Get used to these sort of season guides as they are par for the course. No one has a clue of how this squad will go and the whilst the other reviews may not be as severe as the Mail, they will not be looking as Charlton as promotion contenders, more like bottom six.
Bookies have as 2nd joint favourites to be relegated and 40/1 to win the league. They don't normally get it that badly wrong, but doing a Burnley is possible. 12 to 16's to get promoted last year and below is how the RP thought they would go last July. This verdict is before they sold Austin.
For most of last season Burnley we're looking up rather than down but the opposite may be true in 13/14. Dyche is a decent young manager but his squad is far too reliant on the goals of Austin.
Anything is possible but don't get too upset if most of these season reviews follow the Mail.
The Daily Mail is right down there with Transfermarket.com as an unreliable predictor.
Nearly anyone of here could just guess player values just as they could have made those predictions.
Totally meaningless
Except Henry, as pointed out before, there is a 70% correlation between championship squad values on transfermarkt last season and league position in May. If your clubs squad is valued at 10m or less then you are in for a relegation scrap. Whereas £20m+ last season and you have a crack (not a guarantee) at the top six. What the Daily Mail has failed to notice is that while some players left over the summer, CAFC squad value is already up 30% at more than £13m with all of the recent additions... and they have yet to place Bikey in the squad. This puts CAFC at 16th and just a couple of million off of 12th place. I know that some don't like the facts to get in the way of an argument, but it is fairly obvious that recruiting more valuable players and having a stable club and decent coach is the path to success. It will take another year for our squad to get older and better and for Duchatelet and Peeters to develop the first team, adding more high value players at the appropriate time. In 2008-09 the then CAFC board was busy spending millions on new players but that doesn't mean they added value. This time we see players rated at £2m like Buyens, Vetokele and Gudmundsson joining up - different gravy. I've been accused of mindless optimism since April - whereas what I see here is mindless criticism from someone who probably doesn't understand the meaning of the word correlation, let alone how to calculate one!
Do you get a tenner every time you mention transfermarkt or something? Give it a rest. You're basing how we're going to do this season on numbers generated on a website by some blokes and yet you're somehow talking about facts getting in the way of an argument. You haven't given any facts. By your logic posted here, if Charlton signed one £20m left back we'd 'have a crack' at the top six, even if everyone else was worth a tenner. 'Just a couple of million of of 12th place'. Come on, you're embarrassing yourself
I really don't care what other people think of us, never been shy about saying who I support. The people that give me a dig are normally glory hunters anyway.
When I lived in Kent I was asked who I supported by 3 different people at work and they all laughed when I said who. Then they went on to say they supported Man U. I can't take people seriously like that. None of them had even been Old Trafford. The best part was one of them was a Geordie and he had a 'MUFC' sleeve. Cringiest thing ever.
As for papers, how can I take them seriously when apparently there is at least 3 teams that are gonna be worse than Millwall.
Can we honestly say that we know we will be a promotion challenging team? I'm fairly knowledgeable as football fans go about European football, but even I hadn't heard of Buyens, Vetokele, Tucudean and had only heard of Gudmondsson's hat trick against Switzerland (though didn't remember his name). I also didn't know Peeters had gone into management, though that he was a lump up front lacking in technical skill when he did play.
So I'm relying on YouTube and 3rd party reports as to how they are. Yes these sound positive, but to be honest it's a leap into the unknown. People don't like the unknown and so will write us off. Get used to it, it's not personal and may even be a good thing if we're underestimated.
Can we honestly say that we know we will be a promotion challenging team? I'm fairly knowledgeable as football fans go about European football, but even I hadn't heard of Buyens, Vetokele, Tucudean and had only heard of Gudmondsson's hat trick against Switzerland (though didn't remember his name). I also didn't know Peeters had gone into management, though that he was a lump up front lacking in technical skill when he did play.
So I'm relying on YouTube and 3rd party reports as to how they are. Yes these sound positive, but to be honest it's a leap into the unknown. People don't like the unknown and so will write us off. Get used to it, it's not personal and may even be a good thing if we're underestimated.
COYA
Realistically I don't think any of us are confident about play offs/promotion. We are more confident that we will have a much more comfortable season than last season.
Who would have thought that clubs who spent more money were more likely to do better.
Meaningless
I think you may be confusing another correlation I quoted? 60% correlation between club running costs and league position - if a club spends £17M or less per annum then one is likely to be in the bottom six - Yeovil, Barnsley, Doncaster, Blackpool, Millwall, Charlton. Whereas Burnley and Derby spend £20M pa and were able to compete with clubs spending double that in the top six.
There was in fact a 70%+ correlation between transfermarkt squad valuation and league position - if your average player is rated at £500K or less then prepare for a relegation battle but £1M or more and you have a shot at 75+ points in May.
This is far from meaningless in the context of clubs like Charlton, our new owner M. Duchatelet and FFP. He wants his clubs to get to the top of their leagues without breaking the bank and clubs in the championship are restricted from recording excessive losses through the threat of player registration sanctions.
If one were plotting how to take CAFC in January 2014 and turn the club into a playoff contender as fast as possible (without replicating Cardiff and QPR) then one would likely take the course which the club has done in the last 6 months: Stay up; release a lot of players who can't help in the future; offer contracts to the ones you want to keep; and then sign permanent and loan players at a much higher value than those departing to fill the gaps. The average value of the players who have joined is close to £1M each.
And then repeat next summer!
And we haven't spent more money than others have we? We have secured the services of players on loan and those out of contract using an established european scouting network with just one big money signing, namely Vetokele. We did spend more than other clubs once... under Pardew... that didn't work too well now did it?
At least this is the kind of article Peeters can put on the dressing room wall vs Brentford!
Do you get a tenner every time you mention transfermarkt or something? Give it a rest. You're basing how we're going to do this season on numbers generated on a website by some blokes and yet you're somehow talking about facts getting in the way of an argument. You haven't given any facts. By your logic posted here, if Charlton signed one £20m left back we'd 'have a crack' at the top six, even if everyone else was worth a tenner. 'Just a couple of million of of 12th place'. Come on, you're embarrassing yourself
Some of the individual player valuations on there are rubbish! And no one in the Championship is signing £20M players are they? What I'm saying is that if we replace players rated £200-400K with players rated £1M+ then the squad is more than likely to improve... and that is what has just happened in the last two months and it is what the Daily Mail has chosen to ignore.
The "fact" I am quoting is that there was a very strong link last season between the overall squad valuation and where you finish. If I could work out how to upload the graph, I would because it is clear as day and that is why I am banging on about it! There are now quite a few clubs with a far lower valuation than CAFC... let's see how the first ten games go and see if there is a strong connection?
I've no idea how to estimate how many clubs will follow the exact pattern but at a guess 18 out of 24 will reflect the value within a few league places with just 6 over or under performing to a significant extent.
The value of players is either a matter of record of fees paid in the past, or based on some kind of statistical algorithm or an opinion. The value of a player can go up or down so that is a variable, opinion is also a variable too, and stats must always be taken in context. None of the above is fixed in stone. If you look at Polish Pete's stats, the record of fees paid for him, it does not match my opinion that he is nowhere near ready for Championship football. 'Player value' is perhaps better measured by what somebody is prepared to pay for them. I would much prefer a £400k Yann to a £700k PP. Then you can punch 'your weight', punch above 'your weight', and punch below 'your weight'. If you are competing in the bottom third below par, amongst poorer teams making a little go a long way, then you are in trouble. Add to that only 70% reliability in the first place, and sheer bad luck and injuries and all of a sudden the platform for predictions seems a little wobbly. Squad value, and player value, looks better in a winning team than a losing one. So far our new signings have not yet proved they have any value at all until we start winning. Winning is the only measure and the only statistic that matters now we have churned so much. If we increase genuine attendances the Valley then that is a good secondary statistic. The media and the bookies have as much idea as anybody here does, in other words no idea at all. Complicated statistics muddy the waters, but a regular helping of three clean and juicy points would clear the system.
Do you get a tenner every time you mention transfermarkt or something? Give it a rest. You're basing how we're going to do this season on numbers generated on a website by some blokes and yet you're somehow talking about facts getting in the way of an argument. You haven't given any facts. By your logic posted here, if Charlton signed one £20m left back we'd 'have a crack' at the top six, even if everyone else was worth a tenner. 'Just a couple of million of of 12th place'. Come on, you're embarrassing yourself
Some of the individual player valuations on there are rubbish! And no one in the Championship is signing £20M players are they? What I'm saying is that if we replace players rated £200-400K with players rated £1M+ then the squad is more than likely to improve... and that is what has just happened in the last two months and it is what the Daily Mail has chosen to ignore.
The "fact" I am quoting is that there was a very strong link last season between the overall squad valuation and where you finish. If I could work out how to upload the graph, I would because it is clear as day and that is why I am banging on about it! There are now quite a few clubs with a far lower valuation than CAFC... let's see how the first ten games go and see if there is a strong connection?
I've no idea how to estimate how many clubs will follow the exact pattern but at a guess 18 out of 24 will reflect the value within a few league places with just 6 over or under performing to a significant extent.
The Daily Mail have chosen to ignore it because it's bollocks. Fulham signed Mitroglou for £11m last season. He played three times and scored zero. He's still rated about that now, making up roughly a fifth of Fulham's entire value. The thing you're ignoring is that your argument only holds water if the valuations are anything other than random guesses made by strangers. Who says Buyens should have a higher value than Cousins? What makes Tucedean, a player with no English league experience a 'better' player according to transfermarkt than someone like Danny Ings, who I bet was rated lower last season. In fact, what was Burnley's tranfermarkt value last season? Bet it was lower than Wolves' was the season they went down to League One. The values are driven by money paid and idle speculation. Football is a hell of a lot more than that and just because there's a graph that shows that a team with Tony Fernandez's money behind it did better than Barnsley doesn't make it a guru. If anything the fact it's only right 70% of the time is embarrassing given the Nosferatu-like status you're giving it.
to be fair, i dont read the mail or anything but i heard it is a bunch of bs. we will be better than atleast half a dozen teams this year. we may even get playoffs if we can score regularly
The Charlton team are an unknown quantity. Out of interest who are the half a dozen teams we will be better than on paper (apart from Blackpool) ?
to be fair, i dont read the mail or anything but i heard it is a bunch of bs. we will be better than atleast half a dozen teams this year. we may even get playoffs if we can score regularly
The Charlton team are an unknown quantity. Out of interest who are the half a dozen teams we will be better than on paper (apart from Blackpool) ?
Bizarrely optimistic prediction for Huddersfield, a team that slumped really badly towards the end of last season and finished 2 points above us, and have hardly splashed the cash this time around
Chances: Huddersfield have maintained steady improvement since winning promotion to the Championship in 2012, but chairman Dean Hoyle, renowned for his sensible stewardship, shares fans' expectations that Town should make a bigger impact this time around and manager Mark Robins will target a play-off challenge.
The predictions are a load of bs. The championship serves up loads of surprises every season. We could end up anywhere in the table at the end of the season. The value of the players could mean something, out of interest how much was wolves squad valued when they got relegated ? Guessing they had an expensive squad.
Another issue with using the fabled transfermarkt approach is the number of players we're bringing in from abroad.
Players from bigger European clubs are likely to be overvalued (Anil Koc of greater "value" than Johnnie Jackson for example) it is unlikely to factor in the nuances between continental leagues (you can have a £5m player if you like but if he can't handle the rough and tumble of English football then that value is closer to zero), and the number of factors that influence a player reaching his transfermarkt "value" in performances on the pitch is increased when changing league and cultures.
Add in that in the ONE season that seriously_red has used this analysis there was a rather big exception to this apparent correlation who got promoted with ease, and there's more reason to question this "statistical" method.
In short, you crack on SR, but I won't be taking any notice of whether our next signing is 100k or £1m. Out of Bradley Pritchard and Mikel Alonso, I know which one would have been "valued" more, but equally I know which one gave infinitely more value on the pitch where it matters.
If I was Bob Peeters I would print the bit about us being a disaster waiting to happen and stick it on every players locker, if that won't motivate you the players nothing will.
If I was Bob Peeters I would print the bit about us being a disaster waiting to happen and stick it on every players locker, if that won't motivate you the players nothing will.
The players will see 'daily mail', and wonder why Peeters is handing out free toilet roll.
Except Henry, as pointed out before, there is a 70% correlation between championship squad values on transfermarkt last season and league position in May.
So that correlation, which as tricky points out even at 70% is weak as well as being based on only one season and only one division, was actually 60% 19 days ago but has somehow improved hugely despite no competitive football being played since May.
That's not an intelligent review by a serious journalist though is it? Reads more like a rant by an idiot with a serious drink problem. I'd even suggest that the writer is friends with someone with links to our recent past but I'm not that type of bloke.
That's not an intelligent review by a serious journalist though is it? Reads more like a rant by an idiot with a serious drink problem. I'd even suggest that the writer is friends with someone with links to our recent past but I'm not that type of bloke.
I don't think that, but I do think they've just contacted the one Charlton fan they know, who might either be ignorant of what's happening or just unhappy with RD.
I can understand where you are coming from but you get used to being looked down upon when your a Charlton fan, the media have never really liked us or found us interesting, so im not surprised, especially in the Mail that they have decided we a club that is now owned by a liberal Belgian( Damn Brussels) and who sacked a respected British manager is a disaster waiting to happen.
Especially bad as he is not even a crazy chucking around loads of money foreign owner that the media love to pretend to hate.
A lot of the media want us to be a disaster, as they still have not got over us spoiling the script by not getting relegated last season.
Im sure we are all hoping we spoil it for them once again by having a decent, no relegation worried season.
I guarantee it is lazy journalism/reporting. Whoever wrote this is putting together a quick review, working to a deadline. They obviously haven't looked into the fact that under the previous regime we were about to go into bankruptcy. Powell's sacking (although contentious) I believe was right given where we were last season. The reporter is cobbling together negative occurrences since RD has been in play. They all do it. Patrick Collins of the Mail on Sunday (don't know if the 2 papers share the same content or bias) put together a typically easy article about how the club had lost its soul, Powell was a club legend etc etc. It's too easy to take that stance as a journalist because the general consensus at the time was 'how could they let him go, what are they doing'.
They've also neglected the investment in the new pitch, the 8 signings we have made and the fact that the general consensus coming from SL is that after an initial shock period, things seem to be going okay there.
This article like most things emanating from the tabloid press is short, sharp sensational strap lines designed to get a bit of interest in the article, but more often than not leads to misinforming the reader as to what is actually happening or going on. How many times have you heard someone in the office relay a bit of news or opinion to you because they have read 'The Metro'
This is exactly the same and we cannot read anything into what it says about other clubs, in so much as they cannot read into what it says about ours.
Sure there are risks with our model, but football outside about 8 teams in England is a loss making sport, there's risks with every club. The fact that whoever wrote this signs off 'with disaster waiting to happen' shows how piss poor of a journalist they are, as they have removed all objectivity in their reporting. Fine if they think we will struggle, but a professional, I expect it to be phrased in a better way.
Comments
Bookies have as 2nd joint favourites to be relegated and 40/1 to win the league. They don't normally get it that badly wrong, but doing a Burnley is possible. 12 to 16's to get promoted last year and below is how the RP thought they would go last July. This verdict is before they sold Austin.
For most of last season Burnley we're looking up rather than down but the opposite may be true in 13/14. Dyche is a decent young manager but his squad is far too reliant on the goals of Austin.
Anything is possible but don't get too upset if most of these season reviews follow the Mail.
When I lived in Kent I was asked who I supported by 3 different people at work and they all laughed when I said who. Then they went on to say they supported Man U. I can't take people seriously like that. None of them had even been Old Trafford. The best part was one of them was a Geordie and he had a 'MUFC' sleeve. Cringiest thing ever.
As for papers, how can I take them seriously when apparently there is at least 3 teams that are gonna be worse than Millwall.
What the hell do we care
Cos if you know,
There's gonna be a show
Charlton FC will be there"
So I'm relying on YouTube and 3rd party reports as to how they are. Yes these sound positive, but to be honest it's a leap into the unknown. People don't like the unknown and so will write us off. Get used to it, it's not personal and may even be a good thing if we're underestimated.
COYA
Need to get me some of them rose tints !!
There was in fact a 70%+ correlation between transfermarkt squad valuation and league position - if your average player is rated at £500K or less then prepare for a relegation battle but £1M or more and you have a shot at 75+ points in May.
This is far from meaningless in the context of clubs like Charlton, our new owner M. Duchatelet and FFP. He wants his clubs to get to the top of their leagues without breaking the bank and clubs in the championship are restricted from recording excessive losses through the threat of player registration sanctions.
If one were plotting how to take CAFC in January 2014 and turn the club into a playoff contender as fast as possible (without replicating Cardiff and QPR) then one would likely take the course which the club has done in the last 6 months: Stay up; release a lot of players who can't help in the future; offer contracts to the ones you want to keep; and then sign permanent and loan players at a much higher value than those departing to fill the gaps. The average value of the players who have joined is close to £1M each.
And then repeat next summer!
And we haven't spent more money than others have we? We have secured the services of players on loan and those out of contract using an established european scouting network with just one big money signing, namely Vetokele. We did spend more than other clubs once... under Pardew... that didn't work too well now did it?
At least this is the kind of article Peeters can put on the dressing room wall vs Brentford!
The "fact" I am quoting is that there was a very strong link last season between the overall squad valuation and where you finish. If I could work out how to upload the graph, I would because it is clear as day and that is why I am banging on about it! There are now quite a few clubs with a far lower valuation than CAFC... let's see how the first ten games go and see if there is a strong connection?
transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/marktwerteverein/wettbewerb/GB2
I've no idea how to estimate how many clubs will follow the exact pattern but at a guess 18 out of 24 will reflect the value within a few league places with just 6 over or under performing to a significant extent.
If you look at Polish Pete's stats, the record of fees paid for him, it does not match my opinion that he is nowhere near ready for Championship football. 'Player value' is perhaps better measured by what somebody is prepared to pay for them. I would much prefer a £400k Yann to a £700k PP.
Then you can punch 'your weight', punch above 'your weight', and punch below 'your weight'. If you are competing in the bottom third below par, amongst poorer teams making a little go a long way, then you are in trouble. Add to that only 70% reliability in the first place, and sheer bad luck and injuries and all of a sudden the platform for predictions seems a little wobbly.
Squad value, and player value, looks better in a winning team than a losing one. So far our new signings have not yet proved they have any value at all until we start winning.
Winning is the only measure and the only statistic that matters now we have churned so much. If we increase genuine attendances the Valley then that is a good secondary statistic.
The media and the bookies have as much idea as anybody here does, in other words no idea at all.
Complicated statistics muddy the waters, but a regular helping of three clean and juicy points would clear the system.
Players from bigger European clubs are likely to be overvalued (Anil Koc of greater "value" than Johnnie Jackson for example) it is unlikely to factor in the nuances between continental leagues (you can have a £5m player if you like but if he can't handle the rough and tumble of English football then that value is closer to zero), and the number of factors that influence a player reaching his transfermarkt "value" in performances on the pitch is increased when changing league and cultures.
Add in that in the ONE season that seriously_red has used this analysis there was a rather big exception to this apparent correlation who got promoted with ease, and there's more reason to question this "statistical" method.
In short, you crack on SR, but I won't be taking any notice of whether our next signing is 100k or £1m. Out of Bradley Pritchard and Mikel Alonso, I know which one would have been "valued" more, but equally I know which one gave infinitely more value on the pitch where it matters.
Not calling you out or anything, just personally I make them the fancied dark horse....if there can be such a thing!
I'm not overly convinced that teams like Reading and Wigan will be as good this year as they were last
July 1 edited July 1
Yeah I know it all looks bollox if you look at Pritchard or Thuram - can't be right. Except there is a 60% correlation between squad value and league position!
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/comment/1894655#Comment_1894655
seriously_red Member
July 20 edited July 20
Except Henry, as pointed out before, there is a 70% correlation between championship squad values on transfermarkt last season and league position in May.
So that correlation, which as tricky points out even at 70% is weak as well as being based on only one season and only one division, was actually 60% 19 days ago but has somehow improved hugely despite no competitive football being played since May.
Mind you is not exactly hard to work out we might score more goals and need to concede less.
They've also neglected the investment in the new pitch, the 8 signings we have made and the fact that the general consensus coming from SL is that after an initial shock period, things seem to be going okay there.
This article like most things emanating from the tabloid press is short, sharp sensational strap lines designed to get a bit of interest in the article, but more often than not leads to misinforming the reader as to what is actually happening or going on. How many times have you heard someone in the office relay a bit of news or opinion to you because they have read 'The Metro'
This is exactly the same and we cannot read anything into what it says about other clubs, in so much as they cannot read into what it says about ours.
Sure there are risks with our model, but football outside about 8 teams in England is a loss making sport, there's risks with every club. The fact that whoever wrote this signs off 'with disaster waiting to happen' shows how piss poor of a journalist they are, as they have removed all objectivity in their reporting. Fine if they think we will struggle, but a professional, I expect it to be phrased in a better way.