I blame Steve Coppell

[BigTone]

9 hours ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

Don't worry, he'll pull the Millwall matchday pic out again in a minute to show us all he's a superfan and we are all wrong.....

 

FWIW - you are spot on. Lansdown compromised Coppell so much within a week it was impossible for him to stay as he knew he would be overruled by Lansdown on a regular basis.

We has exactly the same with Lansdown changing fees and wages agreed by all parties (when Cotterill went on holiday) - scuppering both deals that Cotts had thought were done deals.

The constant is clear - Lansdown .

No he won't. He's no more a super fan than anyone else.

[Cidre Monita]

3 hours ago, Mr X said:

We aren't the only club though where there is a significant input from the powers above when it comes to signing players where the manager can be kept in the dark.     

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55770710

"I cannot decide if we do something in the transfer market or not," said Klopp.

Following Liverpool's 1-0 defeat to Burnley in the Premier League at Anfield on Thursday night, the German manager said "these decisions are not my decisions".

When asked on Friday to clarify what he meant, before Liverpool's FA Cup fourth-round tie with Manchester United on Sunday, Klopp added: "Of course somebody else is making the decisions. It was always like this.

"We discuss the situation pretty much on a daily basis, could we improve something or not and we make recommendations but I cannot spend the money. I never did.

"I don't want to confuse anybody. I just said what I said."

 

That is how all clubs are run, the head coach does not spend the money, he also explained how the current situation has impacted transfer goals , in and out.. But dig a lot deeper and you will find the input of Klopp from top to bottom, and a definition of his "Liverpool" . player type and football approach. He works very hard with the youth set up and has 5 or 6 players identified to bring into the first team set up. From day one he stated that was one of his aims, to have Liverpool (Klopp) players eady from internal development. There are many similarities with Pat Lam, again, I urge people to read more about what Lam is trying to achieve from top to bottom. It is everything we are not doing with the football club. We are pretending to be something we are not. It is farcical. Even Forest Green have a mission, an approach, and you get it. Might not be for you, but you at least undersatnd what they are trying to do. We say one thing and do another. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 22/01/2021 at 22:50, The Constant Rabbit said:

Don't worry, he'll pull the Millwall matchday pic out again in a minute to show us all he's a superfan and we are all wrong.....

 

FWIW - you are spot on. Lansdown compromised Coppell so much within a week it was impossible for him to stay as he knew he would be overruled by Lansdown on a regular basis.

We has exactly the same with Lansdown changing fees and wages agreed by all parties (when Cotterill went on holiday) - scuppering both deals that Cotts had thought were done deals.

The constant is clear - Lansdown .

I'll offer a small partial case for the defence on this bit.

At that time, the development and off field revenue for AG was not completed, and at that time in a transitional sense clubs were still being judged on one year FFP results.

Would doing it on the terms requested by Cotts have pushed us into one year breach and a Transfer Embargo in January 2017? I'd say it's possible, not definite but possible- we'll ultimately never know but the Punishment at that time was Fine nearly equivalent to the overspend if promoted, or Transfer Embargo in January of the following season if stayed down, all clubs submitted accounts in December 2016 to the Football League, for the final time under that system.

In the long run, it may well have served us very nicely- and that's the important thing, but I am certain that Cotts or his successor would not have appreciated a transfer embargo in January 2017 in that scenario- do you think they might, Cotts especially.

Of course, we might have with momentum, feelgood and those two deals- Maguire and Gray was it- gone straight up, problems solved!  Overspend would not have been much at all, small fine- pays off in absolute multiples!

I can certainly see both sides of the argument though, on this particular issue. A counterfactual to my point might be that had we signed those two- Gray and Kodjia up front, Maguire as the 3rd CB, say Williams as first reserve- but mix and match a bit by opposition, means no need to recruit as we did in January, which might have been enough to push the FFP question out of the equation! Maybe Fredericks stays in such a scenario too? Not done badly post leaving us has he. No need to pay off Cotts or pay Barnsley for LJ either- again reducing the losses. Hell maybe in such a counterfactual, we sign Tavernier- someone I'd have been very happy to keep- and not Fredericks and no in-out at RWB.

I actually think we began that season with a weaker and thinner squad than we came up with, which takes some doing!

Still I can see both sides, at that time- without access to the full financial data it's impossible to say, but it is possible we would have gone over and above in that scenario.