All things being equal yes, but that would depend on Sunderland consistently making much better decisions than they have over the past 5 years. I guess you could argue if we spend at least 3 years in the championship, we know at least on our side of the fence, the decision making has taken a further downward spiral.
You'd have been (rightly) furious to finish below some of those teams because of the squad Gino built. In pre-Pozzo times we'd have been delighted to finish above them.
Exactly this. There are more than 20 teams, probably more than 30 teams, that had the financial muscle and support base to have spent the last 10 years above us in the league but didn't because we outperformed them, partly due to the loans from Udinese. Look at what's happened to Ipswich, Sunderland, Bolton etc let alone half of the chamionship today plus 90% of the premier league. Yes we are in a far worse position than we were 3 years ago but there is a danger in thinking that because we have done so well, relatively, over the last 10 years we should always be above those larger clubs.
Generally wage bill is a pretty good metric of a club’s financial resources and is fairly well-correlated with club performance. In my view, a club’s performance relative to its wage bill is the best metric to determine how well the club is run. You can see that United and Everton are the biggest underperformers over the last while. For the first four seasons, since promotion, us and Burnley consistently outperformed our wage bills, which were often smaller or as small as the newly promoted sides. That was a good achievement although it seems we have now reverted to par/slightly under par (Norwich, Burnley, Brentford and ourselves are likely to have the smallest wage bills but hard to know the exact sizes/details until this season’s accounts come out). The season we were relegated we had the 17th highest wage bill and finished 19th. In 18/19 we finished 11th with the 18th highest wage bill.
Attendance pales into significance next to EPL TV money etc. All that really matters is the now and, perhaps, recent history.
It still doesn’t answer the question though does it? If staying in the Pl for 6 out of 7 seasons is such an amazing achievement, who are the teams more worthy of being there? In the last 10 years, who are the 20 teams who should be in the PL if not us? It’s being mooted that it’s easy and there’s maybe up to 30 of them - so who are they? I just think the ‘punching above our weight’ line has been done to death and it’s time it was actually looked at in depth. Yes there are ‘bigger’ clubs and wealthier owners. But those things don’t automatically equate to us not rightfully being above them. I think we have been rightfully above a number of teams that fit those 2 descriptions above in the last 10 years. So I think right now, and in many of those previous years, we have been where we should be.
I think the Pozzos elevated us a weight class by steadily building towards and then achieving promotion and since then we’ve performed roughly averagely for a side of our stature. That said, when you see what Burnley have achieved over a similar period with (slightly) lesser investment, and what clubs like Brighton have achieved with slightly more and good long-term planning, it’s hard to say we’re punching above our weight. I don’t think anyone here would say that Norwich are punching above their weight, would they?
There's also the factor of bigger clubs (meaning with bigger stadiums and bigger crowds) being more attractive to potential signings. This is why it was inevitable that Leeds would eventually get back to the PL, but doesn't mean, of course, that they can't mess up once they get there.
Pretty much all the teams who were above us before Pozzo came along. I think you've answered your own question there. There are far wealthier clubs with better potential but that doesn't automatically give them the right to be above us in the table, and because we have out-performed them despite a limited budget, we are still above them. As Jumbo (I think) said you wouldn't bet on us being above the likes of Sunderland and Nottm F in 10 years time but our recent successful history means we will quite possibly still be above them in at least a year's time due to parachute monies etc.
These are the average attendances in the Championship this season, our average attendance before we got promoted was 17k, I reckon our extended stay in the Premier League must’ve gained us at least an extra 2k fans as a championship club if not more, so realistically this big financial gap people are imagining doesn’t really exist at all, and we aren’t performing significantly higher than we probably should be either:
I haven’t answered my own question - because you are talking about potential. Should Ravel Morrison have been a PL footballer 6 of the last 7 years because he had/has more potential than say, Ashley Westwood? No. Westwood has been there by rights and Morrison hasn’t. You still haven’t named 20-30 teams either…. I really don’t get your argument - all the teams who were above us before Pozzo came along have been more worthy of being a PL team than us in the last 10 years? That’s going to need some explaining.
Agreed. It’s no more than a sound bite that doesn’t really hold up to any serious scrutiny. It has a few merits but not many.
You’re talking about probably an extra £5m a year in gate receipts between us and those top clubs if we’re a championship club. A couple of Udinese loans and that gap is easily bridged and exceeded. We aren’t overachieving anywhere close to what people like to imagine we are.
Just to add, as well, that not only are gate receipts/match day revenue a declining proportion of revenue given broadcasting deals but that much of matchday revenue is driven by getting a small number of people to pay considerably more than other people on hospitality, food or merchandise. Given our facilities, and are proximity to London, I’d imagine that while our attendances may be lower than some clubs, our gate receipts are among the highest. Fulham are in a similar boat.
It's nothing to do with being "more worthy". It's about having bigger fan base and better finances 10 years ago. I said the teams that were above us pre Pozzo - it's true I didn't name them as you could easy look them up yourself. There were 30 teams above us pre Pozzo. From that list maybe remove Wigan, stoke, Hull, Cardiff, Blackpool and add from beneath us Derby, Leeds, Ipswich, Forest, Sheff W, Sheff Utd. At that point in time you'd say those teams had a better chance of being above us 10 years later. Instead we have been above approx 50% of them. Good point re Westwood vs Morrison. We are the Westwood. Nottm F are the Morrison.
If you look at that average attendances table I posted above, and the actual league table, it’s almost as if the difference in finances isn’t that significant at all, and that a few smart decisions go a long, long way. Imagine if you could also lean on a Serie A club and borrow 2/3 of their players, it’s almost as if a few million extra in gate receipts becomes irrelevant.
Not sure if you had checked this before asking but we are in fact 19th in the last 10 years for Premier League points 1 Man City 2 Liverpool 3 Chelsea 4 Man Utd 5 Spurs 6 Arsenal 7 Everton 8 West Ham 9 Soton 10 Leicester 11 Palace 12 Newcastle 13 West Brom 14 Stoke 15 Swansea 16 Burnley 17 Aston Villa 18 Bournemouth 19 Watford 20 Sunderland
Yes that is one of the ways, thanks to the Pozzos, we were able to compensate for our financial disadvantage. Also your comment that our average gate in the championship may well now be higher due our years in the prem is also valid, again thanks to the over-achievements of the last 10 years. Looking forward we are probably more optimistic about the next 10 years today than we were the next 10 years the day pre Pozzo, again thanks to that over-achievement. Serious question, where do you think we will most likely be in 10 years time ? I would think mid championship Second question, is that higher or lower than your expectation was 10 years ago pre-Pozzo ? For me it's higher.
I honestly couldn’t tell you, because I think our owners are making such erratic decisions at the moment I have no clue how things are going to pan out, if they’ll learn lessons and change their approach or not. What I can say is if they still own us and Udinese in 10 years and Udinese remain a Serie A club then that will represent a gross under achievement. By your attendance metric, without the Pozzos we’re a team that would knock around the playoffs and just below anyway, so you’d have to question what their input would be in us being a mid table championship team.
But you’re talking about ‘bigger’ teams. Why does that in any way mean that they should have been in the PL and we shouldn’t? Seems to me that you’re basically just denying that clubs can evolve beyond fanbase and historical success. Are Forest a bigger club that us? Yes. Should they therefore rightfully be above us in the last 10, even 20, years? Not a chance. So why is it such an amazing stat that we have survived 6 out of 7 years in the PL? You haven’t really come close to explaining that despite it being something you regularly use on varying threads.
Yes but I'm a pessimist Before Pozzo, despite Sean's heroics, I thought it was only a matter of time before we dropped back into League one. Maybe that was wrong and we'd have gone on to become Burnley under Sean and had a long prem existence ? Who knows...
Again you're confusing yourself. I haven't said they "should be" in the prem instead of us. I said they had the better potential to be but we have outperformed them on a more limited potential/budget. Nothing to do with NF being "rightfully" above us ??? Just that they have the greater potential to be. Do you think NF or Peterboro have the best chance of getting promoted from the champ to the prem ? It's such an amazing stat because which other club of our size has achieved that in the last 7 years ? Just Burnley ? And we did that ahead of all those clubs who had a better chance due to their better spending power. You seem to be saying it can't be much of an achievement because we know we achieved it !
We really won’t meet in the middle on this one yet again! But a fun debate none the less! Back to us not signing Calvin Ramsey…
But for how long should the Pozzos get credit for that? They had a huge impact when they came in and upgraded the club a weight class as I said below. But since then we are performing around what you would expect based on the club’s revenue, wage bill etc. If in 5 years time we’re a lower mid-table championship side should we still be saying “ah but we might have got relegated in 12/13 if they hadn’t come along.” At a certain point they need to be judged on current/recent performance only.
Interestingly our average attendance before Pozzo arrived would put us 17th in this table, with 12,704. The unprecedented (in the last 30 years) success we've achieved has hopefully secured a new generation of fans to enjoy a lifetime of heartache. Now, who were we talking about? Callum Ramsdale?
Harsh m8. Ur disrespecting some clubs with great history. Wanderers F.C and Royal Engineers have got great pedigree in the FA Cup. Blackburn and Huddersfield with their massive fanbases are also historically successful.
It is exactly this. Previously using words like 'worthy' is pointless, it is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. Most of the relegated clubs mentioned above have had similar opportunity to us in that they have had their shot a the premier league millions. There are also some other clubs mentioned who haven't, at least for a while, who are traditionally viewed as big clubs, Forest, Sunderland, Sheff Weds etc...... Attendances in themselves aren't that much of a money spinner, albeit probably add a few million. However it's not all about ticket money, clubs with large fan bases earn more money in general through merchandise etc.... Man Utd wouldn't earn more than us or, say Forest for example, for finishing 6th in the prem, yet their revenues dwarf ours, how many shirts, scarves, mugs, pens, flags etc... do they sell worldwide. I suspect Forest still sell more than we do and they've be **** for at least a decade and not in the prem. Obviously also based upon recent achievements as well as fan base but Man Utd sponsorship deals will be huge compared to ours, given the fan base I suspect Forest would do better if than us if they were in our position from their shirt sponsors et al. Other clubs don't need some of that because of the wealth of the owner, Bournemouth or Fulham for example. We have had 6 out of 7 seasons in the prem with similar opportunity to others who haven't managed that. To do so we have made some better decisions along the way, what to invest in, how much, when, how many managers to sack, which players to sign etc... Agree we rightly should have stayed up above teams previously mentioned, that's because we had a better team, not because we 'deserved' it or were 'worthy', we made the right choices and others didn't. Of course there are bad decisions but we are where we are because of good ones.
