Forest and "Job Done" Davies: a follow up - My views on value in the Championship and how Leeds should behave financially

A cobbled together response to some annoyed Forest fans, Championship value for money and how Leeds should behave after hard lessons... 

To start with, a major issue caused to Forest fans was them mistaking me for saying a couple of their players aren't worth their fees and they aren't of good quality at this level. This isn't the case. My point was why go out and spend £2.65M on a striker (who yes, will get goals) when there are, season upon season, bargains to be had? (If the manager/scouting/recruitment has the nous to spot them). More value can be had for the money and this is how I want Leeds to play it (Forest can do as they please).

My point against the justification of Earnshaw by previous commenters

In the same summer Forest spent that amount on Earnshaw, Jay Bothroyd cost Cardiff just £350k for example. There are many other bargains (I know these come about in different periods of time but every season, there are such buys to be had):

[Goals p/game at current club and goals this season included for overall effectiveness as well as their current form.]

2008: Jay Bothroyd to Cardiff £350k - averages a goal every 2.7 games there and also acts as a target man, and aerial presence. 2010/11: 14 league goals, 5 assists

2009: Danny Graham to Watford £200k possibly rising to £500k - goal every 2.4 games for them. 2010/11: 15 league goals, 4 assists.

2010: Scott Sinclair to Swansea. £500k rising to £1M on future success (rumoured promotion) - 1 in 2 for them and only 21 - great potential to go onto a higher level - will far exceed amount paid when sold. 2010/11: 12 league goals

2010: Billy Sharp to Donny. £1.15M (after 09/10 loan) - a goal every 1.6 games. 2010/2011: 12 league goals.

2010: Adel Taarabt to QPR (after 09/10 loan) £600k rising to £1M rumoured on promotion - from a midfielder 1 goal in 2 for QPR. 2010/2011: 13 league goals, 11 assists...

2009/10: Max Gradel to Leeds (after loan) 200k (reported) - winger, many apps from bench last season. a goal every 4. 2010/2011: 9 league goals, 3 assists.

2008: Luciano Becchio to Leeds £100-200k (rumoured - undisclosed) - Target man, assist maker. 1 goal in 2 ... In the Championship 2010/11: 24 apps 13 goals 7 assists. 1 goal every 1.8 games.

Hopefully, this illustrates the point I was aiming to make to some Leeds fans who sometimes clamour for the "reassuring" big money signings, the marquee players.

The fee paid for Robert Earnshaw alone is roughly the same amount as five of the top six current Championship top scorers costs combined (I'll discount Commons who left to Derby). Surely this shows a fee of that magnitude, at this level, is completely unnecessary and wasteful?

You do get a good player who'll score for £2.65M but why spend such an amount (roughly the amount a team receives in TV money and royalties for the Championship) on one player, when you could improve the squad instead with an equally good if not better striker, and add maybe two more top quality Championship players?

Of course transfers are circumstantial, but bargains are always there to be found - you cannot deny this.

Also, Forest have got bargains in their ranks - "Moussi 300k, Camp 100k, Tudgay £500k, Wilson £300k, Morgan Free, Chambers £200k, Anderson £400k. Cohen £500k. All bargains worth more than we spent."  It is far from every player bought that such outlay is seen, though they still live beyond sustainably.

The Billy Davies slant - and why I made a point of Earnshaw and Gunter - as well as the club's overall financial state.

Importantly to my previous article I mentioned that Davies was "unrealistic" to expect signings such as the following due to the money that Forest had spent the two seasons, and the massive losses they run at:

Nicky Shorey from Aston Villa, Victor Moses of Crystal Palace, Swansea City midfielder Darren Pratley and Gareth Bale, Peter Whittingham.

Davies said: "Other teams are spending (in reference to the 2010 summer window), you can see their intentions. Now we want to see this club show their intentions." 

Davies clearly has no realism. I said "unrealistic", it is the truth. Expecting a Chairman to invest in expensive players relative to the rest of the division, completely unsustainably and further to £7-8M spending on transfer fees alone in 2008 and 09 combined, was ridiculous. The Chairman in 2008 was detailed as ploughing a total of £45M into the club and no doubt a lot more since as operating losses have ranged from £5M a few years back to £13M in the most recent financial year (which is huge at this level).

Forest Losses

Forest's Debt to Doughty

Forest, I have read, have struggled at left back to bring in a player of sufficient calibre. Perhaps if money had been used a little more carefully in the past, then some may have been available. For example Gunter. Yes, very good player and could arguably step up - but at £1.75M means spending has to be restricted elsewhere. A possible comparable transfer is Stuart Parnaby this season - loan and free in summer and a player who's done okay in the Premier League. Obviously this wasn't available at the time of Gunter's arrival but similar deals are likely to have been around. The money spent previously has obviously meant the club had to restrict Davies this season and past January, and he's not been able to strengthen as he may have liked at left back and possibly elsewhere. It can be dangerous to focus a lot of money on single players, at the detriment of the squad both short, and long term. (Obviously not always the case, however).

Why I brought up Forest's financial and spending policy in reference to Leeds

Firstly, Forest are of note to Leeds, as they are currently a comparable force in the league and a similar sort of club in this division. Secondly, Earnshaw was a good illustrator of some spending in this division that I deem unnecessary and don't want to see happen at Leeds. Thirdly, it is of immediate note to Leeds that Forest's spending on fees: large; or what can be seen as "bargain", has contributed significant financial issues off the pitch - which we do not want to see again at Leeds. 

Even Forest's apparent bargain fees are pretty alien to Leeds at this current moment. We have signed 12 players I think this season. McCormack and Collins rumoured to be around £300k each, O'Brien a small fee as he was out of contract at Bolton in the summer and Alex Bruce, another fee around £200k. And so far on this, we've got into the playoffs and done remarkably so far.

We live within our budgets and our means and make a profit. If Forest's chairman chooses to bankroll their club then no problem, but its not what I want to see happen at our club. It certainly isn't sustainable or sound in business terms and is a large gamble - anything could happen in his external business interests (his source of income) that means he needs to cut back at Forest/he needs to pull out or possibly sell - which would be hard with the club losing up to £13M a year.

Admittedly, extra security is added by having such a benefactor/fan at the helm and being able to outlay this money against one man's loan i.e. he isn't going to ask for it to be repaid at a time when the club's in jeopardy, but there are still large risks associated with running a club this way as mentioned above.

This doesn't mean I wouldn't want to see Leeds spend, far from it!

"If you don't move forward, you fall behind". This is of course true in football. I would like larger sums of money to be spent (every fan does), but only comparatively modest amounts and not in high frequency, on quality that is going to improve the squad consistently and dramatically - perhaps being able to step up. Players like Camp, Snodgrass, Becchio, Scott Sinclair, Taarabt, Gradel are all fantastic signings that offer value and doesn't prevent spending elsewhere in the longer term, which are both key points.

Forest's gamble of living beyond their means, though, looks set to pay off, and their losses will be less significant as a result... 

Even so, I don't want Leeds to risk it again - there are no guarantees to succeed by spending more than the club can afford - although it can accelerate success.

I said I thought Forest would go up this season and I'm in no way bitter. I was expecting 10th before this season started so Leeds are performing above my expectations, and I knew Forest were strong enough to be up there in the mix... So good luck to them, money has been spent and rewards are being reaped but I don't want to see Leeds operate unsustainably again, we've seen it before with disastrous consequences.  

By no means are Forest the worst in terms of spending either, (see Cardiff and QPR's recent efforts... but they're a good barometer of what a similar team in the division is doing in relation to us.

I may be being a tad hypocritical harping on about spending after the Leeds of the 2000's, but I'm using the above as an example to show us why we shouldn't fall into the beyond the means trap again, even if success may be accelerated - and even if its possible for Forest by having a benefactor. Having a benefactor though doesn't mean the club is sensibly and viably run as a business - which Leeds need to take much more care of.

Summary

So to sum up - the original article was mainly getting at what I've tried to illustrate above. I was never saying any Forest player was useless, or incapable. I was stating that I want Leeds to go about getting more value for their/our pound by being more shrewd and watching a bargain come good. In Grayson, I believe we've got the manager to see that happen - he did it at Blackpool getting them out of L1 and setting major groundwork in their promotion squad for Holloway. Massive spending isn't necessary in this league. Norwich, Swansea, Watford and Blackpool are all proof of that.