Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: PaulTheVillan on June 29, 2011, 03:02:35 PM
-
Link (http://transferpriceindex.com/2011/06/using-the-tpi-to-set-realistic-expectations-at-aston-villa/)
-
What’s required is a realistic set of expectations going in to the upcoming season (perhaps a 7th or 8th place finish), and a commitment to steady revenue growth to move the club up the table over time; perhaps by buying more shrewdly than their rivals and developing more of their own talent. Anything else will result in continued unrealistic expectations, management and player turnover, and ultimately a failure to realize the club’s and the supporters’ goals.
Hard to fault this, in my opinion. Buying more shrewdly has got to be the key.
-
Seems to be largely in line with the Villadawg Theorem.
I wonder though, how you can quantify "name recognition" and note with interest that the Tom Hanks factor has not been incorporated into this part of the analysis.
-
F**k me, that's ten minutes of my life wasted reading that.
I always find that statistics are hard to swallow and impossible to digest. The only one I can ever remember is that if all the people who go to sleep in church were laid end to end they would be a lot more comfortable. ~Mrs. Robert A. Taft
-
Interesting about "name recognition". I went to thẹ Copa America in Ecuador in 1993, and met up with quite a few fellow English fans from various clubs. Now I know 1993 was quite some time ago, but we got talking to a Columbian journalist who was an ex international.(can't remember his name now). Interestingly he knew of thẹ likes of Liverpool and Man utd, and also knew that Aston Villa had been European champions, but had never even heard of Chelsea (there were a handful of Chelsea there). I guess it's a case of wasted opportunities, there was no problem with name recognition then.
-
Perhaps Genting will raise our profile in Asia...
-
Really interesting read especially
"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".
-
I think I can hear the squeals of some poster's sacred cows being slaughtered.
-
An interesting article, although I note that MON took over an aging, poor quality squad whereas Houllier was seen to have failed because he didn't match MON's league position. This ignore the fact that Houllier was trying to change the team's way of playing. It also does not consider (in the text) the injuries Houllier's squad experienced although that could be inferred from the standard deviation stats. Although the writer claims this is due to Bent joining the club.
Ultimately the conclusion seems good though. We clearly cannot afford the £200+ million to buy our way to the chimps league but slow and steady investment could get us close.
-
Shouldnt the total wage bill for the squad be factored in at least as much as amounts paid out in transfer fees ? I would guess MON would not come out quite so well then.
-
Brilliant a Masters thesis to conclude we're not fashionable, yawn.
I partcularly liked the line "and developing more of their own talent" - no shit!
-
I think I can hear the squeals of some poster's sacred cows being slaughtered.
That's funny, because all I can see is a writer nobody's ever heard of on a website nobody's ever heard of. Definitive proof, it ain't.
-
It's brilliant, except for two things.
The words and the stats.
-
Shouldnt the total wage bill for the squad be factored in at least as much as amounts paid out in transfer fees ? I would guess MON would not come out quite so well then.
That was what I was thinking. We had the sixth highest wagebill in the league with the most recent figures available. Ergo sixth was generally what one was to expect using that measure. Indeed if our wagebill is matched to our spend you have to wonder why we were paying high wages to players brought on such relative meagre fees. What about youth players as well? Surely if you develop some good young players who get into the first team that should be accounted for which a simple measurement of transfer spending does not.
There comes a point that when you have the sixth highest wage bill but have an income below that rank then that has to change. Some people cannot accept that. Even ignoring alarmist speculation about this damaging the financial viability of the club you still have the new regulations that are coming into force. There is no point trying to qualify for Europe when you have rules that will prevent you from gaining entry in Europe if your wage bill is viewed as unsustainable for your turnover. People may argue that the commercial income does not pull its weight yet they probably lauded the club for the Acorns deal that is a reason for that.
At the end of the day I don't think anyone really denies that MoN did a decent job. The fact is that at every club the supporters will pick faults with the manager. The club they support is the one they know after all. Every manager will make decisions that the fans question as managers are human. If they play 4-4-2 the messageboards will be filled with posts demanding a switch to 4-5-1 and vice versa. These flaws are perceived as what holds a club back. The problem is that every manager has them. If every manager was perfect every club would do better. But despite what some may think no manager is perfect. Some are better than others for sure but when a manager is at your club you think they are worse than they are. So there. I didn't need any mathematical formulas or incomprehensible stats to tell you that.
Even looking aside from that there is a massive error with that article and these formulas. They are a fools errand. Football is not scientific. It involves people, dependent and independent variables that are so numerous that they are almost impossible to cover completely. You can measure passes, shots, goals, wages but you cannot measure motivation of players or the tens of other abstract concepts that are involved in a game. You can dominate possession and have a million shots but you can still lose a game in spite of this by an own goal.
-
The only thing that could render football more boring than an O'Neill team - lots of statistics about an O'Neill team.
-
It isn't a soap opera and it isn't about characters. It's a football club and it's about results.
(http://transferpriceindex.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/AstonVillaTransfervs.Finish.png)
"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.
-
No, it isn't just about results. That's the crucial bit you can't seem to grasp. As much as you'd like it to be about spreadsheets and graphs, it isn't, and it never will be.
Until you can get past that, you'll never understand. That's abundantly clear.
-
No, it isn't just about results. That's the crucial bit you can't seem to grasp. As much as you'd like it to be about spreadsheets and graphs, it isn't, and it never will be.
Until you can get past that, you'll never understand. That's abundantly clear.
what's it about if not results?
-
No, it isn't just about results. That's the crucial bit you can't seem to grasp. As much as you'd like it to be about spreadsheets and graphs, it isn't, and it never will be.
Until you can get past that, you'll never understand. That's abundantly clear.
what's it about if not results?
It's also about entertainment.
That's why it's called "the beautiful game".
We've had this conversation before, how you'd be happy to play like John Beck era Cambridge United so long as the results were good, and I'd rather pull my teeth out one by one.
We can have the same discussion again if you want, but there's no need, really. You asked why people didn't "get it". The answer is because not everyone sees it so purely about results as you do. That's why.
-
Whenever this debates ensues I always think back to John Gregory era Villa. There is no doubt that it was a reasonably successful period for us with some undoubted highs (and lows), but throughout his tenure the debate raged over the style of football we were playing. Sure we won games, but hardly with the panache that was apparent during the first Little season and under Big Ron. Therefore we were constantly divided about results over style. I’m sure if you look back into the archives of H&V you will find any number of threads debating the pluses and minuses of JG era Villa.
-
Whenever this debates ensues I always think back to John Gregory era Villa. There is no doubt that it was a reasonably successful period for us with some undoubted highs (and lows), but throughout his tenure the debate raged over the style of football we were playing. Sure we won games, but hardly with the panache that was apparent during the first Little season and under Big Ron. Therefore we were constantly divided about results over style. I’m sure if you look back into the archives of H&V you will find any number of threads debating the pluses and minuses of JG era Villa.
One match burned into my memory is a 1-0 victory over Sunderland played during Gregory's last season in charge. If there is one match that nearly made me lose the will to live it's that one. A perfect illustration of how results should not be seen as the be all and end all.
-
No, it isn't just about results. That's the crucial bit you can't seem to grasp. As much as you'd like it to be about spreadsheets and graphs, it isn't, and it never will be.
Until you can get past that, you'll never understand. That's abundantly clear.
what's it about if not results?
It's also about entertainment.
That's why it's called "the beautiful game".
We've had this conversation before, how you'd be happy to play like John Beck era Cambridge United so long as the results were good, and I'd rather pull my teeth out one by one.
We can have the same discussion again if you want, but there's no need, really. You asked why people didn't "get it". The answer is because not everyone sees it so purely about results as you do. That's why.
I'm not sure I have ever said I would be happy to watch Villa play like John Beck era Cambridge United but I recognise the point you’re trying to make.
What I have said or intended to say is that my interest first and foremost is in the sport in its truest sense, not some ephemeral notion of entertainment that can mean as many different things as there are different spectators.
I can assure you that I have left VP happier after the direst of our wins than our most exciting defeat. That’s how supporting my team affects me and that same win/lose result is the method by which almost all sports and sportsmen are measured for a very good reason.
None of which makes any difference to the veracity or value of the content in the OP article, unless what you’re advocating is that we ignore all the stats and facts about the game and simply sit back and wait for you to award marks for artistic merit and announce your Star of the Week awards.
-
None of which makes any difference to the veracity or value of the content in the OP article, unless what you’re advocating is that we ignore all the stats and facts about the game and simply sit back and wait for you to award marks for artistic merit and announce your Star of the Week awards.
Keep your knickers on. You said you didn't understand why, I told you why.
I know we don't agree on it, there's zero point us going round the houses on that one, so we're going to have to agree to disagree.
-
I think you need to agree to have a fight. That's the only way this is going to be settled.
I will be the referee, and will award marks for artistic merit, as well as winning
-
I'm up for it as long as I get to spend more money on weaponry than Paulie.
-
During MONs last season in charge I persuaded my armchair Villa fan mate to attend a couple of home games. Those 2 games we attended were the most dull and uninspiring games I have witnessed. I believe 1 game was when we played Fulham at home and the bit he got excited about was whenever Andy Johnson ran near our part of the ground he got abuse. Needless to say he hasnt attended many since. So I would say attractive football does have a major part to play. It would bring more stay at home Villa fans to the ground.
-
During MONs last season in charge I persuaded my armchair Villa fan mate to attend a couple of home games. Those 2 games we attended were the most dull and uninspiring games I have witnessed. I believe 1 game was when we played Fulham at home and the bit he got excited about was whenever Andy Johnson ran near our part of the ground he got abuse. Needless to say he hasnt attended many since. So I would say attractive football does have a major part to play. It would bring more stay at home Villa fans to the ground.
I reckon the most depressing game for ages was Sunderland at home last season. That pushed anything MON served up at home.
-
I go down for one game a season and I chose that one.
It says a lot about a match when Emile Heskey is the most skillful player on show.
-
I go down for one game a season and I chose that one.
It says a lot about a match when Emile Heskey is the most skillful player on show.
I tell you what, if you where a woman that would be an offer i couldn't refuse
-
I go down for one game a season and I chose that one.
It says a lot about a match when Emile Heskey is the most skillful player on show.
The worst thing was it was three days after that excellent performance at Stamford Bridge.
Like going out on the Saturday night and shagging a super model, then going out again to the same place on the Wednesday, buoyed by your recent success, and waking up next to that fat cruise ship singer out of Loose Women.
-
I go down for one game a season and I chose that one.
It says a lot about a match when Emile Heskey is the most skillful player on show.
The worst thing was it was three days after that excellent performance at Stamford Bridge.
Like going out on the Saturday night and shagging a super model, then going out again to the same place on the Wednesday, buoyed by your recent success, and waking up next to that fat cruise ship singer out of Loose Women.
Ah yes, but you would have got a result though, wouldn't you? *winky*
-
Just a quick scan through that article tells you everything you need to know about the passion and loyalty being driven out of football!
-
The only thing that could render football more boring than an O'Neill team - lots of statistics about an O'Neill team.
Yes, but they are a really tremendous set of statictics.
-
One of the interesting posts I found when looking at those site is a comparison of PL transfer fees paid taking transfer fee inflation into account - Current Transfer Purchase Price (CTPP)
– Signed By– Year—- Player—— Original £m– age CTPP £m
1 Chelsea 05-06 Wright-Phillips 21.00 23 48.8
2 Man Utd 06-07 Carrick 18.60 25 41.2
3 Liverpool 10-11 Carroll 35.00 22 35.0
4 Man Utd 94-95 Andy Cole 7.00 23 33.8
5 Liverpool 99-00 Heskey 11.00 22 32.9
6 Villa 97-98 Collymore 7.00 26 30.1
7 Chelsea 99-00 Sutton 10.00 26 29.9
8 Liverpool 95-96 Collymore 8.50 24 28.5
9 Man City 09-10 Lescott 22.00 27 28.3
10 Man City 10-11 Milner 26.00 24 26.0
11 Spurs 97-98 L Ferdinand 6.00 30 25.8
12 Chelsea 03-04 S Parker 10.00 23 25.7
13 Man Utd 07-08 Hargreaves 17.00 26 24.6
14 Blackburn 94-95 Sutton 5.00 21 24.1
15 Villa 10-11 D Bent 24.00 27 24.0
16 Liverpool 09-10 G Johnson 18.00 24 23.1
17 Blackburn 98-99 K Davies 7.25 21 22.6
18 Spurs 07-08 D Bent 15.50 23 22.4
19 Chelsea 97-98 Le Saux 5.00 28 21.5
20 Villa 06-07 A Young 9.65 21 21.4
21 Villa 98-99 Merson 6.75 30 21.0
22 Newcastle 95-96 L Ferdinand 6.00 28 20.1
TPI - Clicky (http://transferpriceindex.com/2011/06/the-english-premium-a-2011-transfer-price-index-review/)
-
Five out of that top six were absolute bargains.
-
I can assure you that I have left VP happier after the direst of our wins than our most exciting defeat.
And when you left Villa Park after one of our many depressing draws or defeats (as our home form wasn't one of the plus points of the MON regime, lets face it) how did you feel then?
Taken as a whole - and with numbers and the bottom line being of paramount importance to you- do you think out home form over the four years MON was in the job provided good value (or even exceeded expectations) in regard to:
(a) The increasing price of season tickets during that time
(b) The amount of money spent on the side
This is specific to your Villa Park experience remember. I'm sure even the most ardent MON critic would acknowledge that out away form was generally excellent.
-
I can assure you that I have left VP happier after the direst of our wins than our most exciting defeat.
And when you left Villa Park after one of our many depressing draws or defeats (as our home form wasn't one of the plus points of the MON regime, lets face it) how did you feel then?
Taken as a whole - and with numbers and the bottom line being of paramount importance to you- do you think out home form over the four years MON was in the job provided good value (or even exceeded expectations) in regard to:
(a) The increasing price of season tickets during that time
(b) The amount of money spent on the side
This is specific to your Villa Park experience remember. I'm sure even the most ardent MON critic would acknowledge that out away form was generally excellent.
On the whole it felt like it should and could be better and I thought it was close to being better.. It felt as good as it had done for the vast majority of the modern era with one or two exceptional seasons.
I'm OK when we draw, its the defeats I can't stomach, so that maybe accounts for the difference in my perspective compare to some others. I've probably felt better after our direst draw than our most exciting defeat.
I don't correlate ticket prices and what I expect from the team, so that doesn't move me much.
I do absolutely correlate the amount spent on the side with what I expect from the team and I thought we were doing as well as could be expected. I felt we were making progress, particularly in the season before last. I understand that we could have finished 4th if we had been able to turn 3 of those draws into wins. Naturally I would have loved that to have happened along with the Wembley trips but I never felt that we had spent enough to demand it.
-
I do absolutely correlate the amount spent on the side with what I expect from the team and I thought we were doing as well as could be expected.
It was pretty hard to suggest MON "should" have been doing better than he was, or that the finishes weren't good enough, and those (few) people who reckoned he should have been sacked were wide of the mark.
I felt we were making progress, particularly in the season before last. I understand that we could have finished 4th if we had been able to turn 3 of those draws into wins.
That's where I differ.
It was hard to imagine an MON side finishing in the top four, so formulaic was the football. What would have happened had we reached the CL, and tried to play the way he usually had us playing? It wouldn't have lasted very long in any case.
I'd put money on O'Neill being able to get almost any top flight side into the top 8 or so. He's that type of manager - motivates, gets super human efforts from (some) players, galvanises a club when he arrives. If you're going to get into the top four, though, that's just not enough.
You need tactical nous, flexibility, and - if you don't have endless money to spend, and this is in response to your point about had we spent more - you need to know your way around the transfer market and be able to spot a deal - which was, in my opinion, his other great failing.
Had he stayed on this summer and been given more money, do you think he'd have bought in the sort of player who would have made the difference in terms of top four? Or would it have been more of the same?
We often hear people on here say he'd have bought Keane and McGeady, or maybe Doyle, and with good reason, because his purchases, if far from always bad, were always predictable and of a certain type of player.
-
Incidentally, what if, rather than buying a defence one summer, and then the next summer, an entirely new defence, he'd have spent that money where it really needed to be spent?
Maybe those two or three draws to wins you mention might have happened.
-
Incidentally, what if, rather than buying a defence one summer, and then the next summer, an entirely new defence, he'd have spent that money where it really needed to be spent?
Maybe those two or three draws to wins you mention might have happened.
Well I guess it might but the second defence he bought conceded fewer goals than Arsenal and those particular players probably weren't available when he was buying the 1st group of defenders. He also had 2 of the top 10/15 strikers in the league and 3 England internationals in midfield so may have felt defence was more important with the budget he had available.
-
I do absolutely correlate the amount spent on the side with what I expect from the team and I thought we were doing as well as could be expected.
It was pretty hard to suggest MON "should" have been doing better than he was, or that the finishes weren't good enough, and those (few) people who reckoned he should have been sacked were wide of the mark.
I felt we were making progress, particularly in the season before last. I understand that we could have finished 4th if we had been able to turn 3 of those draws into wins.
That's where I differ.
It was hard to imagine an MON side finishing in the top four, so formulaic was the football. What would have happened had we reached the CL, and tried to play the way he usually had us playing? It wouldn't have lasted very long in any case.
I'd put money on O'Neill being able to get almost any top flight side into the top 8 or so. He's that type of manager - motivates, gets super human efforts from (some) players, galvanises a club when he arrives. If you're going to get into the top four, though, that's just not enough.
You need tactical nous, flexibility, and - if you don't have endless money to spend, and this is in response to your point about had we spent more - you need to know your way around the transfer market and be able to spot a deal - which was, in my opinion, his other great failing.
Had he stayed on this summer and been given more money, do you think he'd have bought in the sort of player who would have made the difference in terms of top four? Or would it have been more of the same?
We often hear people on here say he'd have bought Keane and McGeady, or maybe Doyle, and with good reason, because his purchases, if far from always bad, were always predictable and of a certain type of player.
I do think we could have made top 4 if we had refused to sell Milner, had put £20m in the transfer kitty and O'Neill had stayed. That's based on the improvement we had made in his final season and an understanding that the improvement we needed was 5 or 6 points.
It's all well and good you insisting that we would have bought Keane (it never happened all the other years it was suggested), McGeady or Doyle but what if we had bought Bent? He did mention that we had been after him for some time didn't he?
-
I can assure you that I have left VP happier after the direst of our wins than our most exciting defeat.
And when you left Villa Park after one of our many depressing draws or defeats (as our home form wasn't one of the plus points of the MON regime, lets face it) how did you feel then?
Taken as a whole - and with numbers and the bottom line being of paramount importance to you- do you think out home form over the four years MON was in the job provided good value (or even exceeded expectations) in regard to:
(a) The increasing price of season tickets during that time
(b) The amount of money spent on the side
This is specific to your Villa Park experience remember. I'm sure even the most ardent MON critic would acknowledge that out away form was generally excellent.
On the whole it felt like it should and could be better and I thought it was close to being better.. It felt as good as it had done for the vast majority of the modern era with one or two exceptional seasons.
You see, that's where you and I would fundamentally differ, I think.
I didn't think we were getting closer to making any kind of breakthrough based on our home form. Even in the games that we actually won, there were far too many occurrences of blind panic in the last 10 minutes. Men behind the ball, hacking it away like some brave FA Cup minnow. Even against pretty modest sides.
You'll get games like that, of course. Even in a good/ successful season. And even if your form and performances have largely been good. But when too many follow that pattern, you get the sense that you're effectively 'getting away with it' on the occasions that you do actually win, and that doesn't inspire confidence that progression is a near certainty.
If we had converted 2/3 of those draws into wins (I assume you're only referring to 2009/10 there, as it would have required 5 more the year previous) would that have made the drudgery of a good bit of our home form more palatable? I'm not sure, is the honest answer. If it had secured CL football I think in all likelihood there might have been similar arguments, but the ratios on either side of the divide would be different. More in favour of MON (or more specifically his approach) obv.
The 19 home games make up a substantial chunk of any season, if too many of those games are unsatisfactory (wins, draws or losses) it will always cloud the perception of a large chunk of the fanbase.
-
I just don't see how any Villa season ticket holder for 2008/09 and 2009/10 could have felt they had their money's worth.
In '09/10 at Villa Park we won eight, drew eight and lost three. Goals for 29, against 16. Six of the seven teams directly below us all had superior home records many having scored far more goals. Needless to say the top five's home record blew ours away.
In '08/09 our home record was even worse (the season that 4th seemed very likely until the comedown post-Moscow and Arsenal's resurgence). Seven wins, nine fucking draws and three defeats. Goals for 27, against 17. Five of the six teams below us again posted better results.
There's no denying that our away record that season was top-notch, and pretty impressive in 09/10 aswell. But from all those draws and the lack of goals at home, it doesn't take a genius to work-out that we struggled badly when taking the game to the opponent, attempting to create something from nothing. Not like the choreographed to perfection break-away brilliant goals away from home after being under the cosh for long spells. Take out those and set-pieces and MON's attacking tactics more often than not floundered.
-
Also, eamonn, in each of those years mentioned we won two home games 5 nil leaving 18 or so goals over the remaining 17 games so a goal a game, nowhere near enough.
-
It's all well and good you insisting that we would have bought Keane (it never happened all the other years it was suggested), McGeady or Doyle but what if we had bought Bent? He did mention that we had been after him for some time didn't he?
In that summer I mentioned when MON was spending another 25 odd million to replace the defence he'd paid a similar amount for just twelve months before, Bent went to sunderland for ten million.
If anything sums up the short term scatter gun nature of his transfer policy it is that.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 CahillPaulie'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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
It isn't a soap opera and it isn't about characters. It's a football club and it's about results.
(http://transferpriceindex.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/AstonVillaTransfervs.Finish.png)
"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?
-
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.
-
...
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.
-
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.
-
...
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%.
(http://transferpriceindex.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/inflate.jpg)
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