as we did one their squad and then they doubled it or quadrupled it and spent that on bringing together a squad that had enough defensive strength and creativity to finish just 3 and 6 points ahead of us in the cases of Man City and Spurs.

What that article from the OP link shows is that we did much better than most other teams in relation to the amount spent on the squad and that contrary to an oft repeated claim on here, we put a higher proportion of our squad value on the pitch than other teams near the top of the table.

The thrust of that article is that we Villa supporters should try to have a more realistic expectation of what is achievable with the players that we as a club put at the manager’s disposal. As difficult as that is to accept following the rhetoric from the board regarding CL and winning trophies, if we don’t accept the reality of our situation we are in danger of making the situation worse next season if our unrealistic expectations are not being met.

[pauliewalnuts]

Paulie's view appears to be that we shouldn't have spent as much on the defence, even though we lost arguably our 3 best defenders for nothing and still ended up with the 4th tightest defence in the league, conceding fewer goals than every team other than Chelsea, Man Utd and Liverpool.

It's not as simple as "we shouldn't have spent so much money on defenders".

My argument was that we bought these defenders:

07-08: Knight
08-09: Davies, Shorey, Luke Young, Cuellar
09-10: Beye, Warnock, Collins, Dunne

I understand the need to have a decent defence, but two entire defences in two seasons?

Even if you accept the argument that the players he wanted weren't available in 08/09 but were a year later, it begs the question of whether it was sound to spend 25 million pounds on "stop gaps" only to buy new defenders a year later.

If we're now living in more cash strapped times, maybe one of the reasons why is the above.

[Brend'Watkins]

Paulie's view appears to be that we shouldn't have spent as much on the defence, even though we lost arguably our 3 best defenders for nothing and still ended up with the 4th tightest defence in the league, conceding fewer goals than every team other than Chelsea, Man Utd and Liverpool.

It's not as simple as "we shouldn't have spent so much money on defenders".

My argument was that we bought these defenders:

07-08: Knight
08-09: Davies, Shorey, Luke Young, Cuellar
09-10: Beye, Warnock, Collins, Dunne

I understand the need to have a decent defence, but two entire defences in two seasons?

Even if you accept the argument that the players he wanted weren't available in 08/09 but were a year later, it begs the question of whether it was sound to spend 25 million pounds on "stop gaps" only to buy new defenders a year later.

If we're now living in more cash strapped times, maybe one of the reasons why is the above.

The biggest crime is getting rid of Cahill

Paulie's view appears to be that we shouldn't have spent as much on the defence, even though we lost arguably our 3 best defenders for nothing and still ended up with the 4th tightest defence in the league, conceding fewer goals than every team other than Chelsea, Man Utd and Liverpool.

Even if you accept the argument that the players he wanted weren't available in 08/09 but were a year later, it begs the question of whether it was sound to spend 25 million pounds on "stop gaps" only to buy new defenders a year later.

If we're now living in more cash strapped times, maybe one of the reasons why is the above.

To think we got rid of Cahill in the same period too.

[not3bad]

07-08: Knight
08-09: Davies, Shorey, Luke Young, Cuellar
09-10: Beye, Warnock, Collins, Dunne

I understand the need to have a decent defence, but two entire defences in two seasons?

Even if you accept the argument that the players he wanted weren't available in 08/09 but were a year later, it begs the question of whether it was sound to spend 25 million pounds on "stop gaps" only to buy new defenders a year later.

If we're now living in more cash strapped times, maybe one of the reasons why is the above.

Not forgetting that we sold Cahill and Ridgewell in that time.  Looking through the list of defenders Cahill was certainly better than a fair few of them and Ridgewell was better than some of them.

[Steve R]

You have a curious grasp of facts villadawg.

What is presented in the 'achievement' table is not 'fact'. The numbers are derived from estimated base data (does the author really know every transfer fee paid?), they are a selective view as to what represents a team's potential (as has been pointed out, this should at least include wages in addition to transfers) and have been massaged by a subjective factor 'transfer price inflation'.

That isn't fact, it is a particular subjective view expressed in numbers.

[Villanation]

Point is this, the Champions league is without doubt a bridge to far, and  if by some strange quirk of fate we did qualify, how long would we have stayed in that competition, for me O'Niell and whatever he spent on whoever he spent it on and however much he paid including the wages, got us into a consistent placing just below the higher echelons of the royal top 4, got us to Wembley more than once, we chalked up some great victories, played some howlers.

End of the day what do people want, what do they expect Aston Villa FC to achieve, frikkin CL, Premiership and FA Cup winners, just isn't going to happen, one very good reason it isn't going to happen is because we don't have the infrastructure in place to lash out 30 to 40ML on A player and then plunge into the transfer market in the same window to buy 3 or 4 more at the same time, and we definitely don't have the board that would even consider that kind of expenditure, hence Alex McLiesh, he's been appointed cause he fits into the picture.

All this dissection of stats and expectations, personally i think O'Niell got it pretty much right, admittedly some of his purchases went west and where utterly bewildering, Harewood ffs and IMO Heskey, but the pay of was Ashley Young, James Milner, John Carew (for a while) and the development of some of the best players the club has seen since the eighties in Agbonlahor and hopefully Albrighton if he continues.

Don't see the problem.

Forgot to mention Downing and Friedal even Cuellor,, sh!t we've had a decent side

[Villa'Zawg]

You have a curious grasp of facts villadawg.

What is presented in the 'achievement' table is not 'fact'. The numbers are derived from estimated base data (does the author really know every transfer fee paid?), they are a selective view as to what represents a team's potential (as has been pointed out, this should at least include wages in addition to transfers) and have been massaged by a subjective factor 'transfer price inflation'.

That isn't fact, it is a particular subjective view expressed in numbers.

I'm usually pretty careful about my use of language regarding factual and subjective information. Have I misrepresented the veracity of the information or given you cause to question my grasp of the facts? Apologies if I have.

I've said many times that I see the lack of transparency surrounding transfer fees as a disservice to supporters and I didn't feel it was necessary for me to explain that the transfer fee valuations are derived information. The effort that has seemingly gone into collating the transfer fee values and the methodology used seem reasonable, even allowing for the type of caveats you describe.

Are you aware of a better/more accurate set of transfer data/information or would you prefer we didn't talk about it at all?

[ktvillan]

It isn't a soap opera and it isn't about characters. It's a football club and it's about results.



"Save for Martin O’Neill’s first season at the club when he was cleaning up the mess from an overpriced side that had finished 16th the year before, Aston Villa has outperformed table position expectations their transfer expenditures should have set. If Villa’s ownership was indeed upset about the return-on-investment that they were getting under O’Neill, they need to take a look at the table above and realize how well he did given modern English football economics. Their squad and starting XI expenditures were in line with 9th to 11th place finishes, and O’Neill’s utilization rate was right at the average for the seasons in which he managed. O’Neill did just about as good as anyone could have asked of him, and the only man to do better with such meagre transfer expenditures is Arsene Wenger at Arsenal. The replacement of O’Neill with Houllier, who saw a lower utilization rate and average £XI, saw Villa regress this season but still outperform transfer expenditure expectations."

I don't understand why seemingly intelligent people rail against fact. I would have thought that the people who have been blathering on about Villa leaving expensive squad players on the bench would be interested to learn that it's a load of old bollocks.

Interesting how the squad O'Neill inherited is described as "overpriced".  I think maybe Angel and Baros were fairly high transfer fees, but can't recall many of the other being bought for massive fees. 

Also interesting to note that O'Neill's predicted finish in his first season is 9th, but he only managed 11th.  GH's predicted finish was 11th and he achieved 9th (and don;t forget, it's results that count above everything).  Yet the author says O'Neill did as well as anyone could expect, because he had a mess to sort out , but GH  was a disaster from day 1.  No mention of injuries, plus a fair selection of lazy overpaid professional benchwarmers and deadwood O'Neill left him to sort out. Possibly says something about the "objectivity" of the author.  In fact has anyone ever seen the author and VD in the same room together?

[Eigentor]

Yes, it is strange that MON's "underachievement" in his first season is explained away whereas his "overachievement" in the following seasons are applauded. It does give the impression that the author already made his conclusions and later found the facts to support them.

If you somehow believe that the skill of a manager equals success divided by investment, then O'Neill did a very good job, but then you would have to ignore other factors that are usually taken into consideration. In fact, taking this as gospel, then Roberto Mancini will probably be the worst manager in Premier League history.

Because of the timing and manner of MON's departure, some Villa fans don't like to be reminded that he did a reasonable job. But there is also the sense of a missed opportunity: it will probably be a long time until a Villa manager can enjoy as benign working condition as MON did. If he had been as good as we wanted to him to be, as good as we hoped he was, then his legacy wouldn't be a that of a man who made an unsustainable shot at success, but failed and then stuffed skeletons in the cupboards and ran off.

[Steve R]

...
Are you aware of a better/more accurate set of transfer data/information or would you prefer we didn't talk about it at all?

No, I don't know of a more rleiable set of transfer fees, nor do I know of an alternative way of putting a number on a managers 'acheivement'. I would also defy anyone to define a realistic factor that represents transfer inflation, which would be even more futile than for the other two.

I am more than happy to discuss the study, it may be unique but that does not mean it should be taken as gospel. It is some way short.

I was also surprised at (O'Leary's) 'everpriced squad'. (O'Neil's) 'meagre transfer expenditures' made me blink too.

In the table, the notional transfer cost of the squad actually fell during O'Neil's reign. We would have had more chance of success if he'd have stayed away from the transfer market completely, according to the way 'expected position' is derived.

If we'd have hung onto Collymore and Curcic we'd have been unbeatable.

[HK Villan]

Perhaps Genting will raise our profile in Asia...

Everyone in Asia who knows anything about football (game consisting of 2 teams of 11, etc) know of Aston Villa.  Lack of recent success is the issue.

[Villa'Zawg]

...
Are you aware of a better/more accurate set of transfer data/information or would you prefer we didn't talk about it at all?

No, I don't know of a more rleiable set of transfer fees, nor do I know of an alternative way of putting a number on a managers 'acheivement'. I would also defy anyone to define a realistic factor that represents transfer inflation, which would be even more futile than for the other two.

I am more than happy to discuss the study, it may be unique but that does not mean it should be taken as gospel. It is some way short.

I was also surprised at (O'Leary's) 'everpriced squad'. (O'Neil's) 'meagre transfer expenditures' made me blink too.

In the table, the notional transfer cost of the squad actually fell during O'Neil's reign. We would have had more chance of success if he'd have stayed away from the transfer market completely, according to the way 'expected position' is derived.

If we'd have hung onto Collymore and Curcic we'd have been unbeatable.

That was one of my first questions. Their method seems reasonable to me but I wouldn't be surprised if someone better informed was able to point out some important flaws.

This is taken from the introduction to the book...


A new method of comparing players’ values

In everyday life, most people are familiar with the concept of the Retail Price Index (RPI) as a measure of inflation. A basket of goods is identified and every month the same items are checked to see what the value would be if these were to be purchased. The difference between the current value and that from the previous month is calculated and termed the RPI. By comparing the value this month with the corresponding value for the same month last year, we obtain the annual RPI.

The same methodology applies to the TPI, except that the “basket” contains every single footballer bought and sold each season, rather than grocery produce (although a few rotten eggs remain.)

Inflation, 1992-2010

Before getting on to who spent what, and the success or failure to which this expenditure led thereafter, it’s important to establish the overall spending pattern of the past 18 years, and to understand how that determines the Transfer Price Index.

On the whole, transfer prices have risen dramatically during the 18 full Premier League seasons to date. Twelve seasons have seen an increase, six a decrease.

Overall, since 1992, the average cost of a player has risen 565%, although at one point (2009) that figure was as high as 751%.



This analysis doesn't prove anything about how good one manager is compared to another, it just shows how much each club has spent on transfer fees in relation to others over the course of the PL era.

Some of the findings are very surprising and shouldn't be ignored simply because they don't fit with out preconceptions