"I'm not going to sign anybody for the sake of it"

[lardy]

Not even with the prospect of yet another promotion notched up?
And I can think of examples of clubs who appear to endorse bounces between the PL and the Ch because a season fighting for promotion meant high gates and loads of interest.
If the club (ie Tan) really wanted to consolidate in the PL, far more money would have been invested - especially bearing in mind what was recouped from TV money and increased gates. His decision to limit spending made no business sense whatsoever - even given what happened with Malky (altho I think Malky would have kept us up with that squad).

Actually, limiting spending made sense from the business side. Investing more probably doesn't shift your odds of survival that much. We've seen big spending teams go down and shoestring teams survive.

A businessman would look at it and think - if I spend more, will we still get relegated? Possibly. If I don't spend, will we stay up? Possibly. If I want to be very sure we stay up (as there is a broad link between wages and league position), is it worth that immediate immense investment? Probably not.

There were a few key games we needed to win in the run-in to survive (one that we did, Brighton, one that we lost, Fulham, and some others) and the difference wasn't a signing or two, it was the tactics and approach to the games.

[Moodybluebird]

Excellent post Lardy, spot on.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

Actually, limiting spending made sense from the business side. Investing more probably doesn't shift your odds of survival that much. We've seen big spending teams go down and shoestring teams survive.

A businessman would look at it and think - if I spend more, will we still get relegated? Possibly. If I don't spend, will we stay up? Possibly. If I want to be very sure we stay up (as there is a broad link between wages and league position), is it worth that immediate immense investment? Probably not.

There were a few key games we needed to win in the run-in to survive (one that we did, Brighton, one that we lost, Fulham, and some others) and the difference wasn't a signing or two, it was the tactics and approach to the games.

We did well, and then Tan rolled the dice in January on Sala. It's really hard to put any words to that without sounding insensitive but he could well have been the difference.

[lardy]

We did well, and then Tan rolled the dice in January on Sala. It's really hard to put any words to that without sounding insensitive but he could well have been the difference.

He could have been and we'll never know. But that's sort of my point.

Cyclops said he was looking at it from a business sense, and I was too. If you invest £15m in a new outlet then you've done your market research and you're pretty sure it'll make you money. If you invest £15m in a striker, you don't know if you're getting Chopra or Cornelius. The variables are harder to control.

We can agree or disagree with the club's transfer dealings but it can definitely be defended from a business sense.

[Cyclops]

Actually, limiting spending made sense from the business side. Investing more probably doesn't shift your odds of survival that much. We've seen big spending teams go down and shoestring teams survive.

A businessman would look at it and think - if I spend more, will we still get relegated? Possibly. If I don't spend, will we stay up? Possibly. If I want to be very sure we stay up (as there is a broad link between wages and league position), is it worth that immediate immense investment? Probably not.
.

Lets take an example. When we invest as private individuals, we generally have to define our attitude towards risk. At the bottom of the scale is little/no risk which brings minimal returns, though a safe investment. Then we go up the scale, until we are prepared to take a high risk for high gains.

Your model of 'possibles' is near the bottom of the risk scale. We missed staying up by a whisker - maybe by a goal or two. With the minimum prospect of riches of hundreds of millions from just a couple of seasons in the PL (from TV money and sell-out crowds), surely an extra spend of £20-30m is not such a big risk spend. For every example of spend=fail, an example of spend wisely=consolidation can be produced.

As I've said before, it makes little business sense for Tan to start spending now to try to achieve the promotion which had already been attained.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

Lets take an example. When we invest as private individuals, we generally have to define our attitude towards risk. At the bottom of the scale is little/no risk which brings minimal returns, though a safe investment. Then we go up the scale, until we are prepared to take a high risk for high gains.

Your model of 'possibles' is near the bottom of the risk scale. We missed staying up by a whisker - maybe by a goal or two. With the minimum prospect of riches of hundreds of millions from just a couple of seasons in the PL (from TV money and sell-out crowds), surely an extra spend of £20-30m is not such a big risk spend. For every example of spend=fail, an example of spend wisely=consolidation can be produced.

As I've said before, it makes little business sense for Tan to start spending now to try to achieve the promotion which had already been attained.

We did spend that money on a striker though. We all know what happened and he never arrived but the club spent it.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

We did spend that money on a striker though. We all know what happened and he never arrived but the club spent it.

Having got promotion and not investing in a striker at the start of the season was the big pity.

[Cyclops]

Having got promotion and not investing in a striker at the start of the season was the big pity.

Succinct, pithy and spot-on!

Why can't half the forum's posters see this?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Succinct, pithy and spot-on!

Why can't half the forum's posters see this?

Are you taking the pith?

[Cyclops]

Are you taking the pith?

Reminds me of that old doc's joke:

Doc: "Big breaths!"
Patient: "Yeth - and I'm only Thithteen".

[xsnaggle]

Succinct, pithy and spot-on!

Why can't half the forum's posters see this?

Perhaps they're a bit one eyed!!!!

[Cyclops]

Perhaps they're a bit one eyed!!!!

Reported - for malicious and callous trolling of my hard-to-bear physical affliction

[lardy]

Having got promotion and not investing in a striker at the start of the season was the big pity.

But who, that we could have realistically signed, would have made a definite difference? We wouldn't get someone as good as Mitrovic, and he wasn't enough for Fulham.

This is a bit offtopic, but people overestimate what's needed to stay up. You don't need to be better than three other teams, you just need to get more points than them. It's actually unusual for a team to go down simply because they are bad - Huddersfield were an example of a team being plain crap this season but even they had survived in 15th the season before. Most seasons, every club who get relegated could say "if only we had just had...".

You can pick up points by having a better team, of course, but there are other ways. Burnley qualified for Europe just by having a strong defence and being dogged.

Our failure went deeper than just not scoring enough goals. We had too many games where we weren't creative enough and seemed happy to just snatch a few shots here and there, until the attitude changed a bit around February. It's really asking a lot to put a striker in a team like that and expect him to come up with goals.

[the other bob wilson]

But who, that we could have realistically signed, would have made a definite difference? We wouldn't get someone as good as Mitrovic, and he wasn't enough for Fulham.

This is a bit offtopic, but people overestimate what's needed to stay up. You don't need to be better than three other teams, you just need to get more points than them. It's actually unusual for a team to go down simply because they are bad - Huddersfield were an example of a team being plain crap this season but even they had survived in 15th the season before. Most seasons, every club who get relegated could say "if only we had just had...".

You can pick up points by having a better team, of course, but there are other ways. Burnley qualified for Europe just by having a strong defence and being dogged.

Our failure went deeper than just not scoring enough goals. We had too many games where we weren't creative enough and seemed happy to just snatch a few shots here and there, until the attitude changed a bit around February. It's really asking a lot to put a striker in a team like that and expect him to come up with goals.

The right striker could have seen a different attitude through the first half of the season and might even have provided a morale booster that would have seen us having a far shorter wait for our first win. That two months plus waiting for our first victory is what relegated us because it meant Brighton (who were a worse team than us for the large majority of 18/19) to build up a big enough buffer to keep us at bay.

We went into the summer transfer window of 2018 with all of the talk about us needing a new striker and we went into the summer window this year saying the same thing. To come out of both of them without our main target will reflect very badly on the club at a time when we had the financial resources to push the boat out to an extent that we're not going to be able to do again if we do not go up this season.

[lardy]

The right striker could have seen a different attitude through the first half of the season and might even have provided a morale booster that would have seen us having a far shorter wait for our first win. That two months plus waiting for our first victory is what relegated us because it meant Brighton (who were a worse team than us for the large majority of 18/19) to build up a big enough buffer to keep us at bay.

We went into the summer transfer window of 2018 with all of the talk about us needing a new striker and we went into the summer window this year saying the same thing. To come out of both of them without our main target will reflect very badly on the club at a time when we had the financial resources to push the boat out to an extent that we're not going to be able to do again if we do not go up this season.

Yes the right striker could have, and speaking of Brighton, they've survived two seasons because they had Glenn Murray doing that for them. But to go back to where this originally started, we're talking about this as football fans. Is spending an enormous amount on a striker good business sense? Or rather, is not buying one bad business sense?

Bearing in mind that we would have stayed up had we not had a couple of games with terrible refereeing decisions and a bit of luck somewhere else.

[lardy]

Lets take an example. When we invest as private individuals, we generally have to define our attitude towards risk. At the bottom of the scale is little/no risk which brings minimal returns, though a safe investment. Then we go up the scale, until we are prepared to take a high risk for high gains.

Your model of 'possibles' is near the bottom of the risk scale. We missed staying up by a whisker - maybe by a goal or two. With the minimum prospect of riches of hundreds of millions from just a couple of seasons in the PL (from TV money and sell-out crowds), surely an extra spend of £20-30m is not such a big risk spend. For every example of spend=fail, an example of spend wisely=consolidation can be produced.

As I've said before, it makes little business sense for Tan to start spending now to try to achieve the promotion which had already been attained.

Yeah it's only £20-30m, which club ever got into trouble for that piffling amount?

[Cyclops]

Yeah it's only £20-30m, which club ever got into trouble for that piffling amount?

Well, I'm a very cautious, conservative investor and I'd have willingly spent £20/30m of Tan's money on a couple of players - and not lost a wink of sleep.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

Well, I'm a very cautious, conservative investor and I'd have willingly spent £20/30m of Tan's money on a couple of players - and not lost a wink of sleep.

Can you name a striker that you think we could have got for 20m that would have kept us up. They don't exactly grow on trees.

[Cyclops]

Can you name a striker that you think we could have got for 20m that would have kept us up. They don't exactly grow on trees.

Rondon and Tosun for starters.

Criteria:
1) Scored a minimum of 10 goals in a season
2) Young - ideally 22/23
3) Had international experience
4) Very keen and hardworking
5) British
6) Knows Warnock's system
7) Great header of the ball
8) Novel line in 'taches

Simples

[Pedro de la Rosa]

Rondon and Tosun for starters.

Criteria:
1) Scored a minimum of 10 goals in a season
2) Young - ideally 22/23
3) Had international experience
4) Very keen and hardworking
5) British
6) Knows Warnock's system
7) Great header of the ball
8) Novel line in 'taches

Simples

Rondon went to Newcastle, he wasn't going to choose Newcastle over us. Tosun started the season at Everton, and they signed him for £27m 6 months before. The chances of them ever coming here were sod all. I'm pretty sure they fail almost all of your criteria too. 1, 2, 5 and 6 certainly.

[CardiffCitySince1927]

Rondon and Tosun for starters.

Criteria:
1) Scored a minimum of 10 goals in a season
2) Young - ideally 22/23
3) Had international experience
4) Very keen and hardworking
5) British
6) Knows Warnock's system
7) Great header of the ball
8) Novel line in 'taches

Simples

I’m not gonna say it but the jacks have one of those.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Yeah it's only £20-30m, which club ever got into trouble for that piffling amount?

There's a risk in spending too much, and equally in spending too little. Clubs like Norwich, Watford, Bournemouth, who seem to know their way around the transfer markets can get away with spending less than the likes if City, who at times seem like they haven't got a clue. I think VT trusts Warnock's football judgement implicitly - and rightly so. I just think he doesn't trust him, nor Dalman or Choo in spending relatively large sums on players...

[Pedro de la Rosa]

There's a risk in spending too much, and equally in spending too little. Clubs like Norwich, Watford, Bournemouth, who seem to know their way around the transfer markets can get away with spending less than the likes if City, who at times seem like they haven't got a clue. I think VT trusts Warnock's football judgement implicitly - and rightly so. I just think he doesn't trust him, nor Dalman or Choo in spending relatively large sums on players...

Bournemouth (especially) and Watford spend an absolute fortune on players. Watford also have a small army of scouts in Europe from their links with Udinese and formerly Granada. I wanted us to sign a striker in August but when the likes of Dominic Solanke cost £19m (to Bournemouth) it is always going to be hard to compete. The club wasn't really ready at the time as evidenced by our valuation of Jefferson Lerma and Bournemouth's.