Printable View
Yes. A record of one goal conceded every game in the PL is substantially better than two goals conceded every game in the FL. McShane is also the reason Hull are in the PL right now, so he is a bit of a folk hero.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I don't begrudge him anything. But there aren't many people jumping to his defense when debatable comments are made about him.
I've always defended him for what it's worth. He's far from flawless but he's an honest and effective player who attracts an unreal degree of ridicule.
As for the stats, they say nothing much of note. Sure you say yourself that Forde ships goals. If we judged players on stats we'd never go near Forde. But we don't, we judge players on their performances, among other qualitative factors.
McShane has his fans on the forum, we're all well aware of his flaws, but we also appreciate what he brings to a team
I must clarify that the McShane haters are far more prominent in other forums and publications than they are here, which is quite refreshing.
Hull Irish may get relegated in two games time allegedly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
What crackpot journalist said that?? ;)
Away to Spurs and then home to Man U, they require a win or two draws minimum. 3/1 and 5/2 on, to go down.
Who's crazier, the journalist who said it, or the person who believed him?
We we shall find out in two games time!!Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Serious question chaps, something I've always wondered....do teams sometimes want to get relegated? Like is it better to have a terrible year in the prem or a good year in the other one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
It is a big drop in TV revenue I believe, although they do get 'parachute' payments I think to ease the blow I believe.
Nobody wants to get relegated, they still have their big wage bill usually.
Prior to Financial Fair Play (both UEFA and domestic only versions) it was often the case that the only profitable football clubs were those "yo yo" clubs like WBA who'd regularly go up and down. Good business strategy for the owners.
No one wants to get relegated. Take Wednesday for example. 15 years now since they last played Premiership football. No guarantee when a team will ever get back if they don't bounce back the first time. However, I hate this balderdash that it's worth €130 million to a club to get promoted. If that's the case why is it than most teams which are relegated are usually financially crippled? When promoted, a club has to spend a lot on new players (unless you're Burnley and get relegated straight back again) and much higher wage bill etc etc Burnley probably made a nice profit and they didn't cripple themselves as many clubs do to try and stay up. Is it not true that most clubs in the EPL are heavily in debt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk...rnley_economy/Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
So £60 million in the first year accord to that report.Quote:
Adam Bull, senior consultant in the Sports Business Group at Deloitte, said the benefits for the football club would be felt for the next five years.
Mr Bull said: “Promotion for Burnley will be worth at least £120m. Around a £60m uplift for their season in the Premier League in 2014/15 - even if they finish bottom - and then, should they get relegated after their first season, around £60m in parachute payments spread over the following four years if they do not return to the top flight in this time.”
Quote:
The average annual salary of Premier League footballers has broken through the £2m barrier for the first time, a new survey has revealed.
Premier League players earned an average of £2.3m - or £43,000-a-week - during the 2013-14 season, a huge jump from the average of £1.6m the season before.
But how many players is that for? 11? 23? 44? (Burnley has 44 players in it's first team squad).
So that might be 88 million in player salaries, but much less I expect.
It is going to less down the bottom end of the league.Quote:
AVERAGE SALARIES IN WORLD LEAGUES
Source: Daily Mail
1. English Premier League: £2.2m
2. Germany: £1.5m
3. Italy: £1.3m
4. Spain: £1.2m
5. France: £1m
6. Russia: 0.9m
7. Brazil 0.6m
8. English Championship: 0.5m
There are no doubt lots of other costs, buying players, other staff, ground maintenance costs.
12 teams had a net spend on players of less than £10m.
7 spend less than £2m including Burnley.
That's the first time anyone used the term "Balderdash" in foot.ie history. Truly remarkable.
http://foot.ie/search.php?searchid=2854867Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
Does not workQuote:
Originally Posted by joe_denilson
http://foot.ie/search.php?searchid=2854933
This may not work either as the results may be temporary
But it returned 21 results..
I am in good company. Geyser used it in the John Delaney thread !Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
The truth would be to look at Burnley's books before they were promoted and at the end of this season. Is there £60 million or £120 million or whatever more resting in their account? I very much doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
I'd say teams have a clause in players' conracts about wage drops in the case of relegation. Somewhere in the range of a 33% reduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Well they certainly should have something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
You can only pay players what you can afford, however some clubs attempt to buy success and fail miserably.
I think Leeds was a case of that "Living the dream" and Glasgow Rangers too? Not too sure on my facts as always though!!!