The Woolster

I am trying to determine how much a club would pay for someone like Alan Shearer who went for 15million to Newcastle from Blackburn in today's market.

 

Going by that 15million in 1996 and the 15million is rumored for Fletcher, then I calculate Shearer would go for 34.5 million.

 

I could be totally wrong though....

Sounds like you are using the UKs actual inflation rate? Football transfer fee inflation has been much higher. Shearer was the World record fee at the time, its now £80m.

Seems Dempsey could be the wide forward, underwhelming for me. But his record is very, very good over the last two seasons, if he could put in similar numbers for us, and the price was reasonable, it would be good business. But since Maxi and Kuyt have already left, and rumours about Cole, Aquilani, Carroll and Adam following them out the door persist i'd be surprised if we didnt bring in at least one more apart from Allen and Dempsey.

Assuming Allen comes in, as things stand, ideally I'd like a bit of a goal poacher as well, but if we get Dempsey instead for something around £6-7m, I think it would be a decent deal.

I think Borini replaces Kuyt, Sterling replaces Maxi, Cole and Aquilani weren't with us last season so if they go they don't need replacing, if Allen comes in and Adam goes, we have enough coverage (in fact if Adam stays as well as Allen coming in, I think Shelvey should go on loan), but if Carroll goes then we will need someone else in. Same with Bellamy, and I guess anyone else not in that list.

I think its fair to say I'm not one who thinks the squad needs a massive overhaul. I get the feeling I may be in the minority though.

I think Allen will definitely improve our first 11. It seems Aquilani does not want to be here and he will most likely leave. Gerrard when he's fit will most likely be used in the attacking cm role. Henderson and Adam did nothing IMO to justify their places in the team, Shelvey on the other hand did show ability, the right attitude and promise, don't think he's ready to be a regular yet though. We are most likely going to use 3 central midfielders if not in all, at least for most games. Lucas, Allen and Gerrard would represent a strong first string i think. Shelvey, Henderson, Spearing and Adam if the last two stay i believe will be decent back up to step in when any of the first three are missing. I agree though that a creative wide forward should be a priority signing, but along with a central midfielder, who seems to be Allen.

Those are my views pretty much exactly, although its arguable that we already hev the wide forward that we need in Borini.

Depending on form and fitness:

DM: Lucas, backed up by Allen, then Spearing

CM: Allen, backed up Gerrard, Henderson or Adam

AM: Gerrard backed up by Shlevey or Cole (if he stays) or Adam or Henderson.

Thats good enough for me.

I definitely think he can, but If we can't get him or Swansea won't play ball, then Jordy Clasie is the man.

I've never seen him play unfortunately, so can't give an opinion (if I had the stats I could tell you exactly how good he is...), but everything I've read about him makes me think he could be. Have seen him quoted as saying he wants more time to develop before moving to a big club, so not sure if we'd be able to get him this summer either.

Well, I've noticed a few people talking about "finding the next Hamann" and I do think we need another defensive midfielder, but how do we know Allen can't do it?

 

Lucas arrived - allegedly - as a "box to box" midfielder, but was so shit at it he changed his game to a pure holding player. Out of neccessity, really.

 

Didi Hamann was playing in a far more advanced role for Newcastle before Houllier signed him and moved him back.

 

We don't HAVE to buy a holding midfielder who is currently playing that role.

 

All you need is tactical discipline, the ability to tackle and pass, brains and bottle.

 

In an ideal world you'd have a bit of speed, and the ability to get forward when possible and score/ create a few, but the chances of finding a Petit, Vieira, Keane or Souness is probably asking a bit much.

Completely agree and have been saying the same for a while. There is no point spending some of our limited budget on a player who can do what Lucas does as well as him to replace him, because unless he is better than Lucas, he will either be on the bench, or we have 2 defensive minded players in the midfield. I can't imagine someone good enough to cover for him would come to be on our bench unless we paid him a lot, so we'd end up buying someone not good enough, in which case we may as well stick with Spearing.

Much better to get someone who can play alongside Lucas, linking defence and attack, but who can also cover for Lucas if he is out injured or rested. Can Allen do that is the question, I am not certain, but I think he can.

what in the fuck are you on about woolster? are you simply saying that stats show it or do you actually believe this shite? he was abysmal.

I simply stated, because it surprised me, that the stats say he won possession more than anyone else in the midfield third for our team, I didn't make any comment on his quality or how well he played.

Pretty sure I've seen it said Charlie Adam was our best midfield performer similarly measured last year?

 

And Enrique best defender at winning back possession?

 

I haven't got the stats to back me up but, for me, those two are caught constantly out of position and constantly caught in possession. Many, many times a match. Maybe there's some sort of relationship boring stat lovers like yourself could investigate?

Seeing that you asked so nicely, I'll make this as boring as I can...

I don't have any stats for being out of position, its a bit too subjective, but there are some that indicate being caught in possession. They aren't all directly comparable because you have different players playing in different parts of the pitch and being asked to do different things, but I will try to compare like for like, so Enrique with Johnson, and Adam to Gerrard and Henderson (as you mentioned him before). I don't really want to put much more thought into it just now, so you will just get the stats I'm afraid.

I'm gonna base these stats compared touches, but I don't think a pass is counted as a touch.

Enrique had 2,713 touches, he was dispossessed 55 times (2.0%) and he lost possession 645 times (23.8%).

Johnson: 1,695 touches, dispossessed 21 times (1.2%), lost possession 645 times (21.9%).

So, Enrique is getting dispossessed and losing possession more than Johnson playing a similar role. If Johnson had as many touches as Enrique and had the same average, he's have been dispossessed 34 times and lost possession 594 times. I guess that isn't an insignificant amount, so you may have a point on Enrique just judging it on those stats alone.

Adam: 1,920 touches, dispossessed 39 times (2.0%) and he lost possession 516 times (26.9%).

Gerrard: 1,179 touches, dispossessed 12 times (1.0%), lost possession 290 times (24.6%).

Henderson: 1,956 touches, dispossessed 39 times (2.0%), lost possession 424 times (21.7%).

You could be right about Adam as well, although Henderson doesn't look to bad in terms of losing possession.

To get this back on topic...

Allen: 1,920 touches, dispossessed 65 times (2.4%) lost possession 364 times (13.5%).

So he is getting dispossessed more often, but he is giving the ball away rarely when compared with our players. If you included passes in that, then he stats would look even better, comparatively speaking, as he made more passes as well.

As we are team that will be looking to retain possession more (not that we wanted to lose it before, but I'm sure you know what I mean), I think Allen could have a key role in doing that.

I guess my reputation as a boring stat lover has been significantly enhanced.

Identi-bloke.

 

What do YOU think Tony Manero has in his house?

Haven't got a clue, I wouldn't want to hazard a guess after only reading a few one-line abusive responses to other posts.

Thankfully (for my wife at least, the laydees are missing out big time), the only statements I made that are true are that I love a bit of disco, and I got rid of a load of FHMs that I found last year.

True, and it's winding me up.

Not in an "i'm offended at what you called me" type of way, but in a "fuck me, you really DO think this is cooooooool" sort of way.

I bet if you went round his house he'd have :

 

- A glitter ball on the ceiling

- A punch bag or speed ball

- DVD boxsets (special edition) of survival programmes

- 122 different baseball caps arranged on some shelves

- A £150 bottle of aftershave

- A stack of FHM's

Glitter ball: Check, I love a bit of disco

Punch bag: Check, gotta keep in shape

DVD Boxsets: Check, I love a bit of Bear Grylls

Baseball Caps: Check, I look pretty cool in my snapbacks

Expensive aftershave: Check, gotta smell nice for the laydees

Stack of FHMs: Phew, I got rid of mine a last year, that must mean I'm ok

Pretty sure I've seen it said Charlie Adam was our best midfield performer similarly measured last year?

 

And Enrique best defender at winning back possession?

 

I haven't got the stats to back me up but, for me, those two are caught constantly out of position and constantly caught in possession. Many, many times a match. Maybe there's some sort of relationship boring stat lovers like yourself could investigate?

Well, I said those things yesterday...

You might be right, they might be winning possession back right after losing it, its possible at least. I'll see if I can put something together for you, only if you promise not to fall alseep before you finish reading it though?

Every post I've noticed from this Manero cunt seems to be a one-line abusive response to another post.

 

He's not even funny, like some of our pet loonies can be sometimes.

You should be proud, immitation is the sincerest form of flattery

£15m for Allen is madness. Argubaly no better than what we already have to play alongside Lucas and Gerrard.

 

Yet another player to clutter up the squad at a premium price. Much like Henderson he covers loads of ground in 90 minutes but is always two yards behind the play - so whats the point? Also telegraphs far too many passes and doesn't provide a goal threat. Probably due to him being a totally average player. Like Dempsey. And probably like Dirk Borini.

Always 2 yards behind the play, yet somehow only 5 other players managed to win possession back more than him last season, he must have Go Go Gadget legs.

Another thing that Allen is particularly good at is winning back possession. Allen won possession 152 times in the midifeld third last season, and 256 times in total. A lot of that is due to the system Swansea played of pressing high up the pitch (Britton won possession 153 times in the midfield third, they were the 6th and 5th respectively in the league), but he is obviously very good at it, and it is afterall the same system we are likely to be playing here. The player with the most possession wins in that part of the pitch for us is, perhaps surprisingly, Charlie Adam with 98.

What is also promising, considering we will be playing a more pressing game, is that we have the player who won possession back the most in the defensive third in the league in Enrique (184), and the player who won possession back in the attacking third in the league in Suarez (31), so 2 players who should fit the system very well.

Blah blah waffle waffle

Talk about saying the same thing over and over and over again only slightly differently!

However, you keep talking different factors will affect the stats, but again you are talking about too few events, if you play 30+ games over a season, playing Stoke twice for instance will not skew stats by much. As long as a player plays enough minutes over the season, and does enough of the particular action you are looking at, it does not really matter that they play against different teams or different players (I'd say a different league does matter though), as it will all average itself out, so they will have played against the average playing style and the average player. You are then left with your players average performance, and from that you can get a pretty good idea of how well they did that season. It doesn't tell you how good they actually are, which I think is the common misconception, it just tells you how they performed, but that in itself is pretty useful if you want to compare players.

Once you are at that point, the stats can become pretty useful just by adding a little bit of context and understanding. You keep saying the stats need context and don't add much in isolation, but it isn't actually very difficult to add it. (One of Codes problems when it comes to stats, is that he often posts a load of numbers but doesn't actually say anything about them, he doesn't add the context). Some stats don't need as much context, some do. For instance, the shooting stats, you either hit the target, or you don't, you either score or you don't, style of play or opponent has less of an effect on this. Some shots are harder than others, but if its a striker they should have had enough shots that this will be averaged out so that the player has an average shot.

Suarez scored 11 goals from 128 shots, with a shooting accuracy of 44% and chance conversion of a bit under 10%. Danny Graham scored 12 from 70 shots, with an accuracy of 58% and chance conversion of 17%. This by itself does not mean that Graham is a better finsher than Suarez. We can add some context by saying that Swansea style of play meant that they were perhaps looking for easier chances before shooting, so Grahams average shot was possibly 'easier' than Suarez'. But then you can look at clear cut chances, which should not be affected by style of play at all. Suarez scored 7 from 28, Graham scored 7 from 22. This still does mean that Graham is a better finsher than Suarez, but for whatever reason, last season he was. Perhaps Graham is actually a better finisher, but perhaps my bias gets in the way of seeing what's staring me in the face. This is where the stats can start to breakdown, as whilst the stats are unbiased, the interpretation of them can be.

When you get to things like passing accuaracy, that does need a lot more context, but you can still have a good go at it, and people have done so in this thread by discussing style of play of the team and position on the pitch etc. You may disagree with their reasoning, you may disagree with them actually attempting it, but is it really necessary to belittle people for bothering? They might be wrong, but it can at least lead to discussion about tactics, formations etc which is much more interesting than the "he's good/he's shit/he's got no balls" one that we hear ad infinitum. If you can be bothered to write so many words about why the way people have done it is useless, why not instead add some context of your own to show why they might be wrong, I'm sure you can do it.

Finally, your attempt to show how the stats can be used badly by how we used them to recruit players last season. We don't actually know how much the stats were used really other than heresay. Did we actually look at the stats to pick the players, Billy Beane style, or did the management already know who they wanted and used certain stats to back them up, letting their bias get in the way? I don't think any of us know, but I think there is a pretty good chance it was the second one.

Suso is wasted on the right, and Sterling is an inside forward not a winger. I think we'll, thankfully, see less of players running in straight lines down the wing and punting hopeful balls into the box. I expect Bellamy to leave, and hope to fucking Fowler that Downing and Cole do.

 

Not sure what I'd have done with Silva. Probably nothing until we know more about who is going to leave. He's only 18 afterall. Just doesn't make sense to me, especially when utter shite like Eccleston is still at the club.

Need to remember that when a yougnster gets a chance, and we should remember it isn't acutally very often at a club like ours, that it is usually when an opportunity arises due to injury or something like that, and it can often see them perhaps playing out of position. Carra started out in central midfield didn't he, and Stevie's first appearance was at right back.

And I'm talking about them in that inside forward role as well.

Suso in the long term would perhaps be wasted on the right, but if the opportunity arrose for him to play there in the firsts and get some experience, it would be for him. I see him as similar type of player to David Silva, who himself started out playing wide for Valencia. It would be a big ask for him to come in with his experience to that attacking CM role as its such an important position.

Sterling is an inside forward, but that doesn't mean he can only play on the left, and in the 433 we are likely to play we would surely be fine on either side.

I think both Downing and Cole will stay, but if they were to leave, I think they would be replaced by players with first team experience anyway.

I do think that Silva is a good player with potential, I just think we have 3 more talented young players who can play his position, and I don't think we should be stock piling young lads, so something has to give really.

I'd have thought that Sterling will remain wide left, and Suso as an attacking central midfielder. Silva played on the right, and pretty well. Its probably the weakest position in the squad.

I'd say all 3 can play on the right, Sterling is right footed afterall and Suso was great there in the 2nd half of the season for the reserves. But we already have first team players as well who can play those positions in as well in Suarez, Bellamy, Downing, Cole, Borini etc.

If an opportunity does come up, which can be few and far between, for the right forward/wing spot for one of the younger lads, would we give it to Silva over Sterling because Sterling has only played on the left, or would we give it to Sterling because he is the better player? I'd go for Sterling, and then Suso.

And until such an opportunity comes up, do we play Silva in reserves, or do we play Ibe who is potentially the better player? These lads need games, and someone would be missing out either way.

We could send him on loan again, and I'm not sure why we haven't to be honest, unless he's only got a year left on his contract as he's been here a couple of years now, as we would send him on loan and then he'd go for free anyway. Perhaps this way we have been able to include some kind of buy back/sell on clause?

Why we've got rid?

Whilst I think its a bit strange letting him go for free, realistically I think he has a bit too much competition to make it here. Not including those already playing regularly in the first team, of the young players who can play his position there is Suso, same age and better, Sterling, year younger and better, and Ibe, 2 years younger and probably the same level already if not better.

So, he wouldn't get a shot with the first team as both Sterling and Suso are ahead of him, and he would be depriving Ibe of a place in the reserves.

Henderson won 84,31% of the tackles he made, Allen won 74,54% of his.

 

So like I said, the main difference is that Allen made more tackles at a less successful rate than Henderson.

But a tackle is only recorded if the tackler touches the ball, I think a much better indicator is a challenge, as these occur a lot more frequently. Henderson attempted 290 challenges, winning 48.6% of them, Allen attempted 490 challenges, winning 57.7% of them.

During a season I'd say these numbers are almsot identical.

 

Goals: 2 vs 4

Shots on target: 14 vs 13

Shots: 31 vs 27

They are similar, but those 2 extra goals could have been worth 4 more points. They could have been worth 0 as well, but I'd rather have them than not.

 

Allen created more last season, but again Henderson created 78 attacks in his last season for Sunderland, a club more on the level with Swansea

 

Attacks created: 31 vs 44

 

Their pass completion is very good, but Allen is involved more because of his more central role probably the reason why he creates more, but its easy to sway this in Hendersons favour, simply by stating Henderson creates an attack every 48 pass while Allen makes 49 passes before he creates an attack or you could say they are almost identical.

But if one team is more 'direct' than another, then that last stat is kinda to be expected, as it can be less about the player, and more about the system.

1) 3 yard pass forward to a unmarked player, under no pressure = 1 forward pass.

2) 65 yard defence splitting Alonso special, under pressure from two players = 1 forward pass.

 

Stats = players are the same.

Watching = players aren't the same.

 

1)Carra kicking 3 yards to Suarez 65 yards from goal, Suarez goes on an amazing run, beating 7 players and scoring the best goal ever seen = Carra 1 assist.

2) Suarez picks the ball up from Reina, beats 7 players, runs passed the goal keeper and plays in Jonjo for a tap in = Suarez 1 assist.

 

Stats = Carra and Suarez are equally creative

Watching = Carra and Suarez aren't equally creative.

That is a pretty rubbish point Hank. That is not stats actually saying anything, it is just one event. The stats only start to say something when the events happen hundreds of times over the season.

1)Carra kicking 3 yards to Suarez 65 yards from goal, Suarez goes on an amazing run, beating 7 players and scoring the best goal ever seen = Carra 1 assist. However it is his only assist of the season

2) Suarez picks the ball up from Reina, beats 7 players, runs passed the goal keeper and plays in Jonjo for a tap in = Suarez 1 assist. This is one assist of many over the season

Stats = Carra and Suarez aren't equally creative.

Watching = Carra and Suarez aren't equally creative.

The point everyone is missing is that Allen is being supported by Rodgers, who Code has decided he doesn't like, so therefore (much like Rafa and Lucas before him) every single argument he has will be to justify that position. Hence defending Henderson over Allen, despite knowing fuck all about one of them. I mean, we are talking about a guy who will claim tackling is overrated and the best players don't need to do it (when criticising Lucas, who tackles a lot) and then use tackle stats to try and claim Henderson is better than Allen.

 

Anyway, Lucas has always been someone who looked to get the ball forward where possible. He does so quickly and concisely. Certainly much, much better than Henderson in that regard. Allen, I don't recall ever noticing before, so no comment.

To be fair to Code, he has looked at Allen's stats before and suggested that he could be what we needed (although its on the MF, so you would not have seen it unless your had a membership that ran out). So I don't think Code doesn't like Allen, and I don't want to speak for him, but perhaps he is actually pointing out we have a good player already at the club who could play in Allen's position.

At the moment, we do own Henderson, and we don't own Allen, so if we think about it for a second, I don't think he should be criticised for defending Henderson over Allen.

They don't tell the whole story, unfortunately. When you look at Spearing's 86% and Gerrard at 83%, and that Gerrard passes the ball backwards more often, you learn to appreciate how shit stats are at giving a good picture of the quality of a player.

No, they only tell part of the story, they don't tell you the reason's why, they don't tell you what they can't measure, and there are so many different stats that it is very difficult to interpret them. However they are completely unbiased and they record the many thousands of events that have happend that we have absolutely no chance of remembering, so they can clearly be of use. If the stats are so shit at giving a good picture of quality, why are all the top clubs investing in them and the analysis of them?

Keeping to your example of Gerrard and Spearing, and your later post about short passes and long balls. I would have personally thought, and I think pretty much everyone else on here would as well, that Gerrard not only plays more long balls than Spearing but is also much better at them. Last season they actually both played 12.5% of their passes as long balls, Stevie's accuracy of those long balls was pretty good at 73%, but Jay's was great at 79%. Does this tell the whole story? No, as not all long balls are equal, but does the fact that I, and as I said I think many on here would think (although perhaps its just me) Gerrard to be clearly better, suggest that our bias gets in the way? Do we overrate Gerrard and/or underrate Spearing ability at passing? Quite possibly.

If Allen with his 36 games in the PL with almost identical stats to Henderson this season apart from the fact he tackles more but less successfully is supposed to be head and shoulders above him as some people suggest in this thread you have to wonder why clubs have not lined up to take him away from Swansea earlier?

Almost identical?

He attempted a tackle twice as often as Henderson and wins them more often, he attempted a ground duel about 1.6x more often than Henderson, and won them more than twice as often. He passed more often than Henderson which is one of your arguements about why Mikel is better than Lucas, as was passing accuracy, so lets not forget this comment:

For a midfielder I'd say around 90% and up is simply outstanding, especially over a season.

 

Around 85%-90% is excellent.

 

85%-80% is good.

 

80%-75% is okay.

 

Below 75% needs improving.

Allen was 91% to Henderson's 84%. He also created a chance more often, scored more often and had a much higher goals to shots rate.

Taken from a blog about Allen on the EPLIndex site Top Target: Joe Allen - Statistically Compared to Rivals | Opta Stats

Having said that, I do think there is a good player in Henderson, and I think he will improve a lot under Rodgers. I think a problem for him was perhaps he was given a bit too much freedom in terms of what he was supposed to do with the ball and where he needed to be (I think Downing had the same problem). If you are perhaps lacking in confidence it can lead to opting for the easy option, I think our new 'system' can provide a bit of a safety net for both of them by being told what to do rather than thinking for themselves, and hopefully their confidence can build from that.

On para one- again fair comment.

 

On para two, I do not share your confidence, but hope that I am wrong.

Perhaps they won't, but I think I fair comparison would be what Lerner did at Villa. He waited a couple of seasons I think before he really pushed to get into the top 4, it didn't work and he has cut back accordingly, and we have to remember he was starting from a lower base, and it is just his backing.

I think FSG are trying to see if we can get into the top 4 more or less with what we have/earn after a bit of investment is the squad last year, afterall, it is not out of the question. If we don't, I think they will invest in the squad over and above what we earn to try get us there. These guys are not stupid, they know that if they really want to increase the value of the club, we need to be in the Champs League, and that sometimes you need to speculate to accumulate, but they will be sensible about it and they might only be perpared to do it over a 3/4 transfer window period, as Lerner did. If we don't get in after that, then I can see them leaving it at that.

As for the stadium, they could have come in a built one, but again I think they are waiting to see if they need to, as it makes far more sense financially to redevelop Anfield.

I have nothing to base this on other than I get the feeling that they know what they are doing, but that they are also canny, and won't spend unless they need to. They will know that the best way for them to take the most profit from this is to increase the value of the club, and they will know that it needs a bigger capacity and Champs League to do so. Above their acquisition investment, they've put in £30m between however many there are, which is a pittance really, so I find it hard to believe that they would not be prepared to put in more, especially for a new stadium which should really pay for itself once its built.

A fair reply, I agree with much of it.

 

The 14% figure was only ever intended as a crude marker and was always going to be a hostage to fortune. Suffice to say that it is a significant windfall.

 

The neutral effect of the improved windfall PL/TV payments is a point well made, our competitors will be at least as well off.

 

In your final paragraph you say that few owners are looking for income out of football clubs, I agree. Whether that is true of FSG remains to be seen, it is commonplace in American sports ownership for owners to take out perceived “surplus” cash.

 

For me the problem for FSG is that the capital value of LFC will only significantly lift when the club is back playing regular CL football and taking the revenue from a bigger stadium ( expenditure does not count for FFP, but income does). But both require a level of investment which I doubt they are prepared to make.

Can't say I know much about American sports finances, but I'd imiagine that one of the main reasons for being able to generate surplus cash, let alone take it out, is due to the salary caps, and another being that many new stadium builds are paid for in part or all from public funds. If there is cash that can't be spent on playing staff, and doesn't need to be spent on a new stadium, then it makes sense that it will be taken out.

I personally think they are prepared to invest to those levels, but they are perhaps showing some prudence by waiting to see if they need to first.

£30m/£220m down is 14% per annum.

 

14% is 14% - handsome.

 

We agree that football can be a poor investment, but need not be.Ask Mandaric, the Golds/Sullivan and Jack Petchey. The trick is capital and windfall growth,with minimal capital net investment, which FSG are seeing (they have not had to spend a penny on the club shirt and PL TV deals). Nice.

I don't think that 14% is quite right. I think you have missed out the £30m loan the owners have made (they paid £220m cash to buy didn't they?).

Also, and more importantly, whilst that £30m extra from the TV deal should in theory go striaght to the bottom line as there are no increase in costs to go with it, in reality there will be massive wage inflation for the players as its an increase that all the clubs are getting (well, somewhere between £20-40m for each club all things being equal), and they will spend it to be/stay competitive. So you will not only have to pay more money to beat the competition to buy players, you will have to offer higher wages to get those players in, and higher wages to keep the players you want as well. Within 2 years, there will not be much of that £30m left, if any, to add to the profit line.

Also, the new Barclays deal you mention is small fry really (although of course every little helps), its gone up from £27.5m per season to £40m I think, so £12.5m extra split between the 20 clubs, and thats if it all goes to the clubs.

Really, I don't think you should be looking at any increased revenues in terms of an annual return on their funds invested, as any increased profits I think will be reinvested into the club, over the medium term anyway. I don't think they will be taking dividends out for a while, if at all. Football is not a 'profit making' industry, you only have to look around to see that. Their profit will come from capital appreciation when they sell their stake, and that's why their best bet is grow the brand and to be in it for the long haul and to make us a successful team (which I agree for them does not necessarily mean that we need to win things).