Steve Cotterill article

[Portland Bill]

1 minute ago, Robbored said:

Why is stating facts  ‘comical’ Bill? 

Because they aren’t facts!

[Robbored]

19 minutes ago, Redpool said:

Uhhh when has he actually given any of those a run of games? Bar Moore who we then shipped out to Blackpool...

Semenyo, you are correct on.

It soon became obvious that those players mentioned weren’t quite upto the required Championship standard. No point in playing them if they struggle. That’s no good for their confidence or any good for the team.

[Portland Bill]

4 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Ummmm..........

Why do suppose City have so many youngsters out on loan?

So they are away from LJ and can learn the game properly from coaches who know how to do this. Coaches who don’t like to throw players under the bus!

[Robbored]

4 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

Because they aren’t facts!

Look in the record books and you’ll see that they were all involved in the matchday squad.

[The Coach]

6 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

So they are away from LJ and can learn the game properly from coaches who know how to do this. Coaches who don’t like to throw players under the bus!

I am a bit concerned that we bring back Walsh who has had a wonderful season to date at Coventry, and un coach all the work he has learned during his time away..

[Robbored]

10 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

So they are away from LJ and can learn the game properly from coaches who know how to do this. Coaches who don’t like to throw players under the bus!

Not quite right PB.

They're out on loan to gain valuable experience of competitive league football or ‘miles on the clock’ if you prefer. LJ said that Walsh ‘needed a run of 50 games’ which he knew he wasn’t quite ready for at City. 

 

[Cowshed]

3 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Look in the record books and you’ll see that they were all involved in the matchday squad.

That is subjective.

Lee Johnson has less academy players in his starting XI than Steve Cotterill. did.

Lee Johnson is clearly signing far more players than Steve Cotterill. That blocks pathways into the XI. Opportunities through the so called pathway nave been significantly reduced.

Lee Johnson keeps changing the way he approaches his football which means he has to sign increasing numbers of players to meet his changing football.

As a development model its seriously flawed. 

The strategy if there ever really was one has been bunged out of the window. 

[Selred]

3 hours ago, Robbored said:

LJ at least gives youngsters the opportunity. Vyner, Eisa, Semenyo, Moore, Walsh to name just five.The fact that they aren’t quite Championship quality yet is why they they went out on loan to gain experience in competitive league football.

He doesn't. We bring other players in over them and complete block their path. None of the players got a fair run of games, the only one you could say does is Massengo. 

Other clubs like Norwich, Leeds etc have kids playing all the time, we don't. 

Eisa played 5 games for us. Walsh ran the game against Stoke and was hardly seen again. Morrell always looked tidy and again ripping it up in league one. They have to come in next year, not be blocked by the likes of Nagy and Smith. 

Compare LJ against other championship teams who actually play kids and you'll see he cannot be claimed to do so. 

[Joe hicks]

If i remember correctly, Steve Cotterell didn't agree with having an under 23 side, and only wanting to sign a player that's good enough for the first team squad. Completely against the philosophy of nurture that the club is trying to run by. 

Cotterell has never been a coach who brings through youth players, he's an old fashioned type manager, buys and sells etc. His success in league one has to be admired, but not achampionship coach unfortunately, surely he'd be employed at some other club if he was. 

[Robbored]

4 minutes ago, Selred said:

He doesn't. We bring other players in over them and complete block their path. None of the players got a fair run of games, the only one you could say does is Massengo. 

Other clubs like Norwich, Leeds etc have kids playing all the time, we don't. 

Eisa played 5 games for us. Walsh ran the game against Stoke and was hardly seen them. They have to come in next year, not be blocked by the likes of Nagy and Smith. 

Compare LJ against other championship teams who actually play kids and you'll see he cannot be claimed to do so. 

It obviously depends on the quality of the youngsters.................

Some kids like Massengo have oodles of natural ability and a very tender age. Rooney was exactly the same as  a youngster at Everton. So was Giggs at Man United 
 

 

[Robbored]

16 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

That is subjective.

Lee Johnson has less academy players in his starting XI than Steve Cotterill. did.

Lee Johnson is clearly signing far more players than Steve Cotterill. That blocks pathways into the XI. Opportunities through the so called pathway nave been significantly reduced.

Lee Johnson keeps changing the way he approaches his football which means he has to sign increasing numbers of players to meet his changing football.

As a development model its seriously flawed. 

The strategy if there ever really was one has been bunged out of the window. 

I’m kinda speechless Cowshed.........

You’re normally a very decent poster but you’ve not reached your normal quality.

[Selred]

6 minutes ago, Robbored said:

It obviously depends on the quality of the youngsters.................

Some kids like Massengo have oodles of natural ability and a very tender age. Rooney was exactly the same as  a youngster at Everton. So was Giggs at Man United 
 

 

So LJ doesn't give youngsters chances because they are not good enough. 

He either does, but then the stats vs other clubs argue against this. Or the kids aren't good enough, which means he doesn't give them chances. 

It can't be both. 

[Rich]

14 hours ago, hodge said:

Kelly had a good enough season Bournemouth were willing to part with £13m odd for him, Jay had also had an excellent season which kept Lloyd out, he was 19/20 when playing for us and had the 19th highest minutes count for a LB in the champ of 48 left backs, he went from playing 662 minutes the season before to playing over 2300.

Bobby definitely counts as a player LJ developed, whether he was at the club already or not he had his best season by a mile under LJ after being at a point where most people were indifferent to his departure  if he was released to being sold for a potential 8 figure fee.

Bournemouth have taken a gamble based on the lads potential, which is great. I was only pointing out that he'd had a bit of a mare in the latter part of the season. He might well have played more minutes and, was 19th in the order of games played by Left backs in the championship, quite a good achievement if every team in the championship played with two left backs. The reality was that, he started more games (26) but must have been subbed in quite a lot of them because, he only managed to amount 25 full games in all championship matches based on minutes played and I know he was subbed several times. As a note of what I mean, he was only selected to play, once in the final ten games and only seven times in the last half of the season (23 games) as opposed to 19 in the first half of the season.  His selection would show that he had a good first half of the season, followed by the mare, which you get as a youngster.

[Trueredsupporter]

So LJ doesn't give youngsters chances because they are not good enough - If you have a squad of 30+ its pretty obvious they will be getting less chances regardless.

[Portland Bill]

3 hours ago, Robbored said:

Not quite right PB.

They're out on loan to gain valuable experience of competitive league football or ‘miles on the clock’ if you prefer. LJ said that Walsh ‘needed a run of 50 games’ which he knew he wasn’t quite ready for at City. 

 

Walsh ‘learnt’ the game at Everton, we signed him for one million pounds and put him straight into our squad ( and he came on and played well ) away at Man City. He is plenty good enough for us, he has real quality.  

The only reason he is on loan is because LJ doesn’t know how to use the players he signs.

LJ is like his dad, he over complicates things by wanting to tinker continuously with his team, and signs too many players. 

As I have said previously, the only time in his 4 years here that we have looked a good side,  is when the team picked itself because of injuries. As soon as the squad became bigger again he messed about with selection and he went back to his tinkering. 

SC proved that a settled side works, when will this manager

[Robbored]

I take it from your one eyed replies that you’re a member of the anti Johnson brigade................
 

Regardless of  reasoned and logical points from several posters you continue to not accept that LJ has been doing a decent job essentially with one hand tied behind his back.

[Cowshed]

6 hours ago, Robbored said:

I’m kinda speechless Cowshed.........

You’re normally a very decent poster but you’ve not reached your normal quality.

I have reached my own prediction for this season. There were no ex academy players in Mr Johnsons starting eleven.

Does signing lots of players and having a large squad make it harder for young players to break into the first team? Does altering systems make it harder for young players to break into the first team? 

The answers are is obviously yes and frequently yes.  

As a development model it can be looked upon as flawed.  

[Robbored]

3 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

I have reached my own prediction for this season. There were no ex academy players in Mr Johnsons starting eleven.

Does signing lots of players and having a large squad make it harder for young players to break into the first team? Does altering systems make it harder for young players to break into the first team? 

The answers are is obviously yes and frequently yes.  

As a development model it can be looked upon as flawed.  

An alternative view is that the whole strategy of developing youngsters is actually working pretty well.................. but it’s still too early for the football club to be greatly benefiting.

The likes of Vyner (he was injured)  Moore, Walsh and Smith had all been impressing at their loan clubs and no doubt that Brian Tinnion is keeping a close eye on their progress and reporting back.

Another consideration is SLs ‘sustainability’ policy plays a huge factor in buying these youngsters relatively cheaply and sending them out on loan to gain valuable experience.We all know that the majority of them don’t reach the required Championship standard and eventually move on often at a profit. It’s all good business for the club.

Those that do make it Kelly and Brownhill for example get snapped up by bigger clubs which results in weakening the team but puts significant dosh in the coffers,

 

 

 

 

[NickJ]

Isn't it amusing that Robbored spends so much time and energy criticizing the 2 most successful City managers of this century.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I think Walsh and Morrell will be better for their loan experience. Should benefit them and hopefully us in the medium term.

I wonder about the wisdom of loaning out Moore though. I also think that Adelakun and Eisa's development will have stalled by not being loaned sooner. Say January 2019,  then a full season if necessary in August 2019.

Of those 3, Moore is one I have quite high hopes for. Him and Kalas as a pairing will enable us to play a higher line, on paper at least. Both are younger and not bad on the ball...neither Williams or Baker fit the bill in terms of ability to play in a medium to higher system.

Baker because he isn't stylistically suited, Williams due to age. 

Or Moore, Kalas and AN Other in a back 3. Maybe Kalas could be the more restrained of the 3, albeit he still has reasonable technical ability.

[wayne allisons tongues]

Any side can go out and buy youngsters and develop them. The topic went the way of who did SC develop. Various players were mentioned and then were dismissed due to them being bought developed by other clubs first.

Now we are having Massengo, Smith, Moore mentioned who were all developed by other clubs and they now count as developed. Can’t have it both ways.

Morrell Semenyeo and Vyner are our 3 youth team players developed over time. At the moment all 3 are nowhere near our first team.

We had  keeper in O’Leary who was good enough and we signed a new keeper and loaned him out.

At present we have no one in our squad who was developed by LJ, he’s been here 4 seasons now and we still have no one from our youth squad coming through. Any we have are not good enough at the moment, so what have we been doing for the last 4 years in the player development area apart from buying other teams youngsters who then block our youngsters route to the team.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 27/04/2020 at 05:46, NickJ said:

It sort of was.

Cotterill was appointed on his terms. His terms were/are he's an old school manager, with responsibility for transfers, the lot. I recall when he was appointed, him saying that he was a Manager, not a coach, he was very clear about that.

That was a deviation from policy, but the cub were desperate, we were headed for the 4th division.

It worked.

Towards the end of the title winning season, he continued with what he'd been doing, identifying a small number of additions to strengthen the team for the following season. The team, not the squad, or "the group" in namby pamby modern football parlance. Unlike before and particularly since, Cotterill's policy so far as I can see was to only buy a player if it improved a specific position.

However much some don't want to accept it's true, it is true that Maguire and Gray had been identified, and deals agreed. At that point somebody decided they didn't like SC having that much power, so changed the rules.

A weaker person than Cotterill would have shrugged shoulders and got on with it. It then did become a disagreement and clash of personalities. With who? I know what SC thinks of one individual who played a key role. Not saying his view is necessarily right, or wrong. I haven't heard the other persons explanation.

Agree with a decent chunk of your post, though the two bolded bits I'm not so sure on.

All true what you say, and it worked in December 2013 to May 2015- in spades! My doubt about that comes from whether there is room for those sorts of managers at decent to high levels now.

Because buying, selling and replacing players when a manager is sacked, or moves on to bigger things can be very costly.

Clubs like a structure, a base- managers have less control over transfers in a lot of cases than they once did for these reasons.

Swansea pulled it off brilliantly with a succession line beginning with Martinez, then Sousa, Rodgers, Laudrup. Arguably a few months Of Monk and latter stages of Jackett too. 

I digress. My other question would be, and tbh unsure I need to bold it, would Cotts have brought into the need to buy, sell and trade? It's a fact of life in the Championship.

Even if we had signed Maguire and Gray, we would barring promotion that season or the season after, have needed to seriously consider selling them.

How would Cotts have taken that?  Let's not forget the sale of Kodjia largely helped to fund matters (profit on his sale was a big help with FFP). 

Again, managers who cannot accept this necessity of trading, selling to reinvest some etc- and as I say it's commonplace in this League, but in fact a lot of clubs verbatim, everywhere. Well I see them having less of a future at decent levels these days.

Here's a scenario. Cotts can sign who he wants, we go over FFP and get a transfer embargo. 

How does Cotts take that?

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more point on the Cotts thing. One for people to wonder about.

These are our accounts from 2015/16, and at that time it was judged on one year as part of the transitional arrangement for what we have now.

As we can see we were £1m below the limit- who knows if Maguire and Gray push us over and get a transfer embargo in 2016/17?

Here we look at the 2015/16 figure. This is rounding of course but again, could Maguire and Gray on the terms Cotts had agreed, have pushed us over, pushing us into embargo?

Interested in @wayne allisons tongues thoughts on this- the 2015-16 is a relevant figure here. Over £13m and stay down, at that time meant a transfer embargo- possibly from January 2017 as accounts for that season submitted to EFL in December 2016.

For a bit of context, our entire Player Amortisation for that season was a shade under £2m. Our entire wage bill, inclusive of Social Security and Pension Costs etc- this was about £17.43m.

This transfer embargo would be lifted the following summer if and only if, clubs demonstrated they were within or under limits for the existing season.

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

An alternative view is that the whole strategy of developing youngsters is actually working pretty well.................. but it’s still too early for the football club to be greatly benefiting.

The likes of Vyner (he was injured)  Moore, Walsh and Smith had all been impressing at their loan clubs and no doubt that Brian Tinnion is keeping a close eye on their progress and reporting back.

Another consideration is SLs ‘sustainability’ policy plays a huge factor in buying these youngsters relatively cheaply and sending them out on loan to gain valuable experience.We all know that the majority of them don’t reach the required Championship standard and eventually move on often at a profit. It’s all good business for the club.

Those that do make it Kelly and Brownhill for example get snapped up by bigger clubs which results in weakening the team but puts significant dosh in the coffers,

 

 

 

 

You have not read my posts thoroughly. I have posted about the academy. Bristol City have no players from its academy in its XI, or products on the XI's bench. That by any standard is poor. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Robbored]

8 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

You have not read my posts thoroughly. I have posted about the academy. Bristol City have no players from its academy in its XI, or products on the XI's bench. That by any standard is poor. 

So.....Reid, Bryan and Kelly don’t qualify? 

Sure, there are no City academy graduates are featuring but that just reflects the quality of players currently in the City academy. 
 

[NickJ]

38 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agree with a decent chunk of your post, though the two bolded bits I'm not so sure on.

All true what you say, and it worked in December 2013 to May 2015- in spades! My doubt about that comes from whether there is room for those sorts of managers at decent to high levels now.

Because buying, selling and replacing players when a manager is sacked, or moves on to bigger things can be very costly.

Clubs like a structure, a base- managers have less control over transfers in a lot of cases than they once did for these reasons.

Swansea pulled it off brilliantly with a succession line beginning with Martinez, then Sousa, Rodgers, Laudrup. Arguably a few months Of Monk and latter stages of Jackett too. 

I digress. My other question would be, and tbh unsure I need to bold it, would Cotts have brought into the need to buy, sell and trade? It's a fact of life in the Championship.

Even if we had signed Maguire and Gray, we would barring promotion that season or the season after, have needed to seriously consider selling them.

How would Cotts have taken that?  Let's not forget the sale of Kodjia largely helped to fund matters (profit on his sale was a big help with FFP). 

Again, managers who cannot accept this necessity of trading, selling to reinvest some etc- and as I say it's commonplace in this League, but in fact a lot of clubs verbatim, everywhere. Well I see them having less of a future at decent levels these days.

Here's a scenario. Cotts can sign who he wants, we go over FFP and get a transfer embargo. 

How does Cotts take that?

Your post where I have bolded, I agree.

But the point is, Cotts was brought in on his terms. The part of my post, which you have bolded, which says Cotts when he was first appointed  "saying that he was a Manager, not a coach, he was very clear about that"  is key.

Having achieved beyond all expectations, Cotterill deserved better than to have the rug taken away from him. The rules were changed in a way which were underhand and unfair, IMO, and what is more, there appears to have been no attempt, when it began to go wrong, to repair things and offer the support which he deserved and he was clearly asking for, albeit maybe not in the most appropriate way. I think the ending reflected very badly on the people behind it.

 

 

[Robbored]

7 minutes ago, NickJ said:

But the point is, Cotts was brought in on his terms. The part of my post, which you have bolded, which says Cotts when he was first appointed  "saying that he was a Manager, not a coach, he was very clear about that"  is key.

Having achieved beyond all expectations, Cotterill deserved better than to have the rug taken away from him. The rules were changed in a way which were underhand and unfair, IMO, and what is more, there appears to have been no attempt, when it began to go wrong, to repair things and offer the support which he deserved and he was clearly asking for, albeit maybe not in the most appropriate way. I think the ending reflected very badly on the people behind it.

Not quite correct Nick.

SC was appointed having agreed to SLs development strategy  at interview and the reason he was replaced was because he ultimately reneged on what he’d previously  agreed.

No doubt that SL felt very aggrieved and seriously let down by SC when he came asking for funding. SL lost all trust in him to implement his development strategy.

[NickJ]

30 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Not quite correct Nick.

SC was appointed having agreed to SLs development strategy  at interview and the reason he was replaced was because he ultimately reneged on what he’d previously  agreed.

No doubt that SL felt very aggrieved and seriously let down by SC when he came asking for funding. SL lost all trust in him to implement his development strategy.

How do you know what SC agreed to?

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

So.....Reid, Bryan and Kelly don’t qualify? 

Sure, there are no City academy graduates are featuring but that just reflects the quality of players currently in the City academy. 
 

No. They have left.

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

Sure, there are no City academy graduates are featuring but that just reflects the quality of players currently in the City academy. 

 

Reflects a shifting intent. 

Its been a significant time since there have been no academy products on the bench or in the XI. We have a Bristol City FC with basically no local players playing for it.  

A changing intent is the large squad size. Its nature means less opportunity.

I will technical points. Successful development models incorporating their academies very very frequently develop players to a model of play. They also recruit players to that model. 

Bristol City under Lee Johnson cannot do this as they have no model to work to. Lee Johnson buys clubs in the bag for styles of football. This has to lead to larger squads to cover the shifting systems, leading to young players opportunities to progress being blocked.

Players in the academy are being developed to play how? Well they would have to be exceptional to meet the ever changing demands of Mr Johnson's football. Mr Johnson has multiple central midfield options costing millions and given Mr Johnsons own remarks these players are not meeting the ever changing demands either.

[wayne allisons tongues]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One more point on the Cotts thing. One for people to wonder about.

These are our accounts from 2015/16, and at that time it was judged on one year as part of the transitional arrangement for what we have now.

As we can see we were £1m below the limit- who knows if Maguire and Gray push us over and get a transfer embargo in 2016/17?

Here we look at the 2015/16 figure. This is rounding of course but again, could Maguire and Gray on the terms Cotts had agreed, have pushed us over, pushing us into embargo?

Interested in @wayne allisons tongues thoughts on this- the 2015-16 is a relevant figure here. Over £13m and stay down, at that time meant a transfer embargo- possibly from January 2017 as accounts for that season submitted to EFL in December 2016.

For a bit of context, our entire Player Amortisation for that season was a shade under £2m. Our entire wage bill, inclusive of Social Security and Pension Costs etc- this was about £17.43m.

This transfer embargo would be lifted the following summer if and only if, clubs demonstrated they were within or under limits for the existing season.

Didn’t we buy Kodja that summer so him and Maguire cancel each other out basically fee wise. Gray was available for 4m and we don’t know who would of been released if we had signed him.  Also if we had signed him on a 4 year contract  that would  of been 4m over 4 years so would of still been in.
 

All I know is the fees were agreed with the clubs, and someone then tried to renegotiate after SC went on holiday. Not sure how much they wanted to save even if it was a 200k, club were still prepared to bid for them.

After SC left club signed 3 high earners on loan in Tomlin Pearce and Matthews so money was available. Also signed O donnell and Golbourne on permanents along with Gladwin also on loan so money was available.