By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I should add that I have no issues with an investor lending money to the club and taking security in respect of that investment, providing the repayments are manageable of course. That’s the way the economic world turns.
It's hugely presumptuous to pretend that was my conclusion
You really ought to try harder to follow the points that are made, you'll find it makes for a better debate
So we don’t know if analytics would ‘find’ somebody like Chris O’Grady. Given that’s the case, is it not entirely reasonable to wonder how or if it indeed it would?
Do they mean it won't be secured against the club/coa however if a new training facility gets built they want a separate company formed and that becomes the security? Alternatively what sort of marketing budget do firms have these days? Is a few million unheard of? Having said that I am not sure I like the idea Dale being used in an elaborate marketing campaign for their scouting program.
I wouldn’t know. For what it’s worth, I think they or a subsidiary/holding company or some other vehicle will be taking security over the property/assets of the club.
Exactly. I find it very hard to believe that investors will part with significant amounts of money with their only guarantee of a return (including their outlay) being the performance of a football team and the presumed returns that will flow from that. That’s essentially gambling. These are investors.
[Post edited 11 Jun 2020 19:48]
All investing is gambling of a form. It is a high risk bet yes, but there are plenty of investors who play with that sort of stuff in their portfolio. Very basic example, but a fund may have 50% of their invested base in standard equities, 20% in government bonds, 20% in "funds of funds" and 10% left over for the high-risk, high-reward stuff, usually that would be something like junk bonds (e.g. debt lent to companies in financial difficulty - might get you 20% interest but if things go further south you lose your investment) or emerging market equities, but this could sit alongside something like that. Without knowing who their investors are we'd have no idea.
This is no advocacy of being someone's high-risk bet by the way, it terrifies me. Just saying it could be possible to have an investor who doesn't necessarily need a stadium mortgaged or interest payments to be made.
All investing is gambling of a form. It is a high risk bet yes, but there are plenty of investors who play with that sort of stuff in their portfolio. Very basic example, but a fund may have 50% of their invested base in standard equities, 20% in government bonds, 20% in "funds of funds" and 10% left over for the high-risk, high-reward stuff, usually that would be something like junk bonds (e.g. debt lent to companies in financial difficulty - might get you 20% interest but if things go further south you lose your investment) or emerging market equities, but this could sit alongside something like that. Without knowing who their investors are we'd have no idea.
This is no advocacy of being someone's high-risk bet by the way, it terrifies me. Just saying it could be possible to have an investor who doesn't necessarily need a stadium mortgaged or interest payments to be made.
Can’t disagree with any of that. However, we’ve been told that they’re not interest bearing loans.
Can’t disagree with any of that. However, we’ve been told that they’re not interest bearing loans.
We've not seen the repayment terms.
I personally think that there would be an expectation from additonal commercial staff to enhance top and bottom lines fairly quickly, should they get their way.
Totally agree with a cautious approach to this sort of investment but I do like what I have read so far from fitzos and latterly the trust's excellent efforts.
I personally think that there would be an expectation from additonal commercial staff to enhance top and bottom lines fairly quickly, should they get their way.
Totally agree with a cautious approach to this sort of investment but I do like what I have read so far from fitzos and latterly the trust's excellent efforts.
It might be serious. If it is here’s the accompanying music.
A Bury / Stewart Day character will NOT be given an easy ride like Day was by the gigglers.
Open honest and transparent with zero risk then welcome Dan let’s give it a go.
As you said “up the Dale” It could be exciting having some cash injected via a risk free investment.
Still lots of unanswered questions but I would like to see this progress a little further and hear more from Dan Altman prior to hugging or kicking him.
So we don’t know if analytics would ‘find’ somebody like Chris O’Grady. Given that’s the case, is it not entirely reasonable to wonder how or if it indeed it would?
So we don’t know if analytics would ‘find’ somebody like Chris O’Grady. Given that’s the case, is it not entirely reasonable to wonder how or if it indeed it would?
If you are interested I have posted a link to a really good book on the subject of analytics in football. There is a section which looks at using data to identify players strengths and weaknesses and how teams may/may not play to their talents.
Maybe the data suggested that teams tried to play O'Grady as a target man, when his game was not necessarily suited to this role, according to the data!
A Bury / Stewart Day character will NOT be given an easy ride like Day was by the gigglers.
Open honest and transparent with zero risk then welcome Dan let’s give it a go.
As you said “up the Dale” It could be exciting having some cash injected via a risk free investment.
Still lots of unanswered questions but I would like to see this progress a little further and hear more from Dan Altman prior to hugging or kicking him.
If someone announced that they wanted to own/run Bury FC (deceased) and in doing so make available interest-free unsecured loans to the club and returns (including the repayment of all capital) dependent solely on something like a promotion and/or player sales then we’d rightly say hang on a minute there’s got to be a catch here. If we’re honest we’d probably do it with a big dose of ridicule as well. There may or may not be a catch. This could be the best deal in the world. A Dale supporting pal of mine says that, when something like this happens, Bury supporters say “wow” whereas we would say “why”? I’ll be honest, I don’t think asking why is the right question because it inadvertently leads to the answer that they want to market their product and that can only be good for us. For me, the question should be how. How will the club deliver these returns to investors? The answer to that is not clear. Thus far, and I don’t know this, but the proposition appears to be a promotion and/or player sales will deliver the returns. I have serious reservations about this. However, if that is the case then what happens if the promotion or player sales don’t happen? Will those investors shrug their shoulders and say oh well that’s life. I’m telling you now, that doesn’t happen. I’m increasingly coming around to the opinion that either Altman and/or the Board are aware that post Bury and to a lesser extent Bolton, the issue of debt is a hot topic (we’ve got a 301 page thread mostly admonishing Bury fans in respect of it) and as such there is, with maybe honourable intentions, an obfuscation of the club’s liabilities in the event of a takeover. The problem is that it’s not allayed (some people’s at least) unease it’s increased them because it’s led to the massive question of how the fook?
If someone announced that they wanted to own/run Bury FC (deceased) and in doing so make available interest-free unsecured loans to the club and returns (including the repayment of all capital) dependent solely on something like a promotion and/or player sales then we’d rightly say hang on a minute there’s got to be a catch here. If we’re honest we’d probably do it with a big dose of ridicule as well. There may or may not be a catch. This could be the best deal in the world. A Dale supporting pal of mine says that, when something like this happens, Bury supporters say “wow” whereas we would say “why”? I’ll be honest, I don’t think asking why is the right question because it inadvertently leads to the answer that they want to market their product and that can only be good for us. For me, the question should be how. How will the club deliver these returns to investors? The answer to that is not clear. Thus far, and I don’t know this, but the proposition appears to be a promotion and/or player sales will deliver the returns. I have serious reservations about this. However, if that is the case then what happens if the promotion or player sales don’t happen? Will those investors shrug their shoulders and say oh well that’s life. I’m telling you now, that doesn’t happen. I’m increasingly coming around to the opinion that either Altman and/or the Board are aware that post Bury and to a lesser extent Bolton, the issue of debt is a hot topic (we’ve got a 301 page thread mostly admonishing Bury fans in respect of it) and as such there is, with maybe honourable intentions, an obfuscation of the club’s liabilities in the event of a takeover. The problem is that it’s not allayed (some people’s at least) unease it’s increased them because it’s led to the massive question of how the fook?
[Post edited 12 Jun 2020 9:26]
How is exactly the right question.
Altman has clearly referenced our previous financial model under Dunphy, and in comparison with lots of other lower league European clubs, as being attractive to him as an investment, and him being willing to buy up shares from CD, WG and PH with his partner speaks volumes of his confidence at some stage in the future, knowing that currently, at least, CD is not around the club.
If you are interested I have posted a link to a really good book on the subject of analytics in football. There is a section which looks at using data to identify players strengths and weaknesses and how teams may/may not play to their talents.
Maybe the data suggested that teams tried to play O'Grady as a target man, when his game was not necessarily suited to this role, according to the data!
Cheers. I’m not doubting it can have a role and I’m sure most clubs use statistics to an extent. I asked the question in relation to ‘broken toys’, and used O’Grady as an example of a broken toy par excellence. Where a player performs initially well but then, for whatever reason, performs consistently badly across the board for a period of time. Hill, who himself identified O’Grady as not being a down the middle target man, often suggested there was a psychological element to it. It was how they responded to his demands. How they bought into it.
Cheers. I’m not doubting it can have a role and I’m sure most clubs use statistics to an extent. I asked the question in relation to ‘broken toys’, and used O’Grady as an example of a broken toy par excellence. Where a player performs initially well but then, for whatever reason, performs consistently badly across the board for a period of time. Hill, who himself identified O’Grady as not being a down the middle target man, often suggested there was a psychological element to it. It was how they responded to his demands. How they bought into it.
[Post edited 12 Jun 2020 10:53]
It's unfair to classify O'Grady with the 'broken toy' label.
O'Grady was simply underestimated and under-appreciated by his (then) employer. KH knew how to deploy him and get the best out of him and did so. He was never a player who had a dodgy social life or off-field issues like the 'broken-toys' we did actually have. O'Grady would be the first to admit that KH resurrected his playing career, by properly recognising his ability and qualities, but it was purely a footballing thing, with him drifting out of favour, rather than sidelined due to behavioural problems.
“It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooledâ€
It's unfair to classify O'Grady with the 'broken toy' label.
O'Grady was simply underestimated and under-appreciated by his (then) employer. KH knew how to deploy him and get the best out of him and did so. He was never a player who had a dodgy social life or off-field issues like the 'broken-toys' we did actually have. O'Grady would be the first to admit that KH resurrected his playing career, by properly recognising his ability and qualities, but it was purely a footballing thing, with him drifting out of favour, rather than sidelined due to behavioural problems.
Correct
It's only 'entirely reasonable' to conjecture based on knowledge, not on misapprehension or ignorance
Otherwise, it'd be entirely reasonable to wonder if the moon was made of green cheese
Those qualities you refer to regarding Chris O'Grady were present and quantifiable prior to his arrival at Dale
It's unfair to classify O'Grady with the 'broken toy' label.
O'Grady was simply underestimated and under-appreciated by his (then) employer. KH knew how to deploy him and get the best out of him and did so. He was never a player who had a dodgy social life or off-field issues like the 'broken-toys' we did actually have. O'Grady would be the first to admit that KH resurrected his playing career, by properly recognising his ability and qualities, but it was purely a footballing thing, with him drifting out of favour, rather than sidelined due to behavioural problems.
Ok, discard O’Grady as an example and replace him with one of the broken toys we actually had.
Ok, discard O’Grady as an example and replace him with one of the broken toys we actually had.
Someone like Mendez-Laing for example? He would still have ranked high for take-ons attempted/completed, fast breaks, fouls won etc as well as his raw pace and strength which would be analysed in other ways. but was perhaps being used incorrectly or not a good fit for the managers he has had - alongside the reported off-field problems that maybe led to other managers thinking he wasn't worth the hassle.
I don't think anyone would suggest that you can build a team on analytics alone. Altman himself in the videos that Daley Brent posted the other day speaks about the need to combine analytics with the human element of scouting and recruiting players. But using these tools, what clubs like Brentford, RB Salzburg and Porto have done effectively is identify players that can fit their system based on their numbers - it's then up to the coaches to ensure that they get the best out of them, which includes the aspect of man-management that Hill was particularly good at in getting the best out of those players. I don't think anybody thinks you can just sign these players then expect them to perform without that coaching and man-management aspect.
Someone like Mendez-Laing for example? He would still have ranked high for take-ons attempted/completed, fast breaks, fouls won etc as well as his raw pace and strength which would be analysed in other ways. but was perhaps being used incorrectly or not a good fit for the managers he has had - alongside the reported off-field problems that maybe led to other managers thinking he wasn't worth the hassle.
I don't think anyone would suggest that you can build a team on analytics alone. Altman himself in the videos that Daley Brent posted the other day speaks about the need to combine analytics with the human element of scouting and recruiting players. But using these tools, what clubs like Brentford, RB Salzburg and Porto have done effectively is identify players that can fit their system based on their numbers - it's then up to the coaches to ensure that they get the best out of them, which includes the aspect of man-management that Hill was particularly good at in getting the best out of those players. I don't think anybody thinks you can just sign these players then expect them to perform without that coaching and man-management aspect.
I think that's bang on and is exactly how it works according to what I have read about clubs who have used this kind of system.
The only thing to add is the scouting element. The stats identify the type of player a manager/director of football is looking for, but that player is still scouted before a purchase is made.
If you're talking a Europe-wide, or even world-wide, stats database, you're going to need a scouting network to match, which we don't currently have. Part of any investment would need to cater for that.
I think that's bang on and is exactly how it works according to what I have read about clubs who have used this kind of system.
The only thing to add is the scouting element. The stats identify the type of player a manager/director of football is looking for, but that player is still scouted before a purchase is made.
If you're talking a Europe-wide, or even world-wide, stats database, you're going to need a scouting network to match, which we don't currently have. Part of any investment would need to cater for that.
Regarding your latter point, would it be necessary to throw the net(work) so wide?
There would surely be more than enough players available within a more limited framework, albeit one more extensive than Dale have hitherto employed
Regarding your latter point, would it be necessary to throw the net(work) so wide?
There would surely be more than enough players available within a more limited framework, albeit one more extensive than Dale have hitherto employed
It depends on what the database offers. A smaller net probably means we have less chance of landing an identified player if it comes to a financial competition.
And, obviously, in the modern age physical scouting is less of a thing with all the video technology now available, but, given scouts watch a game completely differently to Joe Punter, arrangements still need to be made to film a game in a way that it focuses only on a certain player, and that still comes at a cost.
Someone like Mendez-Laing for example? He would still have ranked high for take-ons attempted/completed, fast breaks, fouls won etc as well as his raw pace and strength which would be analysed in other ways. but was perhaps being used incorrectly or not a good fit for the managers he has had - alongside the reported off-field problems that maybe led to other managers thinking he wasn't worth the hassle.
I don't think anyone would suggest that you can build a team on analytics alone. Altman himself in the videos that Daley Brent posted the other day speaks about the need to combine analytics with the human element of scouting and recruiting players. But using these tools, what clubs like Brentford, RB Salzburg and Porto have done effectively is identify players that can fit their system based on their numbers - it's then up to the coaches to ensure that they get the best out of them, which includes the aspect of man-management that Hill was particularly good at in getting the best out of those players. I don't think anybody thinks you can just sign these players then expect them to perform without that coaching and man-management aspect.
Agree with all of that. My only concern is that there is a presumption that the player, NML here, is ‘ranking’ high in the areas you mentioned. Given that he was effectively turfed out by Peterborough, there’s a chance he may not have been ranking high. His rejection by Peterborough may not have been because of personal issues but also because his performances tanked over a significant period. Which by all accounts they had. I may not be making myself clear here and apologies if I’m not but there is a premise here that the broken toys are ‘ranking’ high. However, what makes them broken toys is that they’ve not been performing. If they had they wouldn’t be broken toys.
Agree with all of that. My only concern is that there is a presumption that the player, NML here, is ‘ranking’ high in the areas you mentioned. Given that he was effectively turfed out by Peterborough, there’s a chance he may not have been ranking high. His rejection by Peterborough may not have been because of personal issues but also because his performances tanked over a significant period. Which by all accounts they had. I may not be making myself clear here and apologies if I’m not but there is a premise here that the broken toys are ‘ranking’ high. However, what makes them broken toys is that they’ve not been performing. If they had they wouldn’t be broken toys.
[Post edited 12 Jun 2020 12:10]
I understand the point you are making.
What the data will identify is the traits that a player has, their strengths, weaknesses and how best to play them. With NML it will have identified his strengths but may have also identified issues with work rate - sprints when the team is losing, distance covered between 70-90th minute compared with average etc which was preventing him from playing for Posh. Now other teams may be prepared to accept these limitations, develop tactics to negate these deficiencies or maybe a manager may think that they can coax improvements in these areas.
With regard to a 'broken toy' I am not sure that all underperforming players can be classed as a broken toy. My interpretation of what a broken toy is, is a player who is talented but due to lack of application is not reaching their potential - someone who may be viewed as being hard work/difficult/disruptive.
A player could be underperforming if they are played in a role that is unsuited to them. For example a team may play a high defensive line and a centre back may be exposed and play badly due to their lack of pace. The data may highlight this, but it also may show that they win lots of headers and have a very high tackle success rating within their own area and rarely gives away unnecessary fouls. In this case the defender may be much more suited to a team who defends deeper or plays alongside a quick defender who is asked to sweep up, whilst he attacks long balls etc. This would not make them, well in my eyes a 'broken toy'.
What the data will identify is the traits that a player has, their strengths, weaknesses and how best to play them. With NML it will have identified his strengths but may have also identified issues with work rate - sprints when the team is losing, distance covered between 70-90th minute compared with average etc which was preventing him from playing for Posh. Now other teams may be prepared to accept these limitations, develop tactics to negate these deficiencies or maybe a manager may think that they can coax improvements in these areas.
With regard to a 'broken toy' I am not sure that all underperforming players can be classed as a broken toy. My interpretation of what a broken toy is, is a player who is talented but due to lack of application is not reaching their potential - someone who may be viewed as being hard work/difficult/disruptive.
A player could be underperforming if they are played in a role that is unsuited to them. For example a team may play a high defensive line and a centre back may be exposed and play badly due to their lack of pace. The data may highlight this, but it also may show that they win lots of headers and have a very high tackle success rating within their own area and rarely gives away unnecessary fouls. In this case the defender may be much more suited to a team who defends deeper or plays alongside a quick defender who is asked to sweep up, whilst he attacks long balls etc. This would not make them, well in my eyes a 'broken toy'.
[Post edited 12 Jun 2020 12:51]
I've scouted with Trevor Jones on Broadhurst fields in Moston. While this computer program might be able to do all that, can it reminisce about Dale's 5-0 hammering at Northampton and the brutal treatment handed out to Dave Redfern that night?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
