By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Rocking up at Wrexham, apparently, now Wednesday are letting their people go.
No idea why we weren't in for him. Free transfer in effect, good age at 31, knows the Champ inside out, excellent scoring record. And an obvious improvement on Frey.
If you paid more attention to Clive linking wages budgets to league position you wouldn't need to ask that question.
Spoiler alert: Wrexham and the "several Championship clubs" they outbid for Windass probably have more money to sink into paying players wages than we do!
If you paid more attention to Clive linking wages budgets to league position you wouldn't need to ask that question.
Spoiler alert: Wrexham and the "several Championship clubs" they outbid for Windass probably have more money to sink into paying players wages than we do!
[Post edited 23 Jul 9:50]
About a million years ago I read ‘Soccernomics’ (great book for football/maths geeks) and there’s a whole bit on it.
Still don’t think they’ll be particularly close to the top six but will survive comfortably in our quest to find three worse teams.
If Josh Windass has a good goalscoring record in the Championship, so does Lyndon Dykes
Edit - Also from what I can tell, he played a grand total of 4 games up front last season. Mostly used as a 10....of which we have many.
[Post edited 23 Jul 9:17]
Windass 153 games over 5 years, 28% scoring record. Dykes 156 games over 4 years, 22% scoring record. For what it's worth. If that's an excellent scoring record, then Dykes tally must be pretty good.
[Post edited 23 Jul 9:47]
When you reach the place beyond thoughts, the only thing you'll find is love and the only purpose of life becomes to ease the suffering of others.
If you paid more attention to Clive linking wages budgets to league position you wouldn't need to ask that question.
Spoiler alert: Wrexham and the "several Championship clubs" they outbid for Windass probably have more money to sink into paying players wages than we do!
[Post edited 23 Jul 9:50]
Where does that money come from clearly they are not breaking FFP !!!!
Over the years I’ve lost count how many comments I’ve seen along the lines of “I can’t believe we didn’t go for him”. How do we know the club didn’t? Not everything is public. Maybe the club called his agent and the conversation didn’t progress beyond that call. Or maybe they didn’t. Either way, we don’t know.
And that was in League 1. They will probably add to that now they're in the Championship.
[Post edited 23 Jul 10:27]
I just watched a really good Tifo video about their finances. Its not direct money from Disney. Its more sponsors and external investors that have been attracted because of the TV show.
I think its interesting that the owners have already paid themselves back some of their outlay, so the club is already trying to wipe its own bum financially.
I reckon the Windass signing shows that they are going to be happy to consolidate this year. Maybe they want more investors before they really take a run at promotion?
If you paid more attention to Clive linking wages budgets to league position you wouldn't need to ask that question.
Spoiler alert: Wrexham and the "several Championship clubs" they outbid for Windass probably have more money to sink into paying players wages than we do!
[Post edited 23 Jul 9:50]
And if you had paid more attention to my detailed post critiquing that black and white correlation, backed up with data and cogent counter-argument, you might be less noxiously authoritarian. Budgets and wages play a (big) part, sure, but clubs also 'over-achieve' and 'under-achieve' in relation to such, as the evidence shows. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need to play football matches at all - we'd just decide it all on paper! When QPR were the top London club in London in the mid-90s, do you really think we were spending anything like what Arsenal and Spurs and Chelsea were doing? More recently, to make the point the other way round, when we broke the bank and tried to buy success under Hughes and Redcrap, we ended up with a shit team with no spirit, and went down in shameful fashion.
Finally, and for the record and your benefit, and while I respect Clive's analyses of course (a lot more than he appears to respect mine, but that's not my problem), I pay attention to argument, complexity, and controversy, and then funnel that back to my own thinking - I don't fetishise individuals.
I just watched a really good Tifo video about their finances. Its not direct money from Disney. Its more sponsors and external investors that have been attracted because of the TV show.
I think its interesting that the owners have already paid themselves back some of their outlay, so the club is already trying to wipe its own bum financially.
I reckon the Windass signing shows that they are going to be happy to consolidate this year. Maybe they want more investors before they really take a run at promotion?
I watched that too, they had more commercial income when they were in League One or Two than 5 teams in the Premier League or something like that.
EDIT: Here's the link, it was when they were in League Two. £19.7 million So basically double what we make per year.
If Josh Windass has a good goalscoring record in the Championship, so does Lyndon Dykes
Edit - Also from what I can tell, he played a grand total of 4 games up front last season. Mostly used as a 10....of which we have many.
[Post edited 23 Jul 9:17]
Dykes averaged about a goal every 5 games during his time with us, and his last 20 games or so were pretty barren as I recall, Since then, he's managed a solitary goal for Birmingham in around 25 games, and in a lower league. Hes'a text book case of a player whose star has been falling for some time, and may well fall further.
Windass, by contrast, has close to 1 in 3 for Wednesday in 150+ games. It doesn't matter whether he's a 10 or up front - he has nous, stays fit, and he scores goals (13 last season and 5 assists). Our players mostly don't!
Over the years I’ve lost count how many comments I’ve seen along the lines of “I can’t believe we didn’t go for him”. How do we know the club didn’t? Not everything is public. Maybe the club called his agent and the conversation didn’t progress beyond that call. Or maybe they didn’t. Either way, we don’t know.
OK - I can't believe we didn't sign him if that makes you happier!
Dykes averaged about a goal every 5 games during his time with us, and his last 20 games or so were pretty barren as I recall, Since then, he's managed a solitary goal for Birmingham in around 25 games, and in a lower league. Hes'a text book case of a player whose star has been falling for some time, and may well fall further.
Windass, by contrast, has close to 1 in 3 for Wednesday in 150+ games. It doesn't matter whether he's a 10 or up front - he has nous, stays fit, and he scores goals (13 last season and 5 assists). Our players mostly don't!
Windass has scored 40 goals in 173 Championship games, Dykes has scored 35 in 156. Its not that far off really.
And if you had paid more attention to my detailed post critiquing that black and white correlation, backed up with data and cogent counter-argument, you might be less noxiously authoritarian. Budgets and wages play a (big) part, sure, but clubs also 'over-achieve' and 'under-achieve' in relation to such, as the evidence shows. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need to play football matches at all - we'd just decide it all on paper! When QPR were the top London club in London in the mid-90s, do you really think we were spending anything like what Arsenal and Spurs and Chelsea were doing? More recently, to make the point the other way round, when we broke the bank and tried to buy success under Hughes and Redcrap, we ended up with a shit team with no spirit, and went down in shameful fashion.
Finally, and for the record and your benefit, and while I respect Clive's analyses of course (a lot more than he appears to respect mine, but that's not my problem), I pay attention to argument, complexity, and controversy, and then funnel that back to my own thinking - I don't fetishise individuals.
[Post edited 23 Jul 11:07]
I did read your 'critique'.
You cherry-picked a few facts and thought you had a case.
You might get away with that in the world of philosophical whimsy, but finance tends to be a bit more rigorous.
In Watford_Ranger's reply earlier in this thread he referenced Simon Kuper's Soccernomics making the case linking overall league performance to players wages:
And if you had paid more attention to my detailed post critiquing that black and white correlation, backed up with data and cogent counter-argument, you might be less noxiously authoritarian. Budgets and wages play a (big) part, sure, but clubs also 'over-achieve' and 'under-achieve' in relation to such, as the evidence shows. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need to play football matches at all - we'd just decide it all on paper! When QPR were the top London club in London in the mid-90s, do you really think we were spending anything like what Arsenal and Spurs and Chelsea were doing? More recently, to make the point the other way round, when we broke the bank and tried to buy success under Hughes and Redcrap, we ended up with a shit team with no spirit, and went down in shameful fashion.
Finally, and for the record and your benefit, and while I respect Clive's analyses of course (a lot more than he appears to respect mine, but that's not my problem), I pay attention to argument, complexity, and controversy, and then funnel that back to my own thinking - I don't fetishise individuals.
[Post edited 23 Jul 11:07]
"I pay attention to argument, complexity, and controversy, and then funnel that back to my own thinking"
So really you're just after a cheeky mass debate :-)
OK, in the spirit of debate I will play along.
Let's go through your original thesis line by line:
1. - "No idea why we weren't in for him"
We don't know that we weren't. Reports suggest several Championship clubs were interested.
2. - "Free transfer in effect"
Which is why he would be wanting a bumper salary. Probably out of our price range. Especially given his age.
3. - "good age at 31"
Gary Lineker and Michael Owen were both retired at 31. Strikers are usually past their best once they reach that age.
4 - "knows the Champ inside out"
Could say the same for Lyndon Dykes who is two years younger and likely to be on his way out of Birmingham fairly soon. He also knows our club inside out, which might not be a good thing.
And if you had paid more attention to my detailed post critiquing that black and white correlation, backed up with data and cogent counter-argument, you might be less noxiously authoritarian. Budgets and wages play a (big) part, sure, but clubs also 'over-achieve' and 'under-achieve' in relation to such, as the evidence shows. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need to play football matches at all - we'd just decide it all on paper! When QPR were the top London club in London in the mid-90s, do you really think we were spending anything like what Arsenal and Spurs and Chelsea were doing? More recently, to make the point the other way round, when we broke the bank and tried to buy success under Hughes and Redcrap, we ended up with a shit team with no spirit, and went down in shameful fashion.
Finally, and for the record and your benefit, and while I respect Clive's analyses of course (a lot more than he appears to respect mine, but that's not my problem), I pay attention to argument, complexity, and controversy, and then funnel that back to my own thinking - I don't fetishise individuals.
[Post edited 23 Jul 11:07]
'my detailed post critiquing that black and white correlation, backed up with data and cogent counter-argument, you might be less noxiously authoritarian'.
'I pay attention to argument, complexity, and controversy, and then funnel that back to my own thinking - I don't fetishise individuals.'
You've only gone and fallen in love with yourself haven't you?
*Edit, I mean:
"One might surmise that you’ve become profoundly enamoured with the very embodiment of your own being—would such an observation be inaccurate?"
You cherry-picked a few facts and thought you had a case.
You might get away with that in the world of philosophical whimsy, but finance tends to be a bit more rigorous.
In Watford_Ranger's reply earlier in this thread he referenced Simon Kuper's Soccernomics making the case linking overall league performance to players wages:
Kuper is an experienced and respected financial journalist.
If you don't like his thesis you can take it up with him.
1. It wasn't a 'critique' , to use your condescending punctuation - it WAS a (modest but creditable) critique. Your disagreement with it doesn't dismiss what it was (and is).
2. While it wasn't, and wasn't claiming to be, a 'thesis' (I've written one of those already, fyi - it took me the best part of 7 years, as these things tend to do), I didn't 'cherry-pick' my data - I quoted a comprehensive statement about the detailed budgets across the Champ, correlated to performance, to demonstrate my (as it turns out correct) hypothesis that there is no necessary connection between turnover/wage budgets and league position. Whatever you or your 'cherry-picked' expert says.
3. Any critique/thesis/position has its problems, by definition. As soon as you turn on a light, you cast a shadow. My criticality was, and is, a way-in to the issues, and, at a minimum, exposes the limitations of any black and white position on the topic, as I've explained.
Feel free to ask me to 'take up' whatever you like with anyone else you have in mind, but in the meantime try to take a point rather than score one, eh?
'my detailed post critiquing that black and white correlation, backed up with data and cogent counter-argument, you might be less noxiously authoritarian'.
'I pay attention to argument, complexity, and controversy, and then funnel that back to my own thinking - I don't fetishise individuals.'
You've only gone and fallen in love with yourself haven't you?
*Edit, I mean:
"One might surmise that you’ve become profoundly enamoured with the very embodiment of your own being—would such an observation be inaccurate?"
[Post edited 23 Jul 13:57]
No, it just means you're missing the point - in fact a number of points - and boringly/boorishly playing the man (or your skewed, resentful image of him) rather than the ball. But don't worry - you're not alone! (Safety in numbers, eh?)
No, it just means you're missing the point - in fact a number of points - and boringly/boorishly playing the man (or your skewed, resentful image of him) rather than the ball. But don't worry - you're not alone! (Safety in numbers, eh?)
Sorry mate, but you sound like a proper boring, self-congratulatory twát who thinks he is schooling everyone, but really nobody listens to the lesson because its delivered by a proper boring twát.
1. It wasn't a 'critique' , to use your condescending punctuation - it WAS a (modest but creditable) critique. Your disagreement with it doesn't dismiss what it was (and is).
2. While it wasn't, and wasn't claiming to be, a 'thesis' (I've written one of those already, fyi - it took me the best part of 7 years, as these things tend to do), I didn't 'cherry-pick' my data - I quoted a comprehensive statement about the detailed budgets across the Champ, correlated to performance, to demonstrate my (as it turns out correct) hypothesis that there is no necessary connection between turnover/wage budgets and league position. Whatever you or your 'cherry-picked' expert says.
3. Any critique/thesis/position has its problems, by definition. As soon as you turn on a light, you cast a shadow. My criticality was, and is, a way-in to the issues, and, at a minimum, exposes the limitations of any black and white position on the topic, as I've explained.
Feel free to ask me to 'take up' whatever you like with anyone else you have in mind, but in the meantime try to take a point rather than score one, eh?
Thesis:
"A thesis is an idea or theory that is expressed as a statement and is discussed in a logical way."
"Cherry-picking in data analytics refers to the selective and biased extraction of data or information for analysis. This practice involves choosing specific data points or datasets that support a desired conclusion while disregarding or ignoring other relevant data that may contradict or challenge that conclusion."
"I pay attention to argument, complexity, and controversy, and then funnel that back to my own thinking"
So really you're just after a cheeky mass debate :-)
OK, in the spirit of debate I will play along.
Let's go through your original thesis line by line:
1. - "No idea why we weren't in for him"
We don't know that we weren't. Reports suggest several Championship clubs were interested.
2. - "Free transfer in effect"
Which is why he would be wanting a bumper salary. Probably out of our price range. Especially given his age.
3. - "good age at 31"
Gary Lineker and Michael Owen were both retired at 31. Strikers are usually past their best once they reach that age.
4 - "knows the Champ inside out"
Could say the same for Lyndon Dykes who is two years younger and likely to be on his way out of Birmingham fairly soon. He also knows our club inside out, which might not be a good thing.
We don't need to replace Frey, we need to supplement him with another striker who can play that physical role.
Kelman might have morphed into that type of player but reports suggest he might not be here for much longer.
But then there is Lyndon Dykes, who can hold the ball up and bully the odd centre back (if he's in the mood).
Congratulations. With the power of your intellect you have convinced me that only Lyndon can save us.
Bring back Lyndon.
What else is a football message board after but a ‘mass debate’ (cheeky or otherwise)? And why would you, or anyone, imply I’m some kind of eccentric for wanting anything else? What I’m not here for is a powerplay or cult experience where some people tell me I need to ‘listen’ to him or her to, implicitly, correct my own view! My original thesis/critique/post was about the non-necessary correlation between wage budgets and league position, which I don’t feel a need to revisit. As to your points:
1. I corrected this to meet the pedantic needs of others. You’re quite right – I don’t know we weren’t in for Windass. Just like none of us know anything much about what happens at QPR (which obviously doesn’t stop you, me, or any of us talking about that ‘nothing much’ – if it did, this board, and others like it, would die of boredom).
2. By your own logic, you also don’t know (i.e. are making an assumption about) the kind of salary Windass might have accepted.
3. For the record, Gary Lineker played in Japan till he was 33/34, while Michael Owen retired at Stoke at 33. Just off the top of my head, in any case, I could raise you Cristiano Ronaldo and Jamie Vardy as counter-examples. If you give me longer, I could come up with any number of others who’ve done it in the Prem and the Champ well into their 30s.
4. Lyndon Dykes may know the Champ inside out, but unfortunately what he knows doesn’t amount to very much – as his record with us, and current career trajectory, rather clearly indicate. Are you his best mate or something? One goal in 25 games for Brum in League One, and you’re still licking your lips! Unfathomable!
5. Your calculations are awry – perhaps you need to study some more Maths. 173 apps, 50 goals, 23 assists, since 2020/21, according to your preferred source, Transfermarkt. Since when have we had a striker who even gets close to just under a goal every 3 games and all those assists? (And who said anything about Mitrovic?)
6. I agree (just about) re keeping Frey on as a squad player for the handful of games he can get his 36-year-old-looking body onto the pitch and stay there, but we need a mobile goalscorer in the berth, not another sub-par battering ram.
It’s a D- from me, darling (major minus marks for your Lyndon love-in)! 😉
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
