The Huddersfield Way

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:29 pm

Winstonswhite wrote:I struggle to see how we've got a successful transfer policy when our team is worse now than in 2014 despite having hundred(s?) of millions of pounds through the club.

How do you work that out when

1. We had 2 England internationals in our team
2. Several Irish internationals in our team
3. A Belgian
4. A Welshman and an Icelandic that played at the Euro's.

I can't think of too many of the 2014 squad who have gone onto better things. Trippier and maybe Ings , that's all.

I'd say this squad is far better than the 2014, and the fact they managed to stay up, means the proof is in the pudding.

Winstonswhite · Post by **Winstonswhite** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:33 pm

I think the team that finished the 2014 season was better than what could start a match for us tomorrow. Certainly it's not a significant difference in standard to call anyone a bellend for criticising our transfer policy given the money we've spent.

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:36 pm

Me?

Not called anyone. Not my style.
Just offering some perspective.

In terms of if you had to put an 11 out tomorrow, you could have an argument. Compare it again in September or what we had available on the last game of the last season, and the gulf is clear to see

Winstonswhite · Post by **Winstonswhite** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:44 pm

No not you.

And yes I guess we have to wait until September the 1st to have the debate.

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:46 pm

Winstonswhite wrote:No not you.

And yes I guess we have to wait until September the 1st to have the debate.

Ok.

I think the fees paid for players and the amout of premier league and international experience we have brought in, means the teams are poles apart in terms of quality.

Look at the trips to WBA in both seasons to compare the respective teams. ( and that's before our January arrivals, which made us even stronger )

Winstonswhite · Post by **Winstonswhite** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:54 pm

Same scoreline though!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:56 pm

So you think Joey essex had a point?

Well, he couldn't explain why he did, so why don't you try.

Based on the caveats I set out mind.

Transfer record smashed three times

Stayed up

five years of unparalleled success for us, a position that every club our size and smaller and a lot that are bigger would kill for.

I'm genuinely curious btw why you think he has a point

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:01 pm

The interesting thing for me with Huddersfield is their ability to be getting deals done quickly (which I think we all agree is of benefit - I full pre-season etc).

This is something, that for whatever reason, we have struggled to do over the past few years.

It shows that it can be done by the smaller clubs but time will tell as to whether or not their approach is as successful. It's not easy to judge when we don't know how good or bad some of their signing are.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:05 pm

Maybe Huddersfield aren't worried about the asking prices and just paying what's asked.

They're not having to worry about if they've got enough money, their owner will cover the losses to a degree as he's proven with the debts of £40 million shown the other year in the accounts.

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:07 pm

That's possible Sidney but I don't think they'll be spending significantly more on salaries or fees than us.

Winstonswhite · Post by **Winstonswhite** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:14 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:So you think Joey essex had a point?

Well, he couldn't explain why he did, so why don't you try.

Based on the caveats I set out mind.

Transfer record smashed three times

Stayed up

five years of unparalleled success for us, a position that every club our size and smaller and a lot that are bigger would kill for.

I'm genuinely curious btw why you think he has a point

I think that having a successful transfer policy means that by spending 60 million over three years would mean that it's improved the team massively.

IMO we've only really improved the bench.

I think Ings was better than Gray. I think Trippier was better than Lowton.

I think Ward is better than Mee and I think JBG is better than Kightly.

The rest of the team is much of a muchness.

I think the reason we are in the Premier League is because of Dyches tactics more than his signings. Only an opinion so don't call me a bellend please!

Edit: Just to add, I think a "successful transfer policy" means that players are purchased who add different qualities to the squad. Offering a variety of skills and options. I certainly don't think that's been the case. We're still crying out for pace 6 transfer windows and counting

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:21 pm

His tactics mean naff all if the players aren't up to the job though...

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:26 pm

Winstonswhite wrote:I think the team that finished the 2014 season was better than what could start a match for us tomorrow. Certainly it's not a significant difference in standard to call anyone a bellend for criticising our transfer policy given the money we've spent.

But unlike 2014 this current side stayed up with ease, being 9-10 clear throughout the season. Obviously we don't have Keane any longer but he played 21 matches in the 2014-15 season.

When we came up in 2014 we had Ings & Vokes up front. I'd say that Vokes has now become a better player and Ward is a far better left back than Mee ever was and our midfield is a class above than it was then.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:27 pm

Winstonswhite wrote:I think that having a successful transfer policy means that by spending 60 million over three years would mean that it's improved the team massively.

IMO we've only really improved the bench.

I think Ings was better than Gray. I think Trippier was better than Lowton.

I think Ward is better than Mee and I think JBG is better than Kightly.

The rest of the team is much of a muchness.

I think the reason we are in the Premier League is because of Dyches tactics more than his signings. Only an opinion so don't call me a bellend please!

Edit: Just to add, I think a "successful transfer policy" means that players are purchased who add different qualities to the squad. Offering a variety of skills and options. I certainly don't think that's been the case. We're still crying out for pace 6 transfer windows and counting

Fair-ish point about the first eleven. But one of the main reasons we stayed up this time and didn't the time before is because the bench was stronger, which suggests that the transfer policy has been successful.

Winstonswhite · Post by **Winstonswhite** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:31 pm

Ultimately any transfer policy is successful if it helps you achieve your goal. But like I said I think the goal was achieved more because Dyche has improved himself as a manager rather than his team.

Look I'm not complaining and Joeys comments are a bit OTT but I do think it is the one area as a club we can improve upon - hopefully over the next 7/8 weeks!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:54 pm

Fair points WW, but aim has been to stay in the premier league and we can't expect to keep exceptional players.

Ings was bought through, and was a staggering success, ditto Keane, and Gray improvement year on year for Luton, Brentford and us is amazing.

I agree that there is always room for improvement, but we are doing a lot better than a lot on here give credit for.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 4:23 pm

joey13 wrote:They haven't got any debt

Nearly a week later after you made that original ignorant comment you are still adamant.

I thought the gap of a few days since you mentioned it was a bit of embarrassment on your part realising that you were wrong.

But no....you keep on banging on about it in your own little world !

Huddersfield do appear to be getting their business done early which I think most Burnley fans would appreciate is a good thing and something personally I wish we would improve on. I know this depends on the players you are going after, their demands and also the number of clubs interested (and many more factors no doubt).

Getting them in at the start of pre-season compared to on transfer deadline is a difference of 2 months. In addition to missing games in August it can then takes weeks and months to adjust to the team, fitness etc.

The club would say that they are getting a better deal by waiting - I'm not sure this is the case or whether any saving negates the benefits of getting the squad ready early.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:27 pm

TVC15 wrote:Nearly a week later after you made that original ignorant comment you are still adamant.

I thought the gap of a few days since you mentioned it was a bit of embarrassment on your part realising that you were wrong.

But no....you keep on banging on about it in your own little world !

Huddersfield do appear to be getting their business done early which I think most Burnley fans would appreciate is a good thing and something personally I wish we would improve on. I know this depends on the players you are going after, their demands and also the number of clubs interested (and many more factors no doubt).

Getting them in at the start of pre-season compared to on transfer deadline is a difference of 2 months. In addition to missing games in August it can then takes weeks and months to adjust to the team, fitness etc.

The club would say that they are getting a better deal by waiting - I'm not sure this is the case or whether any saving negates the benefits of getting the squad ready early.

I know it's been done to death many times ......but "getting your business done early" basically means paying a lot for a player now - compared with either getting him cheaper (or missing out completely). I just don't think Burnley will ever be in the position to really force the issue ....if a player is good enough then there will always be another team with greater resources and I want Burnley to be ambitious and trying for really good players. We made our big signings late in each of the last two summer windows .......it worked OK.

As for Joey and his "They haven't any debt" - what can anyone say?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:32 pm

Inchy wrote:We spent 6m on Fletcher when we went up under Coyle. In todays football money that's a more than 10m

Haven't read all of this thread but wanted to correct the above. We bought Fletcher for £3 million.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:36 pm

joey13 wrote:They haven't got any debt

I'm going to make a confession. Like many other posters on here I am stupid. I look at Huddersfield's balance sheet and see a substantial debit balance on the balance sheet - that is to say if they sold everything they own and collected every debt that is owed to them they would still be unable to meet their liabilities. So I stupidly think that they have some debt (quite a lot actually). And I'm reasonably certain that all accountants would agree. So what am I getting wrong? I only make one stipulation about your answer. You have to explain WHY (and possibly HOW) they haven't any debt - because I think there is enough prima facie evidence to suggest that actually - they have.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:04 pm

Joey won't answer.

KefkaClaret · Post by **KefkaClaret** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:36 pm

Huddersfield may be signing their players early but we can't compete with the financial powerhouse they've created.

CoolClaret · Post by **CoolClaret** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:38 pm

Huddersfield are signing tripe!!
I genuinely can't believe some of our 'fans' attitude - take a long hard look at yourselves!

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:26 pm

How much did Huddersfield earn on the day of their promotion ?

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:28 pm

Surely you can tell us that you seem to know more about Huddersfield than anyone else?

Jimscho · Post by **Jimscho** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:35 pm

joey13 wrote:How much did Huddersfield earn on the day of their promotion ?

As much as we did for staying in the Premier League give or take the odd million depending on final league position.The majority of the money,if any,will not have been received yet.You get it I believe in tranches as the season progresses.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:35 pm

joey13 wrote:How much did Huddersfield earn on the day of their promotion ?

I think I see where you might be going. I doubt very much that the next two sets of accounts will back you up but good luck.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:35 pm

Mathias Jorgensen on verge of signing according to the Sun:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football ... ing-spree/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can you sign too many players where they simply can't gel in time?

ksrclaret · Post by **ksrclaret** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:42 pm

Scott Malone in at Hudds today as well.

I know we're not allowed to say it on here, but fair play to them, they're certainly backing their manager.

ElectroClaret · Post by **ElectroClaret** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:45 pm

And we're not?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:49 pm

joey13 wrote:How much did Huddersfield earn on the day of their promotion ?

Over the course of the season they'll get £100 million.

So that would be a minimum of £40 million to clear the debt, but that never happens in the real world, despite your train of thought.
It's probably closer to £50 million.

You're forgetting wage bills, ground improvements to meet PL standards, general running costs and transfer fees (these are usually paid over the course of a contract etc).

Then there's the possible relegation they'd need to think about.

Plus they've done a deal of season tickets for £100 if you've had a season ticket for x amount of years.

If you've been running around saying they aren't in debt because they've been promoted then you're dafter than I thought.

Bournemouth didn't clear their debt when they got promoted originally, its got worse.

Brighton won't be paying much back to clear their £150 million debt either.

I honestly thought you'd have a better idea of footballing finances after being on this forum, it gets discussed alot....turns out I was wrong.

Shore claret · Post by **Shore claret** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:49 pm

They will have a massive squad and can he keep them all happy?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:50 pm

ksrclaret wrote:Scott Malone in at Hudds today as well.

I know we're not allowed to say it on here, but fair play to them, they're certainly backing their manager.

But every player they sign seems to be a risk and if they don't come off it'll be millions wasted. Whereas we are looking at either proven PL players or ones that look like they have plenty of potential.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:52 pm

Spijed wrote:
Can you sign too many players where they simply can't gel in time?

Yes it can happen, but it can depend on how good the manager is too.
See Boro for an example.

Players need time to learn how their team mates operate and think.
They're getting deals done early so the pre season will be massively important to them and they get a full pre season to gel.

Plus there could be disgruntled players who got them promoted and find themselves on the sidelines, then the whispering starts in the changing room.

Dyche gets stick on here for being too loyal despite signing new players, but each player knows they get a fair crack of the whip to keep their spot.

ksrclaret · Post by **ksrclaret** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:57 pm

Spijed wrote:But every player they sign seems to be a risk and if they don't come off it'll be millions wasted. Whereas we are looking at either proven PL players or ones that look like they have plenty of potential.

That's true, but credit has to go to their owner who's willing to take on that risk in light of the PL money they're due to receive. And that's not a dig at our board, just an opinion on Huddersfield.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:57 pm

Hudds making a lot of signings. In fairness they needed to whereas we really don't. They aren't mucking around in getting the deals over the line which is impressive. I've never heard of a number of the players and I'm not exactly overwhelmed by the ones that I have so it's far too early to tell how strong they will be next season.

taio · Post by **taio** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:07 pm

Rileybobs wrote:Hudds making a lot of signings. In fairness they needed to whereas we really don't. They aren't mucking around in getting the deals over the line which is impressive. I've never heard of a number of the players and I'm not exactly overwhelmed by the ones that I have so it's far too early to tell how strong they will be next season.

Thing is we really do. We need to sign about five or six. That'd be a busy transfer window if it happens.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:09 pm

keith1879 wrote:I think I see where you might be going. I doubt very much that the next two sets of accounts will back you up but good luck.

If he is trying to say that the money they earned from promotion wipes out their debt....he's just trying to find a way of justifying his "no debt" claim.

The fact that turnover /income does not cancel debt will unfortunately be lost on little Joey.

In theory their owners could do a "Oyston" and pay themselves a £48m dividend to repay his loan....but does not sound like he will. At this rate of spend the debt may even increase

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:13 pm

taio wrote:Thing is we really do. We need to sign about five or six. That'd be a busy transfer window if it happens.

Yeah, I'd go along with that. But our current squad would hold its own next season - I'd say we'd be touch and go to avoid relegation. The team that Huddersfield got promoted with, minus the loan players that departed wouldn't have stood a chance.

I'm quite relaxed about our transfer activity. It looks like we have 2 squad players on their way in. I think we then need 2 or 3 key signings that will make the starting 11. We've got plenty of time to make those signings and if we are looking at the right caliber of player then there will likely be competition for their signatures, in which case the deals will likely drag out longer than some people on here can handle.

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:17 pm

How much have they spent so far - around £30m?

Considering that is likely to be spread over three or four years, they've probably 'spent' £7.5 to £10 m so far on transfers.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:20 pm

So add that to the debts of £40-50million

Chuck on a wage bill, signing on and agents fees.
Stadium improvements etc.

That £100 million doesn't go far.

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:28 pm

Need to see what they do with the debts but they're probably not any sort of issue, certainly this season, so in terms of the 100 million, it's not a reduction (aside from interest payments?).