Red Skin

5 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

They get £150m  golden hello already.  Seems enough to me 

And yet all promoted clubs fail to compete with very few exceptions. 

5 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Championship clubs already fly as close as they can to bankrupting themselves, or distort their squads beyond repair, in an effort to chase the riches of the PL. Increasing how much money is given to a promoted team would only increase that desire to do absolutely anything possible to get there.

The FFP should take of that though.  Not saying it's works as it should, but that's what it's there to do. To stop clubs spending beyond their means. 

A club that gets promoted then relegated would effectively get the same extra income, but instead of getting it when relegated from the PL they'd get it a year early when they are promoted. 

I think it would improve competition in both divisions.  

2 hours ago, CityGill said:

I have always wondered why all premier league clubs couldn’t have mandatory contract clauses in all playing staff contracts stating that should they get relegated all players contracts would be reduced to X amount …… determined by the income of the club. 
 

It seems to be that one of the biggest justification for parachute payments is to cover wages of players after relegation. So if players under-perform they still have their PL wages guaranteed. This is at the expense of fairness of competition throughout the EFL. 

 

It's financial prudence to do so.   I don't see why the competiveness of the Championship should be compromised to support clubs that don't do this.

Any decent players that relegated clubs have are always in demand, not least by those being promoted from the Championship.  They can always generate revenue in this way and still have a very good squad compared to the rest of the Championship.  

3 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

And yet they paid 2.5 million for Josh Bowler and loaned him to Olympiakos a few days later. plus other examples of money wasted needlessly (Lingard / Shelvey).

 

My post wasn't intended as a defence of Forest's claim, but it's clear that almost every year the promoted sides languish at the bottom of the premier league and  usually get relegated.   Why change the model and make the competition fairer in both divisions? 

Parachute payments have completely undermined the championship as a competition.  They seemed to be a knee jerk response to clubs like Barnsley that collapsed after relegation from the top flight because they failed to build relegation terms into players contracts.

It's been interesting to hear some of the conversations around Forest's points deduction.  One defence I've heard is that as a club promoted they needed to buy a whole new squad of players if they were to have any chance of competing in the Premiership.  

So why not change the model?

Scrap parachute payments and instead use the money to give promoted clubs a golden hello so that can have a better chance of competing in the top flight? 

47 minutes ago, Galley is our king said:

Oh yes, brilliant idea!

Pearsons first 24 the squad was shocking, full of players who didn't give a rats ass, most of which were overpaid and needed getting rid.

Mannings first 24 the squad was motivated, there was a real togetherness. They played for the shirt and us. He also had many injured players returning so no, that comparison just doesn't work!

Fair comment, but Pearson's last 24 was with players he brought to the club (or made the decision to keep) and had built relationships with many over the a year to 18 months at least.  They been schooled in how he wanted to player for a long period.  

Any comparisons need to be heavily caveated and aren't very enlightening really.  

I don't really see the point of the thread. We can all see things aren't going well, and most of us realise the top 6 claims were nonsense so why keep banging on about it?  They just didn't want Pearson any longer.  

Can we finally just ignore the sh1te the ownership said about Pearson going?

Manning hasn't been great, that's clear, but I think it would be a fairer compare Pearson first 24 games to Manning's first 24 games tbh.  New managers trying to change what's gone on before with players that they didn't bring in. 

If couldn't handle Pearson, they certainly won't find Warnock any easier. 

3 minutes ago, Andrew_V1 said:

I wasn’t referring to pulis time with us…..

Like him or loathe him he achieved far more in the game after his spell with us than this no mark ever will

Fair enough, that wasn't clear to me.  Other posters were comparing Manning's spell with Pulis' and in my view they aren't in the same league.  

I'm not interested at success by any means, so I'll pass on Pulis. 

11 hours ago, Andrew_V1 said:

Key part of this being pulis played a style that SUITED his players

I'm really not having all this revisionism nonsense in regard to comparisons to Pulis. 

Pulis brought in injured journeyman  and under his contract he profited from the sale of players.   He was ex-gas and struggles to hide his contempt for anything Bristol City.  He was totally out for himself.   His football didn't suit OUR players, but it suited the shite he brought in.  We played much better after he was sacked and we dropped the his journeymen and played our youth.

I was more than willing to give Manning a chance, and defended his right to have a chance at doing the job when I felt he was undeservedly taking flak for the decisions of those above him. 

Given the circumstances in which he came in, I don't think he has ever been given the benefit of the doubt in anything he has done or said.  

Manning is proving hard to like, but  Pulis was hard not to hate.  I still hate the bloke.   I'm not swayed by his success either.  There are lots of successful people in this world that are ******* horrible individuals and have no redeeming qualities. 

That said Manning isn't filling me with any confidence as time has gone on.  The friends I go to the game with are more fed up than angry.  None of us are the types that boo players off or call for managers to be sacked.   I don't think he'll be sacked before next season, simply because I don't think the hierarchy are ready to admit their failings.   

11 hours ago, Andrew_V1 said:

 

19 hours ago, 2015 said:

LM wants us to be a slow possession based side

Where do you get that from?  I think that's what we are witnessing, but I'd be astounded if that is the intention when he sends the team out.  In what universe do you think a manager would set that out as a strategy?

My only experience of Manning before he joined was when we played Oxford.  They looked a really good attacking team in the first portion of that game.  They crumbled and maybe there were signs back them of Manning not reacting in game, but they moved the ball quickly and were incisive in their attacking play and could have well ahead before we woke up. 

What's this got to do with being Irish?  Enlighten me.

19 hours ago, Harry said:

Our model absolutely feckin stinks. 

Ok, I get it.  I can see the theory makes sense, but it is all about the implementation and it's less straight forward that the old skool manager model.  

However, given that's what we are doing my point is that even under perfect structure and competent people in posts (which we don't) then it is still gonna be a very bumpy ride.  

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unlike the early 2010s, we do not have a bloated, imbalanced squad with signings made by multiple managers with different philosophies and a wage bill that desperately needs to be slashed against the clock. Aging in parts.

I appreciate I've boiled it down to a very simplistic view of the DoF model, but that is in essence the strength of that approach.  You don't have a squad full of players the current manager doesn't want, and we cannot offload either.   The players are the club's i.e. DoF's players (a worry!) not any particular coach's players.  

I'm different to most fans.  I don't particularly care about being in the Premier League.  I want to see good football with local players part of that.  

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

I get what you are saying but if it really does take a relegation then Weston-Super-Mare or some other local outfit will be receiving my money.............when the club then show some sort of competency post-relegation I would be more than happy to return. I certainly won't be paying to watch Crayon Boy and the Geordie Snake (or anyone else brought in) repair the club's own massive incompetence if that's the way it pans out.

Yes, and that's the risk they took when they embarked on this.   Losing fans in the process.   Our views don't seem to count, but maybe when the attendances fall and the money starts to dry up they will take a bit more notice. 

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Neither Brighton nor Swansea got relegated to progress btw.

True, but they weren't in the Championship when the changed the model.   They'd reached the point where they were basically forced to rip things up and start again.  My point is that it's going to be very hard to make such a fundamental change and improve from day one operating in a much more competitive division.  It may not mean relegation, but at least stagnation and the inconsistency and mistakes we are seeing right now.   That's not absolving anyone of culpability for their part in what's playing out for us now, just my view that even with the perfect owners and the right personnel it still would be a difficult task to change things so fundamentally and still see progression.  You'd have to be delusional to think otherwise wouldn't you?  Oh wait... 

Nice to have a thread that broadens out the scope of the discussion.

If I understand @Harry correctly, then I think what you were saying here is that OUR implementation of the model is completely out of whack.

Personally, I still believe that the model with the director of football defining a clubs footballing philosophy (and I'm being purposely vague) and having a say in recruitment of players and coaches to implement that philosophy is the correct one. Given that we cannot outspend other clubs, then you have to believe that having thriving academy aligned to that philosophy also makes sense. In terms of transition planning - players and coaches - it really is the only sensible option.

What's becoming increasely apparent to me is that:

 1. We do not have structure correct, or competent and experienced people in place to make it work. No surprises here really, but that's all I have to say on our particular setup as I don't have the detailed knowledge that clearly some of you have.

 2. Even if we had the implementation of model correct, changing from playing style A to playing style B is always going to take time and be a slow process in terms of player recruitment - both buying and selling. Two and three year contracts to see out etc.

 3. If you look toward the academy then you are talking about an even longer period to develop the players you need to fit the new style, albeit you can fast track this to a degree by buying in talent at a later stage in their development, ideally from clubs with a similar style to what to want to move to.

 4. Then there is the question of what kind of manager/coach should oversee this transition? If it's the incumbent manager that is playing style A, they have the challenge of recruitment bringing in players for style B and they will feel unsupported and undermined. If we recruit a coach to implement style B, then that coach will not have the players in the short term to implement it.  An almost impossible conundrum to solve and be successful in the short term for either coach.  

This isn't a quick fix. Brighton and Swansea had to reach almost rock bottom before they reset. Not so sure about Brentford's journey, but they haven't had an academy to factor in so that probably accelerated things for them, with Moneyball style recruitment.

I thought the thread on how Bergkamp and the Dutch players were only considering League 1 and League 2 teams to overhaul was interesting. Given that Swansea and Brighton rebuilds happen from lower reaches too, it makes you wonder how sensible and doable it really is to try and totally deconstruct things and overhaul everything for a team in the Championship. 

Unless we get very lucky, it's gonna take time and be painful.  Probably a couple of coaches, a DoF, and maybe even a relegation to achieve if we are serious about seeing it through.  So, those posters who say they didn't sign up for another rebuild and/or keep banging on about top 6 squad etc had better find a more healthy way to adjust to the new reality than getting increasingly furious.  

17 hours ago, JP Hampton said:

He knew how QPR would play he didn’t underestimate them, it just felt like he didn’t change anything, when it was obvious what we were doing wasn’t working. And this has been a criticism of him in other games

I think your overall comment are fair, so not picking on you especially here.

With QPR compact, LM stated he felt they would get success going around but the players came up short.  The subs seemed to be a change in personnel to execute the same plan.

We did attempt some passes through the lines in the middle - Dickie always a standout for spotting a pass - but they were intercepted by QPR (I remember one from Williams in particular to set them up on a break).  We did also try a few over the top in the second half, but either the passes to over hit or there just wasn't the space.  It's not always easy to gauge from the SS how much space there is behind their defenders.  So, if the starting players weren't executing the game plan, it seems reasonable to change the personnel to actually see if others could before abandoning the plan. 

I'm the last 3 games we've won 2 games out of 3 I didn't expect to win and lost 1 to a team I'd expect to beat.  Also QPR may be down there, but in the last 6 games they are a respectable 10th in the form table. (That prob includes this game to be fair).  

The players underperformed massively yesterday, but let's have some balance.  Try not to cream ourselves when we get a decent win, or kick the cat when we play poorly and lose, eh?  Maybe we change OTIB to be OTT? 

(That's not at you @JP Hampton, you seem pretty measured in your response). 

15 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

There were loads of threads, but there were loads of reasonable counter arguments.

Some very simple, like:

• Holden was the wrong appointment
• Ashton is the devil incarnate
• the players have downed tools
• covid
• etc

So maybe it didn’t gather the momentum it might when you compare to now:

• Nige was a good appointment / popular at time of sacking
• Finances are sorted
• The hierarchy putting pressure on LM
• etc

Sometimes you can’t compare like for like, sometimes you can.

I think I will know for sure come April / May what we’ve got in LM.

I recall those kinds of threads, but not the detailed game by game analysis of Pearson's style of play and tactics.  

3 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Dont call me Silvano!!!

I don’t know if you’ve read Fever Pitch but there’s a great passage in there where Nick Hornby articulates how much simpler things were when he was younger (and remember this was the 90s it was written). Players signed for Arsenal must have been good or they wouldn’t have signed them, and why would the England manager not pick the best team -  clearly they were the best players!

As time goes on Nick got to see more football and formed more opinions. So his logic fell apart. And it wasn’t a good feeling.

My point is that Nick began to develop opinions quicker the more football he consumed, and the easier it was to consume it. And the parallel here is that if you go back even 2 years, there wasnt the same access to all games, people watching on VPN etc. it’s not necessarily a social media thing, it’s an availability thing - people see more, and right now many people would have only seen 7 LM games 5 years ago as opposed to the full amount. So, I think the increased scrutiny is a function of increased information. And that’s probably a good thing, handled properly.

I have read Fever Pitch, but can't remember anything about it.  Probably my dyslexia and the mistake with your Username!

I get your point, but we were all flying abroad for Pearson games and watching those, but he didn't seem to get the same level of analysis.   We were awful for the first 6 months under Pearson and it was only the points Holden got at the start of the season that kept us up.  I really can't remember reading thread after thread criticising him.  

I'm with the OP.  Still willing to give LM time.  It was always gonna take time, some new players, and a proper preseason.   I'm in no rush.  I've largely enjoyed the games, despite the shortcomings.   

47 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We are in an era where access to watching City extends to more than those who rock up at AG or a smaller number who travel away.  We are in an era of extreme opinion (both ways) via social media.

I rarely commented on away games until covid when they were televised, and then braving vpn airlines.

Agree.  Especially, the social media and living in echo chambers.  I guess that why OTIB seems confrontational with some posters.  (Never with yourself or Silvano).

We had social media and Robins TV  with Pearson and it didn't feel quite a full on though or focussed on Nige's management style or tactics.   Sure he got some stick, but not same scrutiny.  Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but the usual reactionary responses were about which players were shit and scapegoated for latest poor performance rather than picking apart Pearson's failings.  

Maybe people were more understanding given the club were in a state?  Which leads me back to the overriding feeling that LM's been given a hospital pass by the hierarchy (top six, front foot football, replacing a popular manager etc) so he is expected to have all the answers from day 1 by some. 

4 hours ago, gibbo7 said:

I know our club called us top 6 squad, and this might be where the upset is coming from

That, and getting rid of a popular manager has handed LM a poison chalice unfortunately.  I do feel that for a lot of posters - not all - that is colouring things.

LM isn't perfect and has undoubtedly made mistakes.  It's expected and quite correct that his selections and tactics are debated and challenged.  But following City for 34+ years I cannot recall the same level of scrutiny that LM been subject to being given to any other manager.

In the same way that we aren't able to afford the finished article in players, we aren't going to get the finished article in a manager either.  And even if we could afford them, they wouldn't work within the more realistic financial constraints the club now want to operate.  We are very lucky to get Pearson, which was probably as much to do with where he was in life as anything else.

43 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

To be fair, I think the issue was way more than Wells and Tommy. We set up in a 3-4-2-1 formation. The 2, each playing a bit to one side, were Tommy and Knight. Tommy has played as a 10 historically (when he started he was the Weimann understudy) but he wasn’t in that position last night. Issue there with that 2(+1) is there isn’t really any creativity. So you go to the 4 - and issue there was that the wide 2 of those (Pring/McCrorie) are more defenders and also that Leeds press forced them deeper. Add in that the two central (James/Williams) aren’t the most creative and you get to a point of where any chance creation is going to come from, particularly in a more considered approach.

It wasn’t Wells and Tommy together, and how we set up made it nigh on impossible to succeed, but even if we had them as a 2, I’m not sure there was enough in the team to get them the ball without a change in approach.

Ah.  As you will have gathered I'm generally supportive of LM (and any incumbent manager tbh) and if i am being generous I guess this was an attempt to get more finishers on the pitch.  Now I've been corrected on how we actually did set up, I understand the frustration of posters on here with LM's dogma.  Leeds were too quick over the pitch and in thought.  They look a promotion team.  And we were just poor in almost everything we did. 

I haven't seen us look so open and exposed as we did in that set up.  We looked much more solid after the changes and we did seem to have more time on the ball and keep it.  (More familiar 3-4-3 which they are more familiar with?  Did Leeds press just tire and they drop off?).   Maybe LM should have reacted sooner, so that's a fair criticism. 

It's apparent that the only solution for lack of creativity isn't in formations, but in the players on the pitch.  We knew we'd suffer when Scott left unless he was replaced, regardless of who the manager was.   Just hope Twine's injury isn't as bad as most fear, and Mebude can spark something. 

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Did you watch the game?  That’s not me trying to be rude, because the rest of your post is based on something that didn’t happen and creates an easy excuse for you that Manning tried something many have been asking for.  That just isn't what happened out there tonight.

I was there, but with Wells and Tommy starting perhaps my pre-match ritual influenced my perception iof what I witnessed on this occasion! 

Manning tried 2 up front today which many have been calling.  Understandable given our goal drought. (I wasn't at Coventry to see how successful this was in that game).

In doing so we weakened the midfield and left gaps for a very good Leeds team to exploit.  Our defenders did seem to dwell too long on the ball and were robbed by very quick and switched on Leeds players.  Really frustrating, but in fairness there were probably less choices of players to play out to in midfield given the change in formation with 2 up front.  (It looked like they haven't done enough work playing with 2 up front). 

It's a dilemma.  Play one up front and create fewer chances but keep the game tighter and keep control, or play 2 up front and be overrun in midfield.

Once Wells went off and we reverted to the game plan the players are now more familiar with I thought we looked more solid, and indeed created our best chance for Mehmeti. (Thought he was a really good outlet when he came on).  

The majority of the players have transitioned well to play position football - has there been some collective amnesia that has completely forgotten now we played against West Ham and Forest? 

We do need some new players that are quicker in thought and action and we have addressed that with some of the signings.  Matt James has been great, but I felt it's this kind of game (and being a man down in midfield) that really showed his limitations. 

Usual reactionary nonsense on here.  Tonight's formation didn't work against a very good Leeds side, but on the whole I still feel we are progressing.