Jump to content
IGNORED

Critiquing our Recruitment under MA and LJ


Fuber

Recommended Posts

I realise there are bits about this in different threads and a discussion thread involving who of our current squad will be sold.

This is not an attack on LJ, despite me questioning his man-management but I've stated my opinion on that already and won't repeat it here.

I've seen members of this forum defend our recruitment or say 'it's not that bad', so I've compiled a breakdown, if it's found unfair in your opinion then fine, that's your opinion. I've based the parameters on certain requirements to be structured and equal to all players listed.

The image attached is an excel spreadsheet detailing every signing bar a few development signings such as Shabazz Omofe (who is currently at Leatherhead) who nobody will know who never played in the first team or seemingly got close to it.

The criteria I utilised is that Players Highlighted;

  • Red - Either have not proven themselves i.e. not played enough, or we haven't seen enough from (Eliasson, Engvall, Hegeler), have regressed (Wright, Moore), or are no longer at the club (Lucic).
  • Yellow - Have shown quality/potential but either haven't been consistent, or have been injured.
  • Green - Have been successful, breaking into the first and performing to a high standard on a regular basis and have showed some consistency.
  • Black - Were not scouted by MA, were signing originally by another manager, or worked with the current manager at another club.

This is only using the criteria highlighted above, no outside factors, and I've tried avoiding personal bias, but this is a critique written by myself, so apologise if it seems as if there is bias.

BC-Signings.thumb.PNG.a6cfb5a7f623a893c0f07b5f6f99b5d3.PNG

So in total, since the 28th Jan 2018 - MA was 2 weeks into his role at this point, City have made a total of 35 signings, both permanent and loan.

Of those, by the end of this season, 19 look like they will be at the club at the beginning of next season taking into account public statements, contracts, and loans, ignoring development signings, and signings that were not Ashton jurisdiction - it's 12; Magnússon, O'Dowda, Moore, Paterson, Djuric, Hegeler, Wright, Taylor, Diedhiou, Pisano, Eliasson, Walsh, of which 2 are consistantly in the team.

  • Per the breakdown criteria, the signings of Tammy, Brownhill, and Baker will be ignored in the context of judging Ashton, as we know that LJ knew, convinced, or did not originally sign those players respectively with the latter applying to MA as well.
  • Some of the players dismissed as poor signings are harsh, in the cases of Walsh, Eliasson, Hegeler, Moore, and Pisano, but per the criteria I set out, players who haven't proven themselves simply fall into that category, we don't know if they have that potential - especially when they can't break into a team doing as poorly as ours the second half of the season, if LJ can't trust them they don't play.
  • Players in yellow have shown potential but have gone MIA over the course of the season, due to form, suspension, injury, or lack of selection.
  • Greens are what could in hindsight be the successful signings, that broke into the first team and proved themselves.

My Conclusion

What we find is that MA (and consequentially Lee) have spent an estimated £25,450,000, an estimated £29,350,000 including Baker - over the course of two years. Making overall confirmed losses on those transfers of £1,500,000. Only sustainable due to the sale of a player neither were responsible for developing or scouting.

So then, my question to the forum. Is this successful? If you were SL, and you saw these numbers, what would you're thoughts be? Personally, I'd question the point of a lot of them (the signings) when the academy is doing so well. By bogging the squad as much as we have and the high turnover of players it doesn't promote stability and you could argue denies promising youth players a chance to develop i.e. Kelly since his league cup appearances.

This time last years we were 5th in terms of minutes played by academy graduates within the championship https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/revealed-championships-most-successful-academies-9671300 so we have a good academy. Reid and Kelly will have added to that this season, on top of Bryan again this season.

Plus according to the latest figures (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/championship-spending-revealed-wolves-cardiff-1428254), our squad is now the 13th most expensive in the division, so we're just about getting value for money, but bear in mind our league position you could argue was down to Bobby and Joe, who would not count towards that cost but could be worth £20m between the two of them. Unfortunately it really puts are run into perspective also.

This transfer record is simply unacceptable, barring players Lee convinced, already knew, or already knew the club themselves - we haven't spent wisely.

What I would do:

Critically evaluate Ashton's role at the club, and the way LJ signs off on transfers, make him more involved in the deliberation process, he's not using these players and that cannot continue. Same with the scouting staff, it requires a full review, we signed much better players and had much better success during Cotts tenure no matter what anyone says.

Instead of taking the risk abroad, which bar a couple of signings has never gone well, focus more on the lower as we did with Cotts signings with Freeman, Ayling, Smith, Wagstaff, Agard, and back them up with experience i.e. Nosworthy, Wilbraham, Elliott, the latter don't have to be near the first team and could be used in rotation but can help keep younger players heads on straight. Leading through example and experience. Having one older players is not enough.

Examples of possible targets could be Dean Henderson, Max Clark, Josh Clarke, Harlee Dean, Sean McConville, Emyr Huws, Criag Bryson, Possibly Umut Bozok from Nimes. A bit of flair, players with potential, and a few proven and experienced thrown in. Add in a marquee signing like Jarrod Bowen, and I'd be pretty happy.

What do you all think? Should the club get rid of Ashton, try something else? Is LJ more responsible in your eyes? Should we review our transfer policy?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as for Fammy. He has 13 league goals this season and one assist according to transfer markt, helping us to 11th. Now you can obviously make arguments about overall play etc, but if you take away his goals and assist we'd have finished...11th. 

I only did this quickly and may have made a mistake but I think I'm right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ZiderEyed said:

Bailey Wright wasn't £2m was he? Shocking business considering he was at the end of his contract if that's what we paid. Think it was more like 500k?

Impossible to tell ciderhead.

But look at it this way;

He was captain of a competitive side above us in the table. Playing almost every single game for them. Australia international, and Id expect there was interest from elsewhere.

He was also 24 and turned down a new deal so i believe Preston would of been due compensation as well.

At minimum Id argue based on that,£1m to £1.5m. Considering we sold a backup in Ayling to Leeds for £900k with 12 months remaining.

As I said its a complete estimation as there is literally nothing I could scrounge up from any online sources. Someone else may have better luck.

Alternatively, Im pretty sure there were probably fees within some of those loan agreements such as the 'fine' for Kent I included. So I dont think it would be far off overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems overly harsh to me, I would put Baker as green and Moore, Hegeler, Wright, Taylor, Eliasson, Steele and Walsh as yellow as they’re all useful squad players. Pisano and Engvall still have a chance to fall into this category tho I admit it seems highly unlikely in the case of Engvall!

Tomlin is a tricky one, he was so good on loan and showed flashes on brilliance when we signed him but it just didn’t work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decent piece. Enjoyed it. Here are my observations;

1. Can’t argue with the greens. You might reasonably argue that COD might sneak into green. 

2. I think Bailey Wright should be yellow. It’s not really fair to judge a CB on his performance at RB - where in fairness he did pretty well. He’s definitely been decent for more of the season than he’s been shit. Also, I’m pretty sure he cost 850k.  

3. I was going to suggest that Diony deserves his own colour, but my god that list really rams home how much shit LJ & MA have brought in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Incredibly harsh ratings and a bit of artistic license with the fees. There should be a lot more yellows than reds.

Your methodology reads more like you have a bit of an agenda against Ashton rather than a balanced critique.

More comparing to the point at which they signed, the fee incurred, and what theyve shown since joining.

In regards to artistic fees - only Wrights is inflated - we have no way of know whether fees were involved with the loan agreements, every other player's was researched to some degree dependant on available sources (Bakinsons fee came from a Luton fan site) so should be taken with a grain of salt - these are estimates after all. Ill only be able to cross reference when company accounts come out but its whether those willl correlate agemcy fees to individual transfers.

As an example the fees for Engvall varies on sources from different publications, from £1.48m (transfermarkt) up to £2.4m with fees on a passage I found on a swedish sports news source. The average came to around £2.03m.

Other players such as Djuric, Eliasson, Taylor, Moore, and Hegeler were much more consistant when looking into it with very little variation.

I agree that that there can be alot more greens and possibly reds respectively. But this is by this moment in time. They're part of a team in a horrible run of form.

Baker and Paterson would be green, but both, especially the latter were horribly inconistant. Djuric also - a great utility - but we took a calculated risk with his injuries that hasn't paid off so far, if stayed fit - who knows hes close.

Same with Callum O'Dowda who hasnt shown anywhere near his pre injury form to date since returning. Possibly rushed back, only thing stopping him being green.

If I did up Baker or Paterson it would be unfair to Brownhill and Diedhiou who have given 100% even through this limping finish, and were more consistant.

It is strict, and in some cases mean. But that also can  be related to the fact Ive bracketed 'Not Proven' with those who on balance have regressed or arent good enough.

If players cant get into the team, with thsisrun we're on, then why sign them? 

So far Walsh has been almost  inneffective, Birmingham didn't play him, so should he be thrown in against Brentford? I havent seen more potential than say Engvall I cant say after 3 starts. So he hasnt proven anything yet, hence the red.

2 hours ago, DaveF said:

Seems overly harsh to me, I would put Baker as green and Moore, Hegeler, Wright, Taylor, Eliasson, Steele and Walsh as yellow as they’re all useful squad players. Pisano and Engvall still have a chance to fall into this category tho I admit it seems highly unlikely in the case of Engvall!

Tomlin is a tricky one, he was so good on loan and showed flashes on brilliance when we signed him but it just didn’t work out.

Can see your view point Dave.

Despite how much I try Im not going to lie and say I didnt get fustrated writing it. So I'll outline the players you've highlighted

Moore - A few games at RB for us, to Bury in League 1, to Cheltenham in league 2, getting reports of 'mediocre'. Regressed.

Hegeler - signed from Hertha hes probably on a decent wage despite the low fee, at the moment hes behind Flint, Wright, Vyner, Baker, Magnússon, and Kelly going into next season. Possible he may be a good DM. But for now. Not Enough Starts (3 starts).

Taylor - Decent squad player and I do like Matty for his work rate. But if we sign another striker, its a waste of signing tbh, that assist at Man Utd will remain with me forever, but if we want to sort this squad out. Just Not CH Standard.

Eliasson - we'e attempted to replace him twice with Leko and Kent - and LJ wont play him in his proper position at LM. Until he does - its a wasted signing on current showings. Especially failing to get in the side ahead of Pato at LM. Not Played Enough (3 starts).

Steele - decent cup run. Still cant play league games ahead of Fielding. All but gone with his contract expiring. Add to that O'Leary's progression, I can't say he improved us. And if he's all but gone theres bo chances left he prove he could of. Not Played Enough (3 starts).

Pisano - Regressed since injury at this point in time. Not Good Enough.

Engvall - all but off now. So has failed. Not Good Enough and Not Enough Starts.

Tomlin - if I incuded the loan spell, he'd be green. But after how it unraveled? He didnt fit with our 'DNA'. And he's left.

I will concede Wrighty on review is harsh, but he was last seen booed by our own fans in a game, I will add, he was playing CB. I cant at the momen say he's played a game at CB and thought 'he looks assurred'.

Walsh - its harsh, if he had already gtten game time at Brum he'd be yellow but at the moment he's unproven. 

I may update this tomorrow if I have free time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Decent piece. Enjoyed it. Here are my observations;

3. I was going to suggest that Diony deserves his own colour, but my god that list really rams home how much shit LJ & MA have brought in.

Brown perhaps? I'll flip the font to white so we still know who it is with more clarity. Or would it still be obvious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

So as for Fammy. He has 13 league goals this season and one assist according to transfer markt, helping us to 11th. Now you can obviously make arguments about overall play etc, but if you take away his goals and assist we'd have finished...11th. 

I only did this quickly and may have made a mistake but I think I'm right

A quick glimpse thru WTTF and at first it seems you're right, but if you check when Fammy scored, they were decisive - usually giving us the result irrespective of anyone else scoring for us.

If you counts those goals and assists (13/3), Diedhiou has contributed 19 points. So as to where we'd be without him?

We'd be 18th. :yawn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Incredibly harsh ratings and a bit of artistic license with the fees. There should be a lot more yellows than reds.

Your methodology reads more like you have a bit of an agenda against Ashton rather than a balanced critique.

Tend to agree and there should have been a 'mediocre, hit and miss, unproven' category in which i would place Tomlin, Pisano, Taylor, Wright, Eliasson, Walsh, Hegeler and maybe a couple more. And probably remove the 'has potential/squad player'.

I mean how on earth can you say Eliasson and Walsh are failures? Thats just total nonsense.

Seems you have lost sight of why some of these players were signed; thinking they need to prove themselves in the first 3 or 4 games when that is not necessarily the intention of the plan. 

However, the overall failure is, without a doubt, way too high. We all know that. How City put that right is what we are all waiting for and i think continuing under the status quo is not viable and most people of authority at the club know it; something has to change. If nothing does I will not expect much improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this doesn’t take into account is where we were as a club at the time we signed them. Paterson, Cotterill, Golbourne Taylor, COD and Wright for example were key parts of a relegation battles which we stayed up. Just because our football advanced doesn’t make them bad signings. You could argue they were green at the time we signed them. Just because 1-2 years on they have become squad players doesn’t make it a waste. Clubs always look to buy better in the next window. Pisano also dead handy before the injury and that isn’t anyone’s fault. 

Lucic and De Girolamo were both development squad punts. Not reds. They were blues that were a bit older and not developing. 

Point is, just because it was a bad few months doesn’t make the players awful. There are also other factors that need to be taken into account. Squad size and quality when they arrived. Also, what are they being asked to do? SL has said himself he ideally would like 2 per position in a 442. So that is what he got. Did we expect to have a 70-80% success rate on signings? Everyone bangs on about Preston and Brentford, who tbf do great jobs scouting, but we look at it from the outside. Perhaps they have said similar about pur squad? And in the end they both fell short of the playoffs. Look at the teams in the top 6. Outside of Cardiff they have all spent significantly more on their squads than us or teams around us(top 12). When it comes down to it, we are still a middling championship club that is trying to be creative to bridge the gap. You will get flops like Hegeler and Engvall. You will get bargains like Brownhill and Baker. The only thing that can be done is to keep chipping away. Add another 2-3 bits of quality pushing starters to the bench and making it stronger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Fuber said:

In regards to artistic fees - only Wrights is inflated - we have no way of know whether fees were involved with the loan agreements, every other player's was researched to some degree dependant on available sources (Bakinsons fee came from a Luton fan site) so should be taken with a grain of salt - these are estimates after all. Ill only be able to cross reference when company accounts come out but its whether those willl correlate agemcy fees to individual transfers.

Off the top of my head I think your fees for Golbourne, Paterson, Lucic, Magnússon, Baker, Wright (definitely!), Hegeler, Taylor and Holden are too high. Even by a few thousand it still adds up for your final PL.

1 hour ago, Fuber said:

As an example the fees for Engvall varies on sources from different publications, from £1.48m (transfermarkt) up to £2.4m with fees on a passage I found on a swedish sports news source. The average came to around £2.03m.

Transfermarkt isn’t a good source, pretty unreliable. I think Engvall was around your £2.03m average in reality.

1 hour ago, Fuber said:

I agree that that there can be alot more greens and possibly reds respectively. But this is by this moment in time. They're part of a team in a horrible run of form.

Baker and Paterson would be green, but both, especially the latter were horribly inconistant. Djuric also - a great utility - but we took a calculated risk with his injuries that hasn't paid off so far, if stayed fit - who knows hes close.

Fair points 

1 hour ago, Fuber said:

Same with Callum O'Dowda who hasnt shown anywhere near his pre injury form to date since returning. Possibly rushed back, only thing stopping him being green.

I would say, regarding O’Dowda as a young player - one of the measures of success for him would be whether we’d make a profit if we sold him today. I’d argue definitely. Ignore his post-injury form, clearly Johnson wanted him back ASAP to try and change our fortunes. Better to judge him when fully fit. Definite green for me.

1 hour ago, Fuber said:

If I did up Baker or Paterson it would be unfair to Brownhill and Diedhiou who have given 100% even through this limping finish, and were more consistant.

I think Baker would be a green, agree on Paterson though.

1 hour ago, Fuber said:

It is strict, and in some cases mean. But that also can  be related to the fact Ive bracketed 'Not Proven' with those who on balance have regressed or arent good enough.

If players cant get into the team, with thsisrun we're on, then why sign them? 

So far Walsh has been almost  inneffective, Birmingham didn't play him, so should he be thrown in against Brentford? I havent seen more potential than say Engvall I cant say after 3 starts. So he hasnt proven anything yet, hence the red.

I think there needs to be a separate category for people like Eliasson, Moore and Walsh. Given their ages I’d argue they all need to be given time. However, Moore’s situation is a bit worrying given the outlay and mixed reviews at Cheltenham.

An interesting read even if I do feel it’s harsh.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very harsh assessment of some of our current squad, looks like another club bashing thread to me;

 

COD defo into green (unlucky to get injured at crucial stage of the season)

Jamie Patterson defo into green, early season form almost unplayable, not surprising he couldn't keep that pace up.

Jens Heggeler into yellow, has done the job when called upon.

Bailey Wright into yellow, done a fine job playing half a season out of position at right back.

Matty Taylor, defo yellow , natural goal poacher when given the chance . Worth the fee just for the pass to Korey Smith.

Eros Pisano, yellow, done ok when not injured.

Luke Steel, yellow, good keeper in the cup run, brought in for nothing.

 

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH SOME OF YOU? It seems like you are crying out for Ashton and Johnson to fail  :grr:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fuber said:

A quick glimpse thru WTTF and at first it seems you're right, but if you check when Fammy scored, they were decisive - usually giving us the result irrespective of anyone else scoring for us.

If you counts those goals and assists (13/3), Diedhiou has contributed 19 points. So as to where we'd be without him?

We'd be 18th. :yawn:

Oh my point was very simplistic and should obviously not be taken that seriously. However what was quite clear was that none of his goals were part of earning us a tight win by a single goal. They either came in draws, loses, or wins of two goals or more. 

Compare that to Aden Flint who's goals and assists taken away would have cost us 12 points, rather than the 6 that Fammy's would cost us. His goals mostly coming in those tight one goal wins. 

Now I'm no football expert, but I wonder if there is any reason why their goals have come in these types of game. It could of course be just luck and completely meaningless, however it was an oddity I noticed and wondered if it was worth exploring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

Oh my point was very simplistic and should obviously not be taken that seriously. However what was quite clear was that none of his goals were part of earning us a tight win by a single goal. They either came in draws, loses, or wins of two goals or more. 

Compare that to Aden Flint who's goals and assists taken away would have cost us 12 points, rather than the 6 that Fammy's would cost us. His goals mostly coming in those tight one goal wins. 

Now I'm no football expert, but I wonder if there is any reason why their goals have come in these types of game. It could of course be just luck and completely meaningless, however it was an oddity I noticed and wondered if it was worth exploring. 

I don’t think the sample size is big enough for it to mean anything significant really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phileas Fogg said:

I don’t think the sample size is big enough for it to mean anything significant really.

Absolutely. I might get all nerdy later and look at our players performances over the last few years to increase the size. I'm convinced it is nonsense btw, just I spotted a quirk and thought I'd raise it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read, but for me, you've marked too many signings as a failure. 

Feel the biggest problem is bringing in far too many players.  Is it normal for a Championship team to sign so many over a short time period?

When you consider that we only have 2 teams of 11 to field during the season (not including the academy groups) - first team and the U23 (aka reserves), why the need for so many players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overly harsh, Golbourne and Cotterill did a job when needed, Baily Wright is generally good, occasionally irritating, Taylor does a job, no idea why Hegeler not used more when fit, and O'Dowda pre injury a green. Paterson showed the inconsistency that's blighted his career, and I felt that his loss of form and COD's injury were major factors in our poor run. The big thing it highlighted to me was how awful our loans have been, Tammy & Cotts excepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting and revealing exercise - no point in getting into further debate on the gradings as others already have (though I didn't see much wrong myself bar Wright and Taylor standing out a mile as under-rated), in any case I assume your intention was to highlight the general trend.

Not for the first time when listed out, the sheer volume of signings and speculative nature of so many of them does look very alarming. It would be more interesting to look at the evolution of the squad over time as a line graph with months on the x-axis, and two y-axis and three trend lines:

  • Total spend (against y-axis 1 - £ money spent)
  • Players added (against y-axis 2 - number of players)
  • First team players established (against y-axis 2 - number of players)

That would show the ramp up of spending, the consequential ramp up of squad size / player personnel, and then show the delay in the effect of those lines translating into the expected goal - establishment of first team players (my guess the third line will trail far behind the second line). 

Fancy giving that a go? If not, can you send me your spreadsheet so I can use it as a starting point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would tend to agree that some of the ratings are quite harsh- not least because LJ's questionable 4-4-2 tactical framework may inhibit certain signings and that IMO should have been taken into account in a way.

Think quite a lot of the reds could fall into yellow personally, or perhaps a category between the 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting Analysis - I personally think that classifying a player simply into a good/bad/indifferent rating over their entire time with our club is not the right approach. The situation with most players is lot more detailed than that.

For example take Tomlin - During his loan spell and the early part of last season very few people would have disagreed that he "was successful/played well" . Indeed there would have been serious questions asked of the management team had we failed to sign him the summer after his loan spell - and I am sure accusations of the club "not thinking big enough" or "showing enough ambition".

It then appeared Tomlin fell out with management and played poorly, including the well publicised spat at Huddersfield - later it was revealed he had other issues going on in the background. He didn't get in the side much in the second half of last season - partly as Paterson, and to some extent Matty Taylor began to show they could provide some creativity, but also the work rate Tomlin lacked.

Ultimately we got shot of Tomlin and sold him to Cardiff recouping much of the fee we paid - That to me seems like LJ and MA should be slightly in credit? When it worked out Tomlin was excellent, when he fell out of favour we got rid of him during the first window that option presented itself. The other option was Tomlin could have been rotting in our reserves all season and on a high wage from us.

Ultimately the it is True Tomlin failed, but my point is there is a lot more nuance to it that simply god/bad

The same applies to a number of other players. For me Wright, Paterson, O'Dowda, Magnússon, Baker all should be green - in large parts of their time here they have played well enough to be considered a succesful purchase. Whether we recoup money on all of them remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, regarding Mark Ashton, he's not actually the scout so I'm not sure it's his fault, and like all good chief executives, he does speak very effectively in promotion of the club. My problem is when I try to reconcile everything he says with what we actually do, I just feel like he is one of those executives that is full of self-congratulatory hot air and self-interest, rather than any real self-critical drive to achieve success.

Knowing people like that in business, I wouldn't be surprised if he is already starting to occasionally brief against Johnson or at least create a distance from the idea that Johnson is still his man (thinking back to the closeness when LJ was appointed). That way he doesn't lose his job and Johnson is his a firewall. It may explain Lansdown's recent change of tone, who of course will take briefings from his CEO.

In any case, when you think about whether Ashton represents value for money, I ask you to consider this extract from City's last company accounts:

1100899660_ScreenShot2018-05-10at10_42_37.thumb.png.294ff5c8a0d20ad62dfbf92aed09eaeb.png

This says that City pays its directors a total of £364k a year, of which one director earns over £300k. The club has 5 registered directors: Doug Harman, Keith Dawe, Ernie Arathoon, Jon Lansdown, Mark Ashton. To my knowledge the first three have their own interests outside City and are effectively "non-exec". That leaves Jon Lansdown and Mark Ashton as full time employees, so it must be one of them that earns that amount.

Now it could be an elaborate (but not altogether cheap) way of SL passing inheritance to his son, but that asks us to believe Mark Ashton earns sub £60k!! So I think it's a pretty safe bet that it IS Mark Ashton. Now ask yourself if his performance has earned £300k per annum..!? I know dealing with players on many times that needs a level of gravitas, but this is FTSE-250 CEO salary territory, businesses with 20-30x the turnover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tomlin wasn't offloaded for £2.8 million. City only received £1.5 million which represents a significant loss.  

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/moment-neil-warnock-asks-fee-389652

Also, the loan signings aren't "free". When the loan fees and associated expenses are accumulated, most people would be shocked at the true overall cost of a loan signing - particularly a failed one like Diony.

The club needs to reduce the size of the squad and focus more on quality instead of quantity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

An interesting exercise. What concerns me falls into three areas. .......................

........................... I simply cannot see how MA and LJ can create that. Next season should be the season where our previous hard work, transfer policy , comes together and we start to reap the rewards. If I were SL I would be concerned as the answers to his (for the first time in a few years) decent questions are not going to be forthcoming anytime soon unless he raises the quality. He needs a Pat Lam for the football club. 

 

Very good post again BW - some excellent points and explanations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting summary @Fuber, though I tend to agree with the comments that some of your ratings are a tad harsh. I found the chart revealing, even if I ignored the ratings, as it reminded me of the vast number of players signed in a relatively short period of time. It’s like a scattergun process using the logic that if sufficient are signed, then by sheer weight of numbers, a good team will emerge. @billywedlock summed it up:

“Firstly what players are we signing  and for what system.?” 

For me it’s a never mind the quality feel the width approach. SL wants the club to be self-sustainable (if such a thing is possible at Championship level) which means signings players relatively cheaply and selling some for a profit. This might work but, IMO, the emphasis should be on signing a smaller number of better players. The amount we have paid in transfer fees and loan signing costs (as pointed out by @Bangkok Red) is high for what we are likely to recoup which means the current “project” isn’t working. The really big income was for Kodjia and will possibly be from Reid, Bryan, Flint and Pack, none of whom were signed during the LJ /  MA period. If 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RedDave said:

What I really struggle with is how many fans class Taylor Moore as a poor signing.  He cannot be judged as either a good or bad signing for at least another couple of years.

Fans seem to struggle with this type of signing most of all

To be fair it's the sort of signing the old heads would always have an issue with.

Massive payment for those of a certain age for a young prospect, even an England captain, seemingly regressed having gone down a step in the league system, not played 40-whatever games for Cheltenham.

Reality is that, as you say, we have no idea yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...