Jump to content
IGNORED

The Building Process


numbeast

Recommended Posts

In his after match interview LJ again mentioned building a team capable of challenging at the top end of the league. I was wondering who you think is

A) Essential to the finished article player we build around

B) Players who need replacing to progress

C) Players we have to accept we'll lose

D) Where do we really need to strengthen.

I'm interested in your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, old_eastender said:

Just typical LJ bullshit, he has signed 47 players already, enough to build 4 teams!

Although this isn't about LJ but about the philosophy the club have adopted (and would be the same for any incoming manager) Perhaps you'd like to see Johnson replaced by a young manager with a record of promotions?  I hear there's a manager available with such a C.V.

Darrell Clarke anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, numbeast said:

In his after match interview LJ again mentioned building a team capable of challenging at the top end of the league. I was wondering who you think is

A) Essential to the finished article player we build around

B) Players who need replacing to progress

C) Players we have to accept we'll lose

D) Where do we really need to strengthen.

I'm interested in your thoughts.

His mention of building is quite right. That must he the aim.

However, his actions in pursuance of that aim is what let's him down. He changes formations to suit the opposition rather than make them worry about us. So many more parts of our game are arrived at on the hoof during games.

A planned building of a squad and the "style/identity" of Bristol City FC is only a dream with him in charge.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 47 number for transfers is highly open to being abused, first up 9 of those were loans so only really bolster the number he signed, takes it down to 38. You then need to account for those who have been signed for the 23's rather than 1st team. According to transfermarkt we've made 26 first team permanent signings under LJ if you include the likes of Lucic as they were around the first team squad. So almost halves the amount of transfers and on average takes it from just over 9 transfers per window to just over 5 per window. Another part to factor in is LJ was left with a first team squad of around 17 after Cotts so how many of his transfers in his first window were bolstering the squad to a workable level? Potentially having a certain budget and needing to spread it over more players than quality because needs must. Sure you can just spout 'LJ has signed 47 players' but the real detail should be how much its costing us which will involve amortisation of fees etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, hodge said:

The 47 number for transfers is highly open to being abused, first up 9 of those were loans so only really bolster the number he signed, takes it down to 38. You then need to account for those who have been signed for the 23's rather than 1st team. According to transfermarkt we've made 26 first team permanent signings under LJ if you include the likes of Lucic as they were around the first team squad. So almost halves the amount of transfers and on average takes it from just over 9 transfers per window to just over 5 per window. Another part to factor in is LJ was left with a first team squad of around 17 after Cotts so how many of his transfers in his first window were bolstering the squad to a workable level? Potentially having a certain budget and needing to spread it over more players than quality because needs must. Sure you can just spout 'LJ has signed 47 players' but the real detail should be how much its costing us which will involve amortisation of fees etc.

Nice bit of perspective, and at the risk of defending LJ I think it has to be mentioned that (maybe) not all signings were at his nod.
Who ever has been in charge of incomings I really hope they are more selective in January.  I think I would rather sign no one than sign another Diony/Woodrow/Engvall etc etc.
Two 'good' signings could propel us on to a challenge for 6th possibly, but a) I don't think we'll spend big and 2) I don't trust our recruitment to supply 2 players good enough to make the difference. May be a case of slowly slowly catchy monkey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, numbeast said:

In his after match interview LJ again mentioned building a team capable of challenging at the top end of the league. I was wondering who you think is

A) Essential to the finished article player we build around

B) Players who need replacing to progress

C) Players we have to accept we'll lose

D) Where do we really need to strengthen.

I'm interested in your thoughts.

A. Pack

B Weinmann

C. Kallas

D Striker

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d shift most of, if not all of, our centre midfield. Save maybe Brownhill. They don’t get anywhere near enough goals and clearly aren’t stopping us from conceding either. We need a decent playmaking CM (or AMC) that can lay on goals and score them. We’ve barely replaced Bobby’s goals from last year let alone all the assists he got. 

We need more backup up top too. Taylor works hard but his scoring record is, frankly, atrocious. 

As far as signings go I’d love someone like Jackson Irvine at the club. Or, going further afield, Luciano Acosta from DC Utd or Hector Villalba from Atlanta. Just a bit of flair, y’know. Eliasson can’t jazz the entire team himself. Him and Kelly are ones I think I’m resigned to losing within a few years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, hodge said:

@DavefevsWhere did you find Tomlin's fee? Remember at the time I remember reading we essentially got our money back for him

The fee we paid or received?  Or both?

Combination of things.  Neither is official, but the accounts show transfer losses too.  SL said Kodjia was our most expensive signing, so not at large as suggested, especially when LT was giving it “record signing” shit.  I get the impression that it was somewhere between what Warnock said and what we said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taylor is a support striker I think- very hard work, capable of some assists- but ultimately not enough goals. 

However whether we keep him? Different debate, probably hasn't done enough- have him (wages depending) as a cheap 4th striker maybe, perhaps worth pondering.

Tomlin fees? From memory, accounts suggested a small profit on player registrations so I can only assume by that we in amortisation terms made a small profit on Tomlin. Will look it all up properly Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Taylor is a support striker I think- very hard work, capable of some assists- but ultimately not enough goals. 

However whether we keep him? Different debate, probably hasn't done enough- have him (wages depending) as a cheap 4th striker maybe, perhaps worth pondering.

Tomlin fees? From memory, accounts suggested a small profit on player registrations so I can only assume by that we in amortisation terms made a small profit on Tomlin. Will look it all up properly Monday.

Yes, 1 year into a 3 year contract, amortised to 2/3rds of £2.5m (£1.66m) so £1.9m a small amortised profit.

Whatever the fees, we didn’t sell him for £2.9m as suggested imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

You all know I love a spreadsheet.

Here’s the list of Johnson signings (ignoring loans).  31 players.  A mix of squad status.388E1465-62C8-471E-B1B4-5405E4240366.thumb.jpeg.9e140e163f4113b0f1e0b236ce675b86.jpeg

Let the debate begin.

So 4 Development ones out on loan, Hinds in the u23's, Eisa and Adelukan were never going to feature much this season I feel, their in the situation Eliasson was last season.  Tomlin was brought because of his performances on loan, no one could have known it would go backwards so much.

Out of the other 23 players, he's signed a few who haven't worked out (like most clubs) and lost money on them but then you've got Eliasson, O'Dowda (if he signs a new contract), Webster and Brownhill who will, or have the potential to, return a Profit.

31 permanents isn't too bad (don't forget he had to bulk the squad up after he took over a thin squad from Cotterill) over 5 windows when a number were brought to be developed over several seasons.  I think when you are taking our approach in buying potential to develop your always going to have an above average number who don't work out, can't settle or aren't looking like they can make the grade (you can scout players from other leagues all you want but you won't know 100% if the can make it or not until you bring them in, foreign signings especially are always a gamble).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Engvall goes to Belgium 2nd division side and has scored 7 in 17.

Lower standard - but they only paid £250K

I wonder if he'd never been here if some people would be saying look, - a Swedish International, young, playing in Belgian League 2 for a previously prestigious club (European Cup Winners in the 80's I think). Scores for fun.

 

I have to wonder what the hell went wrong with Gustav Engvall when he was here, because he certainly knows where the back on the net is.

 

I guarantee if we paid £1.5m for him now, (if the past had not happened) then not many would complain - I'd love to know the true story of Gustal Per Fredrick Engvall.

I doubt any of us ever will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SX227 said:

Engvall goes to Belgium 2nd division side and has scored 7 in 17.

Lower standard - but they only paid £250K

I wonder if he'd never been here if some people would be saying look, - a Swedish International, young, playing in Belgian League 2 for a previously prestigious club (European Cup Winners in the 80's I think). Scores for fun.

 

I have to wonder what the hell went wrong with Gustav Engvall when he was here, because he certainly knows where the back on the net is.

 

I guarantee if we paid £1.5m for him now, (if the past had not happened) then not many would complain - I'd love to know the true story of Gustal Per Fredrick Engvall.

I doubt any of us ever will.

I think going back to Sweden on loan probably didn't help, yes he got first team football but wasn't adapting to our system. Look at Eliasson, O'Dowda, Brownhill etc all struggled a bit in their first season with us but given time to settle and train with some game time their second seasons have been much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bristol is red said:

So 4 Development ones out on loan, Hinds in the u23's, Eisa and Adelukan were never going to feature much this season I feel, their in the situation Eliasson was last season.  Tomlin was brought because of his performances on loan, no one could have known it would go backwards so much.

Out of the other 23 players, he's signed a few who haven't worked out (like most clubs) and lost money on them but then you've got Eliasson, O'Dowda (if he signs a new contract), Webster and Brownhill who will, or have the potential to, return a Profit.

31 permanents isn't too bad (don't forget he had to bulk the squad up after he took over a thin squad from Cotterill) over 5 windows when a number were brought to be developed over several seasons.  I think when you are taking our approach in buying potential to develop your always going to have an above average number who don't work out, can't settle or aren't looking like they can make the grade (you can scout players from other leagues all you want but you won't know 100% if the can make it or not until you bring them in, foreign signings especially are always a gamble).  

Fair enough - but if Adel was £1m as suggested - then £4.3m on 3 players who aren't playing regularly, if at all, is madness.

You could argue - forget those 3, add on another £1.7m and buy a quality winger/striker who will play 35+ games a season for £6m?

It's a habit of spending poorly that's concerning - too many £250,000 - £1.5m 'potentials'

Why not buy a couple of £6-8 m proven players instead?

 

2p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SX227 said:

Fair enough - but if Adel was £1m as suggested - then £4.3m on 3 players who aren't playing regularly, if at all, is madness.

You could argue - forget those 3, add on another £1.7m and buy a quality winger/striker who will play 35+ games a season for £6m?

It's a habit of spending poorly that's concerning - too many £250,000 - £1.5m 'potentials'

Why not buy a couple of £6-8 m proven players instead?

 

2p

I think that was the sentiment of a list I made yesterday.

For example - Jack Hunt....could we have saved sending Zak Vyner out on loan, save £1.7m plus signing-on fee, plus undoubtedly higher wages, and said to Eros and Zack to fight it out?

We could’ve spent that £1.7m on top of the £1.5m for Eisa, and got a very different striker.  Take Weimann too, and you’re probably talking be able to get a £5m man in.

For me, it’s that sort of efficient recruitment that we lack.  It’s a bit scattergun.

Maenpaa on a free....fantastic.  Were there others that we could’ve brought in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I think that was the sentiment of a list I made yesterday.

For example - Jack Hunt....could we have saved sending Zak Vyner out on loan, save £1.7m plus signing-on fee, plus undoubtedly higher wages, and said to Eros and Zack to fight it out?

We could’ve spent that £1.7m on top of the £1.5m for Eisa, and got a very different striker.  Take Weimann too, and you’re probably talking be able to get a £5m man in.

For me, it’s that sort of efficient recruitment that we lack.  It’s a bit scattergun.

Maenpaa on a free....fantastic.  Were there others that we could’ve brought in?

Agree Dave, can't believe I'm going to (sort of ) defend LJ and recruitment again but. We were going to start the season with 2 U21's at LB maybe he/they thought to have Vyner striating the season at RB was a step too far. Pisano's injury record hasn't been great so young kids at FB may have been a worry with 2 new CB's too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

47 players in 5 windows is patently too many.

However, it is worth noting that the figure includes all loanees, all development players, all players brought with the future in mind.

Too high yes, too much churn? Most definitely but it does include all.

You say that 47 signings is too many in 5 windows but go on to explain that the figure includes all signings.........explain why you think that’s ‘too many?’        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there’s a degree here of not fully appreciating the model, or what the market is.

£1m at this level is a punt a lot of the time. It’s not as simple as saying “don’t buy the punts, and use the money for one better player” - why? Because the “better” player isn’t guaranteed either. If we had bought Diony (extreme example), that would have been £8m - so, to give a mix, Engvall, Eisa, Moore, Eliasson, Walsh and O’Dowda. It’s likely the net wage wouldn’t have been much different and we’d be relying on him coming off - the collective of the above has more net value and if 1 or 2 of the 6 come off, the strategy works.

I think the money thing is a poor stick to beat LJ with. He’s spent more money as that’s the current market - see higher up, Joe goes to Fulham as a squad player for £6m, Mousset to Bmuff for the same. We’re not playing Nicky Morgan and Junior Bent for £30k each any more...

I think when you align the strategy above and the market, the turnover/cost isn’t awful. Where I do criticise is I’m not sure as many players have developed as could - and when you’re following that strategy, that’s a must 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 is 47.

Albeit the failure of a 'development player' (whatever that is,) may not be as bad as the failure of a Pearsonalike but spending millions on the likes of Taylor-Moore is **** business. Note, too, that many of these so-called development players are in their early to mid 20s, they're not exactly spring chickens to be developed. There are also the development players we've let slip.

Loanees should not be exempt either as many come at a high price. Many lay the blame at Diony when it was patently obvious his playing style was diametrically opposite of that WeeLee deployed, so why the hell sign him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

47 is 47.

Albeit the failure of a 'development player' (whatever that is,) may not be as bad as the failure of a Pearsonalike but spending millions on the likes of Taylor-Moore is **** business. Note, too, that many of these so-called development players are in their early to mid 20s, they're not exactly spring chickens to be developed. There are also the development players we've let slip.

Loanees should not be exempt either as many come at a high price. Many lay the blame at Diony when it was patently obvious his playing style was diametrically opposite of that WeeLee deployed, so why the hell sign him?

I think you and BobbobSuperBob don’t quite understand SLs blueprint/strategy......and that’s a pity as all the transfer deals under LJ are based within that strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I think you and BobbobSuperBob don’t quite understand SLs blueprint/strategy......and that’s a pity as all the transfer deals under LJ are based within that strategy.

Is that the load of pillars ****?

I could quote several examples but the only 'strategy' the likes of Pearson might fulfill would be one designed to get us relegated.

As to players going out on development loan, how the hell do they improve given few ever come back?

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...