TheRam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 9:18 am
Any other clubs near the bottom paying their managers top six wages?
He would have done the same job for much less.
If you're willing to extend it to top 8 then Brentford and Palace.
They also didn't come in to a team on the very brink of relegation. It wasn't an appealing job, and whatever people think of things this season he's more than earned that salary for keeping a sinking ship afloat and allowing us to actually be annoyed we aren't enjoying playing in the premier league this season.
At the end of the day you pay more when you're in a desperate situation, comparing the deal half way through his final season to the time he sat at a table and negotiated the terms is like comparing oranges and apples, largely because of the job he's actually done here
I'd have paid Dyche more than Pep if when we were interviewing him he told me he would save us from the Lampardian scale mess we were in that season, and the following season keep us up after record points deductions.
It's just that this season, we're definitely not getting value for our money from him. We were supposed to kick on a bit but it seems we've gone backwards.
AjaxAndy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 9:58 am
If you're willing to extend it to top 8 then Brentford and Palace.
They also didn't come in to a team on the very brink of relegation. It wasn't an appealing job, and whatever people think of things this season he's more than earned that salary for keeping a sinking ship afloat and allowing us to actually be annoyed we aren't enjoying playing in the premier league this season.
At the end of the day you pay more when you're in a desperate situation, comparing the deal half way through his final season to the time he sat at a table and negotiated the terms is like comparing oranges and apples, largely because of the job he's actually done here
He hasn’t because he would have done the same job for less, or we could have got someone else to do it for cheaper.
It’s another in a long line of daft financial decisions.
TheRam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 10:07 am
He hasn’t because he would have done the same job for less, or we could have got someone else to do it for cheaper.
It’s another in a long line of daft financial decisions.
How do you know he'd have done it for less? You have no idea what he'd have accepted.
Someone else for cheaper? Yeah ok but that decision could have also cost us our premier league status, sent us in to financial oblivion, probably seen us relegated back to back and spent a decade or more bumming around league one or at best the championship with a half built ground and no one wanting to buy us.
But yeah let's quibble over maybe a couple of million a year over 2.5 years... Could probably have saved the club £5m over that time, that's what we should be focusing on.
AjaxAndy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 10:10 am
How do you know he'd have done it for less? You have no idea what he'd have accepted.
Someone else for cheaper? Yeah ok but that decision could have also cost us our premier league status, sent us in to financial oblivion, probably seen us relegated back to back and spent a decade or more bumming around league one or at best the championship with a half built ground and no one wanting to buy us.
But yeah let's quibble over maybe a couple of million a year over 2.5 years... Could probably have saved the club £5m over that time, that's what we should be focusing on.
Honestly some people have such short memories.
Dude, chill.
It’s ok if people are annoyed a manager is being paid well above his pay scale.
It’s what’s got us into the mess.
We’re certainly not getting value for money now. Are we supposed to pretend the last 10 games haven’t happened?
TheRam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 10:24 am
Dude, chill.
It’s ok if people are annoyed a manager is being paid well above his pay scale.
It’s what’s got us into the mess.
We’re certainly not getting value for money now. Are we supposed to pretend the last 10 games haven’t happened?
But why are you judging it on 10 games alone?
If we stay in the premier league this season (which we will) the contract will have been good value for money. Paying Dyche £500k a year more than Glasner or Frank is hardly a continuation of the crazy spending we did on the likes of Deli Ali's wages or paying Keane £100k a week. It's marginally above clubs who this season we'd expect to be competing with (Palace and Brentford) for lower mid table, except Dyche walked on to a very very difficult situation and therefore got a very small amount more than they do.
It feels like people are just looking for new things to be angry about so they can have a moan, his wages aren't really anything out of the ordinary and he'll be gone in 6 months anyway... They won't have had any impact on the club. It's not like we've been the lowest net spend over 5 years because we paid Dyche a very small amount more than Glasner and Frank.
TheRam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 10:24 am
Dude, chill.
It’s ok if people are annoyed a manager is being paid well above his pay scale.
It’s what’s got us into the mess.
We’re certainly not getting value for money now. Are we supposed to pretend the last 10 games haven’t happened?
I've seen you justify the amount of money we committed to paying Holgate. Think it's the double standard what's the problem. Half the forum preferred paying bielsa and his team 10m a year and he'd only start working after we were relegated. The goalposts keep moving.
Yes we could have got dyche for less (maybe) but it's absolutely not the reason we are where we are at. We are in this mess not because people did a good job but got 33% too much. We are in this mess cos we paid shite 3 or 4 times what they were worth
When Dyche came in we had taken 13 points from 20 matches and sat 19th in the table... I think it's reasonable to say that you pay more for a manager in that situation because let's face it we looked completely doomed at the time. It was a risk for him to take the job... The fact we have now out grown him would surely suggest he earned his wage that year.
He achieved 21 points in 18 matches and kept us up despite DCL being injured for the vast majority of that time.
We then achieved 48 points the following season with a net 40 after double points deductions to see us 15th and ahead of Thomas Frank on £4.5m a year and a higher spend on transfers. Despite the crazy season he did a pretty incredible job of not letting us sink without a trace under all the pressure and off field distractions. Was that performance worth £500k more than Thomas Frank earned that year? Yeah it's hard for anyone to argue otherwise surely?
So over his first 18 months his wages seem fair.
Fast forward to this season and we've been pretty shit, is he performing as per his wages? No. It's not been good enough and the football has been really turgid. Does that mean everything that's gone before should be discounted? No, why should it?
In his first season he accrued and average of 1.16 points per game.
Second season it was 1.26
This season it's 0.9 which would only give us 34 points at the end of the season if we continued at that level... That's an under performance and there's no questioning that. Is he worth £5m a year based purely on that? No.
Because if you pay someone like Sean dyche a massive amount of money on a two and a half year deal you get stuck in the situation we are in now.
We are going down if performances stay the same. Will he be worth it then?
As always, we were desperate, we panicked and massively overpaid for someone who has no long term future at the club.
I’d like him gone as soon as the new owners come in. His massive wage complicates that, and no doubt there’s probably a clause that says he gets a lumpsum if he’s sacked.
We’ve been bent over by Sean Dyche. He saw us coming a mile off and we have most likely just given him way above the going rate.
TheRam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 11:27 am
Because if you pay someone like Sean dyche a massive amount of money on a two and a half year deal you get stuck in the situation we are in now.
We are going down if performances stay the same. Will he be worth it then?
As always, we were desperate, we panicked and massively overpaid for someone who has no long term future at the club.
I’d like him gone as soon as the new owners come in. His massive wage complicates that, and no doubt there’s probably a clause that says he gets a lumpsum if he’s sacked.
We’ve been bent over by Sean Dyche. He saw us coming a mile off and we have most likely just given him way above the going rate.
Yep we probably over pay now for the hundred plus millions we saved due to the first 18 months of his contract. I don't think that's a huge issue. If he were on a 5 year deal then fair enough, but he'll be gone at the end of the season. It's a small over spend which saves us in reality the same hundreds of times over.
I don't think we panicked, I think we paid what we needed to in order to get the right man in to sail us through extremely troubled waters, and it paid off.
Now we have to have a season where it's not much fun as the trade off. Considering there's a high likelihood of many years of it not being fun as we crashed in to the championship and maybe beyond never to be seen again it's not a big trade off at all imo.
But yes as it stands this season isn't good enough and he needs to find a higher level and some patches of winning form to get the PPG up and keep us away from danger. I don't think anyone disagrees on that.
TheRam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 11:27 am
Because if you pay someone like Sean dyche a massive amount of money on a two and a half year deal you get stuck in the situation we are in now.
We are going down if performances stay the same. Will he be worth it then?
As always, we were desperate, we panicked and massively overpaid for someone who has no long term future at the club.
I’d like him gone as soon as the new owners come in. His massive wage complicates that, and no doubt there’s probably a clause that says he gets a lumpsum if he’s sacked.
We’ve been bent over by Sean Dyche. He saw us coming a mile off and we have most likely just given him way above the going rate.
We gave him a 2 and a half year contract. He's about 6 months from completing it. Not sure why we'd need a manager to have a long term future past their contract length. Not sure why sacking him would cost more than his contract?
What situation has this contract got us stuck in. We could sack him for a couple of million. We are in a better position than when he took over. I'm not sure what the problem is. He'll be cheaper to sack than all the managers before him.
777Kidnappings wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:38 pm
We gave him a 2 and a half year contract. He's about 6 months from completing it. Not sure why we'd need a manager to have a long term future past their contract length. Not sure why sacking him would cost more than his contract?
What situation has this contract got us stuck in. We could sack him for a couple of million. We are in a better position than when he took over. I'm not sure what the problem is. He'll be cheaper to sack than all the managers before him.
There were some rumours flying around that he has a clause in his contract that says if we sack him before the end of his contract he is due an additional 12 months salary (approx. £5 million), so if this is indeed the case sacking him now would cost the club around £9 million in severance, plus whatever his support team cost as well.