Eddie howe

[HV71]

Find the criticism of Howe very strange. What he did for Bournemouth over the time he was there was truly remarkable. And they were in the Premier league for 5 years .. Yes, a couple of big signings did not work out (remind you of any other clubs?) - they had a tough season, and fell short by a very small margin.

It is also strange that his critics suddenly think Bournemouth had as much money as bigger clubs. Yes, a fair percentage comes from tv money but bigger gates mean bigger deals all round, especially sponsorship. Even 10% less is a big amount.

It is always going to be difficult to sustain competitiveness at smaller clubs. What works for one or two seasons is not a guarantee of continued success.

I for one think Howe did a fantastic job. It's an opinion you don't have to share, but you cannot deny what he did for a club that went into administration twice and for years had no money. He knows his football.

+1 - well said

Don't forget that some of his detractors were also rubbishing Wolves and predicting their demise . Some talk sense - but not always 100 % of the time .

[Statto]

Poor little Bournemouth...

[The Rational Fan]

Once the offical accounts were released in March 2020, we found Eddie Howe's budget in 18/19 was more than Fulhams. He had a similar budget this season and got relegated, The media spent a season saying "we were doing a Fulham" when Bournmouth was a bigger budget team all along.

See for yourself
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06632170/filing-history

I don't believe their net transfer spend in any single season has matched what we spent that year, so that's why it doesn't mike the headlines. But I agree that in the period Bournemouth were in the PL he did, overall, have a lot of time (5 years) and a lot of money (£200m-300m?) to build a solid PL side and evidently he failed. IMO that puts him in the same bracket as Hughton, Warnock et al, ie someone who might get you out of the Championship but isn't good enough for the PL.

The Media may judge a team's spending on Net Transfer Spend per season, but it is not a good way to judge spending. Firstly, it doesn't take previous seasons spending (eg Liverpool spent nothing last season). Secondly, it doesn't consider length of contract (e.g. Hector cost £10m for 2.5 years that is £4m per year while Anguissa's cost £23m for 5 years that is £4.6m per year). Thirdly, it doesn't consider percentage in performance related bonuses (eg Knockaert is rumoured to have his transfer fee linked to Fulham getting promoted before parachute payments end making it cheaper if we don't go up). Fourthly, it doesn't consider wages of players (eg Hector and Phil Jones are the same age and same price but the later's wages are enormous). Lastly, many clubs pay enormous wages to DOFs and commissions to agents (eg Wolves pay a lot of money to get players at low prices and we pay almost nothing so pay higher prices.

The only sensible conclusion is to add up all the operational costs for a year including players wages, agent fees and amortizar transfer fee (ie spread Anguissa £23m over five years). This what the accountants of each of the clubs do and release in the annual financial reports. The Operating Cost is also the same number that FFP uses to judge teams, after they remove youth spending and stadium upgrades. It is my opinion the best judge of clubs spending and football authority accountants agree with me.

Using the Operating Cost for the season of 18/19 (including player wages, agent fees and transfer amortisation costs), Officially Bournemouth marginal outspent Fulham for the season of 18/19, and this is also my unofficial verdict from reading the accounts. We argued last year of the best method to judge spending, but now offical figures were released in March 2020, we know better.

Using this offical method Fulham was the 16th highest spending team in premier league, with only Brighton, Burnley, Cardiff and Huddersfield spending significantly less than us. Fulham and Bournemouth both under performed, Fulham were the worst team for the first half of the season and the 18th team for the second half of the season, plus I think the same team would have come 16th if we had another season, matching our spending.

I think Fulham and Bournemouth have reasons for not getting the points per game expected from their operational spending, but Fulham have the additional reasons of getting use to a new league and  having a new team, where as Bournemouth's problems have to sit more with the staff at the club, especially Eddie Howe and the DOF. Our staff was to blame too, but there are tonnes of other reasons too, plus Fulham staff were on a step learning curve and we wouldn't expect Eddie Howe to be improving as quickly as Slavisa, Parker or TK.

[Statto]

Secondly, it doesn't consider length of contract (e.g. Hector cost £10m for 2.5 years that is £4m per year while Anguissa's cost £23m for 5 years that is £4.6m per year).

I don't agree that this factor is relevant, and since it's the main thing that'll determine a club's operating costs in the accounts, IMO you can't use operating costs in the way you want to. If one club spends £100m and another spends £50m, then all other things being equal, it's reasonable to expect more from the club that spent £100m. If they signed those players on long contracts (exposing themselves to even greater costs in the long run) to spread the amortisation over a longer period in the accounts, IMO that's immaterial for the purpose of determining how well the ought to do in the league that season.

However, I agree wages are a reasonable measure to use to determine expectations for a club. Gross spending might also be worth considering, because net spending is often offset against big windfalls for the club, like when Southampton sold Van Dijk.

Rather than looking at operational costs or any single metric, I'd invite you, if you can be bothered, to compare Bournemouth to its peers for spending on wages and/or gross transfer spending, like I've done above for net spending. That would be interesting, and I suspect, reinforce the point that Howe has been relatively well-resourced at Bournemouth despite their loe attendance figures.

[The Rational Fan]

Secondly, it doesn't consider length of contract (e.g. Hector cost £10m for 2.5 years that is £4m per year while Anguissa's cost £23m for 5 years that is £4.6m per year).

I don't agree that this factor is relevant, and since it's the main thing that'll determine a club's operating costs in the accounts, IMO you can't use operating costs in the way you want to. If one club spends £100m and another spends £50m, then all other things being equal, it's reasonable to expect more from the club that spent £100m. If they signed those players on long contracts (exposing themselves to even greater costs in the long run) to spread the amortisation over a longer period in the accounts, IMO that's immaterial for the purpose of determining how well the ought to do in the league that season.

However, I agree wages are a reasonable measure to use to determine expectations for a club. Gross spending might also be worth considering, because net spending is often offset against big windfalls for the club, like when Southampton sold Van Dijk.

Rather than looking at operational costs or any single metric, I'd invite you, if you can be bothered, to compare Bournemouth to its peers for spending on wages and/or gross transfer spending, like I've done above for net spending. That would be interesting, and I suspect, reinforce the point that Howe has been relatively well-resourced at Bournemouth despite their loe attendance figures.

I disagree for me spending £20m on transfer fees for players on one year contracts is similar cost to spending £100m on transfer fees for players on five year contracts, as both cost £20m per year.

Comparing Bournemouth and Fulham for 18/19
Bournemouth spent £110m per year on wages and Fulham spent £92m per year.
Bournemouth spent £20m per year on other expenses and Fulham spent £24m per year.
Bournemouth spent £130m on all expenses (not including transfers) and Fulham spent £116m.
Bournemouth's squad start financial year with book value of £77m and Fulham's started with £19m.
Bournemouth's squad offical spent on £94m transfer fees and Fulham officially spent £120m on fees. Bournemouth's squad cost £36m for transfer fee amortisation and Fulham's squad cost £42m for year.
Bournemouth's squad ended season with book value of £133m and Fulham's ended with £92m.
Bournemouth spent £166m on all expenses (including amortisation) and Fulham spent £156m.

Sorry, Bournemouth spent more than us and we wrote off more. Media story about Fulham outspending everyone is not lying, but is very creative accounting (by using raw transfer fees for this calendar year only) to tell the story they want to tell.

[The Rational Fan]

According to the Bournemouth Accountant, Chairman's signature and UK Government: Bournmouth spent £94m on transfer fees last season and spent £18m more on wages than Fulham. Is getting relegated the next season "Doing a Eddie Howe?"

[Statto]

Not really interested in comparing them to Fulham to here's Bournemouth's wage bill versus the clubs around them in the table (2018/19 figures)


Everton £160m (reported over 13 months)
West Ham £136m
Crystal Palace £119m
Bournemouth £111m
Southampton £111m
Brighton £101m
Newcastle £97m
Burnley £87m
Watford £84m

[ScalleysDad]

We met Eddie Howe once at Waterloo station where he was being mini mobbed by some ladies of a certain age for a group photo. He played along for a while, very politely. We just wished him luck for the upcoming season and he returned the same on spotting Scalleys top. Seemed a nice chap but.........
Parker loses key players at important stages of the season and despite getting to Wembley is still derided by some as useless, boring and inept. Howe loses key players at important stages of the season and those loses are quoted as a key reason he did not succeed this season. Funny old game.

I don't think the two are remotely comparable to be honest.

I do. I also think that as the facts and figures unravel and comparisons are made then as good a manager as Howe was at Bournemouth the love in will quickly fade to memory. Phil McNulty wrote a good piece on this yesterday. Scott Parker has had similar travails to Howe, the big spenders tag, key players missing and/or not working out condensed into a season and a bit and is still in with a shot at promotion yet some people on here wanted Howe in straight away. It seems to me at times that entrenched views on Parker inflate the cv's of desired replacements like Howe and Hughton way above where they should be, experience aside of course.

[FFC1987]

We met Eddie Howe once at Waterloo station where he was being mini mobbed by some ladies of a certain age for a group photo. He played along for a while, very politely. We just wished him luck for the upcoming season and he returned the same on spotting Scalleys top. Seemed a nice chap but.........
Parker loses key players at important stages of the season and despite getting to Wembley is still derided by some as useless, boring and inept. Howe loses key players at important stages of the season and those loses are quoted as a key reason he did not succeed this season. Funny old game.

I don't think the two are remotely comparable to be honest.

I do. I also think that as the facts and figures unravel and comparisons are made then as good a manager as Howe was at Bournemouth the love in will quickly fade to memory. Phil McNulty wrote a good piece on this yesterday. Scott Parker has had similar travails to Howe, the big spenders tag, key players missing and/or not working out condensed into a season and a bit and is still in with a shot at promotion yet some people on here wanted Howe in straight away. It seems to me at times that entrenched views on Parker inflate the cv's of desired replacements like Howe and Hughton way above where they should be, experience aside of course.

The lists of key players injured during the course of the season, from Fulham to Bournemouth aren't comparable. Overall, we've been fairly fortunate whereas Bournmouth was a disaster. At the end of the day, both managers had objectives and were given the tools to achieve it. Both failed. So this isn't a anti Parker post, or a pro Howe.