Bruce Sacked at last (now official)

[chrisw1]

A cunning, untrustworthy, nasty tart who has a body double whom our scouting network obviously watched.

Whoever signed him didn't scout him, they looked down the list of top scorers and grabbed a couple, 1 worked out well, the other was shit.  We then repeated the trick in January.

You really think so? 

[Risso]

A cunning, untrustworthy, nasty tart who has a body double whom our scouting network obviously watched.

Whoever signed him didn't scout him, they looked down the list of top scorers and grabbed a couple, 1 worked out well, the other was shit.  We then repeated the trick in January.

There definitely seemed to be an element of that with the signings of Hogan and Hourihane.

[Chris Jameson]

I seem to remember when we signed him there were articles online about how unpopular he was at Fulham with the squad because of his attitude, at the time it was dismissed as them being bitter at losing their top scorer.

[paul_e]

A cunning, untrustworthy, nasty tart who has a body double whom our scouting network obviously watched.

Whoever signed him didn't scout him, they looked down the list of top scorers and grabbed a couple, 1 worked out well, the other was shit.  We then repeated the trick in January.

You really think so? 

Look at how Brentford used Hogan then compare that to how we play, did we really think he was going to fit in instantly?

Same with Fat Ross, we were fairly clearly setup to play 433 so which role in that formation is he good for?  If you want the option to switch to 442 then he might be useful but given we had Gestede and Ayew and were clearly after Kodjia was a 4th striker who can only play if we go with a traditional 2 man attack really a better use of £12m than buying an alternative for the wings where we had Ayew and Adomah with Grealish as the only backup.

I think anyone who'd watched either of them play to any meaningful extent knew they were really what we needed, I said as much about both (despite thinking Hogan is a decent player) so how cana professional scouting setup and mangement get it so wrong unless they're looking at something else as their main requirement?  Bruce has already said that he picks based on performances and mentality which is a pretty good indication that technical abilities aren't something he's that bothered about so it's not a huge stretch to think he saw a high scoring player asked to talk to him and then got on with him in the interview and made the deal.  I don't even think that it's necessarily wrong, I just think that if you're going to recruit that way you don't spend most of your budget on 1 player.

[chrisw1]

A cunning, untrustworthy, nasty tart who has a body double whom our scouting network obviously watched.

Whoever signed him didn't scout him, they looked down the list of top scorers and grabbed a couple, 1 worked out well, the other was shit.  We then repeated the trick in January.

You really think so? 

Look at how Brentford used Hogan then compare that to how we play, did we really think he was going to fit in instantly?

Same with Fat Ross, we were fairly clearly setup to play 433 so which role in that formation is he good for?  If you want the option to switch to 442 then he might be useful but given we had Gestede and Ayew and were clearly after Kodjia was a 4th striker who can only play if we go with a traditional 2 man attack really a better use of £12m than buying an alternative for the wings where we had Ayew and Adomah with Grealish as the only backup.

I think anyone who'd watched either of them play to any meaningful extent knew they were really what we needed, I said as much about both (despite thinking Hogan is a decent player) so how cana professional scouting setup and mangement get it so wrong unless they're looking at something else as their main requirement?  Bruce has already said that he picks based on performances and mentality which is a pretty good indication that technical abilities aren't something he's that bothered about so it's not a huge stretch to think he saw a high scoring player asked to talk to him and then got on with him in the interview and made the deal.  I don't even think that it's necessarily wrong, I just think that if you're going to recruit that way you don't spend most of your budget on 1 player.

I agree with you partly - I think there was an element of panic, particularly in the Hogan signing.  But I'd be pretty surprised if they hadn't done their homework and thought they could make good use of the players.  But you could be right.  Something about signing the top scorers in the division may have blinded the rational analysis you would hope for on that sort of outlay. 

[Drummond]

It's no different to pointing out how stupid the bomb squad was. If you make it obvious a player you manage is an unprofessional twat that you don't want then it's a dumb move as you've just decreased his value and potentially lost clubs that may have had interest in taking him. Lambert was stupid for it, so was Bruce. And so is every other manager that does it.

So how do you account for the Renaissance of ex-bomb squad member Alan Hutton, the most professional, least twattish player we've got?

I was talking about RM in the second sentence, hence the full stop to separate the two. It doesn't matter if it's putting them in a bomb squad or publicly calling a player a lazy twat, either way you've devalued them. I don't remember too many beating down the door to sign many of the bomb squad, same as we weren't exactly fighting off suitors for RM.

Alan Hutton was just shit in the top division and will be again if he gets the chance. He's decent at this level and tries hard but in the to division he was making lots of rash, stupid lunging tackles and was running around like a headless chicken.

[Drummond]

On amortisation and FFP, if a player comes to the end of his contract and signs a new one, or is the product of the academy, does that mean he has no value?

You could develop a dozen Messi/Neymar/McGrath/Little clones and be worth fuck all on FFP because you sold McCormack for nowt?

[Diablo]

Is FFP real or just an illusion?

[brian green]

It's an alternative fact as defined by Kellyanne Conway when explaining how Trump's inauguration crowd was larger than Obama's.

[olaftab]

Is FFP real or just an illusion?

You see now you have got me humming two songs and I am in great deal of difficulty. Should it be the three degrees for “is it real” line or Jimmy Ruffin for “happiness is just an illusion”🤔🤔

[garyshawsknee]

I've got Imagination in my head now.

[SirSteveUK]

Don’t forget - “Is this real or is it just fantasy?” So that’s 3 songs

[Risso]

On amortisation and FFP, if a player comes to the end of his contract and signs a new one, or is the product of the academy, does that mean he has no value?

You could develop a dozen Messi/Neymar/McGrath/Little clones and be worth fuck all on FFP because you sold McCormack for nowt?

Youth players have no value in a set of accounts, as they are ‘internally generated’.  The only things that will have an impact on FFP then, which is really just a measure of profits and losses; are their wages, and if they’re sold; the transfer fee which will automatically produce a profit.

[Drummond]

On amortisation and FFP, if a player comes to the end of his contract and signs a new one, or is the product of the academy, does that mean he has no value?

You could develop a dozen Messi/Neymar/McGrath/Little clones and be worth fuck all on FFP because you sold McCormack for nowt?

Youth players have no value in a set of accounts, as they are ‘internally generated’.  The only things that will have an impact on FFP then, which is really just a measure of profits and losses; are their wages, and if they’re sold; the transfer fee which will automatically produce a profit.

So even if we invest in youth, we could fall foul of FFP by getting rid of players (we'd paid a lot for) early for a loss. Soooo the bomb squad is actually a good idea (other than the shit initial investment and potential wage issue).

[Ad@m]

On amortisation and FFP, if a player comes to the end of his contract and signs a new one, or is the product of the academy, does that mean he has no value?

You could develop a dozen Messi/Neymar/McGrath/Little clones and be worth fuck all on FFP because you sold McCormack for nowt?

Youth players have no value in a set of accounts, as they are ‘internally generated’.  The only things that will have an impact on FFP then, which is really just a measure of profits and losses; are their wages, and if they’re sold; the transfer fee which will automatically produce a profit.

So even if we invest in youth, we could fall foul of FFP by getting rid of players (we'd paid a lot for) early for a loss. Soooo the bomb squad is actually a good idea (other than the shit initial investment and potential wage issue).

The sort of issue we're talking about is only a short term timing one. Ultimately FFP is about not spending massively more than you're bringing in as revenue.

Upfront transfer fees are spread over the length of contract the player signs. Each year a proportion of that fee will be treated as an expense. If we sell than player for less than his written down value we have to book a loss equal to the difference.

So getting rid of a player for nowt who signed for say £20m two years ago with two years left in his contract would see us book a £10m loss on top of the £5m amortisation we'd book in that year as normal. That's the very unusual situation where getting rid of a player on the cheap could be detrimental under FFP.

On the flip side though, the following year you'd have no amortisation expense related to that player as he'd be gone.

Kids coming through the youth team cost us nothing in transfer fees so there is no cost to amortise. It's therefore literally impossible to incur a loss on the sale of them.

So as was said several posts back, the best way to avoid falling foul of FFP is to stop wasting money on shit players.