Silvio Dante

Didn’t think you were, and I think the view I have is the same - it’s players from other clubs and a fair amount of loans. I intuitively don’t like those as they’re not “yours” so I don’t think it works as a strategy long term but sometimes, obviously, needs must. That also chimes with what the Ipswich fan was saying on the other thread about how McKenna liked to work (players from top other academies who had lost way) and that Manning was cut from the same cloth (and tbh that makes sense - on a broad basis there will be more quality in Arsenals academy than City’s) None of this makes him a bad manager, but it is pretty clear that he doesn’t at face value tick the requirements the board gave - use of academy, front foot attacking football (although that’s a cliche) etc. I’m finding the Foxpunter stuff helpful as well as it both explains and also probably reinforces my concerns over inability to adapt. You then add in our Ipswich friends observation of Liam needing time to implement and we’re probably back to where we seem to circle back to a lot - he might well be decent ultimately but he’s clearly not what was positioned. Rod for own back etc,

You know I love your nitpicking Dave (and I will qualify this by saying I looked at Wiki so source may not be reliable)! I think (and for everyone it will differ) that clubs of the size of Oxford and Dons rarely sign players to go into their academy - simply enough in the words of Mick Hucknall “monies too tight to mention” - so most signings you have to assume are for the first team squad unless by specific exception. Similarly someone like Odonkor has been kicking around the first team squad for years at Oxford (sure I remember him playing at 15 or similar), so although he’s “academy” as soon as they’ve played 5-6 games then they tend to be seen as a first team squad player at that level. However, I totally acknowledge that they may have had an equivalent of an Omar Taylor-Clark who played in the first team then dropped back down - but this is probably less likely at a lower level simply because the squads are smaller (and hence arguably it should be more easy to play academy players) My broad brush was looking at players who he’d given debut to then played more than 1-2 games (again, per wiki so normal caveats apply) and that was a zero. Without in depth knowledge of all players at Dons or Oxford (and I am totally prepared to take a different view from anyone with more knowledge of those clubs) that seemed to be a sensible metric considering club size/nature. Again, not saying good/bad (wholly plausible both Dons and Oxfords academies are skipfires), just flagging the oddity.

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/video/interviews/manning-previews-terriers-trip/ Not the press conference but the internal Dave Barton piece. Nothing majorly new here (and nothing wrong with the interview from LMs side) but you have to ask why the media team would highlight this quote. Considering the noises made by JL/BT about how the progress is expected, describing it as “the start of a journey” is a bit tin eared tbh. Again, nothing wrong with the quote in the interview context.

One of the current oddities about Manning to date is that notwithstanding his reputation AFAIK he’s not brought through any academy players to the first team at either MK Dons or Oxford. Noting that a “pathway” relies on either ability (the academy players are good enough) or necessity (we have nobody else), if that doesn’t change here then I think it’s a bigger threat to the academy than the broader restructure - the academy does the right thing currently and there is no reason to change that. But its success relies both on a good youth system and a manager with the courage to use it - even if that means you “trial” players in the first team that might be ready.

Wells signed a new contract last Christmas. I think he’s got a year after this season.

Have a read of this. Foxpunter mentioned he thought Manning was a “Lead Blast” in his post and has now posted this re Emery….

They should have looked on the OS.

More seriously Dave, nail on head. Our Ipswich supporting friend suggests Manning will need to be given time to bring his own players in and get them used to his methods. If this is the case (and I’d reiterate it’s a hell of a gamble to put this trust in a man who hasn’t coached at this level and was sacked at the level below a year ago), then the Technical Director should resign. Because he’s either recruited the wrong manager/coach, or he’s been recruiting the wrong players who can’t go over to the new coach. For me, in order to retain the philosophy and not run the risk of ending up with another collection of players who the next manager may want, it needs to be minimal additions (2-3) in key areas for Manning to deliver. Or someone’s got things wrong.

Cunningly, we have a Tecknikal Director ready to remain in post.

Nah, sorry, that’s nonsense (in the nicest possible way). He had shed loads of draws in his first season and was given time to get it right - I’ve got a mate who is an Ipswich ST holder who is of that opinion. And Cheltenham and Fleetwood are a far different proposition to even Preston and Millwall. He also walked into a Cook team that had failed. To say McKenna was under more pressure than Manning is to totally misjudge the scenario here, as your second paragraph confirms. Mad Mick had run out of road with you. Pearson hadn’t here. I get Ipswich fans like Manning because he came through the ranks and coached there, but to suggest he’s under less pressure than McKenna was is patently nonsense as he’s walking into a far better scenario. It’s just the fact you thought you rightfully deserved more rather than the reality of the respective positions that drives that.

I think your last line is the exact issue. There is neither the time nor the patience to build Rome at this club, at this time. Thats not Liams fault - but he wasn’t recruited on the basis of building Rome. He was recruited- as articulated to the fans - of kicking on this “top six” squad. The fans are being asked to allow another “revolution” to the ownerships latest idea of what brings success - and it might - but I don’t think he’ll get the time and patience you suggest he needs, particularly when he’s picking up the team at a higher level where there is less ability to “experiment” and he was already taking over a side within striking distance of the playoffs. He may get it right, given time, but if it takes 18 months going backwards to go forwards I’m not sure that’ll be accepted and I’d envisage he’ll be long gone before then. Harsh, but as I said, the McKenna/Manning scenarios are apples and oranges.

Bingo. Worse players at the level below you’re playing against, massive opportunity and time to get it right. Plus Ipswich were at a very low ebb historically so the time to get it right was there. A bit apples and oranges in terms of scenario

I think that also plays into the Lansdowns thinking. If average players can play that way under McKenna, then surely they can under his mate? Means we can do it (a la Luton) on the cheap. What that doesn’t tell you is whether McKenna is simply a far better manager than Manning. Which is the possible X factor they’re missing - just aping what someone else has done is unlikely to lead to success

Without making this a Man U thread, Luke Shaw is their (and Englands) first choice left back. McTominay I think is Man Us top scorer and starts most weeks. Lindelof is also a regular starter. Martial is the only one there but he’s in or around the squad - and over a 5 year period, they could have moved players on but it’s likely they’d have been given new contracts which probably undemines your argument. Put it this way - this is the Man City side we faced next round. Only 4 players remain.

Has been for a while, probably low footfall. I can’t imagine loads of people visit on a non matchday and as staff will be working weekends it allows the club to give them the time off.

As I understand it McGuane is out of contract end of season but Oxford hold a years option.

I’d say 5 of a starting team remaining 5 years later is pretty high and likely unusual tbf.

I actually think the appointment of Manning is down more to Ipswich and seeing how they’re doing as opposed to how Luton did. Hear me out. For whatever reason, the Lansdowns like Ashton. They followed his philosophy and it got them their best day (the Man U game). They brought him back after he originally left and for them - if not the fans - there was regret that he went. So, he rocks up at Ipswich and after a period a young coach with minor playing experience is appointed (but a good reputation in academy football). It works. Spectacularly. Players form more than the sum of their parts and it’s good football - McKennaball. The Lansdowns start thinking if they’d only held their nerve, they could have had that. However, there’s a problem. They have a popular manager, without the players to play the same way. But they really want McKennaball, because in a lot of ways, it proves they were right. But they can’t get McKenna so who can they get? They identify a coach who is great friends with McKenna, who has links with Ipswich and makes the noises they like - Manning. It doesn’t matter to them that the squad isn’t set up to play the way that McKenna does, and that doing so will take some time - if Manning can even achieve it - but they want McKennaball. And now. So, they see their preferred candidate (for a likely transition end of season when the squad can be reshaped) doing well. And they panic. The city squad won’t go down - but Oxford might go up, and if so, they lose their man. And there is logic to that but they’re not brave enough to say it, as there is the hostility to Ashton whose actions made the appointment desirable to start with. So, you end up with the hamfisted logic for sacking. And that, IMO, is why you end up where we are.

Again, no it isn’t. Because the main expenses are wages. And someone who costs nothing (such as Kal) in transfer fee costs about 1/2m a year in wages. Reducing expenses means lower wages, Ipso facto harder to keep hold of players who can earn more elsewhere. Again, I get what you’re saying but it’s far too binary. You have to sell players to evolve the team. The problem comes when you don’t replace them.

I get what you’re getting at but these posts always miss logic. If we don’t sell some of the players mentioned then a) We end up in the shit financially b) Some of the other names who do well don’t get game time Case in point - people liked Flint and Webster. We don’t sign Webster without selling Flint, and when we do gather players you end up with the financial shitshow Nige sorted out. Now, if you want to have a conversation about not investing the latest monies attained from Bournemouth to further improve the team and the ownership seemingly willingly sabotaging our season, then thets a worthwhile conversation….

Yeah the Scott sale was huge. Not just losing him but the rowing back as articulated by Phil Alexander (there’s a man I’d like to hear more from) of the plan with/plan without. To answer the question (although I sniff an agenda) We keep Scott - flirting with playoffs, potential to make top 6. Expect around 8th We sell Scott and make the right additions (2-3 signings) - broadly similar We sell Scott and make no real signings - outside playoff chance mainly due to the togetherness of squad but heavily reliant on no injuries and a decent slice of luck. Expect around 12th. Essentially the legs were cut off the old manager. But that’s well trodden ground and I’m not sure what bringing it up does now.

And nor did I…

Stop being obtuse. He has a reputation for developing youth but per wiki (which may be wrong) has not brought through one player from an academy in his managerial career. That may be due to a paucity of talent but is at least an oddity.

Dont get me wrong I agree with you but that’s not the message from on high. Without going over old ground in depth, had we spent a smidgen of that £25m after we got it on a couple of players this season could look very different right now.

Totally. I was making the point that being an academy coach and playing academy players in the first team are different things. Liams said he’ll be looking to the academy first but he’s not done that in two years of management - it’s an oddity and one I didn’t think Wiki looked right on.