1. Not basing personell choices on emotion, but rather some kind of data. In other words, evidence over feeling.
2. Making the best use of money available by buying young players with upside and selling older players when they reach an age of probably decline and then, this is key... reinvesting.
3. Stop believing in football myths. These would include "playing attractive football" instead focus on maximising points per match. Also, stop buying stars and start by replacing your worst player. Also, pass to another player instead of kicking to goal on corner kicks.
4. Don't give a new manager control over a transfer budget. Stats show they make poor decisions with money because all they care about is the very short term and clubs should be run for the long term.
That kind of thing.
Charlton has NOT tried Moneyball. They tried the Watford model. The closest thing to Moneyball is Southampton. Overall, it has worked quite well for them. Many, including myself, consider them the best run club in England the last decade.
Southampton have not used moneyball. There are some overlaps but some huge differences.
I have read a lot about how they are run and Led Reed's role in it. I dream of creating a similar setup at Charlton.
Yes they use data very heavily and Les has his black box room or whatever they call it. However, the data is used in a very different way to moneyball. At Soton the scouting comes first and is the most detailed around. The analysis and data is used to back it up. What's special about Soton is how they bring the analysis the data the scouting the system all together.
Their system is built on contingency planning. They are realistic about their place in modern football they accept they will lose players so they have a list of 5+ getable targets for every position on and off the pitch from striker to manager to analyst to physio.
They have a philosophy and system in their club ethos. They recruit managers and players that fit them and their way of doing things.
They recognise experience is important and try and get a mix of youths experience. They certainly don't actively sell old players and replace with younger.
Even Billy Beane does not believe a number can be created to quantify football players like WAR and OPS does in baseball. He has said so, repeatedly.
Are you saying that the Women Against Roland are not reliable? Brave man.
All the while Soccernomics is heralded as the future it assumes that the person making the decisions is clairvoyant. If that is a Sporting Director then if you get the wrong one in it all falls flat.
Look at us and the players we signed. They all fit into the Socceronimics principle. They were all young with potential sell on profits. Polish Pete (as a replacement for Kermorgant - a early 20s player for a mid 30s player) was just one example. The reality, though, is that Kermorgant had so, so much more to offer and Pete never did and, almost certainly, never will.
This is why the blanket suggestion to buy them in young and sell them when they peak (which I’m assuming you got from Lyon’s successes as described in the book) is rubbish if the one person that is deemed irreplaceable is not up to the job. Lyon, it could be argued, were successful for no more than the fact that they had a fantastic ‘Director of Football’ and when he left the whole model failed to work. I.e. it all relies on the success of one person. Just like a football club like Man Utd relied on Sir Alex Ferguson. Sure they changed Coaches and players (several times over) but when the Manager left the club fell apart.
Moneyball or Socceronmics is only as good as the chap that heads it up. This has never been more evident with KM being the only constant at Charlton as managers and players came and went (mostly young players too) yet the club has, literally, performed worse each season than the one before.
So, I put it to you that Moneyball and/or Soccernomics is a load of old rubbish. The only people that were successful as a result of it were those that managed to sell books that convinced Americans that this is how the English and European Game can be conquered.
To date no American has managed or bought a football club that has won anything of worth in Europe. However I will concede that they have sold a shedload of books ‘proving’ how it can be done.
Go figure, as our friends ‘across the pond’ like to say.
Gotta wonder why they have gone for Barnsley. Worrying for them. Don't see this as good news for BFC.
I wonder if the Chinese have ever visited Barnsley - if they had I'm sure they would have gone down the road & bought Leeds instead.
On the contrary, it's about the club. If you have a load of.... would you take it to Leeds, the third biggest club in the country after Man U and Liverpool? If they have so much cash, why have they not bought Newcastle or Charlton?
Gotta wonder why they have gone for Barnsley. Worrying for them. Don't see this as good news for BFC.
I wonder if the Chinese have ever visited Barnsley - if they had I'm sure they would have gone down the road & bought Leeds instead.
But why? The Chinese like red so Barnsley fit that profile. If they, really, are going to spend an absolute fortune what difference does it make where the club are based in another country?
If Barnsley are successful (definition to be confirmed) they will sell out their ground and so why would the Chinese Billionaire care about their history. I’m not being funny but Man City hadn’t won the league since before most of us were born that doesn’t seem to have held them back from being highly successful and having fans all over the world, many of whom will have no idea of the geography or history of Manchester.
This is the way of modern football now. Even Chelsea hadn't won the English title since 1955 yet now they are one of the big boys.
As with the RD scenario. You just have to ask, WHY? It may be honourable, but the BFC fan I have spoken to is very concerned. They pride themselves on the locality, social interaction and working together (ring any bells?)
All the while Soccernomics is heralded as the future it assumes that the person making the decisions is clairvoyant. If that is a Sporting Director then if you get the wrong one in it all falls flat.
Look at us and the players we signed. They all fit into the Socceronimics principle. They were all young with potential sell on profits. Polish Pete (as a replacement for Kermorgant - a early 20s player for a mid 30s player) was just one example. The reality, though, is that Kermorgant had so, so much more to offer and Pete never did and, almost certainly, never will.
This is why the blanket suggestion to buy them in young and sell them when they peak (which I’m assuming you got from Lyon’s successes as described in the book) is rubbish if the one person that is deemed irreplaceable is not up to the job. Lyon, it could be argued, were successful for no more than the fact that they had a fantastic ‘Director of Football’ and when he left the whole model failed to work. I.e. it all relies on the success of one person. Just like a football club like Man Utd relied on Sir Alex Ferguson. Sure they changed Coaches and players (several times over) but when the Manager left the club fell apart.
Moneyball or Socceronmics is only as good as the chap that heads it up. This has never been more evident with KM being the only constant at Charlton as managers and players came and went (mostly young players too) yet the club has, literally, performed worse each season than the one before.
So, I put it to you that Moneyball and/or Soccernomics is a load of old rubbish. The only people that were successful as a result of it were those that managed to sell books that convinced Americans that this is how the English and European Game can be conquered.
To date no American has managed or bought a football club that has won anything of worth in Europe. However I will concede that they have sold a shedload of books ‘proving’ how it can be done.
Go figure, as our friends ‘across the pond’ like to say.
I can accept EVERY bit of what you just said as a potential counter-opinion.
I will say this though, in counter-response, when was the last time an English owner won anything of value?
So if you are right and moneyball is rubbish, then I can equally say that the English style of running a club is also rubbish. So even if you don't wanna go the direction of moneyball, I hope you come up with something better than the English style of running a club, where managers are moved in and out and blow through transfer budgets time and again.
PS- ManU is American owned and has won titles under American ownership. Five to be exact, which I am guessing is more than all English owners combined over that period. And Arsenal and Liverpool are American owned and even though neither live up to their potential, each do better than any English owned club, year in and year out. The best known English owner is Mike Ashley of Newcastle. I hope you are not hanging your hat on that for English football ownership success.
All the while Soccernomics is heralded as the future it assumes that the person making the decisions is clairvoyant. If that is a Sporting Director then if you get the wrong one in it all falls flat.
Look at us and the players we signed. They all fit into the Socceronimics principle. They were all young with potential sell on profits. Polish Pete (as a replacement for Kermorgant - a early 20s player for a mid 30s player) was just one example. The reality, though, is that Kermorgant had so, so much more to offer and Pete never did and, almost certainly, never will.
This is why the blanket suggestion to buy them in young and sell them when they peak (which I’m assuming you got from Lyon’s successes as described in the book) is rubbish if the one person that is deemed irreplaceable is not up to the job. Lyon, it could be argued, were successful for no more than the fact that they had a fantastic ‘Director of Football’ and when he left the whole model failed to work. I.e. it all relies on the success of one person. Just like a football club like Man Utd relied on Sir Alex Ferguson. Sure they changed Coaches and players (several times over) but when the Manager left the club fell apart.
Moneyball or Socceronmics is only as good as the chap that heads it up. This has never been more evident with KM being the only constant at Charlton as managers and players came and went (mostly young players too) yet the club has, literally, performed worse each season than the one before.
So, I put it to you that Moneyball and/or Soccernomics is a load of old rubbish. The only people that were successful as a result of it were those that managed to sell books that convinced Americans that this is how the English and European Game can be conquered.
To date no American has managed or bought a football club that has won anything of worth in Europe. However I will concede that they have sold a shedload of books ‘proving’ how it can be done.
Go figure, as our friends ‘across the pond’ like to say.
I can accept EVERY bit of what you just said as a potential counter-opinion.
I will say this though, in counter-response, when was the last time an English owner won anything of value?
So if you are right and moneyball is rubbish, then I can equally say that the English style of running a club is also rubbish. So even if you don't wanna go the direction of moneyball, I hope you come up with something better than the English style of running a club, where managers are moved in and out and blow through transfer budgets time and again.
PS- ManU is American owned and has won titles under American ownership. Five to be exact, which I am guessing is more than all English owners combined over that period. And Arsenal and Liverpool are American owned and even though neither live up to their potential, each do better than any English owned club, year in and year out. The best known English owner is Mike Ashley of Newcastle. I hope you are not hanging your hat on that for English football ownership success.
Probably the worst post so far. Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal throw money at anyone and everyone and wait for something to stick. You’re proving his point, nothing about what they do is moneyball. I’d argue that English billionaires aren’t dumb enough to buy football clubs, we’ll leave that to the Americans, Russians and Arabs who flush money down the toilet half the time.
Probably the worst post so far. Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal throw money at anyone and everyone and wait for something to stick. You’re proving his point, nothing about what they do is moneyball. I’d argue that English billionaires aren’t dumb enough to buy football clubs, we’ll leave that to the Americans, Russians and Arabs who flush money down the toilet half the time.
The part about US owners of ManU, etc, had NOTHING to do with Moneyball, nor was it intended to address that. Your point is the very definition of "straw man." It was a response to him saying that American owners have not won anything. My counter-response is that they win a whole lot more than any English owners do. Which is correct. I also contend that if a foreign owner was willing to spend like mad here the way Russians, Arabs and Chinese, you would not be complaining one damned bit.
Oh dear!! On page 209 I mentioned that very surprisingly Barnsley have been taken over. I log back in this morning to see 3 pages of posts have been added. I rushed to open the thread that news of our takeover must have broken, only to see a full blown debate on 'Money-Ball' et-al. I take it that our supposed takeover is still going through DD, or not, has started, or not. Has not started, or it has!!! Oh well what an anti-climax!
Oh dear!! On page 209 I mentioned that very surprisingly Barnsley have been taken over. I log back in this morning to see 3 pages of posts have been added. I rushed to open the thread that news of our takeover must have broken, only to see a full blown debate on 'Money-Ball' et-al. I take it that our supposed takeover is still going through DD, or not, has started, or not. Has not started, or it has!!! Oh well what an anti-climax!
Indeed, look at what we have been lowered to. I guess we can have a discussion of FFP Rules next, if we want to get even less relevant.
All the while Soccernomics is heralded as the future it assumes that the person making the decisions is clairvoyant. If that is a Sporting Director then if you get the wrong one in it all falls flat.
Look at us and the players we signed. They all fit into the Socceronimics principle. They were all young with potential sell on profits. Polish Pete (as a replacement for Kermorgant - a early 20s player for a mid 30s player) was just one example. The reality, though, is that Kermorgant had so, so much more to offer and Pete never did and, almost certainly, never will.
This is why the blanket suggestion to buy them in young and sell them when they peak (which I’m assuming you got from Lyon’s successes as described in the book) is rubbish if the one person that is deemed irreplaceable is not up to the job. Lyon, it could be argued, were successful for no more than the fact that they had a fantastic ‘Director of Football’ and when he left the whole model failed to work. I.e. it all relies on the success of one person. Just like a football club like Man Utd relied on Sir Alex Ferguson. Sure they changed Coaches and players (several times over) but when the Manager left the club fell apart.
Moneyball or Socceronmics is only as good as the chap that heads it up. This has never been more evident with KM being the only constant at Charlton as managers and players came and went (mostly young players too) yet the club has, literally, performed worse each season than the one before.
So, I put it to you that Moneyball and/or Soccernomics is a load of old rubbish. The only people that were successful as a result of it were those that managed to sell books that convinced Americans that this is how the English and European Game can be conquered.
To date no American has managed or bought a football club that has won anything of worth in Europe. However I will concede that they have sold a shedload of books ‘proving’ how it can be done.
Go figure, as our friends ‘across the pond’ like to say.
I can accept EVERY bit of what you just said as a potential counter-opinion.
I will say this though, in counter-response, when was the last time an English owner won anything of value?
So if you are right and moneyball is rubbish, then I can equally say that the English style of running a club is also rubbish. So even if you don't wanna go the direction of moneyball, I hope you come up with something better than the English style of running a club, where managers are moved in and out and blow through transfer budgets time and again.
PS- ManU is American owned and has won titles under American ownership. Five to be exact, which I am guessing is more than all English owners combined over that period. And Arsenal and Liverpool are American owned and even though neither live up to their potential, each do better than any English owned club, year in and year out. The best known English owner is Mike Ashley of Newcastle. I hope you are not hanging your hat on that for English football ownership success.
Probably the worst post so far. Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal throw money at anyone and everyone and wait for something to stick. You’re proving his point, nothing about what they do is moneyball. I’d argue that English billionaires aren’t dumb enough to buy football clubs, we’ll leave that to the Americans, Russians and Arabs who flush money down the toilet half the time.
All the while Soccernomics is heralded as the future it assumes that the person making the decisions is clairvoyant. If that is a Sporting Director then if you get the wrong one in it all falls flat.
Look at us and the players we signed. They all fit into the Socceronimics principle. They were all young with potential sell on profits. Polish Pete (as a replacement for Kermorgant - a early 20s player for a mid 30s player) was just one example. The reality, though, is that Kermorgant had so, so much more to offer and Pete never did and, almost certainly, never will.
This is why the blanket suggestion to buy them in young and sell them when they peak (which I’m assuming you got from Lyon’s successes as described in the book) is rubbish if the one person that is deemed irreplaceable is not up to the job. Lyon, it could be argued, were successful for no more than the fact that they had a fantastic ‘Director of Football’ and when he left the whole model failed to work. I.e. it all relies on the success of one person. Just like a football club like Man Utd relied on Sir Alex Ferguson. Sure they changed Coaches and players (several times over) but when the Manager left the club fell apart.
Moneyball or Socceronmics is only as good as the chap that heads it up. This has never been more evident with KM being the only constant at Charlton as managers and players came and went (mostly young players too) yet the club has, literally, performed worse each season than the one before.
So, I put it to you that Moneyball and/or Soccernomics is a load of old rubbish. The only people that were successful as a result of it were those that managed to sell books that convinced Americans that this is how the English and European Game can be conquered.
To date no American has managed or bought a football club that has won anything of worth in Europe. However I will concede that they have sold a shedload of books ‘proving’ how it can be done.
Go figure, as our friends ‘across the pond’ like to say.
I can accept EVERY bit of what you just said as a potential counter-opinion.
I will say this though, in counter-response, when was the last time an English owner won anything of value?
So if you are right and moneyball is rubbish, then I can equally say that the English style of running a club is also rubbish. So even if you don't wanna go the direction of moneyball, I hope you come up with something better than the English style of running a club, where managers are moved in and out and blow through transfer budgets time and again.
PS- ManU is American owned and has won titles under American ownership. Five to be exact, which I am guessing is more than all English owners combined over that period. And Arsenal and Liverpool are American owned and even though neither live up to their potential, each do better than any English owned club, year in and year out. The best known English owner is Mike Ashley of Newcastle. I hope you are not hanging your hat on that for English football ownership success.
Probably the worst post so far. Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal throw money at anyone and everyone and wait for something to stick. You’re proving his point, nothing about what they do is moneyball. I’d argue that English billionaires aren’t dumb enough to buy football clubs, we’ll leave that to the Americans, Russians and Arabs who flush money down the toilet half the time.
I'm sure we come could up with a long list... us English are not immune to stupidity.
The silence Is deafening from @airmanbrown I reckon something's happening and he's sitting biting his lip as he's reading this ... C'mon Rick throw the dog a bone. It's Christmas
A smart club would step up from money ball and when they sell a player for £10m they would buy (say), two young players for £5m who are better than the two worst players they have.
After a few years they would sell a player for £100m and buy two young players for £50m etc etc.
I must admit I only scim read these days but is there any reason to believe something is imminent? I thought Red Henry said an interesting offer had been made but turned down? Are we just assuming the interested party will persist? Hasn't the Australian bid stalled? Apologies if I missed something more encouraging.
A smart club would step up from money ball and when they sell a player for £10m they would buy (say), two young players for £5m who are better than the two worst players they have.
After a few years they would sell a player for £100m and buy two young players for £50m etc etc.
The silence Is deafening from @airmanbrown I reckon something's happening and he's sitting biting his lip as he's reading this ... C'mon Rick throw the dog a bone. It's Christmas
Wouldn’t say it’s deafening, VOTV is out Saturday so I’m sure he’d rather us buy that than reveal all he knows on here a few days before release
The silence Is deafening from @airmanbrown I reckon something's happening and he's sitting biting his lip as he's reading this ... C'mon Rick throw the dog a bone. It's Christmas
Wouldn’t say it’s deafening, VOTV is out Saturday so I’m sure he’d rather us buy that than reveal all he knows on here a few days before release
Comments
Look at us and the players we signed. They all fit into the Socceronimics principle. They were all young with potential sell on profits. Polish Pete (as a replacement for Kermorgant - a early 20s player for a mid 30s player) was just one example. The reality, though, is that Kermorgant had so, so much more to offer and Pete never did and, almost certainly, never will.
This is why the blanket suggestion to buy them in young and sell them when they peak (which I’m assuming you got from Lyon’s successes as described in the book) is rubbish if the one person that is deemed irreplaceable is not up to the job. Lyon, it could be argued, were successful for no more than the fact that they had a fantastic ‘Director of Football’ and when he left the whole model failed to work. I.e. it all relies on the success of one person. Just like a football club like Man Utd relied on Sir Alex Ferguson. Sure they changed Coaches and players (several times over) but when the Manager left the club fell apart.
Moneyball or Socceronmics is only as good as the chap that heads it up. This has never been more evident with KM being the only constant at Charlton as managers and players came and went (mostly young players too) yet the club has, literally, performed worse each season than the one before.
So, I put it to you that Moneyball and/or Soccernomics is a load of old rubbish. The only people that were successful as a result of it were those that managed to sell books that convinced Americans that this is how the English and European Game can be conquered.
To date no American has managed or bought a football club that has won anything of worth in Europe. However I will concede that they have sold a shedload of books ‘proving’ how it can be done.
Go figure, as our friends ‘across the pond’ like to say.
If Barnsley are successful (definition to be confirmed) they will sell out their ground and so why would the Chinese Billionaire care about their history. I’m not being funny but Man City hadn’t won the league since before most of us were born that doesn’t seem to have held them back from being highly successful and having fans all over the world, many of whom will have no idea of the geography or history of Manchester.
This is the way of modern football now. Even Chelsea hadn't won the English title since 1955 yet now they are one of the big boys.
I will say this though, in counter-response, when was the last time an English owner won anything of value?
So if you are right and moneyball is rubbish, then I can equally say that the English style of running a club is also rubbish. So even if you don't wanna go the direction of moneyball, I hope you come up with something better than the English style of running a club, where managers are moved in and out and blow through transfer budgets time and again.
PS- ManU is American owned and has won titles under American ownership. Five to be exact, which I am guessing is more than all English owners combined over that period. And Arsenal and Liverpool are American owned and even though neither live up to their potential, each do better than any English owned club, year in and year out. The best known English owner is Mike Ashley of Newcastle. I hope you are not hanging your hat on that for English football ownership success.
I take it that our supposed takeover is still going through DD, or not, has started, or not. Has not started, or it has!!! Oh well what an anti-climax!
1.6bn euros
After a few years they would sell a player for £100m and buy two young players for £50m etc etc.
I thought Red Henry said an interesting offer had been made but turned down? Are we just assuming the interested party will persist?
Hasn't the Australian bid stalled?
Apologies if I missed something more encouraging.