Who You Prefer Over LJ?

[Superjack]

9 hours ago, RUSSEL85 said:

I think it could do if we went up under Warnock because you could hardly sack him could you 

Well we sacked Cotterill.

Anyway, Warnock has basically stated that he just wants a last "hurrah".

[NickJ]

3 hours ago, Alessandro said:

I win? How old are you?!

Richards was a loan signing made perm in Jan, under SC. Therefore in SC's list of signings. Simple.

Elliott was a loan signing (by SC) made perm under SC. Therefore a SC signing perm signing. 

With your logic, we can take Tomlin, Kalas, Dasilva, Palmer etc signings off LJ’s perm list then - because I’m pretty sure you would have counted them as both loans and perms on your list.

Just because a player was at the club on loan, they return to their parent club, and it still costs money on transfers/fees and goes on the accounts to make them permanent, therefore it is a signing. 

How odd to say I win. I didn’t know it was a competition - anyway, I’ll leave you to sit there adjusting the facts, with your fingers in your ears saying “I win”. Well done, you’ve won sounding like a sad little man!

 

 

I notice you haven't responded to El-Abd, presumably as you recognize I am unequivocally correct on that one.

I don't think many would agree that Wade Elliott should count as 2 players by being first a loan and then permanent, and I don't think many would agree a player is a Cotts signing simply because he extended the contract of that players loan, but still. On that daft logic every player whose contract was extended, permanent as well as loan, would count as a Cotts signing, and ditto for Johnson. It's just a ludicrous argument.

You are right, Tomlin, Kalas, Dasilva, Palmer only count as one signing each, not once each for loan and permanent.

To examine your original claim again:

Not only in the two seasons before we went up under SC did he make 30 plus signings (makes LJ’s transfer turnover almost look frugal) I suspect as a result of those signings our wage bill was easily top 6, if not top 2 or 3 of league one, at that time. 

I have shown that in fact in that period "before we went up" Cotts signed 18 players, not even your dodgy maths can get it anywhere near "30 plus" and in his entire time here Cotts signed 26 players. Even your own dodgy maths has proved yourself wrong.

If you are going to make claims that before getting promoted Cotts made 30 plus signings, when even your own dodgy maths can only get to around 20 in that period, I would suggest that you should check your facts first.

I am sorry that your millenial sensitivity takes offence to inoffensive comments such as "I win", but the fact is, you are and were wrong.

[Alessandro]

8 hours ago, NickJ said:

I notice you haven't responded to El-Abd, presumably as you recognize I am unequivocally correct on that one.

I don't think many would agree that Wade Elliott should count as 2 players by being first a loan and then permanent, and I don't think many would agree a player is a Cotts signing simply because he extended the contract of that players loan, but still. On that daft logic every player whose contract was extended, permanent as well as loan, would count as a Cotts signing, and ditto for Johnson. It's just a ludicrous argument.

You are right, Tomlin, Kalas, Dasilva, Palmer only count as one signing each, not once each for loan and permanent.

To examine your original claim again:

Not only in the two seasons before we went up under SC did he make 30 plus signings (makes LJ’s transfer turnover almost look frugal) I suspect as a result of those signings our wage bill was easily top 6, if not top 2 or 3 of league one, at that time. 

I have shown that in fact in that period "before we went up" Cotts signed 18 players, not even your dodgy maths can get it anywhere near "30 plus" and in his entire time here Cotts signed 26 players. Even your own dodgy maths has proved yourself wrong.

If you are going to make claims that before getting promoted Cotts made 30 plus signings, when even your own dodgy maths can only get to around 20 in that period, I would suggest that you should check your facts first.

I am sorry that your millenial sensitivity takes offence to inoffensive comments such as "I win", but the fact is, you are and were wrong.

In your frothing excitement to win, you've not really thought about what you've written here, but thanks for winning the argument for me.

With your numbers, over 2 windows before being promoted, SC signed a whole new squad. 18.

Steve Cotterill - average number of 1st teams players signed 26 over 4 windows = 6.5 - 6.5 x 2 = That's, how did you phrase it "A manager with trust in his own judgment would not need to sign the equivalent of an average of more than a whole team every single season." - oh dear, that quote didn't age well. 

LJ's average number of first team per window ratio (using your logic Nick of loan players signing permanent counting once)?

59 players over 9 windows = which is an average of 6.55. And what was your quote about Lee Johnson? "demonstrating I'd say his eye for quality players rather than the current manager's preference for quantity" Oh dear again.

To conclude: It seems that you have the old rose tinted glasses here and that in fact, SC and LJ, despite you using it as a stick to bash LJ with, have the same average per window. 

 

 

 

 

 

I win

[Robbored]

3 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

In your frothing excitement to win, you've not really thought about what you've written here, but thanks for winning the argument for me.

With your numbers, over 2 windows before being promoted, SC signed a whole new squad. 18.

Steve Cotterill - average number of 1st teams players signed 26 over 4 windows = 6.5 - 6.5 x 2 = That's, how did you phrase it "A manager with trust in his own judgment would not need to sign the equivalent of an average of more than a whole team every single season." - oh dear, that quote didn't age well. 

LJ's average number of first team per window ratio (using your logic Nick of loan players signing permanent counting once)?

59 players over 9 windows = which is an average of 6.55. And what was your quote about Lee Johnson? "demonstrating I'd say his eye for quality players rather than the current manager's preference for quantity" Oh dear again.

To conclude: It seems that you have the old rose tinted glasses here and that in fact, SC and LJ, despite you using it as a stick to bash LJ with, have the same average per window. 

No point debating with a Nick - he’s never mistaken or wrong............

[NickJ]

42 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

In your frothing excitement to win, you've not really thought about what you've written here, but thanks for winning the argument for me.

With your numbers, over 2 windows before being promoted, SC signed a whole new squad. 18.

Steve Cotterill - average number of 1st teams players signed 26 over 4 windows = 6.5 - 6.5 x 2 = That's, how did you phrase it "A manager with trust in his own judgment would not need to sign the equivalent of an average of more than a whole team every single season." - oh dear, that quote didn't age well. 

LJ's average number of first team per window ratio (using your logic Nick of loan players signing permanent counting once)?

59 players over 9 windows = which is an average of 6.55. And what was your quote about Lee Johnson? "demonstrating I'd say his eye for quality players rather than the current manager's preference for quantity" Oh dear again.

To conclude: It seems that you have the old rose tinted glasses here and that in fact, SC and LJ, despite you using it as a stick to bash LJ with, have the same average per window. 

 

You are wrong again.

I am right, Cotts didn't replace more than a team every season, that's why he had 8 new signings (we call that - less than a team) before 2015/16.

And as said, Cotts had to make drastic changes when he arrived to remedy the previous **** ups.

You may claim that Johnson had to make drastic changes when he arrived; the difference is he makes drastic changes every window, whereas there were windows where Cotts, happy with his judgment, made relatively few changes.

Furthermore, in general Cotts used relatively few players (not even you could dispute that), many of his signings were backups to what Cotts knew was his strongest and settled team.

Whereas Johnson chops and changes every week like he's some sort of XBox gamer, because he clearly doesn't know his best team and indeed has no clear strategy.

 

But I will just keep going back to your fundamentally incorrect claim which I originally corrected.

"Not only in the two seasons before we went up under SC did he make 30 plus signings (makes LJ’s transfer turnover almost look frugal) I suspect as a result of those signings our wage bill was easily top 6, if not top 2 or 3 of league one, at that time."

Wrong. Before we were promoted, Cotts had signed 18 players, nowhere near "30 plus", not even your dodgy maths can refute that.

I win.

[Lrrr]

Neil Critchley appointed Blackpool boss

[Alessandro]

3 hours ago, NickJ said:

You are wrong again.

I am right, Cotts didn't replace more than a team every season, that's why he had 8 new signings (we call that - less than a team) before 2015/16.

And as said, Cotts had to make drastic changes when he arrived to remedy the previous **** ups.

You may claim that Johnson had to make drastic changes when he arrived; the difference is he makes drastic changes every window, whereas there were windows where Cotts, happy with his judgment, made relatively few changes.

Furthermore, in general Cotts used relatively few players (not even you could dispute that), many of his signings were backups to what Cotts knew was his strongest and settled team.

Whereas Johnson chops and changes every week like he's some sort of XBox gamer, because he clearly doesn't know his best team and indeed has no clear strategy.

 

But I will just keep going back to your fundamentally incorrect claim which I originally corrected.

"Not only in the two seasons before we went up under SC did he make 30 plus signings (makes LJ’s transfer turnover almost look frugal) I suspect as a result of those signings our wage bill was easily top 6, if not top 2 or 3 of league one, at that time."

Wrong. Before we were promoted, Cotts had signed 18 players, nowhere near "30 plus", not even your dodgy maths can refute that.

I win.

I guess this is why @Robbored is right, there is no point when you move the goal posts:

You wrote above: "I am right, Cotts didn't replace more than a team every season, that's why he had 8 new signings (we call that - less than a team) before 2015/16"

What you actually wrote earlier: "A manager with trust in his own judgment would not need to sign the equivalent of an average of more than a whole team every single season."

"Average" - being the key word that you've neatly missed out - you know what that means, don't you? Over 4 windows SC averaged 6.5 signings. 6.5 x 2 windows in a season = 13 players = MORE THAN A TEAM. You're incorrect.

Further to that, your point is even more incorrect given that in the one full season (both windows) SC had as a manager 14/15 he made 11 signings in total that season. That's a team, by the way. You're incorrect again.

He may not have signed 30 plus before he went up - but it actually doesn't remove the fact he had the virtually same average number of signings a season as LJ has had, therefore debunking another of your false claims that "demonstrating I'd say his eye for quality players rather than the current manager's preference for quantity".

So you are incorrect on both fronts and it is very debatable at best (as I said before, taking nothing away from his achievement) to re-write history and say he was either not backed or got promoted on a shoe string budget. 

Finally, as you seem to have shifted your argument again, you wrote "Cotts had to make drastic changes when he arrived to remedy the previous **** ups" - well using that logic, we can excuse LJ's first two windows or so to make drastic changes to the SC side that was sat, in the championship relegation zone, having not won in 7 games, won only 4 in 26 games, with a goal difference of -23. 

[NickJ]

5 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

I guess this is why @Robbored is right, there is no point when you move the goal posts:

You wrote above: "I am right, Cotts didn't replace more than a team every season, that's why he had 8 new signings (we call that - less than a team) before 2015/16"

What you actually wrote earlier: "A manager with trust in his own judgment would not need to sign the equivalent of an average of more than a whole team every single season."

"Average" - being the key word that you've neatly missed out - you know what that means, don't you? Over 4 windows SC averaged 6.5 signings. 6.5 x 2 windows in a season = 13 players = MORE THAN A TEAM. You're incorrect.

Further to that, your point is even more incorrect given that in the one full season (both windows) SC had as a manager 14/15 he made 11 signings in total that season. That's a team, by the way. You're incorrect again.

He may not have signed 30 plus before he went up - but it actually doesn't remove the fact he had the virtually same average number of signings a season as LJ has had, therefore debunking another of your false claims that "demonstrating I'd say his eye for quality players rather than the current manager's preference for quantity".

So you are incorrect on both fronts and it is very debatable at best (as I said before, taking nothing away from his achievement) to re-write history and say he was either not backed or got promoted on a shoe string budget. 

Finally, as you seem to have shifted your argument again, you wrote "Cotts had to make drastic changes when he arrived to remedy the previous **** ups" - well using that logic, we can excuse LJ's first two windows or so to make drastic changes to the SC side that was sat, in the championship relegation zone, having not won in 7 games, won only 4 in 26 games, with a goal difference of -23. 

I'd worry if I were you having Robbored as an ally.

Lots of detail in among your verbose reply, in an attempt to divert away from the fundamentally incorrect claim you made (can see why Robbored is your ally) and I really cannot be arsed to analyse transfers to decimal points, so once again I'm just going to return to your original, fundamentally incorrect claim which I corrected:

"Not only in the two seasons before we went up under SC did he make 30 plus signings (makes LJ’s transfer turnover almost look frugal) I suspect as a result of those signings our wage bill was easily top 6, if not top 2 or 3 of league one, at that time."

Wrong. Before we were promoted, Cotts had signed 18 players, nowhere near "30 plus", not even your dodgy maths can refute that.

 

 

[Alessandro]

12 minutes ago, NickJ said:

I'd worry if I were you having Robbored as an ally.

Lots of detail in among your verbose reply, in an attempt to divert away from the fundamentally incorrect claim you made (can see why Robbored is your ally) and I really cannot be arsed to analyse transfers to decimal points, so once again I'm just going to return to your original, fundamentally incorrect claim which I corrected:

"Not only in the two seasons before we went up under SC did he make 30 plus signings (makes LJ’s transfer turnover almost look frugal) I suspect as a result of those signings our wage bill was easily top 6, if not top 2 or 3 of league one, at that time."

Wrong. Before we were promoted, Cotts had signed 18 players, nowhere near "30 plus", not even your dodgy maths can refute that.

 

 

Verbose, it was actually to the point using evidence to back those points up. A diversion tactic by you no doubt to hide away from your 4 or so incorrect statements. I wrote above, "He may not have signed 30 plus before he went up" - OK then = 18 players over 3 window before we were promoted, average 6 a window, average 12 a season. More than a team. "A manager with trust in his own judgment would not need to sign the equivalent of an average of more than a whole team every single season." Clear enough?

As you clearly don't have anything else to say and don't even want to debate your 4 incorrect statements and the fact that on average SC and LJ has signed the same number of players a window i'll leave you with your rose tinted glasses on and save the rest of the forum this dull chat.

[NickJ]

4 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

Verbose, it was actually to the point using evidence to back those points up. A diversion tactic by you no doubt to hide away from your 4 or so incorrect statements. I wrote above, "He may not have signed 30 plus before he went up" - OK then = 18 players over 3 window before we were promoted, average 6 a window, average 12 a season. More than a team. "A manager with trust in his own judgment would not need to sign the equivalent of an average of more than a whole team every single season." Clear enough?

As you clearly don't have anything else to say and don't even want to debate your 4 incorrect statements and the fact that on average SC and LJ has signed the same number of players a window i'll leave you with your rose tinted glasses on and save the rest of the forum this dull chat.

So you accept that your original claim of "30 plus" was incorrect and the correct figure was, as I said, 18.

Good, that's all I was looking for. It's quite a big difference.

[Alessandro]

13 minutes ago, NickJ said:

So you accept that your original claim of "30 plus" was incorrect and the correct figure was, as I said, 18.

Good, that's all I was looking for. It's quite a big difference.

Good and you accept your several statements were incorrect. All I was looking for. 

[Ska Junkie]

No offence chaps but could you take it to DM please? Reading bickering comments isn't particularly entertaining. It's a bit 'my dad is bigger than your dad' to be honest.

Thanks.

[Alessandro]

2 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

No offence chaps but could you take it to DM please? Reading bickering comments isn't particularly entertaining. It's a bit 'my dad is bigger than your dad' to be honest.

Thanks.

Fair enough, apologies mate and to everyone else bored of it. 

[Wolf Island]

Pre-contract with Big Mick to join after the euros. 100% certain he would get more out of this squad.

[Riaz]

14 minutes ago, Hare Island said:

Pre-contract with Big Mick to join after the euros. 100% certain he would get more out of this squad.

Mick McCarthy is that it? last season turning ipswich into relegation candidates?

Had Adam Webster but wasnt able to turn him into a premier league player??

Stick with LJ thanks

[Wolf Island]

2 minutes ago, Riaz said:

Mick McCarthy is that it? last season turning ipswich into relegation candidates?

Had Adam Webster but wasnt able to turn him into a premier league player??

Stick with LJ thanks

Proven ability to manage big players with big egos. Unlike LJ. Ipswich got relegated as soon as he left, says something about the job he was doing on a shoestring there.

[Carey 6]

I'd love Allardyce or Hughton. I don't think either would immediately be out of depth if they were to take us up like Warnock and McCarthy would be - Two managers I'd still take over Johnson.

 

[Kid in the Riot]

12 minutes ago, Hare Island said:

Proven ability to manage big players with big egos. Unlike LJ. Ipswich got relegated as soon as he left, says something about the job he was doing on a shoestring there.

He did do a good job on a shoestring budget, however entertaining football it was not, and I thought that was the main issue for some with LJ... MM also regularly lost the plot in interviews and eventually with the Ipswich fans so not sure people would like that very much either.

Aside from that, I don't see him as someone that SL would like to work with.

Finally, one could argue that Ipswich/McCarthy act as a cautionary tale to what can happen when a manager that is achieving decent results is pushed out after a number of years and not replaced properly. Something that has twice happened under SL's stewardship after DW and GJ...

[old_eastender]

40 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

He did do a good job on a shoestring budget, however entertaining football it was not, and I thought that was the main issue for some with LJ... MM also regularly lost the plot in interviews and eventually with the Ipswich fans so not sure people would like that very much either.

Aside from that, I don't see him as someone that SL would like to work with.

Finally, one could argue that Ipswich/McCarthy act as a cautionary tale to what can happen when a manager that is achieving decent results is pushed out after a number of years and not replaced properly. Something that has twice happened under SL's stewardship after DW and GJ...

The cautionary tail l am sure comes into SLs retinance to drop LJ, but if he doesn't act we will have tossed away a great chance of making the play offs. We are only going in one direction under LJ now, and its not forwards! 

[Wolf Island]

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

He did do a good job on a shoestring budget, however entertaining football it was not, and I thought that was the main issue for some with LJ... MM also regularly lost the plot in interviews and eventually with the Ipswich fans so not sure people would like that very much either.

Aside from that, I don't see him as someone that SL would like to work with.

Finally, one could argue that Ipswich/McCarthy act as a cautionary tale to what can happen when a manager that is achieving decent results is pushed out after a number of years and not replaced properly. Something that has twice happened under SL's stewardship after DW and GJ...

Entertaining football at City is a myth, I’ve seen plenty of dire football including over the past few months. I’d gladly trade non-existent aesthetics for success!

i also am sceptical that SL would go for him but really wish he would rather than go for someone already at the club or another up and comer.