Freedman out!

[Nicko58]

QPR's player turnover has been ridiculous.. they have rebuilt. But they've been afford that luxury through a very generous and wealthy owner coupled with large parachute payments, the likes that have never been seen before.

QPR have brought in six players, we've brought in eight, not including loan signings.

We've spent £3M, they've spent £10M but their net spend is less than ours.

Net spend doesn't matter when you fish in different waters.

We didn't have the saleable assets that QPR had, and for that reason couldn't part with the best part of ten million for Matt Phillips and Charlie Austin.

Add to that the parachute payments and the money saved from the wages paid out to the high earners that have now left them and there's a significant financial difference between the two of us.

Of course, you know this....

[BL3]

QPR's player turnover has been ridiculous.. they have rebuilt. But they've been afford that luxury through a very generous and wealthy owner coupled with large parachute payments, the likes that have never been seen before.

QPR have brought in six players, we've brought in eight, not including loan signings.

We've spent £3M, they've spent £10M but their net spend is less than ours.

Net spend doesn't matter when you fish in different waters.

We didn't have the saleable assets that QPR had, and for that reason couldn't part with the best part of ten million for Matt Phillips and Charlie Austin.

Add to that the parachute payments and the money saved from the wages paid out to the high earners that have now left them and there's a significant financial difference between the two of us.

Of course, you know this....

How much of a 'financial difference' is there between us and the team that are currently at the top of the table?

[thebish]

^ brief reminder... he's talking about QPR because this little conversation branch is a response to SF's contrasting us with QPR, Newcastle and West Ham. given that is the context - it makes little sense to ask "yeah, but what about Burnley"...

[Nicko58]

QPR's player turnover has been ridiculous.. they have rebuilt. But they've been afford that luxury through a very generous and wealthy owner coupled with large parachute payments, the likes that have never been seen before.

QPR have brought in six players, we've brought in eight, not including loan signings.

We've spent £3M, they've spent £10M but their net spend is less than ours.

Net spend doesn't matter when you fish in different waters.

We didn't have the saleable assets that QPR had, and for that reason couldn't part with the best part of ten million for Matt Phillips and Charlie Austin.

Add to that the parachute payments and the money saved from the wages paid out to the high earners that have now left them and there's a significant financial difference between the two of us.

Of course, you know this....

How much of a 'financial difference' is there between us and the team that are currently at the top of the table?

There's little difference, I'd say.

It's too easy to play that game, though. Burnley don't have two of their most talented, most creative players out of action for the forseeable.

I'm not certain that Freedman is the answer either, but it's nowhere near as black and white as you make out.

[thebish]

anyway - the forum has spoken... approx 2/3 want to keep dougie, 1/3 want to sack him

[BL3]

QPR's player turnover has been ridiculous.. they have rebuilt. But they've been afford that luxury through a very generous and wealthy owner coupled with large parachute payments, the likes that have never been seen before.

QPR have brought in six players, we've brought in eight, not including loan signings.

We've spent £3M, they've spent £10M but their net spend is less than ours.

Net spend doesn't matter when you fish in different waters.

We didn't have the saleable assets that QPR had, and for that reason couldn't part with the best part of ten million for Matt Phillips and Charlie Austin.

Add to that the parachute payments and the money saved from the wages paid out to the high earners that have now left them and there's a significant financial difference between the two of us.

Of course, you know this....

How much of a 'financial difference' is there between us and the team that are currently at the top of the table?

There's little difference, I'd say.

It's too easy to play that game, though. Burnley don't have two of their most talented, most creative players out of action for the forseeable.

I'm not certain that Freedman is the answer either, but it's nowhere near as black and white as you make out.

'Too easy' or just a bit too inconvenient? Burnley sold their leading scorer before the season even started. The bloke who scored almost half their goals last season. They haven't spent anything on transfer fees. They've signed half the number of players we have, all of them on free transfers, so if you think there's 'little difference' between our budget and theirs, you really haven't been paying attention.

[CAPSLOCK]

Burnley sold their leading scorer before the season even started. The bloke who scored almost half their goals last season. They haven't spent anything on transfer fees.

And replaced him with Danny Ings, signed by the previous manager

Pity Freedman didn't have the same luxury..instead he's stuck with the 4 million bag of shite that is Monsieur N'Gog

Still, who is the dickhead

I'm up in 6 hours to watch him fcuk it up again

Oh aye, I'll be shocked if Burnley finish above 10th

[SmokinFrazier]

I see your point, though I think the importance of spending can be overstated. Its not a guarantee of success and when you've been a Premier League side for such a long time and have a very strong squad for the league, spending isn't essential. I don't think it's a valid counter argument on its own. It'd be nice if we could have spent £10m this summer but did we need to? I don't think so, we just need a manager to get the best out of the players we have.

You continue to pedal the strong squad delusion look at the results man!
Saying it over and over again won't make it true, results are the key indicator of squad strength and ours are as plain as the nose on yer face... Strong squads of good players do not produce this return consistently ...
Spending cash on the wage bill won't guarantee success and sustainability...
It'll improve yer chances somewhat...

The average points we got whilst playing 4-4-2 would have been enough for us to finish 2nd in the division last year, had we played that way throughout the entire season. Even including the poor start under Coyle, we could still have easily finished inside the play-off spots using that formation, so it's incorrect to say that the quality isn't there and if that was the case, how would we be able to get so many points? On an individual level, we wouldn't have so many players capped internationally and with games in the Premier League if they didn't have the ability beyond what they're currently showing. The quality is there, we just need to get the best out of them. Even during our best period last year, we still showed signs of weakness that can be improved tactically, especially defensive which has always been poorly organised under Freedman.

We have no problems that a good manager couldn't fix. Like I've said before, assuming Allardyce took over right now, I think we'd get promoted. I think we would get into the play-off spots with someone like Pulis, Redknapp or Hughton too. These managers, unlike Freedman and Coyle who are both inept, know how to get the best out of their talent.

I will say though, it's hard to gauge the talent of players who are at a club with low confidence and with a useless manager guiding them, so I can understand why our players get criticised. However, you then look at Eagles last year and now; has he regressed that much? Has Spearing developed nerve damage in both legs, which is why he's nowhere near as good as last year? Losing N'Gog was a massive blow to us last year and this year, the fans are hating on him. Is that because he's an old 24 year old who reached his peak last season and will retire before he's 27? Of course not. These players are underperforming, absolutely, but there's a huge difference between underperforming and simply not being good enough. Our players are good enough, and they've proven that in their careers, but their current bad form is more of a reflection on the manager and the general mood at the club right now.

[Prufrock]

Net spend doesn't matter when you fish in different waters.

We didn't have the saleable assets that QPR had, and for that reason couldn't part with the best part of ten million for Matt Phillips and Charlie Austin.

Add to that the parachute payments and the money saved from the wages paid out to the high earners that have now left them and there's a significant financial difference between the two of us.

Of course, you know this....

How much of a 'financial difference' is there between us and the team that are currently at the top of the table?

There's little difference, I'd say.

It's too easy to play that game, though. Burnley don't have two of their most talented, most creative players out of action for the forseeable.

I'm not certain that Freedman is the answer either, but it's nowhere near as black and white as you make out.

'Too easy' or just a bit too inconvenient? Burnley sold their leading scorer before the season even started. The bloke who scored almost half their goals last season. They haven't spent anything on transfer fees. They've signed half the number of players we have, all of them on free transfers, so if you think there's 'little difference' between our budget and theirs, you really haven't been paying attention.

Burnley are doing fantastically well. Good on them. But they're not the norm. Should Redknapp be sacked because they're not competing. We're not, by any stretch poor in this league. We're not 'rich' either. Our squad is better than the position we're in, but it's not top two either.

I'm happy sticking with a young unproven manager for a length of time, as long as it doesn't relegate us, as I think the only chance we have of getting a really good manager is to polish a rough diamond. There might come a point where we look in serious danger of relegation and so getting rid would be necessary. I don't think that's the case yet, so stick for me, and try to build something, as painful as it is right now.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Oh Pru, you and your refusal to see it in black and white terms. That's not playing at all.

If Burnley do win the league, they'll be the first Championship winners since full records began not to have paid seven figures in agents' fees alone, according to the official Football League numbers. Last year, only the special case of Blackburn topped Cardiff's agent pay of £1.836m; in 2012, champions Reading paid £1.662m, topped only by also-promoted West Ham's £4.3m (yes, £4.3m in agents' fees); in 2011, champions QPR topped the agents pay with £1.770m; in 2010, champions Newcastle were second in agents' pay with £1.07m.

There is definitely a correlation, and I'd argue there's a strong case for causation too.

None of which means that I think Freedman is the best manager ever.

[bobo the clown]

... & Mr. Allardyce paid out 3x the amount of even the other higher spenders on agents ??

One day it'll all come out about him.

[boltonboris]

West Ham probably paid about 4 x what everybody else on transfer fees too. Could be relative, or could be what the whole world suspects

[bobo the clown]

West Ham probably paid about 4 x what everybody else on transfer fees too. Could be relative, or could be what the whole world suspects

Tell you what Boris, I'd bet you an internet £5'er.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

That season started with second-tier West Ham buying Nolan from top-flight Newcastle. He must sure love Sam, eh?

[Worthy4England]

Fascinating fact - West Ham's wage bill is higher than that of Borussia Dortmund

Think ours was for some of the years 2008/2011...

[Wandering Willy]

No it wasn't.

[Worthy4England]

No it wasn't.

Hmm might have to dig out the accounts and have a look - I thought we were higher in 2008 and 2010...

[BL3]

Burnley sold their leading scorer before the season even started. The bloke who scored almost half their goals last season. They haven't spent anything on transfer fees.

And replaced him with Danny Ings, signed by the previous manager

Pity Freedman didn't have the same luxury..instead he's stuck with the 4 million bag of shite that is Monsieur N'Gog

Still, who is the dickhead

I'm up in 6 hours to watch him fcuk it up again

Oh aye, I'll be shocked if Burnley finish above 10th

Danny Ings scored 3 goals last season. Hardly a proven goalscorer. Talk us through the 'bag of shite's' goal yesterday.

[LeverEnd]

Are you suggesting that Ngog is now a success after that goal? It's like people saying Freedman is now the best man for the job after winning at Bournemouth! One result/goal/clean sheet means nothing on its own.

[Prufrock]

If you're entitled to imply that N'Gog isn't a bag of shite based on one goal, then, based on one win, I'd like to take this opportunity to acclaim Dougie a cross somewhere between Ferguson, Mourinho, Paisley and Michels.