More Insight into the Tomkins Benitez Meeting

[bri]

I think the point he is trying to make on wages can be seen more so than ever at Man City now.

 

I know football finances haven't been relevant for a long time but now they seemed to of literally gone into orbit. I'm sure 99% of the players City have signed are on super inflated wages that are not based on any business model. By that I mean a normal business will have to balance their books and wages are crucial in that. Whereas City don't have to balance the books. It started with CFC and Kenyons bullshit that they'll be running clean in 5 years. Even Roman has started to look at restricting expenditure to curb increasing his interest free loan to the club.

 

City have blown CFC off the planet with the influx of cash they've had. For any club now the challenge is to make the business viable, especially when your debt is structured likes ours, Utd's or Arsenal and wages are vital in that as they are in any business.

 

The concern in uk football as a whole now that if you want to compete it's almost as if you have to have a bottomless pit of cash to essentially run a business that doesn't add up.

 

It is not a healthy option / direction for the premier league to go in.

[Guest Ulysses Everett McGill]

I can imagine Tomkins reading the a critical Benitez piece, getting all up in a huff and writing the longest article known to man, whilst shedding the odd tear.

 

I don't have a problem with Tomkins, I have a problem with those who profess him to be some sort of bastion of knowledge, a man putting 'Them nasty critics to shame' When he is just as biased and as agenda ridden as the rest of them ffs he writes for the official site. He picks and choses his stats and rejects any valid criticism of Benitez.

 

It's very very easy to agree with a piece which fits to what you believe, it's hard to accept the other side of the coin. Tomkins makes you see the other side of the coin, but he also comes across as someone who can't see the other side.

 

He's almost robotic.

 

Like rain on your wedding day

[Antynwa]

Irony

 

 

I was expecting that, needless to say in the time it has taken a poster to come up with that predictable retort, I myself have one AH HA!

 

I am not a journalist nor do I write official articles, with good reason and all.

[shaunstrudwick]

re: the Keane comment - Keane drops deep to link play - he doesn't play on the shoulder of the defender like Torredoess

 

why Rafa thought Keane playing up top by himself would ever work i don't know

[diego]

I wasn't aware that length or size of contract was any factor in Crouch leaving...?

I thought he left to give himself a better chance of playing more first team games?

 

Tomkins was referring back to the comment he made in his original article that Rafa had said it would have been nice to have kept Crouch (and other understudies) but he would not pay the exorbitant wages other clubs were prepared to pay to compensate players like Couch for not being first choice. He appeared to be insinuating that Crouch might have been persuaded to stay if we had offered him an extended contract with a big pay raise.

 

All we got told at the time was that Crouch was under contract. Rafa wanted him to stay. But Crouch wanted to move on to get more games.

[Code]

re: the Keane comment - Keane drops deep to link play - he doesn't play on the shoulder of the defender like Torredoess

 

why Rafa thought Keane playing up top by himself would ever work i don't know

 

He does so when he is playing shite yes.

 

Whenever Keane score goals it usually is when he is played in behind the defenders when chasing the line, one of the reasons I never understood why we tried to play him as a link player like it seemed at the time.

 

Now it could be because he was thick as a goldfish going by comments made.

[Mel Wood]

Tomkins was referring back to the comment he made in his original article that Rafa had said it would have been nice to have kept Crouch (and other understudies) but he would not pay the exorbitant wages other clubs were prepared to pay to compensate players like Couch for not being first choice. He appeared to be insinuating that Crouch might have been persuaded to stay if we had offered him an extended contract with a big pay raise.

 

All we got told at the time was that Crouch was under contract. Rafa wanted him to stay. But Crouch wanted to move on to get more games.

 

Ahh right. Ta.

[Catch22]

I take it from that that this has been discussed before on here, so I won't get too far into it, but...

 

I personally can't see the sense in using the wage bill as a barometer of how well clubs 'should' be doing relative to each other, though I'm not trying to convince anyone else - that's just how I feel about it.

 

Chelsea are indeed a good example that if you spend money on the best players they will cost a lot in wages, and if you get the best players that is ONE factor in winning competitions. But it's not the only factor, and I think the use of the wage bills as a tool in explaining past success or predicting how anyone is likely to do in future, is a flawed idea.

 

To me it's not a direct cause and effect (higher wages = more games won).

It's more like (better players = more games won) and higher wages are usually a byproduct of having better players, which is a small but important difference, I think.

 

I just think it adds an unnecessary stat instead of looking at what happens on the pitch.

Generally the better the player, the higher the wages and therefore the higher the squad wage, the better the squad is. But why not just compare the merits of the players and the squads?

 

Each to their own, though, like.

 

It is well worth reading the chapter on this in Kuper's book (overall a good read anyway, but i think it's by far the best chapter)

 

The key mechanism is that i) Football is incredibly well covered in the media, all games are available on DVD (for a club) & the performance is completely in the open (I have no idea exactly which staff are exactly responsioble for Apple's recent new products as it is secret)

ii) The contract market for players is completely 1-sided for 2 reasons: a) Bosman means that they are an asset whose value declines to 0 at the end of the contract b) If they are unhappy, you still have to pay them but their performance drops so once a player of yours has had his head turned it is best to let him go

 

This produces a very obvious adjustment process.

When a team over-achieves against its wage bill, it means that it's players have essentially shown themselves to be "deserving" (in a market, not a social sense) of higher pay, which bigger-spending clubs will give them.

 

This means the club who has over-achieved must either give its incumbents more money or lose them.

If they give them more moeny & up the budget to do so, then the next year their performance won't be an overachievement as they will have risen up the pay league.

If they give them more money & don't up the budget to do so, they must make cuts elsewhere

If they don't give them more money, they fuck off

In both the last 2 cases, the team is weaker so the performance moves back down to the expected level.

 

Unfortunately this summer we were a textbook example of the adjustment process working:

Last year we over-achieved in the PL (nooone has ever done better than we did from our rank in the modern era)

So the players who caused that were targeted by richer clubs.

We paid Torres & Gerrard at the cost of weakening our squad elsehwere; we didn't pay Xabi so lost him at the cost of immediatedly weakening the team.

So, this year we will drift back to the 4th/5th position our wage budget predicts.

 

This all leads to an incredibly efficient market.

 

Players win football matchs, players follow the money like any other employee & the total budget differences are vast (The Chavs spend over 8 times what the relegation teams spend)

 

From that, you can predict over 90% of a team's finishing position just from a blind (ie/ team A,B) knowledge of its wage rank & NOTHING else.

 

This means that everything else (ie/ tactics, training, motivation, luck, home support, etc,etc) must only contribute 10% of the puzzle.

It also means that we can judge how effective a club has been in this 10% by comparing its final result to its wage rank.

 

The literature/work on this is greatly expanding in the sports economics field.

(Kuper summarises some of it, but there is more out there in the journals if you really look)

It is all coming in incredibly robustly: This is not just 1 survey, it is being tested (&passing) many times.

 

It is very interesting if you are interested in economics/how markets work (which i am); It is very depressing if you love football as a competitive sport. It is reasonably profitable if you like to bet!

[The 5th Benitel]

It is well worth reading the chapter on this in Kuper's book (overall a good read anyway, but i think it's by far the best chapter)

 

The key mechanism is that i) Football is incredibly well covered in the media, all games are available on DVD (for a club) & the performance is completely in the open (I have no idea exactly which staff are exactly responsioble for Apple's recent new products as it is secret)

ii) The contract market for players is completely 1-sided for 2 reasons: a) Bosman means that they are an asset whose value declines to 0 at the end of the contract b) If they are unhappy, you still have to pay them but their performance drops so once a player of yours has had his head turned it is best to let him go

 

This produces a very obvious adjustment process.

When a team over-achieves against its wage bill, it means that it's players have essentially shown themselves to be "deserving" (in a market, not a social sense) of higher pay, which bigger-spending clubs will give them.

 

This means the club who has over-achieved must either give its incumbents more money or lose them.

If they give them more moeny & up the budget to do so, then the next year their performance won't be an overachievement as they will have risen up the pay league.

If they give them more money & don't up the budget to do so, they must make cuts elsewhere

If they don't give them more money, they fuck off

In both the last 2 cases, the team is weaker so the performance moves back down to the expected level.

 

Unfortunately this summer we were a textbook example of the adjustment process working:

Last year we over-achieved in the PL (nooone has ever done better than we did from our rank in the modern era)

So the players who caused that were targeted by richer clubs.

We paid Torres & Gerrard at the cost of weakening our squad elsehwere; we didn't pay Xabi so lost him at the cost of immediatedly weakening the team.

So, this year we will drift back to the 4th/5th position our wage budget predicts.

 

This all leads to an incredibly efficient market.

 

Players win football matchs, players follow the money like any other employee & the total budget differences are vast (The Chavs spend over 8 times what the relegation teams spend)

 

From that, you can predict over 90% of a team's finishing position just from a blind (ie/ team A,B) knowledge of its wage rank & NOTHING else.

 

This means that everything else (ie/ tactics, training, motivation, luck, home support, etc,etc) must only contribute 10% of the puzzle.

It also means that we can judge how effective a club has been in this 10% by comparing its final result to its wage rank.

 

The literature/work on this is greatly expanding in the sports economics field.

(Kuper summarises some of it, but there is more out there in the journals if you really look)

It is all coming in incredibly robustly: This is not just 1 survey, it is being tested (&passing) many times.

 

It is very interesting if you are interested in economics/how markets work (which i am); It is very depressing if you love football as a competitive sport. It is reasonably profitable if you like to bet!

 

 

In short, good players cost more. It's just that wages have more of an impact cos it's over 5 years rather than one lump sum. We finished 2nd and probably wouldn't have lost anyone if Alonso hadn't fancied going home. Plus, i bet Johnson and Aquilani's wages amount to more than Alonso's and Arbeloa's so we obvioulsy could have got close to matching his wages if he's have really wanted to. Plus, it's distinctly possible the quality of our squad may go up now.

 

The more football has touted itself to the middle classes the more our game has been cluttered with long winded explanations of the fucking obvious. Yes, we all understand that wages make a big difference just like transfer fees but it's the exceptions we all follow our team for. Days like Sunday or Istanbul are what we love about football. You must be completely distanced from that of you just see players as walking pay slips.

[Catch22]

In short, good players cost more. It's just that wages have more of an impact cos it's over 5 years rather than one lump sum. We finished 2nd and probably wouldn't have lost anyone if Alonso hadn't fancied going home. Plus, i bet Johnson and Aquilani's wages amount to more than Alonso's and Arbeloa's so we obvioulsy could have got close to matching his wages if he's have really wanted to. Plus, it's distinctly possible the quality of our squad may go up now.

 

The more football has touted itself to the middle classes the more our game has been cluttered with long winded explanations of the fucking obvious. Yes, we all understand that wages make a big difference just like transfer fees but it's the exceptions we all follow our team for. Days like Sunday or Istanbul are what we love about football. You must be completely distanced from that of you just see players as walking pay slips.

 

Johnson & Aqualini together don't come close to the £190k we would have had to pay Alonso to stay.

 

I hate the fact that the PL is so easily predicted,merely on the basis of what a team plays, especiallyas that is determioned by some random billionaire.

 

You seem to be saying that because it is shit, we should ignore it.

 

I think that the more it is addressed & acknowledged in the media, then the more chances we have of change (namely some form of a salary cap) that would make the game much more entertaining (a lot more than 2 & at a push 3 teams, legitmately have SuperBowl winning ambitions)

 

Football as a game has been improved since i was a kid (back pass law, allowing skill players to flourish).

The League as a competitive spectacle is miles worse (When Forest pipped us to the title they had just come up. That is utterly unimaginable now)

 

What is wrong with wanting to improve it?

[Paul]

Johnson & Aqualini together don't come close to the £190k we would have had to pay Alonso to stay.

I hate the fact that the PL is so easily predicted,merely on the basis of what a team plays, especiallyas that is determioned by some random billionaire.

 

You seem to be saying that because it is shit, we should ignore it.

 

I think that the more it is addressed & acknowledged in the media, then the more chances we have of change (namely some form of a salary cap) that would make the game much more entertaining (a lot more than 2 & at a push 3 teams, legitmately have SuperBowl winning ambitions)

 

Football as a game has been improved since i was a kid (back pass law, allowing skill players to flourish).

The League as a competitive spectacle is miles worse (When Forest pipped us to the title they had just come up. That is utterly unimaginable now)

 

What is wrong with wanting to improve it?

 

Mate do you not see that the significant merits in your views on football finance and especially wages are eroded by your frequent statements of sheer supposition as fact?

[The 5th Benitel]

Johnson & Aqualini together don't come close to the £190k we would have had to pay Alonso to stay.

 

I hate the fact that the PL is so easily predicted,merely on the basis of what a team plays, especiallyas that is determioned by some random billionaire.

 

You seem to be saying that because it is shit, we should ignore it.

 

I think that the more it is addressed & acknowledged in the media, then the more chances we have of change (namely some form of a salary cap) that would make the game much more entertaining (a lot more than 2 & at a push 3 teams, legitmately have SuperBowl winning ambitions)

 

Football as a game has been improved since i was a kid (back pass law, allowing skill players to flourish).

The League as a competitive spectacle is miles worse (When Forest pipped us to the title they had just come up. That is utterly unimaginable now)

 

What is wrong with wanting to improve it?

 

It's not a matter of wanting to improve it, it's the fact that you write it off as completely predictabel which Arsenal, Valencia, Wolfsburg and i'm sure a number of others have proved it to be correct. Plus, a salary cap wouldn't make as much difference as you'd think. They have one in rugby league and it's still the same few teams who win it. You have the draft in US football but still some teams have the Superbowl about 15 times and others not even once.

 

Also, unless it was world wide (which would never happen) you could basically wave goodbye to any more of those European nights we love cos no one would come. Our league would be about half the quality it is now even if it would be more competitive.

 

The point is people get that money, in the form of transfer fees and wages, makes a massive difference so it doesn't need to be constantly repeated. It's things like last year (when we could and probably should have won the league) and Istanbul that keep us going as fans and none of them were a result of a balance sheet.

[Catch22]

Mate do you not see that the significant merits in your views on football finance and especially wages are eroded by your frequent statements of sheer supposition as fact?

 

Sorry, fair point.

I try to make educated guesses from the totals that we know but certainly don't provide that caveat, whcih is wrong.

 

(RM have leaked Xabi (to show off, i think - them, not him)but the others are just guesswork)

[The 5th Benitel]

Sorry, fair point.

I try to make educated guesses from the totals that we know but certainly don't provide that caveat, whcih is wrong.

 

(RM have leaked Xabi (to show off, i think - them, not him)but the others are just guesswork)

 

 

Also, Gerrard and Torres are far more valuable players than Alonso and could demand more money but are both still here. I wages obviously do persuade players but the idea the best ones just wander off to the highest bidder just isn't true all of the time. It's certainly possible to have a title or CL winning team without paying your 3rd/4th best player £190k a week.

[Catch22]

It's not a matter of wanting to improve it, it's the fact that you write it off as completely predictabel which Arsenal, Valencia, Wolfsburg and i'm sure a number of others have proved it to be correct. Plus, a salary cap wouldn't make as much difference as you'd think. They have one in rugby league and it's still the same few teams who win it. You have the draft in US football but still some teams have the Superbowl about 15 times and others not even once.

 

Also, unless it was world wide (which would never happen) you could basically wave goodbye to any more of those European nights we love cos no one would come. Our league would be about half the quality it is now even if it would be more competitive.

 

The point is people get that money, in the form of transfer fees and wages, makes a massive difference so it doesn't need to be constantly repeated. It's things like last year (when we could and probably should have won the league) and Istanbul that keep us going as fans and none of them were a result of a balance sheet.

 

Arsenal are a good example: people always cite them as non big spenders who have won the League.

Yet they did it from 2nd,2nd & 3rd (the only time in the modern era that has been done) wage spenders, exactly in line with the theory.

 

Outside the UK, the data is a lot more sketchy, especially in Spain, sterotypically!

Valencia had the 3rd highest when Rafa won them the title.

RM & Barca are always the 2 highest & they have won 21 of the last 25 Leagues.

 

I don't know much on Germany at all.

BM have a much higher budget than anyone else, that's all.

 

You make an excellent point about the Europe-wide need for the cap, though.

I don't really have an answer to that 1!

 

Maybe i am just turning into a miserable old git but i found the League (not the football which has improved) much more compelling 20-30 years ago.

[The 5th Benitel]

Arsenal are a good example: people always cite them as non big spenders who have won the League.

Yet they did it from 2nd,2nd & 3rd (the only time in the modern era that has been done) wage spenders, exactly in line with the theory.

 

Outside the UK, the data is a lot more sketchy, especially in Spain, sterotypically!

Valencia had the 3rd highest when Rafa won them the title.

RM & Barca are always the 2 highest & they have won 21 of the last 25 Leagues.

 

I don't know much on Germany at all.

BM have a much higher budget than anyone else, that's all.

 

You make an excellent point about the Europe-wide need for the cap, though.

I don't really have an answer to that 1!

 

Maybe i am just turning into a miserable old git but i found the League (not the football which has improved) much more compelling 20-30 years ago.

 

Fair enough, although i suspect that has a lot more to do with the fact we were winning all the time back then! From what i'm told it was just a predictable that we were gonna win it in the 70s and 80s as whe the mancs have been rolling everyone over recently. It's the thought that we might overturn it that keeps us going, mush like i'm sure it was for there gang of inbreds 15-20 years ago.