Rubbish

[Old Abingdonian]

Fair enough, JT. I have never played football to any level, let alone managed it - so is that 'making them better players' about improving technical skills, about tactics and formations, or about motivation? And what evidence do we have that CW can, or cannot, succeed in each of these?

[GodalmingYellow]

Don't disagree with much of what you've said.

To clarify my point on wages - I just think that to boil one's expectation levels down to budget is simplistic, because so many other factors come into play. As others have said on this thread, Wilder's ability to get average players playing better is the critical ability at this level. I think that players like Davis, Worley, Smalley and Batt have the potential to be playing much much better than they are currently - and if they do so, we'll be in the mix. The question is whether Wilder can mould them into better players. That's where the real issue lies, in my opinion.

Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but if what you said were true, every player would be paid the same amount, and it would be the managers who would be paid wildly differing amounts dependant upon their ability to get the best out of players. The latter does of course happen , but so does the former and to a much greater extent.

The notion that Wayne Rooney is not a much better player than Beano and therefore not worth significantly more is not one that many would agree with you on, although we would probably all agree that Wayne Rooney earns too much.

The simple fact is that players with more talent get paid more than those with less talent, and those clubs who have more money to spend on players, buy the better players than those with lower budgets, and virtually any deviation from that is down to good or bad management.

We are in a position that we have perhaps the biggest budget, yet only mediocre performances, so the only primary conclusion that we can draw is either that our players are not good enough for the amount they are being paid (which is down to the manager), or the manager isn't extracting the best out of them (which is down to the manager).

[Joey's Toe]

GY, I think you're deliberately misrepresenting me there, if you don't mind me saying so.

I'm not saying that all players are equal. What I am saying is that a good manager makes his team into more than the sum of its parts. They do that (Old Abingdonian) through a combination of improving technical skills, correctly judging tactics/formations, and through motivation.

I don't think Mark Yeats' players are far superior/inferior to ours, by and large. It's just that on Saturday, he got the best from his players. Wilder, in contrast, did not. That's partly down to injuries and various other bits of ill-fortune. But the $64,000 question is whether Wilder can improve on the current squad further by training / motivating / utislising them better. For my money, I still think he can.

It's not about spunking a load of money on big-wage signings - surely we learnt that lesson the hard way under Rix, Talbot, Smith et al?

[Isaac]

I'm not sure anyone can say with any confidence that we a budget &quotway beyond pretty much anyone in the division&quot.
We may have one of the higher turnovers, although even then I'm not sure due to the lack of matchday revenue. However high turnover doesn't necessarily lead to higher player budget (due to teams overspending, stadium costs, etc etc). Until they produce a league table of player budgets this sort of speculation is just that. And even if we are, as is likely, near the top of the player budget league table, is the differential that much to suggest that we should be doing significantly better than we are?

For me it's pretty clear what's gone wrong recently. We had a successful, settled, mostly winning side. Then Hall returned to West Ham, then Duberry got injured and then Potter got injured. These were 3 of our better players during that run. This coincided with a tough run of games and confidence has gone. Of course, a better team and a better manager would ride this out and you'd certainly hope for something more than 5 defeats in a row. However we've always seemed a little bit brittle this season.

GY's point is that any success or failure boils down to the manager and manager only (which suggests the manager should be getting the Wayne Rooney wages). Seeing as if he pays over the odds for bad players that's his fault, or if he fails to get the best out of good players that's his fault. I think it's far more complicated than that. The manager cannot know how each player is going to react to every single situation that happens either on the pitch or off it during a season. Duff information about players he's signed could be down to the scouting the club provides. There are always mitigating or unpredictable factors that influence any football season beyond the ability of the manager.

[Nashy]

Having been a fan since 1955 and worked full time at the club for 6 years (so having an insiders view) may I say that I cannot quite believe the negative knee jerk reaction of many contributors. We all have high expectations -maybe a tad too high and these increased when we were 3rd and playing well. I saw all 3 games against the top 3 and will agree we were poor at Crawley and very poor for 60 mins on Saturday but you have to give credit to 2 decent opposing sides! However to say -as some are -that Southend also outplayed us at Roots hall is ridiculous and shows how some of you have short memories when it suits your rhetoric. Relieved Southend supporting friends all agreed we outplayed them but clearly were ultimately beaten because of some indifferent finishing and some superb goalkeeping. Almost a freak result as was Gillingham - I live in Kent and the Gills fans were so relieved and conceded we were so much the better side. As for the last games - clearly both sides sussed out we needed time in midfield and closed us down so well that we conceded possession regularly. Leven is as good as anyone I have seen in centre midfield at Oxford for quite some time but if he is stopped then so are we it seems. I have an increasing thought that he and MacLaren are a luxury and yet MacLaren does a lot of good unseen work. Yet he didn't play at Roots Hall and second half Saturday and Leven was excellent without him alongside. One other factor - anyone who has played sport knows how big a part confidence plays in success and clearly ours is low at the moment -which is why we don't need fans sniping at certain players - quite the reverse as confidence needs re-building and we all can help in that. I believe we miss Potter almost as much as Duberry as he is an outlet, can hold the ball and occupies defenders thus in effect taking the attention away from Hall. Finally was disappointed we didn't get Hackett on loan with a view to a permanent move as i understand he is o-o-c in the summer. He had a blinder for exeter on saturday but family live close by and he is an Oxford fan!

[GodalmingYellow]

Err that's not the point I made Isaac. Please don't put words into my mouth.

The point you make is stretched way beyond elasticity, and I'm guessing that you've never seen a set of Oxford United accounts before.

Oxford United attract some of the biggest crowds in the division. Normally well in excess of 7,000, and more recently in excess of 8,000.

Oxford United charge some of the highest prices in this division.

Other factors affecting turnover are tiny in comparison.

Turnover largely equates to ticket price x gate. Therefore Oxford United have possibly the highest turnover in this division.

Therefore Oxford United have access to one of, if not the highest permissable player budget in this division, being as it is capped as a proportion of turnover.

According to Oxford United's Chairman, Oxford United are already at their maximum permissable player budget. Thereby we have spent pretty much more than anyone else. Thereby we should have, for the large part, the best available players, if the manager has done his job properly.

Cheltenham Town attract average gates of 2,639 this season.

It does not take Einstein to work out who has, by a very big margin, the biggest player budget of the two.

If we really must, I'll download a copy of the accounts of each club and prove it to you.

Who is responsible for choosing the players to be signed? The Manager.
Who is responsible for determining the value of each player? The Manager.
Who is responsible for selecting players that will fit into the squad? The Manager.
Who is responsible for choosing the system being played? the Manager.
Who is responsible for selecting which players will play each match? The Manager.
Who is responsible for the tactics? The Manager.
The list goes on, but I'm sure we are all bored reading the same line over and over.

The whole point about the structure of a football club, is that subject to budget &amp extreme situations, responsibility rests with the Manager, because it is the Manager who makes all the major &amp most of the minor footballing decisions at the club. That's why when a club does worse than it's budget suggests it should, it is the Manager who gets the chop.

[GodalmingYellow]

GY, I think you're deliberately misrepresenting me there, if you don't mind me saying so.

I'm not saying that all players are equal. What I am saying is that a good manager makes his team into more than the sum of its parts. They do that (Old Abingdonian) through a combination of improving technical skills, correctly judging tactics/formations, and through motivation.

I don't think Mark Yeats' players are far superior/inferior to ours, by and large. It's just that on Saturday, he got the best from his players. Wilder, in contrast, did not. That's partly down to injuries and various other bits of ill-fortune. But the $64,000 question is whether Wilder can improve on the current squad further by training / motivating / utislising them better. For my money, I still think he can.

It's not about spunking a load of money on big-wage signings - surely we learnt that lesson the hard way under Rix, Talbot, Smith et al?

No, not deliberately mis-representing you, but pointing out the only logical conclusion of what you have written.

Yes a team can be improved to more than the sum of it's parts by a manager. I couldn't agree more.

However, the sum of it's parts should not be so far ahead of the opposition with 3 times the player budget, purely because the money available attracts the top players. And the manager of the team with the higher player budget should also be capable of improving the team beyond it's paper level.

The point here is that it given the difference in player budget between OUFC and Cheltenham Town, in the vast majority of matches it should not be possible for Cheltenham Town to beat OUFC, if both managers have done what they should do. That's why the same teams finish in the top places in the Premiership eveyr year.

The ability of a manager to extract more than the sum of the individual players abilities will only ever be a limited improvement, and should not be regularly capable of reversing what is effectively a 3 fold difference in wages, given that wages reflect ability. I'm not saying it can't, but those reverses should not be regular, or you have to question whether the manager of the bigger budget has done his job properly. In most cases, and provided there are no really significant extenuating circumstances, like at Plymouth, you would expect the teams with the highest budgets to be nearer the top of each division, and regularly beating teams with a much smaller budget.

I'm not saying we should spend more. Far from it, read my postings ove rth eyears and you will see that I always say that we have to work within our means.

The point is we have already spent 3 times what Cheltenham have spent, and so our players should be significantly better than those at Cheltenham, otherwise we are either paying too much for them, or the manager isn't getting the most from them, or we have signed too many players of mediocre standard, and in all those cases that becomes the fault of the manager.

[slappy]

Over the Summer I tried to make a guesstimate of the L2 revenues, based on average attendances and season ticket prices. I don't know how to do a table on here, so will have to leave the link to TIU2
http://yellowsforum.proboards.com/index ... hread=2734

I reckon Cheltenham have around 1/2 million less income than us, even allowing for them presumably paying very little in rent.

[Joey's Toe]

No, not deliberately mis-representing you, but pointing out the only logical conclusion of what you have written.

What rot. I say again - no-one is making out that all players are equal. My point is simply that not everything comes down to budgets. The idea that we ought to beat 'the likes of Cheltenham' is arrogant twaddle. Surely we learned that lesson in the Conference?

When Wilder has his best team back and can play a settled side against a more mixed calibre of opposition than we had during November, then we can start to criticise him if results don't improve. I have no truck with the idea that we are somehow failing because of a poor run which has coincided with a glut of injuries to key players and a handful of fixtures against form sides.

[Snake]

The accounts in year ending June 2010 showed a turnover of £2.614m but we only spent £1,964m of that. i.e. a profit of £0.65m was made and used to pay debts, not footballers.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that isn’t prudent, just pointing out that our increased revenue since then does not mean an increased player budget.

[GodalmingYellow]

No, not deliberately mis-representing you, but pointing out the only logical conclusion of what you have written.

What rot. I say again - no-one is making out that all players are equal. My point is simply that not everything comes down to budgets. The idea that we ought to beat 'the likes of Cheltenham' is arrogant twaddle. Surely we learned that lesson in the Conference?

When Wilder has his best team back and can play a settled side against a more mixed calibre of opposition than we had during November, then we can start to criticise him if results don't improve. I have no truck with the idea that we are somehow failing because of a poor run which has coincided with a glut of injuries to key players and a handful of fixtures against form sides.

Now you're deliberately mis-representing me, and rather unfairly old chap.

The 1st point is JT, that whatever you say, and whether it is inconvenient to your argument or not, and no matter how much you want to wriggle, players are paid higher wages than others because a manager believes they are better players. You simply cannot get away from that fact.

The 2nd point is JT, that whatever you say, and whether it is inconvenient to your argument or not, and no matter how much you want to wriggle, our club has almost certainly the biggest player budget in this division, if not, certainly in the top few. You simply cannot get away from that fact either.

Our manager has spent his budget. that has been confirmed by the club.

Therefore, there are only 3 possible scenarios:
1. Our manager was correct to spend pretty much the largest budget on these players because they are the best in the division and they are good enough to be in the top 3.
2. Our manager was incorrect to spend pretty much the largest budget on these players, because they are not good enough to be in the top 3.
3. A combination of the above 2.

If 2 or 3 is correct, this is the fault of the manager.

If 1, we have to ask why are the players not playing to their potential and so far below they're potential, that they play worse than players earning much less than them and who are therefore materially inferior in playing terms.

It is a pretty unnatural position for players to all play at such a sub-par level at the same time. You might in the normal course of events get one or two playing that far below they're normal standard. But not an entire team, for several games consecutively. That then has to come down to the tactics, selection, instructions , motivation, inspiration, and general atmosphere created by the manager. There is no other explanation. So that is the fault of the manager.

Sure there might be minor variations from this, but essentially that is the pattern. And that is why managers have to take responsibility for poor team performance, barring exceptional circumstances and budget.

That has nothing to do with having a right to beat Cheltenham Town on any given day. It is simply a matter of the facts that if one set of players costs 3 times that of another set and lose regularly, the manager has cocked up big time. Otherwise we are entitled to say why should we employ a manager who has to spend 3 times what other managers spend, just to get worse results.

Now you can wriggle some more if you want, but I can't really spell it out any more plainly than that, and if you don't want to accept that, it is up to you, but you might want ot explain to the boys and girls, why Manchester City are presently top of the Premiership, whereas a couple of seasons go they were also rans.

[GodalmingYellow]

The accounts in year ending June 2010 showed a turnover of £2.614m but we only spent £1,964m of that. i.e. a profit of £0.65m was made and used to pay debts, not footballers.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that isn’t prudent, just pointing out that our increased revenue since then does not mean an increased player budget.

It means that we hit the wage cap were unable to spend any more on players even if we wanted to, so there was nothing left to spend on and a profit was made.

[Joey's Toe]

So what's your answer then? Sack Chris Wilder and appoint Jim Magilton, as some RadOx text-numpty was suggesting on Saturday evening? Personally, I'd suggest that's rather a knee-jerk position when the games we've just lost have been against sides on excellent runs and when we've had a large number of key players out injured.

To reiterate: I believe that results will pick up when our most influential players are back in the team. I also believe the November results are not a fair reflection of the squad's ability (just as some of the earlier results were rather flattering).

[x586]

I'd be interested if the protagonists in the argument above could put these two managers and their clubs into context with OUFC, and perhaps extrapolate:

Steve Bruce
Nigel Clough

If you can't be arsed that's fine, and perhaps understandable.

[pottersrightboot]

I'm interested to read that many of the posters on this thread are saying,'I have'nt been to many games this season and boy was it disappointing'.

Yet our crowds are well up.

Best poster on this thread has been 'Nashy'. Yes it was pretty cruddy on Saturday but that was generally a load of knee jerklng old twaddle I've just read.

We have injuries/suspensions affecting at least 3 key players, (not forgetting good old Jim Capaldi being lost in the Traffic, (who do i owe the royalties to? and have just lost to the top 3 in the league.

GY, the club is being run prudently and looks on course for another profitable year ....maybe. Fantastic effort in current economic climate. Let's not be drawn into signing some lower league Carlos Kickaball just because of a few dodgy results.


I did'nt get too excited when we went top 3 with a jammy draw at Macc and I'm not too excited now. I think we have improved from last season but there is still a way to go.

Put it in context chaps!