Update From The Boardroom

[spudski]

[Bedminster Born And Red]

[Bar BS3]

Other football clubs certainly don't run up debts as big as us at Cship/League One level.

 

If you can genuinely bring yourself to "thank" the board after the last few years then: wow, astonishing.

We have no debts, SL is just out of pocket himself now, having chased "our" dreams.

 

Ok, it didn't work out, but rather than jumping shit and leaving us in trouble, he is now financing the rebuild of AG, whilst taking stock, re-structuring and will no doubt go again with his chequebook out, but in a more measured, long term approach kind of way.

 

Yes, I think "thanks" are in order - or would you prefer that he sold up and bailed out...? To some Malaysian Tycoon, or some Chicken farmers from India, perhaps....?!

[Major Isewater]

I always thought there should have been a sixth pillar to represent the massive lamb shank I'm going to have should we go up next year.

"Having" lamb ! Are you on the right club forum ?

[Bedminster Born And Red]

We have no debts, SL is just out of pocket himself now, having chased "our" dreams.

 

Ok, it didn't work out, but rather than jumping shit and leaving us in trouble, he is now financing the rebuild of AG, whilst taking stock, re-structuring and will no doubt go again with his chequebook out, but in a more measured, long term approach kind of way.

 

Yes, I think "thanks" are in order - or would you prefer that he sold up and bailed out...? To some Malaysian Tycoon, or some Chicken farmers from India, perhaps....?!

He can't just get his cheque book out any more due to FFFP regs. Turnover dictates what you can spend. Hence the need for the club to go forward with a more long term approach - which appears to be slowly happening. Had O'Driscoll kept more of an eye on the "present" he may well have been the man to take us forward long term. Now it's Steve Cotterill's challenge.

[View from the Dolman]

[Robbored]

Just saw the email from the club. Overlong and not saying anything we didn't already know.

[Bar BS3]

He can't just get his cheque book out any more due to FFFP regs. Turnover dictates what you can spend. Hence the need for the club to go forward with a more long term approach - which appears to be slowly happening. Had O'Driscoll kept more of an eye on the "present" he may well have been the man to take us forward long term. Now it's Steve Cotterill's challenge.

Actually, FFP rules restrict your wage budget to a percentage of your turnover and we are currently well within our means on that score. It does not limit your transfer budget in any way, although obviously I am aware that higher transfer fees also relate to higher demands, usually.

 

Don't forget that our turnover is about to also get a healthy increase due to new lodgers, increased corporate facilities and scope for larger crowds with our increased capacity after stadium rebuild, not to mention improved facilities for revenue away from matchday.

 

 

[Drew Peacock]

Actually, FFP rules restrict your wage budget to a percentage of your turnover and we are currently well within our means on that score. It does not limit your transfer budget in any way, although obviously I am aware that higher transfer fees also relate to higher demands, usually.

 

Don't forget that our turnover is about to also get a healthy increase due to new lodgers, increased corporate facilities and scope for larger crowds with our increased capacity after stadium rebuild, not to mention improved facilities for revenue away from matchday.

 

And if they change the caterers, increased food and drink sales.

[Harry]

[glynriley]

[TRL]

[Kid in the Riot]

The average age of players brought in under SC is 28.63

 

No point in even working out what is was under SOD as we know it was far, far lower than that. I worked it out after his first 6 signings and the average was a little over 22.

 

Be interesting to recalculate SC's average in September - why have I got a funny feeling it won't be much lower than 28.63, if at all??

 

I hope Jon Lansdown reads your post Harry...may be a bit of an eye opener for him.

[RedRidingHood]

I always thought there should have been a sixth pillar to represent the massive lamb shank I'm going to have should we go up next year.

[RedRidingHood]

Couldn't drink my cider for laughing!

[GrahamC]

Of that starting team, only Williams, Pack, Jet & Wagstaff have been recruited SINCE the 'pillars' announcement. And as mentioned above, Cotterill probably wouldn't have been playing 2 of these if he had a choice!

There is no basis for this.

I know you don't like SC but since he has been in charge Williams has been a virtual automatic starter, as has Wagstaff whenever fit.

Despite form which could easily have suggested otherwise, he has also persevered with JET, starting him in all bar of his 3 games in charge and using him as a sub in those. Pack has featured in 22 of Cotterill's 25 games, starting 60% of them.

He could easily have used Pearson, Kelly (or when not suspended) Gillett far more if he was not keen on Pack, whereas the other 3 you name have played almost always when fit.

I cannot see therefore how you can draw the conclusion that he is picking them reluctantly, as it's not as if he showed any reluctance to leave his signing El-Abd out, is it?

[WolfOfWestStreet]

Just saw the email from the club. Overlong and not saying anything we didn't already know.

You sound brilliant fun! Can I come round for tea

[OneManMob]

[TRL]

I take you back to this thread...  For me nothing has changed, other than we are now re-developing the stadium.

 

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/156263-patience-we-are-on-the-right-road/

[Harry]

There is no basis for this.

I know you don't like SC but since he has been in charge Williams has been a virtual automatic starter, as has Wagstaff whenever fit.

Despite form which could easily have suggested otherwise, he has also persevered with JET, starting him in all bar of his 3 games in charge and using him as a sub in those. Pack has featured in 22 of Cotterill's 25 games, starting 60% of them.

He could easily have used Pearson, Kelly (or when not suspended) Gillett far more if he was not keen on Pack, whereas the other 3 you name have played almost always when fit.

I cannot see therefore how you can draw the conclusion that he is picking them reluctantly, as it's not as if he showed any reluctance to leave his signing El-Abd out, is it?

Hi Graham,

 

To be honest mate, this is nothing to do with how I feel about SC.  What I'm trying to show is that the average age of our starting line up is not to be held up and revered as proof of Pillar No.1 in action.  What I mean with the quoted point above is that, if Gillett & El Abd had not suffered suspensions, the starting line-up v Notts (which JL chose to highlight), would more than likely have featured both of those players - which would have pushed the age upwards over 27.

 

Prior to Gillett's suspension pre-Preston, Gillett had started 67% of league games under SC, whereas Pack had started 58%.  So, Gillett starts more than Pack, so my assumption that Gillett might have replaced Pack v Notts does hold some basis of fact.

 

I was probably wrong to example Williams over El Abd, but if El Abd hadn't been suspended, you can bet your bottom dollar one of Williams, Osborne or Cunningham would have missed out in his favour - so the point about the average age increasing to over 27 is still very valid, whichever one of these will have missed out.

[Gillies Downs Leeds]

Hi Graham,

 

To be honest mate, this is nothing to do with how I feel about SC.  What I'm trying to show is that the average age of our starting line up is not to be held up and revered as proof of Pillar No.1 in action.  What I mean with the quoted point above is that, if Gillett & El Abd had not suffered suspensions, the starting line-up v Notts (which JL chose to highlight), would more than likely have featured both of those players - which would have pushed the age upwards over 27.

 

Prior to Gillett's suspension pre-Preston, Gillett had started 67% of league games under SC, whereas Pack had started 58%.  So, Gillett starts more than Pack, so my assumption that Gillett might have replaced Pack v Notts does hold some basis of fact.

 

I was probably wrong to example Williams over El Abd, but if El Abd hadn't been suspended, you can bet your bottom dollar one of Williams, Osborne or Cunningham would have missed out in his favour - so the point about the average age increasing to over 27 is still very valid, whichever one of these will have missed out.

If you are talking about Notts County game El Abd's suspension was up by then. As for the Pack / Gillett argument it seems that SC prefers Gillett for the away games more and Pack for the home games. Probably believes that away from home Gillett is a bit more disciplined?

[Robbored]

You sound brilliant fun! Can I come round for tea

Just stating the way it is. It's called a placatory statement from the club but some of us can see it for what it actually is.

[Harry]

Hard to argue with most of that mate, although the experienced players who didn't feature heavily would have also included Carey and Harewood, and to a degree Shorey.

 

You back on BH sales duty on Saturday? I'll be in the usual place.

Hey Glyn,

 

Yes, absolutely, the "experienced players" JL made reference to would no doubt have included Carey & Harewood too.  I also say Marv was an "experienced player" not featuring much - he was on International duty a lot and was mostly an 80th minute sub due to excess traveling and fitness.  Shorey started most games when he was here, so I'd disagree on that one.

What is quite clear is that, the "experienced players" which were around early on in the season, were generally unfit, unreliable or out of form.  Those experienced players should have been the ones capable of doing the job your Nosworthy's & Wade Elliott's fulfilled later in the year.

 

As for the Bountyhunter - well, as you know, it looks very much like there will be an East End Special coming out this week.  Regarding Sales Procedure, well, I don't know the plan just yet.  I'll be around somewhere though and will try to get to one of our regular customers!!

[Harry]

If you are talking about Notts County game El Abd's suspension was up by then. As for the Pack / Gillett argument it seems that SC prefers Gillett for the away games more and Pack for the home games. Probably believes that away from home Gillett is a bit more disciplined?

Yes, his suspension was up by then.  What I'm saying is that had he not been suspended, he would have continued to start, and thus will have started v Notts.

The Gillett/Pack argument is flawed.  Pack's 15 league starts under SC are 7 at home and 8 away.

 

Anyway, this is all regardless.  The basics are, that based on all of the matches when both El Abd and Gillett were available, they were more likely to be in the starting line-up than not.  Therefore, the average age for that exampled line-up v Notts is not the all-singing, all-dancing, we're fulfilling Pillar 1 slap on the back that the club statement makes it out to be.

[Kid in the Riot]

Anyway, this is all regardless. The basics are, that based on all of the matches when both El Abd and Gillett were available, they were more likely to be in the starting line-up than not. Therefore, the average age for that exampled line-up v Notts is not the all-singing, all-dancing, we're fulfilling Pillar 1 slap on the back that the club statement makes it out to be.

That's it in a nutshell. It's quite a faux pas actually. Yep, we've got this fantastic under 24 recruitment policy and the average age of our first team is nearly 26 - doh.

[Nogbad the Bad]

That's it in a nutshell. It's quite a faux pas actually. Yep, we've got this fantastic under 24 recruitment policy and the average age of our first team is nearly 26 - doh.

 

We'll be shedding older players like Carey, Marv., Fontaine, and probably Pearson.

 

With those players gone we'll lack experience so we'll likely be signing maybe a couple out of Wade Elliott, Gillett, Nosworthy, Paterson and Barnett.

 

On top of those 2 I'd expect City to make AT LEAST 5 other new signings over the Summer, making a minimum 7 in total.

 

This 'fantastic under 24 recruitment policy' actually stated that it would be City's policy going forward to endeavour to ensure the majority of permanent signings (not all) were aged 24 or under and SC's adherence to this can only be properly put under scrutiny at the end of the next transfer window.

 

It has nothing to do with loan signings, or indeed the average age of the team at any given time, simply that City will mostly aim for permanent signings to be younger players with sell on value.

 

SC was well aware of, and apparently completely happy with, club policy regarding younger signings when he took the job so the expectation is he will build the squad with that firmly in mind.

 

Before condemning the club, or SC, let's wait and see the make up of the squad in August.

[Red-Robbo]

No point in even working out what is was under SOD as we know it was far, far lower than that.

 

 

As was the win ratio of course.

[havanatopia]

I thought it interesting that Jon referenced the fact slightly older players may need to come in to balance the squad with experience... Sounds like a remark in the past tense. Or perhaps opening the door to sign the loanies or others and, by the same token, giving tacit acceptance that SC is already doing it and will continue to do so... A slight watering down of a pillar continues perhaps?

[Rob k]

Clearly, having avoided relegation, some people need something else to moan about. Just to get themselves through the summer.

Why is it moaning?

Some of us, myself very much included, have zero faith in this board and the way they chop and change everything as they please.

Yes we avoided relegation which is good but once all the loans go back were back at square 1 with expectation raised for next season.

[downendcity]

No point in even working out what is was under SOD as we know it was far, far lower than that. I worked it out after his first 6 signings and the average was a little over 22.

 

Be interesting to recalculate SC's average in September - why have I got a funny feeling it won't be much lower than 28.63, if at all??

 

I hope Jon Lansdown reads your post Harry...may be a bit of an eye opener for him.

 

 

It would have been great to boast the lowest average age of any of the relegated teams!