Recruitment strategy under the spotlight

[ronnup]

It is remarkable that a club about to sell their second 80 million plus defender for a huge profit gets its recruitment strategy lambasted 

[Pliskin]

On 04/08/2022 at 17:58, themightyfin said:

Well excuse me but the thing Is while everyone was getting excited at the end of the season and quoting spends of 40 and 50 million I did say out net spend would he very little if not zero.

I'm still expecting 2 or3 squad fillers at least to make way before the window ends and it will free up some funds.

There are a couple of deals all but secured for new recruits but until some deadwood has finally gone we will just have to be patient as the cash is simply not there. 

There is plenty of time before the window shuts and still expecting those deals to get over the line.

 

Think it’s fair to suggest then that Fofana leaving would naturally ease some of that burden. Getting rid of the dead wood seems to be the issue, as they appears to be undesirable players.

 

Hopefully this week we can shift some out without losing a key player! 

[Edingleyfox]

I think one problem in the past has been the yearly search for the perfect midfielder without managing to sell anyone leading to a huge build up of wages. On Sunday we seemed to have an embarrassment  of riches in the centre of the park with the likes of  Madders,Tielemans, KDH and Ndidi with several other quality players on the bench such as Praet, Perez and Mendy plus some not even in the squad. At the same time we had no specialist wingers apart from Albrighton and resorted to playing a back 3. Fofana leaving might be a temporary financial fix but the squad would then be even more disjointed which is a worry. 

 

Edited 9 August 2022 by Edingleyfox

[Ely fox]

On 04/08/2022 at 21:15, Dames said:

So even with 130k a week off the books we still don’t have enough in the budget to make signings? 
 

We really are screwed in a competitive sense. 

Yes it’s a bit rubbish scenario for us the longer this goes on 

[fairbanksh]

I've frankly got to the stage where one major problem is BR.

Huge salary

Very poor tactical decisions too many times

Stubbornness

Lack of enough young players coming through 

Apparent lack of agreement with Rudkin

[Foxxed]

If we’ve freed up 150k a week in wages, we’ve surely got, aside from Smithes, enough for two incomings?

[An Sionnach]

15 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

If we’ve freed up 150k a week in wages, we’ve surely got, aside from Smithes, enough for two incomings?

We need to reduce the salary bill not maintain it. We probably need the lose another 300 k a week still , to achieve stability.

[Ely fox]

I wonder how much Watford are contributing to Hamza wages and how much we contribute. I’d guess it’s a 50/50 deal 

[Ric Flair]

41 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

If we’ve freed up 150k a week in wages, we’ve surely got, aside from Smithes, enough for two incomings?

Smithies is on £125k an hour

[Foxxed]

1 hour ago, An Sionnach said:

We need to reduce the salary bill not maintain it. We probably need the lose another 300 k a week still , to achieve stability.

Where do you get that figure? Is it not possible to work out how much we need to reduce it by? 300k is about five or six players and seems excessive to me.

 

I'm wondering if we're holding back purposely. There's talk of the board trying to wrestle back control from Rodgers and I wonder if there's any truth in it.

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, Foxxed said:

Where do you get that figure? Is it not possible to work out how much we need to reduce it by? 300k is about five or six players and seems excessive to me.

 

I'm wondering if we're holding back purposely. There's talk of the board trying to wrestle back control from Rodgers and I wonder if there's any truth in it.

To get to the 70% of revenue figure, if we're genuinely going to try and comply in the hope of qualifying for Europe will mean we've got to change the majority of the squad and the replacements be on much less than the £90k a week average thst our wage bill is currently. The risk of having to do this is we lose the nucleus of what made us so good and then it's irrelevant anyway as we won't get anywhere near top 7. 

 

 

[JimJams]

Which is the entire point of the new rules. Bastards.

[fairbanksh]

All indicates a complete shambles

If we need to sell Fofana Tielmans etc why play hard ball when you are not known for being the best negotiator.  What ever we get in now is late in the window and most so called targets are long gone

Rudkin + Rodgers = Poor poor show

[Foxxed]

47 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

To get to the 70% of revenue figure, if we're genuinely going to try and comply in the hope of qualifying for Europe will mean we've got to change the majority of the squad and the replacements be on much less than the £90k a week average thst our wage bill is currently. The risk of having to do this is we lose the nucleus of what made us so good and then it's irrelevant anyway as we won't get anywhere near top 7. 

 

 

The Mercury claims out wage to earnings ratio is 105%, over 70% demanded by UEFA.

 

This claims our currently weekly salary (minus Kasper) is £1,900,000 a week. (It also claims we're still paying Lookman but it's the best source I can find) So from what I can work out, we've reduced our wage bill by about 6%.

 

So it's about 99%, if my calculations are correct. So we need to shave off about 550k a week.

 

According to the figures above, Soumare is on 80k. Tielemans is on 120k. Fofana is on 50k. So that's 250k gone by next season.

 

Vestergaard is on 75k. Hamza is on 60k. And Vardy will retire and that's 160k right there (and if not we'll need Perez and Bertrand off the books). And I think we've got more out of contract next season.

 

By next season we should be within the 70% mark. We just need the squad and replacement that could get us near Uefa qualification...

Edited 14 August 2022 by Foxxed

[moore_94]

35 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

The Mercury claims out wage to earnings ratio is 105%, over 70% demanded by UEFA.

 

This claims our currently weekly salary (minus Kasper) is £1,900,000 a week. (It also claims we're still paying Lookman but it's the best source I can find) So from what I can work out, we've reduced our wage bill by about 6%.

 

So it's about 99%, if my calculations are correct. So we need to shave off about 550k a week.

 

According to the figures above, Soumare is on 80k. Tielemans is on 120k. Fofana is on 50k. So that's 250k gone by next season.

 

Vestergaard is on 75k. Hamza is on 60k. And Vardy will retire and that's 160k right there (and if not we'll need Perez and Bertrand off the books). And I think we've got more out of contract next season.

 

By next season we should be within the 70% mark. We just need the squad and replacement that could get us near Uefa qualification...

The 105% is from when we deferred payments in the 2019/20 season

 

If we hadn't deferred anything it would have been around 86%

Edited 14 August 2022 by moore_94

[Foxxed]

12 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

The 105% is from when we deferred payments in the 2019/20 season

 

If we hadn't deferred anything it would have been around 86%

So you think it's now at less than 105%?

[LFox99]

5 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

So you think it's now at less than 105%?

We don't think, we know it's less than that now. IIRC it was something around 80% in the latest reports

[Foxxed]

3 minutes ago, LFox99 said:

We don't think, we know it's less than that now. IIRC it was something around 80% in the latest reports

If that's the case they'll be no problem next season with Tielemans and a few others off the books. It'll be down at least 240k a week and that's just with Kasper and Youri off the books. Soumare, Vestergaard and Hamza will obviously reduce it a fair bit too. Obviously without actual figures I'm not 100% sure but it feels like the wages to earnings thing seems, although definitely a problem, an overblown problem. I'd say there's a room for a new purchase this window. Whether the board have faith in Brendan to spend the money and integrate the player is another question as far as I'm concerned.

[LFox99]

3 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

If that's the case they'll be no problem next season with Tielemans and a few others off the books. It'll be down at least 240k a week and that's just with Kasper and Youri off the books. Soumare, Vestergaard and Hamza will obviously reduce it a fair bit too. Obviously without actual figures I'm not 100% sure but it feels like the wages to earnings thing seems, although definitely a problem, an overblown problem. I'd say there's a room for a new purchase this window. Whether the board have faith in Brendan to spend the money and integrate the player is another question as far as I'm concerned.

We honestly NEED improvement in the wide attacking areas. Without Barnes available we're forced into this 5 back mess 

Two signings whether thats two loans, one loan and a permanent to get an actual RW and a flexible option which can play LW and something else 

[Dahnsouff]

22 minutes ago, LFox99 said:

We honestly NEED improvement in the wide attacking areas. Without Barnes available we're forced into this 5 back mess 

Two signings whether thats two loans, one loan and a permanent to get an actual RW and a flexible option which can play LW and something else 

Looking at Chelsea and Tottenham, they are both playing a 3 at the back with their 2 wingbacks tucked further forward. 

 

Just saying….    

[An Sionnach]

23 minutes ago, LFox99 said:

We honestly NEED improvement in the wide attacking areas. Without Barnes available we're forced into this 5 back mess 

Two signings whether thats two loans, one loan and a permanent to get an actual RW and a flexible option which can play LW and something else 

Is any RW going to solve our defensive shambles. Four at the back, five at the back , we still ship too many goals . This RW obsession on here is simply inexplicable given where our real problem is.

[LFox99]

8 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Looking at Chelsea and Tottenham, they are both playing a 3 at the back with their 2 wingbacks tucked further forward. 

 

Just saying….    

Spurs have also got Son, Kane, Kulusevski up front to help make it work

Chelsea have got Sterling and Mount in the wide areas

Who've we got to do that? It was Vardy all on his own up front yesterday, with Maddison striding forward at the odd time to help out. That's simply not enough

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, LFox99 said:

Spurs have also got Son, Kane, Kulusevski up front to help make it work

Chelsea have got Sterling and Mount in the wide areas

Who've we got to do that? It was Vardy all on his own up front yesterday, with Maddison striding forward at the odd time to help out. That's simply not enough

Yes, this is true, but was kidding, we do not have the personnel currently certainly

[LFox99]

8 minutes ago, An Sionnach said:

Is any RW going to solve our defensive shambles. Four at the back, five at the back , we still ship too many goals . This RW obsession on here is simply inexplicable given where our real problem is.

We looked solid in pre-season with our back 4 of JJ, Evans, Fofana, Ricardo where both Ricardo and JJ would tuck inside into midfield when in possession, honestly some very enjoyable football we played. 

Is it really inexplicable? Our attack turns to shit whenever Barnes is out injured or Iheanacho isn't feeling his inner Pele. 

We look so much more dangerous with Barnes on form down the left. The assumption that we'd improve if we'd get someone who can do the same down the right is only natural. 

The likes of Samuel Chukwueze are right there, 2 years left on his deal

[An Sionnach]

As usual preseason matches gave no bearing on PL games. Our defensive decay set in over two years ago and has been partially disguised by our potent attacking threat. That is looking less effective now and the defensive weaknesses are centre stage.