Does Every Club Have A 'Natural' Level?

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

I get confused by this natural level thing. There have been loads of clubs that have survived fairly handily in the premier league with a stadium that can hold a touch over 20,000, and there are fuckloads of clubs in the UK that can manage that, if they have a bit of success. Football clubs in general are so badly run, that people in charge of running the club are more important than history to a certain extent.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

I think the clue in the middle of that is "if they have a bit of success". If success means "surviving fairly handily in the Premier League", well there aren't "fuckloads", are there, by definition you're looking at maybe a dozen or so. Then maybe another two dozen who are the ones gravitating between a couple of years at that level and a year or two in the Championship. And then, the occasional outliers from a natural third tier like Wigan, or Hull. I think that's what it all alludes to.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Bit of success in this case means gradually moving up the divisions, building something coherent. Like Swansea before they lost the plot, or Burnley, or southampton to a lesser degree. The point is that England is full of what would be considered quite large clubs going down the divisions, and the rest are broadly speaking of decent size. A well run, well organized, patient club could go a very long way. What's Burnley's natural position? they seem very comfortable where they are. the issue is do they have plans for what comes next after Sean Dyche? Because they're in a position where they have no debt, have built a fancy new training ground, and academy out of Cash, and are filling in two of the corners of their ground to provide better accessability for Disabled fans. There isn't the demand to expand their stadium, even though there is load of money available for the purpose. there's a lot of clubs that could do what Burnley have done.

Hopefully the imminent Villa mega implosion is going to see a serious crackdown on the finances of lower tier clubs. What Villa did was try to buy a place in the premier league, cheating another team out of it, and they gambled the solvency of their club on it.

[ale]

Heres the Premier league stats

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/All-T...to2010-11.html

Seems reasonable if not yet contemporary-Man City being the obvious exception.

[Janik]

Hopefully the imminent Villa mega implosion is going to see a serious crackdown on the finances of lower tier clubs. What Villa did was try to buy a place in the premier league, cheating another team out of it, and they gambled the solvency of their club on it.

I doubt that, because it hasn't before. Sunderland have just gone plummeting down with huge debts, without that making anyone blink. Before them Sheffield Wednesday and notably Leeds went through similar situations. There have been rumblings of how Newcastle would have fared if either of their dips out of the top flight had lasted longer than a season; see the Swiss Ramble breakdown of the 2016-17 accounts, and from memory it was a similarly huge gamble in 2009-10. And Portsmouth, of course. Blackburn. Coventry. Nottingham Forest. QPR. Oh my, QPR. In fact people have been pointing out this problem for years and years without anything changing.

However the sine qua non of this are Leicester City. For one, the 10-point deduction for going into administration was first introduced because Leicester agreed a 10p on the pound CVA which allowed them to avoid a firesale of players, keeping an essentially Premier League squad together because getting back to the land of milk and honey immediately (despite spending most of a promotion-winning season in administration) was the best way of the controlling creditors, i.e those who voted the CVA through, not sustaining huge losses. Then there was the FFP breach in winning promotion in 2013-14, which was spending well beyond Leicester's means and if it hadn't resulted in promotion would have left a yawning great hole. That was essentially the gamble Villa just took paying off. Paying off in spades because of what happened afterwards, which put Leicester in a position of negotiating strength with the Football League as there is no guarantee that they will be returning any time soon (though, in a nod back to the theme of this thread, one should remember that Leicester are the record-holders for relegations from the top flight), allowing them to reasonably quietly settle for an amount that is piffling small change in terms of their current cash-flow.

Along similar lines to Leicester overspending to promotion, Bournemouth's budget when they went up, whilst not huge by Championship standards (and one shouldn't play down the job Eddie Howe did in getting them promoted), was well beyond their means and only manageable by someone plowing money into the club in the hope of a return via the Premiership. One might also wonder what Wolves had avoided by going up at the first time of asking under their new ownership, and what FFP rumblings there might be for them once their carefully prepared numbers come out in 6 months time. If their true financial situation last season was every to become public, I'm sure it would make for eye-popping reading.


In summary, while gambling the house on promotion occasionally works then the clubs outside looking in are going to demand the right to play Russian roulette.

[Snake Plissken]

What's Burnley's natural position? they seem very comfortable where they are. the issue is do they have plans for what comes next after Sean Dyche? Because they're in a position where they have no debt, have built a fancy new training ground, and academy out of Cash, and are filling in two of the corners of their ground to provide better accessability for Disabled fans. There isn't the demand to expand their stadium, even though there is load of money available for the purpose. there's a lot of clubs that could do what Burnley have done.

Except it still isn't enough. The wage bill has tripled in three years to over £60m and that is still one of the lowest in the league. There are no directors capable of financing the club at that sort of level and the aim every season is to finish 17th or higher. This season is a one-off. It simply isn't sustainable, as we've got to make the right decision every single time. That is, of course, assuming that we can find the players willing to come for the money.

Also: Gambling the club for the Premier League money. It was admitted after the 2009 playoff final that if Clarets hadn't won that game, they were in administration.

[Satchmo Distel]

What does "survived fairly handily" mean though? Most clubs are one bad season away from a relegation that often has calamitous consequences (despite parachute payments). At least a third of the 49 clubs in ale's table are not going back up anytime soon. This also results in a lot of scrappy football, not so much surviving "handily" as by scrapping and clawing.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Snake, your wage bill rises and falls primarily because it has a substantial component based on performance. For instance, Burnley made £30 million in profit in 2014-15 from their first season in the PL under Dyche, cleared their debts and paid for the academy etc. When they spent a season in the championship, they made a loss of £3.7 million, but only because they paid out £11 million in promotion bonuses. Had you stayed down, you would have made a substantial profit. to tide over the fall in parachute payments. The Following season in the PL you made a profit of £27 million, with a turnover of £120 million, and wages of £60 million. Burnley made a fairly substantial profit on transfers last summer, and by virtue of finishing 9 places higher in the league, their TV income will have risen from £105 million to £130 million.

The key thing for Burnley, to ensure long term success is to keep tying contracts to where the club finishes in the league. if they keep doing that, then from a financial point of view, everything will be fine, even relegation. Indeed, having built and paid for a training ground, and an academy, burnley have an awful lot of cash in the bank. This gives them the option of putting a big lump of cash aside as a relegation rainy day fund. They could also move to a situation where they pay more for players up front, and receive a discount, and have fewer ongoing liabilities in the event of relegation.

Essentially my core point is this. Burnley is about the size of Galway, they have a stadium that holds 22,000 people, though patience, appointing a good manager, and giving him time, and careful stewardship focused on medium to long term stability, they finished top of the 86 team championship, for teams that aren't £300+ million a year european superclubs. It's difficult to know what Burnley's natural level is supposed to be. In the last sixty years they've won all four divisions. They won the league nearly 60 years ago. 30 years ago they nearly went out of the league. They spent half the eighties in the third tier, they spent the other half in the fourth tier, spent the nineties in the third tier, the next decade in the second tier. And as this decade ends, they're in the top tier, and now they're qualifying for Europe through the league. There's nothing particularly special about Burnley, they're doing nothing that a whole bunch of other clubs couldn't do over time. The key thing for them is to stick to the strategy that has got them to where they are. As it stands, the biggest threat to burnley is that they are sold for a vast sum of money, to an idiot.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

What does "survived fairly handily" mean though? Most clubs are one bad season away from a relegation that often has calamitous consequences (despite parachute payments). At least a third of the 49 clubs in ale's table are not going back up anytime soon. This also results in a lot of scrappy football, not so much surviving "handily" as by scrapping and clawing.

Finish six or seven points clear of relegation. while making a fairly substantial profit, which allows you to try and do a bit better next season. There's also no compelling reason why being relegated should be disastrous. There's three kinds of club that get relegated from the premier league. There are newly promoted clubs, who don't spend a lot of money, and are using this season to improve their financial position to bounce back and stay in the PL (like Burnley in 2014-15) there are clubs that are simply a dumpster fire from top to bottom, like Newcastle, Villa or Sunderland or wolves, who go down in fucking flames. These are quite big clubs, who simply are incredibly badly run, over quite a long period of time. These teams have serious troubles.

Then there are small to medium sized clubs who have been in the PL for a few years, and have lost their way over time. Stoke under mark Hughes seemed to have no coherent plan, other than have a bunch of quite decent players, who never looked more than the sum of their parts. Swansea appointed 7 different permanent managers over seven seasons, and lost a certain amount of control over their wagebill. West Brom simply fucked up by going into the new season with a manager they wanted to sack, because they fundamentally couldn't trust him, then they replaced him with a manager who had a tumour for a personality, and that was the best thing he had going for him.

There's no reason why relegation should be ruinous for clubs that go down. They simply have to plan properly for the eventuality, and not be afraid of it, because being afraid of relegation is how clubs make a bad situation worse. You buy older players on large wages in the hope that they will miraculously keep you up, and eventually you wind up in a situation where you are losing money even if you stay in the division. And those are the clubs that eventually get relegated and get into massive trouble.

[Patrick Thistle]

In this month's season in brief in WSC it's the 73-74 season, division 3. They make the point that 9 of the clubs in that division then played at that level this year. 4 of those teams are in the Premier League (whoever wrote the article forgot Watford) and 3 have gone bust and been phoenixed (they only mention Hereford). Quite a few are non league now. Interestingly Blackburn and Charlton were both playing in the same division - 2 teams I remember being top flight for a long time.

[Snake Plissken]

The key thing for Burnley, to ensure long term success is to keep tying contracts to where the club finishes in the league. if they keep doing that, then from a financial point of view, everything will be fine, even relegation. Indeed, having built and paid for a training ground, and an academy, burnley have an awful lot of cash in the bank. This gives them the option of putting a big lump of cash aside as a relegation rainy day fund. They could also move to a situation where they pay more for players up front, and receive a discount, and have fewer ongoing liabilities in the event of relegation.

I know how the wage bill works, the problem is that the club can't keep pulling rabbits out of hats and relying on there being three worse teams each year. Even with performance related contracts, players are happy to take more money in the Championship. (We got outbid by Boro for Assombalonga, among others.) For perspective, Jordan Rhodes' contract at Blackburn two seasons ago paid him more than most of the Burnley first team today. Offering a contract lower than the PL norm, tying 50% of it as bonuses and forcing an 60% cut in case of relegation is not an attractive offer when compared to the bottom end of the PL or the Championship clubs. (It was terribly amusing to see Shaquiri's agent trying to get us linked with him in the papers - like we're ever likely to meet his wage demands.)

Basically, it is all well and good running things "sensibly", the problem is that we're in an environment where no-one else is and they are not the ones likely to pay for that.

[Pérou Flaquettes]

What about the EL Snake, will they look a gift horse in the mouth and field second string sides or will they take it seriously? I mean, Marseille are certainly no better than you and they reached the final!

[Snake Plissken]

I think the initial reaction - certainly from Dyche - is that it would be an unwelcome distraction. However, it seems that the club are taking it much more seriously.

However, we've been announcing pre-season friendlies around what would be the EL qualifying rounds so I don't know. Personally, I would love to try to make it to the group stages. That would be twelve games and some away trips of a lifetime. And then take it from there.

[Pérou Flaquettes]

I do hope they'll take it seriously and go for it wholeheartedly, might be another half-century before it happens again!

[jameswba]

One thing that's struck me is that, outside the 'big six' plus Everton, Stoke's 10 consecutive seasons made them the longest-serving Premier League club until their relegation this season. The days when a club of that sort of size could do what Coventry did, and hang on in the top-flight for 35 years, seem to be gone.

Theoretically, I suppose a 'club like Burnley' could operate sensibly, make all the right recruitment decisions and stay in the Premier League for longer than Stoke did. Practically, lots of factors make such a possibility much less likely. Unfortunately - and much as I hate this thought - a proper go at the Europa League might be the first of these.

Besides that top six plus Everton, there's an argument for saying that no club is justified in calling the top-flight their 'natural level' anymore. Possibly Newcastle and Villa, though there are arguments even against those.

[Patrick Thistle]

There are 8 clubs who have never been below the top 2 divisions. They could be thought of as having a natural level.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

erm, well aren't we a bundle of joy, for someone who is probably old enough to remember his team in the fourth tier, and has just seen his team finish seventh. (Smiley face)

There's a couple of things that stand out about burnley's season. The First I suppose is that they were better away than at home (28 Points To 26) also Burnley had the most tight games of any team (33 games finished with a margin of one goal or less) I think that may well be a record. Teams who take as few heavy beatings as burnley, generally dish them out quite a bit. And teams that only win two games by two or more goals a season, usually ship a lot of heavy beatings along the way. The Third thing is that last season they played the most long passes per game, and the second fewest short passes. They also really didn't make a lot of passes.

Burnley are basically an ultra modern version of Jack Charlton's Ireland, and like Jack Charlton's Ireland, You have four players born in the republic of Ireland, Boom tish. But that's a bit reductive. Burnley finished where they did because the were one of the best organized teams in the league. It marked an impressive step up on last season. Burnley sold a centre half for £25 million, signed no-one to replace him, and cut 16 goals off their goals against total. the trick for Burnley is to convince Dyche, that Burnley is the perfect place for him to learn how to coach a team to score more goals in the PL. to go from the english version of Jack charlton (fuck off he's ours) to an english version of simeone.

The thing about burnley under Dyche, is that unlike a lot other managers who are at a club for a while, Burnley get recognizably better every season. You can actually see the benefit of consistency. They now have a very clear sense of what they're supposed to do when they don't have the ball. I remember watching the MOTD highlights of their 1-1 draw with Man city, and Phil neville was rhapsodizing about burnley's never say die spirit, and warrior attributes, over a video of Burnley retreating in front of Man city in perfect formation, like they were on a tactics board. There were no gaps, so when man city crossed the ball in, either it was headed away by a defender in the right place, or if the ball got to a man city player, he was closed down with the minimum of fuss by a defender who was in a good starting position. these players weren't keeping Man city out by throwing themselves headfirst into the ground like John Terry, but were calmly doing the right thing at the right time. It was the first look I got at Kevin Long playing for Burnley, and he looked like fucking Paul McGrath, simply because he knew what he was doing as part of a unit. I'm just going to say right now, that Kevin Long and stephen Ward look like radically different defenders playing for burnley, rather than Ireland. Because Ireland are a fucking disorganized rabble with no coherent plan.

This is the answer to your problem about pulling rabbits out of a hat. If you have a clear system of play, you're primarily looking for intelligent players who can follow instructions, and there's a lot more of those players around than you would think, and knowing what you are looking for makes it easier to find players. The other thing is that burnley have a lot of midfielders who are decent on the ball. Jack Cork, Stephen Defour, jeff kendrick, and Robbie Brady can pass the ball. There's no need to bypass them quite so often. There's no need to be so extreme. Burnley only make 282 short passes in every game. an extra fifty and they would be midtable. Fifty more than that and they would be seventh. The hard part about implementing a passing game, is to do it while keeping your shape. that's the thing that burnley are very good at already. 81 long balls per game is an awful lot, burnley could shave 10 off that, and still be in the top five most direct teams in the league.

the obvious thing for Burnley to do next season is get more goals out of their midfield. Last season Wood scored 10, barnes scored 9, vokes scored 4 and no-one else managed more than 2. Another area where they could make substantial improvements is attacking set pieces. They're in the top three when it comes to conceding goals from set pieces, with only 6, but they're in the bottom 4 when it to goals from set pieces. They got 8, while bournemouth were top with 16, and west brom were 4th with 14. Having robbie Brady fit for a full season would go a long way to helping that, but it's an obvious area for a team like burnley to improve. Even without a change in passing style, 8 extra goals from set pieces would substantially improve Burnley's results.

It's going to be interesting to see what Dyche does next season. It's bizarre to see an english manager, who isn't primarily a spoofer, but who seems actively interested in learning and improving. Burnley is the perfect club for him to keep adding strings to his coaching bow. Everything is already set up the way he wants it, he has a squad of players who can see the benefits of his accumulated work over the years, he has a board who have a lot of faith in him, and crucially they will retain that faith if results dip a little as they try to tweak their way of playing a bit. He's also not going to get fired over a bit of reversion to the mean. Either way we're reliant on Burnley to drag Irish players into the top half of the premier league so we watch with interest.