ExiledAjax

7 hours ago, OliOTIB said:

Rotherham obviously confirmed, Huddersfield look down and out. 

Birmingham have improved, and have to play huddersfield tomorrow in a HUGE six pointer, then have to play in form Norwich, who still have the play offs to play for. Expecting that to come down to the final day.

Shef Wed have West brom and Sunderland, two tough games.

Argyle have Millwall away, and Hull at home. Two difficult games, The Den is a tough place to go regardless of form of Millwall.

Still potential for Huddersfield to stay up thanks to a better GD than Wednesday - if they win tomorrow, could still be in it.

Money On?

I said this a week or so ago and I don't think much has changed.

"Birmingham's last game will likely have nothing on it for Norwich, and they may even rest up ahead of the playoffs.

Huddersfield have a horrid last two games. Fail to beat Birmingham and I think they're in big trouble.

But the massive variable is, as you say, that game between Huddersfield and Birmingham. If that goes the other way then Huddersfield probably stay up and Birmingham go down."

I'd keep my money in my pocket personally - but I always do.

So it confirms Leicester's promotion right, as they can't be caught by both Leeds and Ipswich?

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

In Brum’s case it appears that they want Mowbray to come back, hence the interim appointment of Rowett.  Who knows, Mowbray may decide (or have it decided for him by medical people) that he can’t come back.  But Brum are waiting to see how Mowbray gets on first.

I honestly don’t know why a similar approach couldn’t be taken, either let Fleming take over like he did in covid, or realise they needed an interim.  Well, I retract that last statement, I know why…it was an excuse to lever him out.  They picked their moment (after their first attempt failed). Don’t forget they sacked Rennie, Euell immediately with Nige and then Fleming as Manning appointed.  But the main thrust of it is not the sacking it’s how they handled it, in particular the comms to the fans.  That sums up the decision makers at the club.

I had nothing to do with Manning, apart from some fans pushing it onto him.  Manning should be judged on what he does.

The length of contract remaining at the point of illness influences things as well. Making a few assumptions here but say Mowbray and Pearson were each told "you'll be too ill to work for the next 4 months". Well 4 months out of Mowbray's 2.5 year contract is less significant than 4 months of Pearson's remaining 8 months (at the time).

So Birmingham would have had a harder time justifying a termination of Mowbray's contract on that basis. In our case we'd be saying "look, you're not capable of fulfilling 50% of the remaining contract" that radically changes things, and could permissably be a factor in the decision to terminate.

I'm not saying any of the above is "right" or wrong, but it's a summary of part of the legal position.

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

What, like Birmingham have with Tony Mowbray…….can be done.

Can be done, but doesn't have to be done.

It is legally justifiable to terminate a contract of employment if the illness/incapacity of the employee is likely to make performance of the employee's duties either impossible or radically different.

Whether or not a dismissal is justifiable depend on many factors. It's an area of law that is very complex, open to interpretation, heavily influenced by case law, and very very very dependent on the individual facts of each case.

But there's far from a blanket prohibition on ending an employment contract for health reasons.

Late to this. Just listened. Probably don't have much new to add but I'll give my thoughts.

God I'd forgotten how long he can talk after just saying "Hello". Although fair enough he admits he rambles, and Allardyce more than gives him a run for his money.

On leaving us: "Get the exit clause [in the contract] watertight" and was it? "Yes". And there's confidentiality clauses (of course there are). So he can't tell us the official reasons that he was given, but we can assume he's been "looked after" in the settlement.

But he can talk about what the club have already said in public - hence he can mention the deconditioning point and the results. It does not look good for the club that they gave reasons in public not given in private. Sounds as well like Pearson is a bit less litigious than old "pint of wine" Allardyce. Allardyce is clearly very well acquainted with the LMAs legal team!

That means there may still be more to the story than we know, even after this interview.

I love the bit on "success" and how it's not necessarily just trophies and wins. Absolutely true in all walks of life.

There's an absolutely top example of the diversity training kicking in with the "him OR her" when talking about the man OR woman in the middle. Very enjoyable to hear that, made me smile.

Finally, I'd like to apologise to Nigel for ever calling him a curmudgeonly old man. Allardyce is a curmudgeonly old man. Good lord the size of the chip on that bloke's shoulder.

10 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

If Pearson had wanted to push it, there's a massive question in terms of whether the club followed their obligations under the Equality Act, although that would depend if his back issue is something that'd last for 12 months or longer...

Perhaps, but there are circumstances where you can dismiss someone due to ill health if you can justify it. It's a complex area of employment law though.

18 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think the problem is that, however many players you sign, there's always a risk of an injury crisis. Admittedly we are quite prone to them though!

For me, a lot depends on some other questions

1) Are Murphy and Stokes part of the squad next season?

2) Is Knight-Lebel seen as a long-term squad option rather than a short-term bench filler?

3) Is Backwell, Seb Palmer-Houlden, Yeboah or anyone else going to be becoming part of the squad?

4) Can we get Naismith, Atkinson and Benarous fit and playing regularly?

5) Will Conway stay?

 

In theory two new additions could take us to around 27 players and that could be enough. Certainly many more than 28 and the squad starts to be over-filled with players who aren't playing if there isn't an injury crisis and that can be a bad thing. 

I think two players is enough if there are no departures beyond James and King, we're confident on Atkinson and Naismith's fitness and four of JKL, Murphy, Stokes, SPH, Benarous, Backwell and Yeboah (or others) are ready to be squad players. But if we're not able to get the numbers up through those players who are missing or not ready, two won't be enough. 

I think what I am trying to say is that I think we need to concentrate on raising the average ability of the squad, or perhaps better to say shrink the gap between our best players and our worst (importantly by raising the floor rather than dropping the ceiling).

Essentially trying to have it so that if we do get injured the players that come in are of a similar ability to those that are injured.

Hopefully that reduces the drop off in performance as much as possible, so ideally giving a smoother season.

Very theoretical, and obviously hard to actually deliver, but it's where I'd focus on depth and quality rather than raw number of bodies.

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

we can’t afford for our no9 or no10 to fail

Well. Shit.

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Good to hear Knight describe Bird yesterday too.

I am pretty keen to see these two reunited in our midfield. 

7 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

You know I’m going to agree with you about Mehmeti!!

Very good point, and to slightly link to another thread, although I think recruitment has been much improved in recent years the January “in the building” business for that month (Twine. Medube, Murphy) was poor for various reasons.

A part of me wonders how much of that was due to having to recruit a different “profile” of player from under Pearson - we can talk all we like about club identity but Liam inherently wants - ideally - different players from Nige.

I wonder how much teething problems in recruitment arose from that, and it’s hopeful to assume that’s resolved in the summer - the chance of a “miss” increases with change in manager as it’s setting different exams for the recruitment team.

It's a pretty profligate strategy from me though. 

I go back to Afobe for an example. We signed a very good player, an ambitious signing, hell maybe even the fabled "marquee" signing. He started brilliantly scoring and even seemingly rejuvenating another expensive yet failing signing (Palmer)...then injured.

Now, I'd not suggest we should have signed a "spare" Afobe, but that's the kind of transfer disaster we at least need to think about trying to mitigate.

Ps. I mentioned Mehmeti especially for you.

@Silvio Dante and @Davefevs I think we'd also need to allow for failed transfers. Although we've maybe been a little better over the last few windows, generally I'd guess that at least 1 in 3 transfers are "failures" or don't succeed to the extent hoped. For every Dickie and Sykes there's a Mehmeti* or Mebude.

Therefore really, to give us a hope that two work out, I'd say we'd need net 3 incoming.

Unless of course Tinman has absolutely nailed this window already and the shortlist is absolutely infallible.

*he might have had a couple of good games recently, but this summer we need immediate success, not a season and a half of getting used to the idea of actually passing the ball every now and then.

4 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Don’t disagree overall but I think what’s generally being pitched is a bit of a “like for like” - two major “ins” just equalises the two major “outs”.

In which case no, I don't think two will be enough. 

We've suffered twice this season, once when shifting manager and style, and once where we had an injury crisis.

That second lull (which chronologically was first) can be protected against somewhat by having a broader squad. I think that's what we need to take us up from the band in 8-14th to that in 5th-10th.

Just now, Silvio Dante said:

The irony there is that I’d envisage we’d have to pay a minimum of £3m for Twine and at least £15k a week, and whoever is buying Conway would expect to pay a minimum of £3m and £15k a week.

So, on those sums, it’s back to the squad being as it is broadly.

(Don’t disagree with the general thrust of argument but two quality signings that markedly improve us will be a bit more than that IMO)

Agree on both those figures for those two.

I'll just say that £15k is about the max we have been paying over the last couple of seasons. It's probably about what our top earners are on. We might stretch a bit towards £17k for someone really special, but more than that and I think we're at our limit.

So, if our limit is therefore players of the quality of Vyner, Knight, Twine - then it's about getting more of that standard in. Improve the depth of the squad and the breadth of the quality. 

Go from a strong first 15 to a strong first 17. It could be enough to just get us the 10 extra points we need (just 3 wins and 1 draw) to be in that playoff mix in 12 month's time.

4 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

The broader question is that if it’s two signings whether that gives us enough to make a dent in the top six. If we assume we retain Williams but not James/King, and also assume we lose Conway, then we’re pretty much at a zero sum game (Bird for James, new 10 for Twine or Twine, new 9 for Conway).

Yes, we then have SPH and Stokes as young players to augment the squad but there aren’t any others obviously coming through.

As Bird for James can be argued as like for like, Twine for Twine is obviously like for like and the new 9 for Conway is going to be like for like broadly, then the question really is - are the current squad (as it’s not going to be markedly improved) good enough to give us what we want, and sub question, how does that play to the “his players” narrative

(For avoidance of doubt if Liam gets success without “his players” but adjusting to the squad he has then it takes away a major concern).

I think two properly ambitious and quality signings would be enough. 

But, I don't think this is the summer to sign "ones for the future" (especially given we already have Stokes, Murphy, and Bird).

If there ever was a time to go a little harder and spend two lots of £3m and £15k a week on some absolute class, it's now.

2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I think there are many ways to do it. Miss 5 games in a row and you get your ticket deactivated for one game for example. Losing the seat would only happen following lots of periods of missed games. Pretty sure it's Brighton that does this. 

If what you're trying to do is get people to use the seat, then incentivise that rather than punish the opposite.

Maybe a 1% discount on next season's ST for every game attended this season. Allows for a STholder to earn up to a 23% discount, and every STholder would earn something, even if they only attended a single game.

This also protects some of the income the club receives. Stripping someone of an ST creates a bad feeling between them and the Club, maybe they don't buy another ST, maybe they persuade someone else not to renew in protest. The club might lose that ST, and as we've not got a waiting list, nor a huge queue for POTD, we're relatively unlikely to recoup it elsewhere.

I'd be really interested to see whether Brighton actually see any impact from a policy such as you say they have.

I think they need to get enforcement of the current rules and Laws sorted before a few new ones get added.

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Not just results but improved, intent and performances in 3 if not 4..

I don't think the Swansea result e.g. would've had people rushing back, this six game run has had 3 if not 4 positive performances too and that can inspire hope.

Nah. We've seen plenty of runs where we've played ok but had bad results, and fans get angsty. I've been told enough times that "the only stat that matters is the scoreline". 

I don't think most fans go much deeper than the scoreline.

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Fair play to the late splurge!

The club must be so happy that we've managed to put a little run of results just at the right time.

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

We had to make Vyner one of our highest paid players to extend his time here.

Which Tommy, and Tommy's agent, will know. They'll also know that strikers get paid more than CBs. Yes Tommy is a contract below Vyner in his "contract cycle", but I'm sure he'll be asking, quite fairly, to be one of our top paid players.

20 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

As would I, but as a bit of devils advocate here if he wasn’t one of our own would we be so bullish? The fact is that if you take out the penalties Tommys scoring record this season has been pretty poor (debate/discuss the reasons why) and there is an argument he’s regressed. I don’t think a Scotland U21 cap adds any real value so if we were looking at a player who say, played for Stoke and had Tommys record this season pre penalties would it be a deal many of us would be that keen on?

(FWIW I do think he’ll have suitors, I do think he’ll go but in view of the above I’m not sure we’re getting top dollar, particularly at this contract stage)

I should clarify - my post was meant as a cold statement of fact rather than an argument for us to move heaven and earth to re-sign Tommy.

He has a good enough record, and market conditions (ie a lack of young out and out strikers with a decent record) mean he will get another club without issue, but I don't think that necessarily means we should offer him. Yes he's a Taunton boy, and believe me I love us having academy products in our team, but there will be other options.

A 21 year old striker who's scored roughly a goal every 225 minutes for two seasons (noted penalties) will have absolutely no issue at all getting a contract at a Championship club. 

Any club that feels they can give Tommy the right service will be queuing up for him.

I'd be surprised to see him stay tbh.

Frazer was shit, almost felt like she'd not read it. Debbonaire was much better.

Crouch's bit quoting the PL submission to the FLR was exceptional.

Largely a bunch of grandstanding, and some of the MPs who spoke were clearly just there for the banter and didn't have any idea about football.

But it was interesting, and hopefully some of the amendments we've suggested get accepted.

4 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Explains why she was wearing their abomination of a shirt, election year.

Yes.

To be fair, she spoke pretty well and was more impressive than her government counterpart Lucy Frazer.

However, she made several claims saying that the Rovers owner was a good owner, ran the club well, and that Rovers were good for the community. That's a shame, and I expect her to be strung up before the privileges committee by noon tomorrow.

Lying to the House is very serious.

6 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Is that Darren Jones?

Thangam Debbonnaire (sp?)

Rovers are currently getting a worryingly large number of mentions in the second reading of the Football Governance Bill (because the MP for their area is shadow DCMS Secretary).

52 minutes ago, Markthehorn said:

No one really thought about how subjective everything is in football unlike in others sports where the decisions are more black and white (and generally decisions get accepted as a result)

I've long said that it's the Laws that are the issue. VAR just exposes those issues. 

It's an objective tool that is layered on top of subjective Laws, and it doesn't fit.

The Laws haven't been rewritten to accommodate a game where VAR exists. Until they are there will be a chance of VAR getting the flak when it's just imposing the Law to the letter.