LJ to West Brom?

[Robbored]

2 minutes ago, bearded_red said:

Yeah I remember Zak Vyner’s debut.

MK Dons away, we won 2-0 and he was our best player.

 

Home debut.............

[The Bard]

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Both LJ and Pat Lam were appointed thru their commitment to SLs (BS) philosophy. 

Both talk the same language.

One of them was a family friend and was always going to get the job.  The other had to be recruited, has a history of success at the highest level and was therefore in a much stronger bargaining position.    

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, richwwtk said:

I'm worried that I'm beginning to agree with some of your posts.

Is there some kind of medical treatment for this condition, or am I just getting old?

You’re probably agreeing with the response, which didn’t really answer the context of the post it was responding too, which was I’m in favour of the policy, it’s just not being executed poorly imho.  To respond by restating the policy (the bit a lot of us agree with), but not question the excecution by saying "I leave that to the coaches" defeats the object of a forum / discussion.

Perhaps the recruitment is being executed perfectly and it’s the coaches that are failing to execute.  LJ says Diony is a fine player, so maybe it’s him and his coaches that are the problem?  

I just wanted a discussion on the execution, not a ‘we’ll leave the professionals to it and not have an opinion because we aren’t qualified".

What is your opinion of:

1. The policy

2. The execution of it

Mark them out of 10 if you like.

I feel we are wasting a lot of money, and the volume of successes is not outweighing the volume of non-successes or financially.

How many players has LJ brought in and sold for a profit?  I can’t think of any.  Please correct me.

Of course that’s an easy statement to make, when the likely value of the likes of Brownhill and O’Dowda will be more than we paid.  But look at the likely losses of Engvall and Moore (possibly Magnússon and Eliasson)...all similar in ‘policy’ to the above, and you’d question how big the loss might be....and that’s in a massive inflationary market.

[havanatopia]

52 minutes ago, The Bard said:

Excellent post. I went to the Rugby Q&A last night and Pat Lam is exactly the kind of character you're talking about there. A strong one who will challenge the owners and board.  They had to convince him to come to Bristol by having a clear vision of what they wanted to achieve.  You can hear the effect he has had on the rest of the club in the terms in which they all speak about how they want to take the Rugby club forward. He was the one defending the decision about the change of name far more than the Chairman or Mark Tainton.  

 

How many vitriolic, dissenting voices were there for the crass 'sold down the river' ridiculous quick buck idea of a name change? I am guessing a whimpish zero. If you are not prepared to fight you will end up like the fans leaving Millwall; constantly kettled. 

[richwwtk]

28 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You’re probably agreeing with the response, which didn’t really answer the context of the post it was responding too, which was I’m in favour of the policy, it’s just not being executed poorly imho.  To respond by restating the policy (the bit a lot of us agree with), but not question the excecution by saying "I leave that to the coaches" defeats the object of a forum / discussion.

Perhaps the recruitment is being executed perfectly and it’s the coaches that are failing to execute.  LJ says Diony is a fine player, so maybe it’s him and his coaches that are the problem?  

I just wanted a discussion on the execution, not a ‘we’ll leave the professionals to it and not have an opinion because we aren’t qualified".

What is your opinion of:

1. The policy

2. The execution of it

Mark them out of 10 if you like.

I feel we are wasting a lot of money, and the volume of successes is not outweighing the volume of non-successes or financially.

How many players has LJ brought in and sold for a profit?  I can’t think of any.  Please correct me.

Of course that’s an easy statement to make, when the likely value of the likes of Brownhill and O’Dowda will be more than we paid.  But look at the likely losses of Engvall and Moore (possibly Magnússon and Eliasson)...all similar in ‘policy’ to the above, and you’d question how big the loss might be....and that’s in a massive inflationary market.

1. My opinion of the policy is it seems an excellent one if we don't don't want to go down the "throw money at the team" road.

2. I believe we are at too early a stage to be able to tell the effectiveness of the policy execution. The only failure so far I would suggest is Engvall, he appears to be on his way out and it certainly won't be at a profit. Magnusson I think is proving to be a decent enough player, he has certainly been a first team regular so not too many complaints. Moore still has time to come good, along with the rest of the young players we have out on loan at the moment.

I am also not sure that the success or not of this policy can be seen as an indication of LJ's success as our manager, that can only be judged on league position really, as the recruitment is not entirely under his control, and is probably less under his control than a lot of us would like to think. And under LJ, our league position is improving year on year, so I think you have to judge him as a success for now.

[Davefevs]

20 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

1. My opinion of the policy is it seems an excellent one if we don't don't want to go down the "throw money at the team" road.

2. I believe we are at too early a stage to be able to tell the effectiveness of the policy execution. The only failure so far I would suggest is Engvall, he appears to be on his way out and it certainly won't be at a profit. Magnusson I think is proving to be a decent enough player, he has certainly been a first team regular so not too many complaints. Moore still has time to come good, along with the rest of the young players we have out on loan at the moment.

I am also not sure that the success or not of this policy can be seen as an indication of LJ's success as our manager, that can only be judged on league position really, as the recruitment is not entirely under his control, and is probably less under his control than a lot of us would like to think. And under LJ, our league position is improving year on year, so I think you have to judge him as a success for now.

Ta.  Yes, not judging it as LJ success or not.  I’ve heard that MA has too much involvement in the decision making of the players, when I expected him to concentrate on the contract / fee side of things.  Obviously LJ needs to work within the constraints of the budget, but if he is, and MA is saying "I don’t rate player x" then I’d suggest he’s too much influence.  Of course he can say "I don’t think he’s worth £x" but player judgement is not his skill set.

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

You’re probably agreeing with the response, which didn’t really answer the context of the post it was responding too, which was I’m in favour of the policy, it’s just not being executed poorly imho.  

Dave, I was in part responding to the post

What is your opinion of:

1. The policy  - its a good and sensible  strategy but like all long term plans will take more than 18/12 to bear fruit 10/10

2. The execution of it - see above!  9/10

Mark them out of 10 if you like.

I feel we are wasting a lot of money, and the volume of successes is not outweighing the volume of non-successes or financially.  See above. Too early yet to assess things

How many players has LJ brought in and sold for a profit?  I can’t think of any.  Please correct me.

See above! 

Of course that’s an easy statement to make, when the likely value of the likes of Brownhill and O’Dowda will be more than we paid.  But look at the likely losses of Engvall and Moore (possibly Magnússon and Eliasson)...all similar in ‘policy’ to the above, and you’d question how big the loss might be....and that’s in a massive inflationary market.

Again, look above!

 

[Davefevs]

Fair enough RR.  I hope you’re right!

[Curr Avon]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Fair enough RR.  I hope you’re right!

This is all above me. 

[italian dave]

OK, so 5 pages on and, in summary:

Another opportunity to bash LJ - but in most cases without any thought of 'what happens next' - posters either ignore the question or - so far on this thread - suggest two names.

We're currently 11th, a place above Ipswich and a place below Brentford. We've got broadly similar budgets: forget the detail and the biscuits, but essentially no parachute payments, reliant on selling as well as buying etc.

Over the past three years

Dean Smith has taken Brentford from 5th to 9th to 10th to current 10th

Mick Mcarthy has taken Ipswich from 6th to 7th to 16th to current 12th

Lee Johnson has taken City from 18th to 17th to current 11th

And there are still people who'd drive LJ to West Brom in order to replace him with DS or MM???

Be careful what you wish for - as the fans of Leeds, Birmingham (to name just two who've thought that they are too good for the edge of the play offs) will testify!

 

[BobBobSuperBob]

2 minutes ago, italian dave said:

OK, so 5 pages on and, in summary:

Another opportunity to bash LJ - but in most cases without any thought of 'what happens next' - posters either ignore the question or - so far on this thread - suggest two names.

We're currently 11th, a place above Ipswich and a place below Brentford. We've got broadly similar budgets: forget the detail and the biscuits, but essentially no parachute payments, reliant on selling as well as buying etc.

Over the past three years

Dean Smith has taken Brentford from 5th to 9th to 10th to current 10th

Mick Mcarthy has taken Ipswich from 6th to 7th to 16th to current 12th

Lee Johnson has taken City from 18th to 17th to current 11th

And there are still people who'd drive LJ to West Brom in order to replace him with DS or MM???

Be careful what you wish for - as the fans of Leeds, Birmingham (to name just two who've thought that they are too good for the edge of the play offs) will testify!

 

The only 2 names thing is a nonsense point

There are dozens , in fact hundreds of head coaches out there that would like the job

Think most will think like me that ther is Little point in debating any merits or not in any of them as 

LJ isn’t going anywhere

And atm IMHO shouldn’t be 

[nickolas]

15 hours ago, Robbored said:

Another who simply doesn't get the recruitment policy at City.............

Jeez.......it's bloody hard work on here sometimes..........

Oh i get it. And i agree with most of it. 

But facts are hes spent vast sums of money never seen at BCFC and very few are involved!

[phantom]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

Over the past three years

Dean Smith has taken Brentford from 5th to 9th to 10th to current 10th

Mick Mcarthy has taken Ipswich from 6th to 7th to 16th to current 12th

Lee Johnson has taken City from 18th to 17th to current 11th

Valid point @italian dave but I wonder who had the most money / resources to play with out of those three?

Just to add a bit of balance why not compare Neil Harris?

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

10 minutes ago, nickolas said:

Oh i get it. And i agree with most of it. 

But facts are hes spent vast sums of money never seen at BCFC and very few are involved!

Facts?

OK let's do FACTS:

1) It's SL's money and he has to sanction every transfer- in or out.

2) It is published policy that LJ identifies a position he wants to strengthen and is subsequently provided with a list from which to work along with a budget. ( source MA)

3) It is published policy that the emphasis on purchases/player development is on youth and through the development side and/or loans( source SL/JL/MA/LJ) Kelly was kept close by and Vyner has had a very good loan. Who'd argue with either of these decisions?

4) There are only 11 places to fill so it makes complete sense to get as many youngsters as possible playing competitive football and that can only be achieved through loans.

5) Football player inflation is such that a player could triple or quadruple in value without actually improving that much. So it's a poor comparison to suggest that in real terms LJ has had so much more than anyone before him particularly as most incoming purchases have been balanced by big sales. Using your own same reasoning- one could argue that LJ has had less to spend than most in real terms.

It is my opinion that the second half of the season raises some serious questions about both LJ's ability to achieve the required consistency to challenge for automatic promotion and whether having a squad largely based on the future is the ideal strategy.

The final fact is that not once have we been flirting with relegation this season and we have been closest to the Championship playoffs for almost a decade.

 

[Atlanta_Red]

7 hours ago, Juan Kerr said:

Well, did you...?

I wish....

[BobBobSuperBob]

17 minutes ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

Facts?

OK let's do FACTS:

1) It's SL's money and he has to sanction every transfer- in or out.

2) It is published policy that LJ identifies a position he wants to strengthen and is subsequently provided with a list from which to work along with a budget. ( source MA)

3) It is published policy that the emphasis on purchases/player development is on youth and through the development side and/or loans( source SL/JL/MA/LJ) Kelly was kept close by and Vyner has had a very good loan. Who'd argue with either of these decisions?

4) There are only 11 places to fill so it makes complete sense to get as many youngsters as possible playing competitive football and that can only be achieved through loans.

5) Football player inflation is such that a player could triple or quadruple in value without actually improving that much. So it's a poor comparison to suggest that in real terms LJ has had so much more than anyone before him particularly as most incoming purchases have been balanced by big sales. Using your own same reasoning- one could argue that LJ has had less to spend than most in real terms.

It is my opinion that the second half of the season raises some serious questions about both LJ's ability to achieve the required consistency to challenge for automatic promotion and whether having a squad largely based on the future is the ideal strategy.

The final fact is that not once have we been flirting with relegation this season and we have been closest to the Championship playoffs for almost a decade.

 

Agree with a lot of your post but

 

Where was this published MMR

It May be the case in some instances but is certainly not the complete way it works

See the Eliasson identification and pursuit and the explanation from MA and LJ themselves at Q&A regarding recruitment

 

[nickolas]

1 hour ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

Facts?

OK let's do FACTS:

1) It's SL's money and he has to sanction every transfer- in or out.

2) It is published policy that LJ identifies a position he wants to strengthen and is subsequently provided with a list from which to work along with a budget. ( source MA)

3) It is published policy that the emphasis on purchases/player development is on youth and through the development side and/or loans( source SL/JL/MA/LJ) Kelly was kept close by and Vyner has had a very good loan. Who'd argue with either of these decisions?

4) There are only 11 places to fill so it makes complete sense to get as many youngsters as possible playing competitive football and that can only be achieved through loans.

5) Football player inflation is such that a player could triple or quadruple in value without actually improving that much. So it's a poor comparison to suggest that in real terms LJ has had so much more than anyone before him particularly as most incoming purchases have been balanced by big sales. Using your own same reasoning- one could argue that LJ has had less to spend than most in real terms.

It is my opinion that the second half of the season raises some serious questions about both LJ's ability to achieve the required consistency to challenge for automatic promotion and whether having a squad largely based on the future is the ideal strategy.

The final fact is that not once have we been flirting with relegation this season and we have been closest to the Championship playoffs for almost a decade.

 

Not doubting playing youngsters elsewhere as weve become Chelsea on that front with so many out on loan. 

Also dont doubt loans are good but these werent my point re £20m spent.

Regardless of sales huge amounts have been spent and the facts are a few with millions spent on them are plying their trade in struggling L2 teams or on loan in different countries. 

All opinions of course. 

League position is decent but also very poor from where we were. 

Yes top 10 was great last August but from 2nd in Dec to 11th now is poor. I’ll grant him injuries and fatigue but this is crossing over into other arguements that werent stated first time around. 

£20m is a lot!!!

[Major Isewater]

7 hours ago, Robbored said:

Both LJ and Pat Lam were appointed thru their commitment to SLs (BS) philosophy. 

Both talk the same language.

BS philosophy ? 

There are some merits , you're being a bit harsh there .

 

[woodsy62]

8 hours ago, italian dave said:

OK, so 5 pages on and, in summary:

Another opportunity to bash LJ - but in most cases without any thought of 'what happens next' - posters either ignore the question or - so far on this thread - suggest two names.

We're currently 11th, a place above Ipswich and a place below Brentford. We've got broadly similar budgets: forget the detail and the biscuits, but essentially no parachute payments, reliant on selling as well as buying etc.

Over the past three years

Dean Smith has taken Brentford from 5th to 9th to 10th to current 10th

Mick Mcarthy has taken Ipswich from 6th to 7th to 16th to current 12th

Lee Johnson has taken City from 18th to 17th to current 11th

And there are still people who'd drive LJ to West Brom in order to replace him with DS or MM???

Be careful what you wish for - as the fans of Leeds, Birmingham (to name just two who've thought that they are too good for the edge of the play offs) will testify!

 

I think Leeds and birmingham will both improve next season but i fear we will be in a relegation dogfight but that is only my opinion

[BS4 on Tour...]

21 hours ago, Curr Avon said:

This is all above me. 

Said the gas midfield watching another ‘attack’ develop....

[BS4 on Tour...]

20 hours ago, italian dave said:

We're currently 11th, a place above Ipswich and a place below Brentford. We've got broadly similar budgets...

Ipswich have spent £5.5m on players over the last SIX years...we spent the same figure on one player for this season...is that broadly similar?!

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Ipswich have spent £5.5m on players over the last SIX years...we spent the same figure on one player for this season...is that broadly similar?!

Not again!!!  

[Northern Red]

Groundhog Day

[Andy082005]

On 19/04/2018 at 22:49, Robbored said:

Another who simply doesn't get the recruitment policy at City.............

Jeez.......it's bloody hard work on here sometimes..........

Well it's a pretty piss poor policy considering the money that's been wasted 

[Robbored]

3 minutes ago, Andy082005 said:

Well it's a pretty piss poor policy considering the money that's been wasted 

You to?............

Read #203 on this thread. - that clarifies the recruitment policy for those who don't understand it.

[slartibartfast]

1 hour ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Said the gas midfield watching another ‘attack’ develop....

Reminds me of the 60's. my mate told me the story about the great  "Shadow" Williams who joined the sags eventually.

""Hows it going Shad ?" asked my mate. "Not too bad,got a bit of a stiff neck as it goes"

"Oh dear, an injury in training?" inquired my mate.                         "Nah, just following the fucking BALL !"                     True story 

[Andy082005]

4 minutes ago, Robbored said:

You to?............

Read #203 on this thread. - that clarifies the recruitment policy for those who don't understand it.

I fully understand. And where it's nice to see the youngsters coming through, you have to have a good balance with 'ready now players. We have wasted some serious cash on players over the last few years...Whether it's loans or permanant signings. Some absolute shockers 

The spine of our team is still the players that gave SC his success. 

 

 

 

[BS4 on Tour...]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Not again!!!  

The £5.5m figure hasn’t changed....anyway, it wasn’t aimed at you so keep yer nose out!

[Robbored]

32 minutes ago, Andy082005 said:

I fully understand. And where it's nice to see the youngsters coming through, you have to have a good balance with 'ready now players. We have wasted some serious cash on players over the last few years...Whether it's loans or permanant signings. Some absolute shockers 

I'm sure most clubs lose money on various transfer deals - it's just not publicised.

As for City - I can't think of any serious amounts of dosh  lost on transfers. In fact I remember a very healthy profit on the Kodjia sale.

As for loans - its always a very uncertain deal. Some are a huge success as Tammy was but others are a dismal flop as Kent has been.

Its very harsh to blame the manager if a loanee's flops.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I'm sure most clubs lose money on various transfer deals - it's just not publicised.

As for City - I can't think of any serious amounts of dosh  lost on transfers. In fact I remember a very healthy profit on the Kodjia sale.

As for loans - its always a very uncertain deal. Some are a huge success as Tammy was but others are a dismal flop as Kent has been.

Its very harsh to blame the manager if a loanee's flops.

Why?  We should apply the same due diligence for any signing.  You can’t give praise for Tammy and let him off Scot-free fir Kent and Diony.