Mo(yes) Money, Mo(yes) Problem

Everton manager David Moyes this week celebrated 10 years in charge of the Merseyside club. Apart from celebrating it with a 3-0 derby-loss to Liverpool he was also in the spotlight after some comments in the Sunday Express where he called for drastic changes in football to secure the future of the sport. 

The Toffees' long-serving manager has several times pointed out that clubs have a responsibility to safeguard the long-term future and to the Sunday Express he stated that: "Everyone in the Premier League should take a 20% pay cut to put football finances back on an even keel and allow a significant reduction in ticket prices to make football more affordable for the ordinary fan”. With financial problems of late including clubs such as Rangers, Portsmouth and Port Vale he’s got some good points. 

Moyes himself is also in a club who’s struggling financially where he’s been forced to work on a tight budget during the majority of his ten years in charge at Goodison Park. In relation to this however, it’s quite interesting to see that a recent report places Moyes among world football's top earning managers (http://bit.ly/yg06Ow). Moyes was listed on twelfth place with £3 million per annum in a club struggling financially. I guess Everton could welcome a 20% pay cut then from Mr Moyes to spend on new players?

/ Alexander

Statistics can Pool anyone

Ahead of this season media made a big thing on Liverpool’s American owners, Fenway Sports Group, regarding their focus on statistics when targeting potential transfers. The Fenway Sports Group has previous experience from this philosophy with the ownership of the American baseball team The Boston Red Sox. Back then they gained a competitive advantage by being among the first in the Major League to take benefit of extensive statistic data for their player-personnel policy. 

Liverpool FCs current director of football, Damien Comolli, have stated that statistics guide his decisions, which he said also was inspired by Arsene Wenger. In recent times the Arsenal manager might not be the best man to look up to in terms of transfer policy.

One decision based on this philosophy, claims Comoli, was the signing of Luis Suarez where they took account of i.e. the number of decisive passes, performances against the big teams and the difference between his goals scored away and at home. Liverpool’s previous injury problems are also something this is hoped to decrease by statistically accounting for them in transfer policy.

Liverpool spent about £56,5 million on player investments ahead of this season. Ahead of last weekend, with 42 points in the Premiership, their investments have given them about 1,45 millon /point. For the leaders at that time, Manchester City, they’ve in comparison paid 1,26 million/point. This despite having spent a breathtaking amount of £76 million ahead of the season. 

So what does that tell us? Probably nothing. Or as William W. Watt once said: “Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say”.

/ Alexander

Glasgow Rangers - The Lehman Brothers of world football?

Few people interested in football have missed the recent financial problems relating to Glasgow Rangers. Football clubs tend to spend more money than what they actually generate. From that perspective, this latest report on Glasgow Rangers maybe shouldn’t come as a surprise. Some experts even fears whether Glasgow Rangers could become 'the Lehman Brothers of world football'. 

The other week Glasgow Rangers were put in administration with a debt that in worst case could be estimated up to £80 million pound. In the short term, they faced a 10 points reduction in the league. In the long term the problems ahead of them are of course even worse. That is, if they even survive in the long term to begin with.   

No need in pointing out the obvious consequence in spending more money than one generates. However, this is something that is common in football due to the intense competition for talent and (consequently) success. Because of this financial climate the news on Glasgow Rangers shouldn’t come as a surprise, bear in mind the ongoing negative news over a couple of years now. One who’s certainly not surprised must be Michael Platini. In fact, this supports his massive focus for a healthier business climate in football.

It’s always a shame to witness such an old and historical club (Rangers are celebrating their 140^th anniversary this year) rot from the inside. The only positive thing that comes out is the passion, with all the fans showing the support in hard times and all pulling their weight to help out. Football clubs are indeed run like businesses nowadays, but this aspect is why surprisingly few football clubs actually goes bankrupt if one compares with companies on the stock market. What there would be called a great intangible asset is here supporter ship. This fan base is in most cases a lifelong commitment with a “brand loyalty” not remotely comparable even to Apple-fans.

That is likely the reason to why it’s possible to hear a quote like this from the joint administrators who claims to have received 'several expressions of interest' in Rangers adding that 'we do not think that liquidation and the closure of the club is a likely outcome at all'. This reason is also what makes football clubs less likely to fall into administration... and is also the reason to why I don’t believe that Glasgow Rangers are ‘The Lehman Brothers of world football’.   

/ Alexander

Poor AbramoRich's Most Expensive Manager Recruitment

So, now it was André Villas-Boas turn to be sacked by Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich. The appointment of the young Portuguese was a gamble to begin with. And as it turned out it was an expensive one. Of all the managers sacked, this one was most definitely the most expensive one. And one can wonder if Chelsea can afford another unsuccessful recruitment?

The actual appointment of Villas-Boas from Porto last summer cost the club a fee of around £13m. The Portuguese was attracted to London with a salary of  about £8m per year. Adding this wage cost and the sacking of previous man in charge, Carlo Ancelotti, the total amount get closer to £40m and this after only 6 months in charge.

Villas-Boas is the seventh manager in less than nine years to get sacked, making Donald Trump seem like a long-term employer even in The Apprentice compared to Abramovich. One can conclude that it’s expensive to lack in patience, below presenting the recent years managers of Chelsea and the cost of sacking them:

Claudio Ranieri (2004)
Cost: £ 1.7 m

Jose Mourinho (2007)
Cost: £ 18m.

Avram Grant (2008)
Cost: £ 7m.

Luiz Felipe Scolari (2009)
Cost: £ 13m.

Guus Hiddink (2010)
Cost: -

Carlo Ancelotti (2011)
Cost: £ 15m.

André Villas-Boas (2012)
Cost: Estimated to be around  £12-15m.

This gives a cumulative cost of Chelsea's coach replacements to be around £80m. André Villas-Boas is temporarily replaced by first team coach Roberto Di Matteo for the rest of the season. Whoever will be the next man appointed better be the right choice as Chelsea can't afford another mistake as they're already struggling to reach the Financial Fair Play requirements. One “Special” choice could be a comeback for Jose Mourinho who had to leave 5 years ago. If a return occurs one can easily conclude that it could have saved the club and Mr Abramovich an awful lot of money if he'd just stick with him in the first place.

/ Alexander

The end of St Totteringham's Day?

There is a London-derby being played in my neighbourhood today with Spurs visiting local rivals Arsenal. At this time of the year, Arsenal fans have been used to celebrate St Totteringham's Day. That is the point where it becomes mathematically impossible for Spurs to finish above them in the league. But with Spurs 10 points ahead of Arsenal before today’s game St Totteringham celebration will most likely be cancelled for the first time since the 94/95 season. Some years ago this is something that couldn’t be predicted, but mainly two factors have made this possible: The respective managers and owners.

Arséne Wenger has over a long time been hailed for his work not only for Arsenal, but also for English football overall. However, his stubbornness lately doing everything his way hasn’t been defendable. His willingness for getting new talent on is positive, but the ignorance of experience is obvious with this season likely to be the 7^th consecutive season to end without any title. 

In opposite, Harry Redknapp has only recently been giving the praise he deserves. Previously known as a “wheeler and dealer” without any tactical knowledge he’s now the favourite to become the next England manager. An England team likely to be captained by Scott Parker who’s a player Harry picked to Spurs before this season when others were more worried of his age and resale value than the actual skills he could provide the team. Redknapp’s regime in Spurs can be stated as nothing but a success. 

Meanwhile, in the stands Arsenals American owner Stan Kroenke is today paying his long-distance franchise a visit for the first time in about 4 months. Many suggest that this absence of leadership off the pitch is something Arsenal suffers from. On the other side of the directors' box today sits the Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy. Levy, a local business man tightly involved in the club’s affairs who’s been chairman for over 10 years now with overall great results. 

This change in strength between the London neighbours was highlighted in last summer’s transfer-window. Despite Chelsea’s continuous efforts to secure Luka Modric they managed to keep him in the squad. In addition to that, also strengthening with Scott Parker. Meanwhile, Arsenal sold both Samir Nasri to Manchester City and Cesc Fabregas to Barcelona without any replacements coming in. The result from that transfer window is what we now see with Spurs 10 points ahead of Gunners. And if Arsenal wants to enjoy St Totteringham's Day any time soon this must be changed next transfer window...

/ Alexander