ExiledAjax

10 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

If Pearson had wanted to push it, there's a massive question in terms of whether the club followed their obligations under the Equality Act, although that would depend if his back issue is something that'd last for 12 months or longer...

Perhaps, but there are circumstances where you can dismiss someone due to ill health if you can justify it. It's a complex area of employment law though.

18 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think the problem is that, however many players you sign, there's always a risk of an injury crisis. Admittedly we are quite prone to them though!

For me, a lot depends on some other questions

1) Are Murphy and Stokes part of the squad next season?

2) Is Knight-Lebel seen as a long-term squad option rather than a short-term bench filler?

3) Is Backwell, Seb Palmer-Houlden, Yeboah or anyone else going to be becoming part of the squad?

4) Can we get Naismith, Atkinson and Benarous fit and playing regularly?

5) Will Conway stay?

 

In theory two new additions could take us to around 27 players and that could be enough. Certainly many more than 28 and the squad starts to be over-filled with players who aren't playing if there isn't an injury crisis and that can be a bad thing. 

I think two players is enough if there are no departures beyond James and King, we're confident on Atkinson and Naismith's fitness and four of JKL, Murphy, Stokes, SPH, Benarous, Backwell and Yeboah (or others) are ready to be squad players. But if we're not able to get the numbers up through those players who are missing or not ready, two won't be enough. 

I think what I am trying to say is that I think we need to concentrate on raising the average ability of the squad, or perhaps better to say shrink the gap between our best players and our worst (importantly by raising the floor rather than dropping the ceiling).

Essentially trying to have it so that if we do get injured the players that come in are of a similar ability to those that are injured.

Hopefully that reduces the drop off in performance as much as possible, so ideally giving a smoother season.

Very theoretical, and obviously hard to actually deliver, but it's where I'd focus on depth and quality rather than raw number of bodies.

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

we can’t afford for our no9 or no10 to fail

Well. Shit.

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Good to hear Knight describe Bird yesterday too.

I am pretty keen to see these two reunited in our midfield. 

7 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

You know I’m going to agree with you about Mehmeti!!

Very good point, and to slightly link to another thread, although I think recruitment has been much improved in recent years the January “in the building” business for that month (Twine. Medube, Murphy) was poor for various reasons.

A part of me wonders how much of that was due to having to recruit a different “profile” of player from under Pearson - we can talk all we like about club identity but Liam inherently wants - ideally - different players from Nige.

I wonder how much teething problems in recruitment arose from that, and it’s hopeful to assume that’s resolved in the summer - the chance of a “miss” increases with change in manager as it’s setting different exams for the recruitment team.

It's a pretty profligate strategy from me though. 

I go back to Afobe for an example. We signed a very good player, an ambitious signing, hell maybe even the fabled "marquee" signing. He started brilliantly scoring and even seemingly rejuvenating another expensive yet failing signing (Palmer)...then injured.

Now, I'd not suggest we should have signed a "spare" Afobe, but that's the kind of transfer disaster we at least need to think about trying to mitigate.

Ps. I mentioned Mehmeti especially for you.

@Silvio Dante and @Davefevs I think we'd also need to allow for failed transfers. Although we've maybe been a little better over the last few windows, generally I'd guess that at least 1 in 3 transfers are "failures" or don't succeed to the extent hoped. For every Dickie and Sykes there's a Mehmeti* or Mebude.

Therefore really, to give us a hope that two work out, I'd say we'd need net 3 incoming.

Unless of course Tinman has absolutely nailed this window already and the shortlist is absolutely infallible.

*he might have had a couple of good games recently, but this summer we need immediate success, not a season and a half of getting used to the idea of actually passing the ball every now and then.

4 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Don’t disagree overall but I think what’s generally being pitched is a bit of a “like for like” - two major “ins” just equalises the two major “outs”.

In which case no, I don't think two will be enough. 

We've suffered twice this season, once when shifting manager and style, and once where we had an injury crisis.

That second lull (which chronologically was first) can be protected against somewhat by having a broader squad. I think that's what we need to take us up from the band in 8-14th to that in 5th-10th.

Just now, Silvio Dante said:

The irony there is that I’d envisage we’d have to pay a minimum of £3m for Twine and at least £15k a week, and whoever is buying Conway would expect to pay a minimum of £3m and £15k a week.

So, on those sums, it’s back to the squad being as it is broadly.

(Don’t disagree with the general thrust of argument but two quality signings that markedly improve us will be a bit more than that IMO)

Agree on both those figures for those two.

I'll just say that £15k is about the max we have been paying over the last couple of seasons. It's probably about what our top earners are on. We might stretch a bit towards £17k for someone really special, but more than that and I think we're at our limit.

So, if our limit is therefore players of the quality of Vyner, Knight, Twine - then it's about getting more of that standard in. Improve the depth of the squad and the breadth of the quality. 

Go from a strong first 15 to a strong first 17. It could be enough to just get us the 10 extra points we need (just 3 wins and 1 draw) to be in that playoff mix in 12 month's time.

4 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

The broader question is that if it’s two signings whether that gives us enough to make a dent in the top six. If we assume we retain Williams but not James/King, and also assume we lose Conway, then we’re pretty much at a zero sum game (Bird for James, new 10 for Twine or Twine, new 9 for Conway).

Yes, we then have SPH and Stokes as young players to augment the squad but there aren’t any others obviously coming through.

As Bird for James can be argued as like for like, Twine for Twine is obviously like for like and the new 9 for Conway is going to be like for like broadly, then the question really is - are the current squad (as it’s not going to be markedly improved) good enough to give us what we want, and sub question, how does that play to the “his players” narrative

(For avoidance of doubt if Liam gets success without “his players” but adjusting to the squad he has then it takes away a major concern).

I think two properly ambitious and quality signings would be enough. 

But, I don't think this is the summer to sign "ones for the future" (especially given we already have Stokes, Murphy, and Bird).

If there ever was a time to go a little harder and spend two lots of £3m and £15k a week on some absolute class, it's now.

2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I think there are many ways to do it. Miss 5 games in a row and you get your ticket deactivated for one game for example. Losing the seat would only happen following lots of periods of missed games. Pretty sure it's Brighton that does this. 

If what you're trying to do is get people to use the seat, then incentivise that rather than punish the opposite.

Maybe a 1% discount on next season's ST for every game attended this season. Allows for a STholder to earn up to a 23% discount, and every STholder would earn something, even if they only attended a single game.

This also protects some of the income the club receives. Stripping someone of an ST creates a bad feeling between them and the Club, maybe they don't buy another ST, maybe they persuade someone else not to renew in protest. The club might lose that ST, and as we've not got a waiting list, nor a huge queue for POTD, we're relatively unlikely to recoup it elsewhere.

I'd be really interested to see whether Brighton actually see any impact from a policy such as you say they have.

I think they need to get enforcement of the current rules and Laws sorted before a few new ones get added.

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Not just results but improved, intent and performances in 3 if not 4..

I don't think the Swansea result e.g. would've had people rushing back, this six game run has had 3 if not 4 positive performances too and that can inspire hope.

Nah. We've seen plenty of runs where we've played ok but had bad results, and fans get angsty. I've been told enough times that "the only stat that matters is the scoreline". 

I don't think most fans go much deeper than the scoreline.

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Fair play to the late splurge!

The club must be so happy that we've managed to put a little run of results just at the right time.

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

We had to make Vyner one of our highest paid players to extend his time here.

Which Tommy, and Tommy's agent, will know. They'll also know that strikers get paid more than CBs. Yes Tommy is a contract below Vyner in his "contract cycle", but I'm sure he'll be asking, quite fairly, to be one of our top paid players.

20 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

As would I, but as a bit of devils advocate here if he wasn’t one of our own would we be so bullish? The fact is that if you take out the penalties Tommys scoring record this season has been pretty poor (debate/discuss the reasons why) and there is an argument he’s regressed. I don’t think a Scotland U21 cap adds any real value so if we were looking at a player who say, played for Stoke and had Tommys record this season pre penalties would it be a deal many of us would be that keen on?

(FWIW I do think he’ll have suitors, I do think he’ll go but in view of the above I’m not sure we’re getting top dollar, particularly at this contract stage)

I should clarify - my post was meant as a cold statement of fact rather than an argument for us to move heaven and earth to re-sign Tommy.

He has a good enough record, and market conditions (ie a lack of young out and out strikers with a decent record) mean he will get another club without issue, but I don't think that necessarily means we should offer him. Yes he's a Taunton boy, and believe me I love us having academy products in our team, but there will be other options.

A 21 year old striker who's scored roughly a goal every 225 minutes for two seasons (noted penalties) will have absolutely no issue at all getting a contract at a Championship club. 

Any club that feels they can give Tommy the right service will be queuing up for him.

I'd be surprised to see him stay tbh.

Frazer was shit, almost felt like she'd not read it. Debbonaire was much better.

Crouch's bit quoting the PL submission to the FLR was exceptional.

Largely a bunch of grandstanding, and some of the MPs who spoke were clearly just there for the banter and didn't have any idea about football.

But it was interesting, and hopefully some of the amendments we've suggested get accepted.

4 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Explains why she was wearing their abomination of a shirt, election year.

Yes.

To be fair, she spoke pretty well and was more impressive than her government counterpart Lucy Frazer.

However, she made several claims saying that the Rovers owner was a good owner, ran the club well, and that Rovers were good for the community. That's a shame, and I expect her to be strung up before the privileges committee by noon tomorrow.

Lying to the House is very serious.

6 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Is that Darren Jones?

Thangam Debbonnaire (sp?)

Rovers are currently getting a worryingly large number of mentions in the second reading of the Football Governance Bill (because the MP for their area is shadow DCMS Secretary).

52 minutes ago, Markthehorn said:

No one really thought about how subjective everything is in football unlike in others sports where the decisions are more black and white (and generally decisions get accepted as a result)

I've long said that it's the Laws that are the issue. VAR just exposes those issues. 

It's an objective tool that is layered on top of subjective Laws, and it doesn't fit.

The Laws haven't been rewritten to accommodate a game where VAR exists. Until they are there will be a chance of VAR getting the flak when it's just imposing the Law to the letter.

6 minutes ago, The Batman said:

Yeah sorry about the use of the word but wasn't sure how to phrase it any other way. 

No I wasn't criticising you. I was apologising doubly. It's a cold brittle word, but sometimes it's actually better to use the language that the industry uses.

We all know that no one is belittling the death off Mr. Sala (not this side of the Severn anyway).

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

IIRC, there was something in the policy that put the emphasis on Cardiff to inform them of new players to add to the policy, and they didn’t do it,

Yeh IIRC essentially the policy hadn't begun because, to put it coldly, the "asset" (horrendous word for this) had not been delivered.

Pretty much goes back to Cardiff trying to have Schroedinger's player. He simultaneously is and isn't their player, depending on whether or not it benefits them financially.

Your Spiderman picture is very apt.

1 hour ago, phantom said:

It's not about the grounds facilities it is about the lack of having a 10 year lease to play at the stadium

It's not even that really. 

It's that they didn't have the 10 year licence (not technically the same as a lease) in place by 1 March. They have it now (albeit conditional), but it came 27 days late.

EFL and NL are technically enforcing their rules and regulations by the letter.

The legal challenge is now two part (in brief):

1. to show that those rules and regulations are not compatible with the Competition Act 1998 (and related EU legislation); and

2. to show that the EFL cannot force the NL to run it's own play off competition in a certain manner.

Worth saying that Gateshead have been aware of the requirement to have a 10 year secured tenure for at least two years, and have been in dialogue with the EFL for both of those years on this subject.

As unfair as this may seem, and as stupid as the rules might look, Gateshead were well aware of the danger.

On 16/05/2023 at 10:35, ExiledAjax said:

"The Welsh side notably claim that – based on their analysis of expected goals and expected points – Sala’s arrival would have given them the two points necessary to keep the club in Premier League for at least another season."

First example of xG being used in court? Could be interesting if it's an argument that's accepted. French court so no precedent would be created in English law, but would be interesting to read the discussion.

As I said last year. I cannot see it holding water. 

If a court, any court, upholds the use of xG to formally predict a player's performance and extrapolates that out to formally predict a team's finishing position, then honestly we may as well just get AI to generate the league table on 1 August every year and all save ourselves £1,000s.

It cannot fly.

Ps. Do remember this is in a French court. Different court system, different basis of law (civil v common). 

2 minutes ago, Galley is our king said:

 

Why are you laughing? We've gone from 14th to 12th with this little run!

Storming.

The.

League.