Jump to content
IGNORED

Holloway DIG.


pillred

Recommended Posts

Seriously who gives a **** what that bitter loser has to say?

The Post incredibly employ him for his pointless views to the general interest of absolutely no one, too.

Did they ask him about his role in Grimsby’s return to non league?

Cadbury Heath gas monkey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, pillred said:

Did anybody catch the little dig at our club last night from Holloway on the EFL show? in his opinion the club treated his mate Lee Johnson badly by selling all his best players.

Not many City fans are aware of or understand  SLs sustainability agenda so why would Holloway understand it either?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, pillred said:

Did anybody catch the little dig at our club last night from Holloway on the EFL show? in his opinion the club treated his mate Lee Johnson badly by selling all his best players.

1) Holloway is an Idiot !
2) Did he mention that his mate would have been sacked years earlier had it been any other club?
3) Did he mention that his mate had been backed more than any manager in the clubs history?
4) Did he add any financial context?
5) Did I mention Holloway's an Idiot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

1) Holloway is an Idiot !
2) Did he mention that his mate would have been sacked years earlier had it been any other club?
3) Did he mention that his mate had been backed more than any manager in the clubs history?
4) Did he add any financial context?
5) Did I mention Holloway's an Idiot?

Can’t blame him for being backed more, he had to sell anyone who was ever any good and it’s not his fault the transfer fees/wages are so high. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

1) Holloway is an Idiot !
2) Did he mention that his mate would have been sacked years earlier had it been any other club?
3) Did he mention that his mate had been backed more than any manager in the clubs history?
4) Did he add any financial context?
5) Did I mention Holloway's an Idiot?

But you forgot to mention the most important thing...

 

...Holloway is an idiot ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rob k said:

Can’t blame him for being backed more, he had to sell anyone who was ever any good and it’s not his fault the transfer fees/wages are so high. 

I didn't blame him for anything, and that has nothing to do with Holloway and his moan.

But while we are there. Do you think he would have got the job if he didn't agree to the guidelines Lansdown put in place? He knew Lansdown wanted to try and make the club self sustainable, until we make considerably more money from off field sources and match day income we will sell players, plus every team is a selling team. Reid & Bryan wanted to go, can't stop that, Kelly & Webster for a combined fee of near £40m? Who turns that down? Selling players is part and parcel of Football, to keep stating it as some sort of challenge ( and that's not aimed at you) that only Johnson faced is ridiculous, Southampton have been Liverpools feeder club for years, they cope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, pillred said:

Did anybody catch the little dig at our club last night from Holloway on the EFL show? in his opinion the club treated his mate Lee Johnson badly by selling all his best players.

Read the room Mr Holloway! Ha, idiot! He has no idea how delighted City fans were that all those players were sold.

It's not as if there has been any criticism of Lansdown whatsoever in the last 12 months. Certainly not on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I didn't blame him for anything, and that has nothing to do with Holloway and his moan.

But while we are there. Do you think he would have got the job if he didn't agree to the guidelines Lansdown put in place? He knew Lansdown wanted to try and make the club self sustainable, until we make considerably more money from off field sources and match day income we will sell players, plus every team is a selling team. Reid & Bryan wanted to go, can't stop that, Kelly & Webster for a combined fee of near £40m? Who turns that down? Selling players is part and parcel of Football, to keep stating it as some sort of challenge ( and that's not aimed at you) that only Johnson faced is ridiculous, Southampton have been Liverpools feeder club for years, they cope.

No i totally agree with that - however, I’d also say that we couldn’t keep losing these players and expect to progress, when Southampton lose a player they can replace said player with 15m players, they have been able to sign Ings and VD amongst others and good coaching has meant they have increased their players value - not too dissimilar to what happened here. 
Then it’s down to recruitment.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. Couple of debatables here

How many players did LJ have sold who we could have realistically kept on to?

  • Bobby/Joe were last year of contract and weren't going to re-sign so had to go,
  • Flint could have held on to but seemingly clear he wanted to move on.
  • Webster, you just can't turn down £20m plus offers for a club our size, selling 1 player allowed us to bring in Kalas, Dasilva and Palmer if not more and improve the overall level of the squad.
  • Kelly, £13m (potentially rising to £20m) for a defender who hadn't even played a full season's worth of games for us, we could have tried keeping Lloyd but we wouldn't have been able to for long, if he wouldn't sign a further extension he probably would have been sold the following summer as he would have been 2 years out from end of contract and at peak value. You gamble a bad season or an injury significantly reducing the fee though.
  • Brownhill, well documented he had a clause in the summer window which could have seen him leave for less, however did selling Josh in January cost us a spot in last season's play offs? Possibly

So really only Flint and Brownhill are players you'd argue we could have held on to realistically 

2. Could LJ have invested less and tried holding on to players? Well after 17/18 and the departures of Joe, Bobby and Flint we already knew Bobby and Joe were off and therefore Bobby needed replacing (Weimann) and Kelly needed an alternative should he not have been ready for the amount of games he was going to have to play (Dasilva). So the question really is should the club have held on to Flint? Hard to find any City fan who said we were wrong to sell Flint and buy Webster.

You could argue we could have held onto Webster and Kelly and played a back 4 of Hunt/Webster/Kelly/Dasilva as I don't think the £2m option would have been beyond us had we not sold anyone.

Probably meant no Massengo/Nagy/Kalas/Bentley/Palmer. Hindsight and all but we'd have then faced selling Webster/Kelly in last summer's COVID market rather than the summer before.

The only one I think really would have been beneficial to holding on to would have been Brownhill (and selling in the summer had we not gone up) you risk losing millions if we don't go up but gamble on the hundred million odd we'd gain by going up. However the outcry was for a striker and we had the chance to get a Nahki Wells in blistering form at QPR. 

 

Realistically there's not much of a chance LJ could have kept hold of the best players he had to sell anyway as either contract situations forced our hand or the offers were simply too good to turn down for a club of our size.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that LJ bought into the approach: he said so at the outset. And for the most part he lived with it and got on with it. But I always felt at the time that the departures of Webster and Brownhill were slightly different and that he struggled with them more. When the likes of Kelly, Reid, Kodjia etc went it was either very early in windows (Kelly) or predictable (Kodjia - we'd already bought in his replacement in Tammy). Webster and Brownhill seemed more last minute, and harder to manage. Not saying they were wrong for the money involved, but it left us with no replacement and must have been desperately dis-spiriting for any manager charged with getting us a top 6 slot at the same time.

Edit- but Holloway is still an idiot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Rob k said:

No i totally agree with that - however, I’d also say that we couldn’t keep losing these players and expect to progress, when Southampton lose a player they can replace said player with 15m players, they have been able to sign Ings and VD amongst others and good coaching has meant they have increased their players value - not too dissimilar to what happened here. 
Then it’s down to recruitment.....

Totally agree, but they shop at a different level. 
They started years ago and have built to where there are now. They brought in VVD for £14m, they did that by selling £100m+ worth of players the year before and £46m+ the same year. The scouting is key, they have done brilliantly over the years, but they've had to. SL would look at their model and dream we could do similar. They've sold a lot of players, but they seem to get top dollar for them, but then they reinvest in more good players and go again. All about spotting players with potential to improve, train them up and make huge profit. I think that may prove harder in the near future, our academy could be vital and the value may be in spotting players even younger. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did he say it in his usual "mildly cheeky wurzel" manner that the media seem to suck up?  Said something mildly funny about taxis and coffee back in the early noughties and he's ******* Peter Kay (well, the Bristolian equivalent) ever since!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange really, coming from a person who's club directors, chairmen and managers have all benefitted personally by the sale of players.

Not sure about Holloway but, I believe Gerry Francis received a cut of 10% on transfer deals. That's not as good as the directors who lent the purchase price of about £225k for Barry Hayles. They received a 50% share of the profit on his eventual sale for £2.225M plus their initial outlay. Not bad business taking from the blue hordes.

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...