City Miss Out On Yet Another Youth Target, Woe Is Us.

[redcherryberry]

Forest set to bid 350k for Grimes......

[chipdawg]

Absolutely right.

We did some very good things last summer, Williams and JET in particular were good bits of business and Wagstaff and Pack were ok.

But the answer has to be a blend, with 4 senior professionals leaving this summer it is not unreasonable to add some more experienced players as well, though I'm anticipating the usual response from some when Cotterill signs anyone over 25.

For the record his only three permanent signings so far are 29, 26 and 20, by the way.

I will say though that we need to still appear to be a club that provides a route from the youth to the 1st team. While we can't have a team of 21 years olds, we must keep providing opportunities to those with talent

[Major Isewater]

Forest set to bid 350k for Grimes......

So in fact he's not actually gone anywhere yet so we are beating up on the board who could (although unlikely ) unveil said player as one of ours WHEN the transfer window opens ?

[spudski]

Discuss football, Spud? You are using the alleged "missing" of some young player who we have no idea of whether he'll make it or not as yet another cudgel to bash the management with and live up to your Otib name.

As we don't know who Cotterill will bring in and who genuinely is on the radar, why not wait until the Summer is over before drawing big conclusions from one youth player.

If we line-up in August with a team of over-30s Pulis-style journeymen, I may well agree with you and change my board name to the Depths of Even More Despair!!!

If you actually read my posts...you will see they are about recruiting 'the right players'...and I actually want SC to do well...but unfortunately you seem to be one of those posters that wants too see divide amongst supporters.

 

Why is it that certain forum users can only see negatives in posts if a topic discusses opportunities missed.

How is that bashing the board or manager or club?

 

We can all see the club are doing better...but there is nothing wrong in discussing such topics, without being negative.

 

Obviously you just look at my user name and judge every post by that.

 

Read the posts mate..and you might just get it...

 

At least some on here talk about bettering the club instead of just bashing forum users...

[glynriley]

So in fact he's not actually gone anywhere yet so we are beating up on the board who could (although unlikely ) unveil said player as one of ours WHEN the transfer window opens ?

 

I think the point a couple of posters have made, is we have watched this lad for a while but failed to make a move, and now appear to have missed the boat.

 

Who knows why we haven't, if he's as good as is being made out maybe we have missed out. Time will tell I suppose.

 

It opens up the question as to what Keith Burt is doing these days though. I see someone posted earlier that having a director of football should help stop these things from happening. Well, we've got one and it hasn't. The next casualty?

[spudski]

I think the point a couple of posters have made, is we have watched this lad for a while but failed to make a move, and now appear to have missed the boat.

 

Who knows why we haven't, if he's as good as is being made out maybe we have missed out. Time will tell I suppose.

 

It opens up the question as to what Keith Burt is doing these days though. I see someone posted earlier that having a director of football should help stop these things from happening. Well, we've got one and it hasn't. The next casualty?

The problem I understand fella... From what I've been told....so hear say...is that SC told Burt the players he wanted. Burt Allegedly brought El Abd in.

 

If he is 'Director of football'...it should be the other way round...him telling the manager what we need.

 

DOF's are for running the Club...Managers/coaches are for running the first team. They SHOULD work under the directive of the DoF.

[Red-Robbo]

If you actually read my posts...you will see they are about recruiting 'the right players'...and I actually want SC to do well...but unfortunately you seem to be one of those posters that wants too see divide amongst supporters.

Why is it that certain forum users can only see negatives in posts if a topic discusses opportunities missed.

How is that bashing the board or manager or club?

We can all see the club are doing better...but there is nothing wrong in discussing such topics, without being negative.

Obviously you just look at my user name and judge every post by that.

Read the posts mate..and you might just get it...

At least some on here talk about bettering the club instead of just bashing forum users...

Follow your own advice and read MY posts. I never accused you of not wanting the club to do well.

You've taken an apparent failure to land some unproven 18-year-old as an excuse for going on about the club having no "long-term plan" again - as well as saying you find Cotterill's comments "strange".

If saying "why don't the club grow a backbone rather than be dictated to by someone on a three-year contract" isn't bashing the management then I don't know what is.

Why not wait and see what the Summer brings?

[SecretSam]

The most successful models (eg Lyons) work by having a DoF who, together with the coaches - including the first team coach - agree in conjunction with the Board the players that they need.  The Board tells them they have "x" money, the coaches (Etc) agree what they need, the DoF identifies the players who tick the boxes, using scouts, etc, and then they go and get them.  And they agree how much they will spend, and stick to it.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

The problem I understand fella... From what I've been told....so hear say...is that SC told Burt the players he wanted. Burt Allegedly brought El Abd in.

 

If he is 'Director of football'...it should be the other way round...him telling the manager what we need.

 

DOF's are for running the Club...Managers/coaches are for running the first team. They SHOULD work under the directive of the DoF.

 

i'm sorry, if you were the manager of a football club would you HONESTLY want a 3rd party telling YOU what YOU need for YOUR team?.

 

and if it goes tits up again who goes, the DOF who brought these players in or the manager who tried re-arrange the pieces put before him into a team?.

 

if I was a manager, I would want to stand or fall by my own decisions and not have my ultimate fate decided by a Joe Kinnear or the like, let us not forget that SC has not (to my knowledge) appointed any new back room staff, if and for me it's a BIG if we do need a DOF it has to be somebody who can actually work hand in hand with the manager not like at far too many clubs where it is quite obvious there is not harmony between the DOF and the manager, that is just a recipe for disaster and as we know football people do appear (in general) to lack the courage of their own convictions and both will just take the wheelbarrows full of money whilst the ship sinks, the manager needs to fully trust any person who is going to be his DOF otherwise forget it.

 

of course, I certainly would not want a manager, who micro manages his club to the nth degree, the academy within boundaries needs to be autonomous but again needs to be trusted and pulling in the same direction.

 

and one last thing even if BCFC had signed Forrester and Grimes, you would be banging on about somebody else, we can't sign every youngster who catches the eye.

[glynriley]

The problem I understand fella... From what I've been told....so hear say...is that SC told Burt the players he wanted. Burt Allegedly brought El Abd in.

 

If he is 'Director of football'...it should be the other way round...him telling the manager what we need.

 

DOF's are for running the Club...Managers/coaches are for running the first team. They SHOULD work under the directive of the DoF.

 

So Burt has to go then? If Cotterill is calling all the shots regarding recruitment. This is a different scenario to when SoD was here presumably?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

So Burt has to go then? If Cotterill is calling all the shots regarding recruitment. This is a different scenario to when SoD was here presumably?

 

I agree this revelation is certainly a new twist on what's been going on behind the scenes, still at least there is somebody else to blame El Abd on, we should have seen the writing on the wall really, earlier in this thread it was claimed in the Bristol post that Burt had watched Grimes on several occasions but that was shouted down and counter claimed that in fact it was Tinnion that had been the person watching him, ummm so Burt's the problem, interesting, especially as everybody blamed SC, I would have thought that this just goes to prove what happens when the DOF relationship doesn't work.

[Kid in the Riot]

I agree this revelation is certainly a new twist on what's been going on behind the scenes, still at least there is somebody else to blame El Abd on, we should have seen the writing on the wall really, earlier in this thread it was claimed in the Bristol post that Burt had watched Grimes on several occasions but that was shouted down and counter claimed that in fact it was Tinnion that had been the person watching him, ummm so Burt's the problem, interesting, especially as everybody blamed SC, I would have thought that this just goes to prove what happens when the DOF relationship doesn't work.

 

It's not a new twist at all, I and others have been posting for months that Burt's role at the club has changed since SC came in because SC wants more control over recruitment.

 

Harry questioned SC about it back in January (at the Q & A) and SC said as much.

 

Keep up, chaps.

[glynriley]

It's not a new twist at all, I and others have been posting for months that Burt's role at the club has changed since SC came in because SC wants more control over recruitment.

 

Harry questioned SC about it back in January (at the Q & A) and SC said as much.

 

Keep up, chaps.

 

So, just so I'm clear.

 

Burt had the main responsibility for recruitment when SoD was head coach, is that fair?

 

Burt's role has changed since SC walked in, almost to the point that he is no longer required?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

It's not a new twist at all, I and others have been posting for months that Burt's role at the club has changed since SC came in because SC wants more control over recruitment.

 

Harry questioned SC about it back in January (at the Q & A) and SC said as much.

 

Keep up, chaps.

 

But Spudski is saying Burt brought in El Abd, a 29yr old player, so a non pillar signing, who has been awful and SC has been getting the grief, it's hardly a glowing recommendation to his role as DOF.

[Monkeh]

But Spudski is saying Burt brought in El Abd, a 29yr old player, so a non pillar signing, who has been awful and SC has been getting the grief, it's hardly a glowing recommendation to his role as DOF.

Burt is being used by the cult of sod to shift the blame from sods failing that's all

Normal garbage from the wrist cutting brigade again emb predictable and boring

[spudski]

i'm sorry, if you were the manager of a football club would you HONESTLY want a 3rd party telling YOU what YOU need for YOUR team?.

 

and if it goes tits up again who goes, the DOF who brought these players in or the manager who tried re-arrange the pieces put before him into a team?.

 

if I was a manager, I would want to stand or fall by my own decisions and not have my ultimate fate decided by a Joe Kinnear or the like, let us not forget that SC has not (to my knowledge) appointed any new back room staff, if and for me it's a BIG if we do need a DOF it has to be somebody who can actually work hand in hand with the manager not like at far too many clubs where it is quite obvious there is not harmony between the DOF and the manager, that is just a recipe for disaster and as we know football people do appear (in general) to lack the courage of their own convictions and both will just take the wheelbarrows full of money whilst the ship sinks, the manager needs to fully trust any person who is going to be his DOF otherwise forget it.

 

of course, I certainly would not want a manager, who micro manages his club to the nth degree, the academy within boundaries needs to be autonomous but again needs to be trusted and pulling in the same direction.

 

and one last thing even if BCFC had signed Forrester and Grimes, you would be banging on about somebody else, we can't sign every youngster who catches the eye.

That's exactly the problem with English football mate.

 

Clubs allow one man to dictate the team and recruitment. If it fails...another comes in and changes it to 'his' way.

 

As someone else mentioned...what happens at Lyon and other Clubs, is a sounder footing.

 

They get managers who are willing to work to the guide lines set out by the Club...not by him.

 

That way...the Club find a way of playing their way...if the manager fails...they bring in someone else to still play their way...so there is no disruption.

 

Look at the problems caused by getting SoD to change the direction of football so abruptly....sacking him, then SC wants to play it His way.

 

That's one of the biggest problems why teams fail...it's a constant change of styles depending what manager is brought in.

 

You only have to look at what happened at Man Utd this year to see that.

 

All of Utd's previous coaching staff said Moyes would fail, because he tried to change everything so quickly.

 

You need to keep a constant at a Club and just change the manager occasionally.

 

Changing everything leads to failure.

 

Look how Utd have realised this, and put the likes of Giggs and others under the new manager.

 

They have their way...a successful way...changing it all the time leads to failure.

 

 

As for all the other comments on here by other's about the 'cult of sod'...get a life...if you've got nothing worth adding to the conversation apart from abuse then why bother...does it make you feel big in your little worlds? Alway's the same people moaning about other forum users instead of adding to the debate. Playground stuff...

[Esmond Million's Bung]

That's exactly the problem with English football mate.

 

Clubs allow one man to dictate the team and recruitment. If it fails...another comes in and changes it to 'his' way.

 

As someone else mentioned...what happens at Lyon and other Clubs, is a sounder footing.

 

They get managers who are willing to work to the guide lines set out by the Club...not by him.

 

That way...the Club find a way of playing their way...if the manager fails...they bring in someone else to still play their way...so there is no disruption.

 

Look at the problems caused by getting SoD to change the direction of football so abruptly....sacking him, then SC wants to play it His way.

 

That's one of the biggest problems why teams fail...it's a constant change of styles depending what manager is brought in.

 

You only have to look at what happened at Man Utd this year to see that.

 

All of Utd's previous coaching staff said Moyes would fail, because he tried to change everything so quickly.

 

You need to keep a constant at a Club and just change the manager occasionally.

 

Changing everything leads to failure.

 

Look how Utd have realised this, and put the likes of Giggs and others under the new manager.

 

They have their way...a successful way...changing it all the time leads to failure.

 

 

As for all the other comments on here by other's about the 'cult of sod'...get a life...if you've got nothing worth adding to the conversation apart from abuse then why bother...does it make you feel big in your little worlds? Alway's the same people moaning about other forum users instead of adding to the debate. Playground stuff...

 

All of that is fine and dandy, but rule 1 surely has to be the manager and the DOF need to be on the same page, have total trust, total honesty, a clear line of responsibility and meet on a regular basis and probably even more importantly both agree on a signing before he is signed, otherwise really what is the point?.

 

As for your last sentence it might have more weight appended to the post of the person who made the comment and not somebody who is trying to engage you in debate, which is what you are after isn't it?.

 

Edit:- if the highlighted portion is true and the revolution was not SOD's idea, bigger fool him for taking the job.

 

Plus what happens when the DOF brings you only warped 'planks'?, even the best artisan needs some good wood to make an artisan piece, whose fault is it?, has the DOF failed?, has the manager failed because he cannot polish turds? and who makes the decision on who has failed and how do they arrive at their decision?.

[glynriley]

That's exactly the problem with English football mate.

 

Clubs allow one man to dictate the team and recruitment. If it fails...another comes in and changes it to 'his' way.

 

As someone else mentioned...what happens at Lyon and other Clubs, is a sounder footing.

 

They get managers who are willing to work to the guide lines set out by the Club...not by him.

 

That way...the Club find a way of playing their way...if the manager fails...they bring in someone else to still play their way...so there is no disruption.

 

Look at the problems caused by getting SoD to change the direction of football so abruptly....sacking him, then SC wants to play it His way.

 

That's one of the biggest problems why teams fail...it's a constant change of styles depending what manager is brought in.

 

You only have to look at what happened at Man Utd this year to see that.

 

All of Utd's previous coaching staff said Moyes would fail, because he tried to change everything so quickly.

 

You need to keep a constant at a Club and just change the manager occasionally.

 

Changing everything leads to failure.

 

Look how Utd have realised this, and put the likes of Giggs and others under the new manager.

 

They have their way...a successful way...changing it all the time leads to failure.

 

 

As for all the other comments on here by other's about the 'cult of sod'...get a life...if you've got nothing worth adding to the conversation apart from abuse then why bother...does it make you feel big in your little worlds? Alway's the same people moaning about other forum users instead of adding to the debate. Playground stuff...

 

I asked earlier but nobody answered, perhaps it got missed.

 

Can you confirm that Burt had the main responsibility for recruitment when SoD was head coach?

 

Thanks

[spudski]

I asked earlier but nobody answered, perhaps it got missed.

 

Can you confirm that Burt had the main responsibility for recruitment when SoD was head coach?

 

Thanks

I can't confirm anything mate...as it's all hear say. But as far as I'm led to believe... Yes.

[spudski]

All of that is fine and dandy, but rule 1 surely has to be the manager and the DOF need to be on the same page, have total trust, total honesty, a clear line of responsibility and meet on a regular basis and probably even more importantly both agree on a signing before he is signed, otherwise really what is the point?.

 

As for your last sentence it might have more weight appended to the post of the person who made the comment and not somebody who is trying to engage you in debate, which is what you are after isn't it?.

 

Edit:- if the highlighted portion is true and the revolution was not SOD's idea, bigger fool him for taking the job.

 

Plus what happens when the DOF brings you only warped 'planks'?, even the best artisan needs some good wood to make an artisan piece, whose fault is it?, has the DOF failed?, has the manager failed because he cannot polish turds? and who makes the decision on who has failed and how do they arrive at their decision?.

I could go into it really deeply mate...but the easiest way to explain it, is in the Lyon example...read about their revolution. A club very much like ours...backwater and similar population area. Google it...there is loads about it on the net. Clubs around the world stood up and took notice....

 

Quote...

 

'Long-term stability = success. But not at the manager level -- in the boardroom. Lyon believes in the use of "crowds" -- the more minds to analyze a situation, the better the final result should be. This flies right in the face of the English system of one manager being the entire be all and end all for decisions. If you look at Lyon, they've have different managers -- Alain Perrin, Houllier, Paul Le Guen to name a few -- but remained successful throughout because the technical director, Bernard Lacombe and president, Jean-Michel Aulas remained the same.

-- A new manager wastes money; don't let him

The first order of business usually when a new manager arrives is to clear out the deadwood from the club and sells off what are perceived to be undesirable players at a fraction of what they were originally bought.

At Lyon, the brand of football stays the same, the board stays the same, just the players and managers change over time. In fact, Lyon put little to no emphasis on the manager position. Which brings us to ...

-- Use the power of crowds

Not the crowds in the stands, but the crowd of wise football men who can come up with a consensus of what to do to move the club forward. While most English clubs are still stuck with the one-man only type of football management, most clubs around the world have a technical director in charge of player personnel. In fact, I can't think of any other league or sport besides the English League where the manager has so much power in player decisions. '

 

As for the SoD question... Yes he was approached by City as they thought he was the man who could 'revolution' us.

He did say it would take years to change...he tried...he failed ( if you just count first team results...although he did set up good things behind the scenes.) And he did say... another manager after him would be able to work with it.

 

You could see on the pitch he was trying to change our style drastically...playing possession percentage football...it didn't work. Whether it would have long term we will never know.

 

However... SC is doing his thing now...hopefully it will work out to be the right thing.

 

I just don't want us to go back to how we've been all our history.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I could go into it really deeply mate...but the easiest way to explain it, is in the Lyon example...read about their revolution. A club very much like ours...backwater and similar population area. Google it...there is loads about it on the net. Clubs around the world stood up and took notice....

 

Quote...

 

'Long-term stability = success. But not at the manager level -- in the boardroom. Lyon believes in the use of "crowds" -- the more minds to analyze a situation, the better the final result should be. This flies right in the face of the English system of one manager being the entire be all and end all for decisions. If you look at Lyon, they've have different managers -- Alain Perrin, Houllier, Paul Le Guen to name a few -- but remained successful throughout because the technical director, Bernard Lacombe and president, Jean-Michel Aulas remained the same.

-- A new manager wastes money; don't let him

The first order of business usually when a new manager arrives is to clear out the deadwood from the club and sells off what are perceived to be undesirable players at a fraction of what they were originally bought.

At Lyon, the brand of football stays the same, the board stays the same, just the players and managers change over time. In fact, Lyon put little to no emphasis on the manager position. Which brings us to ...

-- Use the power of crowds

Not the crowds in the stands, but the crowd of wise football men who can come up with a consensus of what to do to move the club forward. While most English clubs are still stuck with the one-man only type of football management, most clubs around the world have a technical director in charge of player personnel. In fact, I can't think of any other league or sport besides the English League where the manager has so much power in player decisions. '

 

As for the SoD question... Yes he was approached by City as they thought he was the man who could 'revolution' us.

He did say it would take years to change...he tried...he failed ( if you just count first team results...although he did set up good things behind the scenes.) And he did say... another manager after him would be able to work with it.

 

You could see on the pitch he was trying to change our style drastically...playing possession percentage football...it didn't work. Whether it would have long term we will never know.

 

However... SC is doing his thing now...hopefully it will work out to be the right thing.

 

I just don't want us to go back to how we've been all our history.

 

 

Again all well and good, but any manager under those circumstances can only work with players he is being given by a 3rd party, I suspect that the list of managers you quoted gave it their best shot but honestly probably financially couldn't give a ****, as the saying goes "if that's what you want, that's what will happen" kerchiing!!!!! and let's not also forget that Lyon haven't won the league for 6 years after having won it for 7 years on the trot prior to that.

[Fordy62]

Can we stop adding to this thread? Every day i have to check to see if we've signed him.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Can we stop adding to this thread? Every day i have to check to see if we've signed him.

 

No we missed the boat, ooops.

[Harry]

My point being, you had to be prompted to comment, when I expected you to be that shouting to from the roof tops, because it was a step in the right direction and you were obviously misinformed about it.

 

of course everybody on here wants success and sustainable success because that is important, I asked a question a couple of weeks ago which you and Harry didn't/couldn't answer, what english club model should we be following?.

Sorry Es, I don't come on here all that often, so must've missed this question originally.  My answer - why should we follow any model, let alone any English model.  Why shouldn't create our own model?

 

Burt is being used by the cult of sod to shift the blame from sods failing that's all

Normal garbage from the wrist cutting brigade again emb predictable and boring

Oh Monkeh, you do embarrass yourself sometimes don't you.  What is this "cult of sod" you refer to?

All I recall from his time here is that I was fully behind what he was trying to implement, but I fully understand why he had to leave.  There is no cult.  For the record I backed McInnes til the end, as I could also see the important work he was trying to do (but everyone slagged me off for that too!).  I've always considered myself to be someone who's incredibly patient with our Manager's, so long as I can see that they are at least trying to do the right things for the sustainable future of MY football club. 

 

Oh, and also for the record (to stop some other nonsense you've been spouting), none of us who have been critical in recent months want us to sign ALL under 21 players.  You seem to get the impression this is all we want and that we want it now.  We all understand that experience is necessary and that you need a mix of youth and experience, and that it is a slow-burn to reach the utopia we're after, but we also all understand that some of the comments coming from SC are very blinkered and are seeming to close off a very rich source of potential, which could be the next 5 to 10 years of this club, not just the next 2-3 years.

 

SC's comments have been :

"We need to find players 25-28, preferably married"

"We have enough youngsters here"

"We won't be signing any 17-19 years olds for the academy"

"The best players in our league will go to the Championship"

"Players leaving Championship clubs will interest Championship clubs"

"We won't rush into anything - there are bargains to be had if we bide our time"

 

He's set the parameters pretty tightly there - he doesn't want to sign youngsters from lower leagues, but also knows he can't get players from the league above?  He's ruled out players in the 20 - 24 bracket who could possibly be the next 10 years of this club - Luke Freeman, Curtis Nelson, Jack Redshaw, Scott Hogan, Andre Gray, James Wallace to name but a few.  Why close yourself off to this market completely - whether or not you think we have a chance of signing them, why not even give yourself the opportunity?  There seems to be an arrogance that thinks it can persuade Tommy Rowe to move to Bristol even though he's stated quite clearly he wants to move back to Lancashire, so why not have the arrogance to pursue some of the better 20-24 year olds in the lower leagues?

It seems all we can expect is 2 or 3 players over 30 and probably commanding above average wages for this league, then a few players in their mid-late twenties who'll probably be looking for decent wages and long contracts.  Yes, they may very well prove successful signings, and that's great, but where's your longer term thinking - why not start taking some gambles on the better talent of the lower leagues, rather than turning a total blind eye to it?

 

None of us critical folk are slagging off SC for the job he did at the end of last season - I said at the time, I take my hat off and congrats - he stared me straight down the eyes at Crawley away and I was punching the air and applauding him.  I'm not all doom and gloom and I don't want him to fail.  But I do want him to have a very keen eye on the future - he seems to think we don't need any Academy recruitment - Batten, Morrell, Hall & Fry will not all be a success (I really hope they are), but reality says we need to go out and tap into the best youth lads at lower academy status clubs, and he's quoted as saying we won't be doing this.  Sorry, but the 'future', can't solely be Batten, Morrell & Hall, with Reid, Bryan & Burns - you need a whole line of succession, not just 2 or 3 players.  Our excellent Academy status should mean we are going out and getting the best 17-19 year olds, but SC doesn't want to - that to me is not forward thinking.

 

As someone else posted here earlier, Tinnion is supposedly 'Head of U21 Recruitment'.  Surely then he should be the one who decides if he wants to bring 17-19 year olds into the Academy, not SC?

 

I asked earlier but nobody answered, perhaps it got missed.

 

Can you confirm that Burt had the main responsibility for recruitment when SoD was head coach?

 

Thanks

As far as I knew Glyn, Sod would identify an area of need and the 'type' of player he wanted in that position.  Burt would then source some names and arrange reports.  Burt, Sod and Pembo would then argue the toss over all of the options on the table and agree which way to go.  Sometimes, one man's opinion may be stronger than another, particularly if there was a prior history of working with them, or if their reports came from trusted sources they'd worked with closely in the past.  So, there would generally be a consensus, but as is often the case, the one who shouts loudest probably gets his way!!

In my opinion, this is far from ideal, but I also believe they weren't given long enough to continue this model, revise it, remodel it, learn as they went.  This model was given 1 transfer window - it was never going to be perfect having only just been set up.  In my opinion, the DoF didn't have enough knowledge of lower leagues and needed time to implement a full system of lower league, non-league and youth scouting.

[spudski]

Again all well and good, but any manager under those circumstances can only work with players he is being given by a 3rd party, I suspect that the list of managers you quoted gave it their best shot but honestly probably financially couldn't give a ****, as the saying goes "if that's what you want, that's what will happen" kerchiing!!!!! and let's not also forget that Lyon haven't won the league for 6 years after having won it for 7 years on the trot prior to that.

No worries mate...the piece on Lyon was quoted from an authority on football with far greater knowledge than you or me.

 

Just sharing...as it's a widely seen model to follow outside of British shores.

 

It's no wonder teams continually fail in this Country, and it's the likes of Swansea and Southampton who bucked the trend to do well. Even Brighton to some extent.

 

The majority follow a formula that they think is safe and feel they can fail because it's been done by the 'traditional' way...without rebuke.

 

What concerns me right now...is that we have worked hard to get Academy level 2 status and yet one man...SC...has said he doesn't want to add to it with 17=19 year olds...

 

Someone please explain to me how that is a Club all working together?

 

What does Tinnion think when he hears that?

 

How can Tinnion operate without a budget?... I don't understand any of that.

[Monkeh]

Harry it must of been a dream when we signed those 2 Spanish kids then if we weren't signing any youngsters

My post wasn't aimed at you it was aimed at spud who if I remember correctly predicted the board would rue the day we sacked sod kid who said we would be relegated and the both of them who said we would only sign journey men and play hoof ball

That's all been proven wrong so the now have to make up unrest behind the scenes again

It's predictable it's boring and this unrest has been going on for so long now we would of seen signs of it

Guess what we haven't

[Major Isewater]

[glynriley]

Sorry Es, I don't come on here all that often, so must've missed this question originally.  My answer - why should we follow any model, let alone any English model.  Why shouldn't create our own model?

 

Oh Monkeh, you do embarrass yourself sometimes don't you.  What is this "cult of sod" you refer to?

All I recall from his time here is that I was fully behind what he was trying to implement, but I fully understand why he had to leave.  There is no cult.  For the record I backed McInnes til the end, as I could also see the important work he was trying to do (but everyone slagged me off for that too!).  I've always considered myself to be someone who's incredibly patient with our Manager's, so long as I can see that they are at least trying to do the right things for the sustainable future of MY football club. 

 

Oh, and also for the record (to stop some other nonsense you've been spouting), none of us who have been critical in recent months want us to sign ALL under 21 players.  You seem to get the impression this is all we want and that we want it now.  We all understand that experience is necessary and that you need a mix of youth and experience, and that it is a slow-burn to reach the utopia we're after, but we also all understand that some of the comments coming from SC are very blinkered and are seeming to close off a very rich source of potential, which could be the next 5 to 10 years of this club, not just the next 2-3 years.

 

SC's comments have been :

"We need to find players 25-28, preferably married"

"We have enough youngsters here"

"We won't be signing any 17-19 years olds for the academy"

"The best players in our league will go to the Championship"

"Players leaving Championship clubs will interest Championship clubs"

"We won't rush into anything - there are bargains to be had if we bide our time"

 

He's set the parameters pretty tightly there - he doesn't want to sign youngsters from lower leagues, but also knows he can't get players from the league above?  He's ruled out players in the 20 - 24 bracket who could possibly be the next 10 years of this club - Luke Freeman, Curtis Nelson, Jack Redshaw, Scott Hogan, Andre Gray, James Wallace to name but a few.  Why close yourself off to this market completely - whether or not you think we have a chance of signing them, why not even give yourself the opportunity?  There seems to be an arrogance that thinks it can persuade Tommy Rowe to move to Bristol even though he's stated quite clearly he wants to move back to Lancashire, so why not have the arrogance to pursue some of the better 20-24 year olds in the lower leagues?

It seems all we can expect is 2 or 3 players over 30 and probably commanding above average wages for this league, then a few players in their mid-late twenties who'll probably be looking for decent wages and long contracts.  Yes, they may very well prove successful signings, and that's great, but where's your longer term thinking - why not start taking some gambles on the better talent of the lower leagues, rather than turning a total blind eye to it?

 

None of us critical folk are slagging off SC for the job he did at the end of last season - I said at the time, I take my hat off and congrats - he stared me straight down the eyes at Crawley away and I was punching the air and applauding him.  I'm not all doom and gloom and I don't want him to fail.  But I do want him to have a very keen eye on the future - he seems to think we don't need any Academy recruitment - Batten, Morrell, Hall & Fry will not all be a success (I really hope they are), but reality says we need to go out and tap into the best youth lads at lower academy status clubs, and he's quoted as saying we won't be doing this.  Sorry, but the 'future', can't solely be Batten, Morrell & Hall, with Reid, Bryan & Burns - you need a whole line of succession, not just 2 or 3 players.  Our excellent Academy status should mean we are going out and getting the best 17-19 year olds, but SC doesn't want to - that to me is not forward thinking.

 

As someone else posted here earlier, Tinnion is supposedly 'Head of U21 Recruitment'.  Surely then he should be the one who decides if he wants to bring 17-19 year olds into the Academy, not SC?

 

As far as I knew Glyn, Sod would identify an area of need and the 'type' of player he wanted in that position.  Burt would then source some names and arrange reports.  Burt, Sod and Pembo would then argue the toss over all of the options on the table and agree which way to go.  Sometimes, one man's opinion may be stronger than another, particularly if there was a prior history of working with them, or if their reports came from trusted sources they'd worked with closely in the past.  So, there would generally be a consensus, but as is often the case, the one who shouts loudest probably gets his way!!

In my opinion, this is far from ideal, but I also believe they weren't given long enough to continue this model, revise it, remodel it, learn as they went.  This model was given 1 transfer window - it was never going to be perfect having only just been set up.  In my opinion, the DoF didn't have enough knowledge of lower leagues and needed time to implement a full system of lower league, non-league and youth scouting.

 

Thanks Harry, I'm trying to understand Burt's role and how it may have changed since SC's arrival. It appears the 'think tank' may have gone out of the window then?

 

I would just add that SC said on the Radio Bristol interview last Saturday that he wants the academy coaches to target 12-15 year olds, so it's not as if he's not got at least an eye on the future.

[Kid in the Riot]

Harry it must of been a dream when we signed those 2 Spanish kids then if we weren't signing any youngsters

My post wasn't aimed at you it was aimed at spud who if I remember correctly predicted the board would rue the day we sacked sod kid who said we would be relegated and the both of them who said we would only sign journey men and play hoof ball

That's all been proven wrong so the now have to make up unrest behind the scenes again

It's predictable it's boring and this unrest has been going on for so long now we would of seen signs of it

Guess what we haven't

 

Wrong again monkeh, your inaccurate ramblings are getting quite tedious. When SC joined I actually said he'd keep us up comfortably. I have always said he'd do a decent job in the short term. After the Sheff U game probably 80% of our support thought we'd be relegated so I'm sorry if my faith in him maybe had a temporary blip!

 

On hoofball, well I certainly feared the worse when he brought Barnett in but we haven't really resorted to it. That said, I wouldn't rave about the performances under SC and there have been some dreadful ones. Happy to be proven wrong on this but let's wait and see when he shapes his own squad this summer.

[spudski]