The Experience V Youth Debate

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I think you are missing the point completely fella...  I've tried to explain to you on numerous occasions.

 

It doesn't make any difference about how many managers they've had. That is the whole point...you can have as many as you want...it doesn't affect the Club. They are all successful teams in their own right.

 

What you don't seem to have worked out yet, is that having a DoF is more common on the continent than having just a manager.

 

It is now being realised in this Country, that to be successful, leaving the footballing decisions to one man, just leads to short term fix's.

Any manager will do his utmost to do well for the term of his contract...so he brings in players to 'achieve' in that time period, rather than for the long term.

 

Under a DoF system...they bring in players for the long term of the Club, and tell the then manager to work with who they brings in.

If the Club think the players have gotten all they can from that manager...they move the manager on and bring in someone else to work with.

 

The manager is just seen as a replaceable cog in the wheel of success...he isn't allowed to affect the whole Club by bringing in just his ideas, playing and coaching staff....the Club tell him what to do.

 

Does it make sense now?

 

I understand all of that, but once more one the points you keep making in your vitriol in the running of our club is the cost of paying off of managers adding significantly to our debt, 3 clubs 30 managers in 13 years, that's a lot of paying off, you can't have it all ways, it's fine for 3 of the richest clubs in the world and you referenced Brighton who are just about to appoint a 3rd manager in 3 years, it's all very well speaking about a replaceable cog but it's also about the knock on effect amongst players who will become unhappy and heaven forbid that we produce anymore players who hate the game.

[spudski]

[Rob k]

So he would have come to us rather than Wolves ?

All these names being touted on here, but no one knows if we were in for them or not (or if they would turn out to be any good) - just assume that because they're not here we didn't go after them.

We are a third division club and we will struggle to get good quality young players to come here rather than bigger third division or championship clubs. I fail to see why people don't understand these facts.

As for needing x amount of u-24s and x amount of u-30s, thats just tosh.

We need a good team, thats it.

No of course not, once Wolves came sniffing we would have been out of it, however we ( as far as I know) never even got to the point of making a bid, it's frustrating, the lad was at Newport, 20 mins away.

[Harry]

So he would have come to us rather than Wolves ?

 

All these names being touted on here, but no one knows if we were in for them or not (or if they would turn out to be any good) - just assume that because they're not here we didn't go after them.

 

We are a third division club and we will struggle to get good quality young players to come here rather than bigger third division or championship clubs. I fail to see why people don't understand these facts.

 

As for needing x amount of u-24s and x amount of u-30s, thats just tosh.

 

We need a good team, thats it.

Lee Evans was known to City a long time before he went to Wolves.  I know, as I got comps off of him for the game up there in our relegation season, before he'd broken into the first team, and I know exactly who had been watching him over the previous couple of seasons.

 

Cynic - you are being stereotypically cynical and ignoring the thoughts presented of those who know.

 

Interestingly, I know from a highly reliable source that City were 'made aware' of Ryan Gauld 2 years before he made his senior debut.  It's all about acting quickly enough and taking a gamble here and there.  Look up who is interested in Ryan Gauld these days.  No chance for us now, but a gamble 3 years ago might have worked?

 

We're too afraid to take a risk.

[Harry]

Your argument isn't making sense Harry.

 

10 of our currently small squad are already 24 or under.

 

Three others, Maloney, Baldock and Flint (still 24 as we speak) are only a year older.

 

You apparently ruling out 5 of the under 24's as being 'not good enough' is just your opinion and smacks of desperation to dismiss them just to keep your argument going.

 

I seem to remember a few months ago you vowed to stop criticising Cotterill on this forum and give a more considered opinion at the end of the season.

 

I haven't yet seen that appraisal, but from the tone of your posts it seems clear that your view hasn't changed and you're only willing to give him grudging credit for achieving survival. The only comments I've seen from you on SC seem to remain critical, even if you have to dig deep on a personal level ( 'gloating' etc.) to find reasons to knock him.

 

That's a shame - your argument above about u.24's has been blown out of the water by the facts of the actual ages of the players we already have, and you now saying 5 of them are not good enough seems a bit of an afterthought and in any case a different argument altogether.

Noggers, my argument is perfectly sensible.  At no point have I said we don't need to sign a little bit of experience.  Re-read some of my posts, I've said we could do with at least 1 more 'older' head.

I'm just not all all inspired by the summer being laden with SC's 25-28 year old married no-marks.

Surely, SC completely closing off a particular market (i.e. the u24's), is more loon than my ramblings?  He's set his parameters more narrowly than I.

 

Edit...Oh, and as for my appraisal of SC, this isn't the time or place.  I'll save that one up for another more appropriate time.

[spudski]

I dont think so Harry, I  dontthink we are scared of taking risks in terms of players, there are gazillions of signings in our past, recent past and so on that suggest we will take the risk on signings, what paralyses us is the fear of relegation. Which sunk us once, and nearly did so again because we were scared to lose revenue streams vs player development. Now those shackles have been loosened relatively we have a much younger squad at the time of writing and we are only looking to bolster shortfalls, in keeping with all that the club has said

 

Under SCMP we cant sign every Tom, Dick and Harry that becomes available, because of the risk of failure and you, yourself have pinpointed some of them, lauded as future brilliance and not made it as of time of writing. If you cant do it then Im sure the bloody club wont. Heck as stated a million times before if even the best youth producers cant get it right then we certainly wont ( not a blight on us) so why drag them over the coles over every single youth that YOU would like to see us sign.

 

Given you've hinted at your scouting 'credentials' at the club, before. One could hazard a guess if being cynical that you were narked cos all your recommendations were being passed over. However, like any other player for the first team, Unless they make it there, we will never know if it's potential or not!

How many young players over the years have City Scouted, developed, and made into first team players that have been successful...compared to a team, for example, like Crewe?

 

How many players have City brought in from abroad that have been successful here? Not many....

 

Hopefully things will improve in this department now and in the future...but we have been bloody awful at scouting and recruiting in the past. Relied way too heavily on buying journeyman type pros.

 

The Club should be hauled over the coals for having a most diabolical scouting network over the years.

 

How can you have a Club running over 100 years professionally, and still not have a budget for this?

 

We've relied on managers coming in, and using their connections with other Clubs from their past, for making appointments....that's not a Club to be proud of...it's like being a magpie...borrowing other peoples cast offs.

 

Why people stand up blindly defending our poor history and success baffles me. I love this Club dearly...but they frustrate the hell out of me, because of their incompetence....

[djb6162]

Noggers, my argument is perfectly sensible.  At no point have I said we don't need to sign a little bit of experience.  Re-read some of my posts, I've said we could do with at least 1 more 'older' head.

I'm just not all all inspired by the summer being laden with SC's 25-28 year old married no-marks.

Surely, SC completely closing off a particular market (i.e. the u24's), is more loon than my ramblings?  He's set his parameters more narrowly than I.

 

Edit...Oh, and as for my appraisal of SC, this isn't the time or place.  I'll save that one up for another more appropriate time.

I think one of the key factors here Harry is that SC is following a path of 25-28 yr old steady hands because he clearly belives in the youth he already has, whilst you have cleary stated that they are all "not good enough"

that is quite a fundemental difference of opinions on the current squad.

If you are correct then yes he shouldn't be excluding that market,  ( by the way i cant belive he would exclude that if the right option presents, but they would need to be better than what he has surely)

There are those who are saying on here that you have scouting cxredentials, so it would be wrong to dismiss your opinions on our young assetts, i have also watched them all come through the ranks Harry from u16 upwards and i dont share your view, however thats not particularly relevant.

what is relevant is that all those players you have dismissed as not being good enough are being chased by championship clubs as we speak and hence why the club is working hard to retain them on long contracts.

Time will tell if you are correct and you are of course entitled to your view.

Most of the points you have made have been put forward very well and with some impressive knowledge and i dont agree with some of the responses arguing against you on here.

I think on Balance, as is usually the case, Noggers puts forward a fairly balanced view which i think most sensible posters would agree with.

Good out of season debate though, keeps us all entertained

[Monkeh]

Lee Evans was known to City a long time before he went to Wolves.  I know, as I got comps off of him for the game up there in our relegation season, before he'd broken into the first team, and I know exactly who had been watching him over the previous couple of seasons.

 

Cynic - you are being stereotypically cynical and ignoring the thoughts presented of those who know.

 

Interestingly, I know from a highly reliable source that City were 'made aware' of Ryan Gauld 2 years before he made his senior debut.  It's all about acting quickly enough and taking a gamble here and there.  Look up who is interested in Ryan Gauld these days.  No chance for us now, but a gamble 3 years ago might have worked?

 

We're too afraid to take a risk.

you fail to take into account the player and his family actually wanting to up sticks and move to the club,

I could of told you about Ryan Guald 2 years ago because he was good on football manager, it doesn't mean a 15 year old footballer who is still in school is suddenly going to up route and move to Bristol to play for a 2nd division clubs youth and reserve side,

[Bedminster Born And Red]

Some great points there RMLF.

 

I am also a subscriber to the view that the club has suffered from the "legacy" of the GJ era.

 

Before I get slaughtered let me explain. GJ is a great manager in the short term. He has a knack of getting good loan signings in and signing players than can "do a job" referred to as "clubs in the bag". This policy worked very well for us over two or three seasons but once other clubs had sussed us out we embarked upon a five or six year period of struggle and malaise that we are still in. The problem with GJ is that he does not plan for the long term and has a track record of ignoring or scrapping youth systems at the clubs he manages. A policy that left this club rudderless at the bottom with an Academy totally unfit for purpose. At Yeovil he has totally scrapped the Youth system - I call that "anti football" but there you go.

 

Derek Mcinnes was probably the first Manager that tried to change things at the bottom but got sacked due to not keeping his eye on the top (First Team). A mistake repeated by SOD who took the Board's new younger player policy almost too literally in my view. But to be fair to SOD he made changes that needed to be made and changed attitudes that needed to be changed and SC will probably benefit from that as he himself alluded to. SOD was trying to "build" a club but was also trying to run before he could walk in a sense.

 

So Cotterill comes in and identifies that we are struggling in the "here and now" players department. His solution was to bring in experienced players on loan to help the younger lads who were clearly struggling at that point and who, unfortunately, would have taken us down without that help arriving. The problem being the players he brought in were "too experienced" perhaps in terms of building a club in the longer term. But his policy got the job done in the short term. Now he is looking longer term and realises that he still needs "here and now" players because the loanees have all gone home so what he is trying to do is bring in 25-27 year olds rather than 32-36 year olds to steady the ship. A balancing act of getting it right now with planning for the future. But that doesn't mean he won't bring in good 20-24 year old players IF they become available and IF they want to join or their Agent advises them to join Bristol City over the other clubs that are after them. But there is no point in bringing in mediocre 20-24 year olds based on pure statistical analysis of teams that went up last season.

 

The other interesting point Cotterill made which is bang on in my view is that in terms of "longer term" development and building a club in the way the Directors and Fans envisage we should be looking to recruit the best 12-15 year olds we can not 17-19 year olds who couldn't hack it at Premier League clubs. Robbie Savage made a great point (unusual you might say) recently saying "show me a 17 year old footballer and you've shown me the player". What he means is by the time they reach that age they are almost set in stone technically, in the vast majority of cases, and all you can improve significantly is tactical awareness and strength/athleticism. Whereas in the 12-15 year old age group there is a lot more technical work that can be done with players to benefit the longer term and the building of a club.

 

From where I sit Cotterill is trying to do the right things and the Board appear to have woken up from their GJ induced coma. Hopefully better fortunes are on the horizon in the next 2-3 years?

[Monkeh]

Some great points there RMLF.

 

I am also a subscriber to the view that the club has suffered from the "legacy" of the GJ era.

 

Before I get slaughtered let me explain. GJ is a great manager in the short term. He has a knack of getting good loan signings in and signing players than can "do a job" referred to as "clubs in the bag". This policy worked very well for us over two or three seasons but once other clubs had sussed us out we embarked upon a five or six year period of struggle and malaise that we are still in. The problem with GJ is that he does not plan for the long term and has a track record of ignoring or scrapping youth systems at the clubs he manages. A policy that left this club rudderless at the bottom with an Academy totally unfit for purpose. At Yeovil he has totally scrapped the Youth system - I call that "anti football" but there you go.

thats more to do with EPPP then Johnson to be fair, Yeovil aren't the only club doing it theres a growing number in the lower leagues doing it now and its only going to increase,

Thats what happens when boardrooms think of only money instead of player devlopment and thats the real reason for lack of englishment in the prem,

its not lack of a compitive level to play at its simply greed from busieness men running the game,

 

just had to add top post and a good read bbar

[Kid in the Riot]

I think one of the key factors here Harry is that SC is following a path of 25-28 yr old steady hands because he clearly belives in the youth he already has, whilst you have cleary stated that they are all "not good enough"

that is quite a fundemental difference of opinions on the current squad.

If you are correct then yes he shouldn't be excluding that market,  ( by the way i cant belive he would exclude that if the right option presents, but they would need to be better than what he has surely)

There are those who are saying on here that you have scouting cxredentials, so it would be wrong to dismiss your opinions on our young assetts, i have also watched them all come through the ranks Harry from u16 upwards and i dont share your view, however thats not particularly relevant.

what is relevant is that all those players you have dismissed as not being good enough are being chased by championship clubs as we speak and hence why the club is working hard to retain them on long contracts.

 

No reason for them to leave then if SC believes in them.

[spudski]

 

 

I agree with you about the Academy...

 

As for Foreign players...apart from Basso, that list goes years back.

 

What has been addressed since GJ left?

 

I agree City were moving in the right direction...but next time there is a question and answer and SC and SL are their...anyone...ask them straight... who has control over all recruitment for the first team and development squad?

 

Is Burt still DoF or does he just look for players directed to him by SC? In other words back to being Chief Scout?

 

Does Brian Tinnion still have authority in who he brings in to the development squad, or is he led by SC now?

 

It is my understanding that SC has all say in who we recruit now, for the first team and Development squad...and that things have gone back to one man, the manager, making all decisions on who is recruited...this developing since SoD left.

 

All hear say... but that's what I've heard.

[djb6162]

No reason for them to leave then if SC believes in them.

I agree, and i don't think they will leave or had any intention to do so.

Simply saying that just because harry doesn't think they are good enough, isn't the strongest part of Harry's argument.

The boss does and quite frankly other managers think so as well

So they should be included in the balance of age profile discussion.

That was one of the points noggers was making i think, and the point that harry belatedly tried to dismiss because in his opinion, they were not good enough.

[Harry]

you fail to take into account the player and his family actually wanting to up sticks and move to the club,

I could of told you about Ryan Guald 2 years ago because he was good on football manager, it doesn't mean a 15 year old footballer who is still in school is suddenly going to up route and move to Bristol to play for a 2nd division clubs youth and reserve side,

And that says everything I need to know about your credentials bud.

[Harry]

I agree, and i don't think they will leave or had any intention to do so.

Simply saying that just because harry doesn't think they are good enough, isn't the strongest part of Harry's argument.

The boss does and quite frankly other managers think so as well

So they should be included in the balance of age profile discussion.

That was one of the points noggers was making i think, and the point that harry belatedly tried to dismiss because in his opinion, they were not good enough.

Hi fella.

 

I guess I ought to quantify a little of what I said and what I meant.  Often, when posting it's easy to state something but not actually provide the full explanation.  What I meant in that post earlier, was that I don't think Bryan, Reid & Burns are good enough - at this stage.  I don't believe that these 3 home-grown lads are quite up to regular League 1 first team level just yet.  By that I mean they'll happily contribute here and there over the course of the season, but I don't think any of them should yet be classed as permanent 'starters'.

What my argument at the outset of this thread was about, was that the starting 11 of successful sides last year contained on average 6 players aged between 21 and 24.  I'm not writing these 3 guys off, I'm saying that at this stage, I don't see them as regular starters.  If SC sees these 3 as regular starters, then I could foresee another season in the lower reaches.  That's not to say these guys won't come good in the future, in my opinion they're just not quite at a consistent league 1 performance level at the moment.

Hope that makes a bit more sense and quantifies my comment bit.  Sometimes it just easier to write a one-liner.

[djb6162]

Hi fella.

 

I guess I ought to quantify a little of what I said and what I meant.  Often, when posting it's easy to state something but not actually provide the full explanation.  What I meant in that post earlier, was that I don't think Bryan, Reid & Burns are good enough - at this stage.  I don't believe that these 3 home-grown lads are quite up to regular League 1 first team level just yet.  By that I mean they'll happily contribute here and there over the course of the season, but I don't think any of them should yet be classed as permanent 'starters'.

What my argument at the outset of this thread was about, was that the starting 11 of successful sides last year contained on average 6 players aged between 21 and 24.  I'm not writing these 3 guys off, I'm saying that at this stage, I don't see them as regular starters.  If SC sees these 3 as regular starters, then I could foresee another season in the lower reaches.  That's not to say these guys won't come good in the future, in my opinion they're just not quite at a consistent league 1 performance level at the moment.

Hope that makes a bit more sense and quantifies my comment bit.  Sometimes it just easier to write a one-liner.

Yep makes perfect sense

I didn't believe for a minute you were writing them off, and i also think its a big season for them coming up.

[Drew Peacock]

 

I'm just not all all inspired by the summer being laden with SC's 25-28 year old married no-marks.

Surely, SC completely closing off a particular market (i.e. the u24's), is more loon than my ramblings?  He's set his parameters more narrowly than I.

 

 

Or not..................

[Kid in the Riot]

Or not..................

 

Maybe SC read Harry's comments, agreed with them and changed his philosophy for this summer's signings?

 

It was SC's words, not Harry's, that we'd be signing 26-28 year olds. Four signings in and not a single one fits into that category...

[glynriley]

Maybe SC read Harry's comments, agreed with them and changed his philosophy for this summer's signings?

 

It was SC's words, not Harry's, that we'd be signing 26-28 year olds. Four signings in and not a single one fits into that category...

 

Football manager in 'not telling the truth to the press' shocker.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Maybe SC read Harry's comments, agreed with them and changed his philosophy for this summer's signings?

 

It was SC's words, not Harry's, that we'd be signing 26-28 year olds. Four signings in and not a single one fits into that category...

 

of course it might have been the other way around, SC tricking Harry all along?.

 

No more tears over the missing 5th pillar please, it seems to be still in place.

[Kid in the Riot]

of course it might have been the other way around, SC tricking Harry all along?.

 

No more tears over the missing 5th pillar please, it seems to be still in place.

 

I suspect it was. A master-stroke from SC, lowering the expectation of fans and trying to put clubs off the scent that we were in fact still after young uns - so long as they were married with kids of course

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I suspect it was. A master-stroke from SC, lowering the expectation of fans and trying to put clubs off the scent that we were in fact still after young uns - so long as they were married with kids of course

 

Still i'm your you'll find something else.

[spudski]

Or not..................

Perhaps also it has a lot to do with Burt signing them, and not SC?

 

Korey Smith says in his statement when joining us, that we have been interested in him for the last 6 months to a year.

 

As KITR says...SC said he would looking for older players with experience.... as quoted below.

 

Personally... I don't believe half the things said by most Clubs or managers to the press...most of it, is just a lot of waffle, and words said to make a positive image at that moment in time. Most of it is Bull.

 

Either way... I don't care who signed our recent players...it's immaterial... I just hope they gel and we kick on.

 

One thing I am leaning towards thinking, due to a few conversations...is that whenever SC's time is up here...I can see young LJ coming back....and it wouldn't surprise me at all,if he came back as a package with his Dad.

 

Quote...

 

Cotterill said: "There was a craving to look at players who were 18-21 and then over the year they (the board) got used to taking in the 30-33-year-olds.

"We need a few middle of the roaders and that is alright if you bring in the right ones with enough mileage left in their legs.

"Now I want to be looking at a few 25, 26 and 27-year-olds. The reason I say that is because Bristol is a wonderful city, but when young boys come here and they find the nightlife and the restaurants and the bars and the clubs, it causes you a bit of a problem.

"I'd rather them be 25, 26 or 27 and married with two children. Then they can go home every night and have a nice dinner cooked for them and watch the TV. They come into training the next day and do exactly the same thing. Don't get me wrong, we'd love to have some good young players coming in. But we've got young ones here already."

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

 

Perhaps also it has a lot to do with Burt signing them, and not SC?

 

Korey Smith says in his statement when joining us, that we have been interested in him for the last 6 months to a year.

 

As KITR says...SC said he would looking for older players with experience.... as quoted below.

 

Personally... I don't believe half the things said by most Clubs or managers to the press...most of it, is just a lot of waffle, and words said to make a positive image at that moment in time. Most of it is Bull.

 

Either way... I don't care who signed our recent players...it's immaterial... I just hope they gel and we kick on.

 

One thing I am leaning towards thinking, due to a few conversations...is that whenever SC's time is up here...I can see young LJ coming back....and it wouldn't surprise me at all,if he came back as a package with his Dad.

 

Quote...

 

Cotterill said: "There was a craving to look at players who were 18-21 and then over the year they (the board) got used to taking in the 30-33-year-olds.

"We need a few middle of the roaders and that is alright if you bring in the right ones with enough mileage left in their legs.

"Now I want to be looking at a few 25, 26 and 27-year-olds. The reason I say that is because Bristol is a wonderful city, but when young boys come here and they find the nightlife and the restaurants and the bars and the clubs, it causes you a bit of a problem.

"I'd rather them be 25, 26 or 27 and married with two children. Then they can go home every night and have a nice dinner cooked for them and watch the TV. They come into training the next day and do exactly the same thing. Don't get me wrong, we'd love to have some good young players coming in. But we've got young ones here already."

 

 

 

Things must be changing then, as I was under the impression that SC did everything regarding recruitment apart from the medical examination, you must be ecstatic, the 5 pillars still standing and a DOF doing his job.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Still a couple more to come in I suspect..

 

But as it stands, the three younger players we've signed average just over 23 years old with Elliott being a welcome diversion from the recruitment policy in terms of age.

 

Seems to me that people were jumping the gun and having a go at SC and his recruitment policy with no substance other than SCs ramble about 25-28 year olds.

 

At that time he probably had these transfers in the bag, or at least a couple of them, and had his own reasons for stating what he did. Yet another reason for not taking what is said in whatever media too literally and jumping on it. Also, bear in mind that SC has a tendency to ramble....

 

I think that the problem has always been that taking of any statement about the ages of signings within the original 5 pillars has been taken literally, which was never the intention i'm sure the words 'where possible' were in there somewhere.

[Monkeh]

I think that the problem has always been that taking of any statement about the ages of signings within the original 5 pillars has been taken literally, which was never the intention i'm sure the words 'where possible' were in there somewhere.

prob were but that wouldn't fit in with the agenda

[PHILINFRANCE]

I think that the problem has always been that taking of any statement about the ages of signings within the original 5 pillars has been taken literally, which was never the intention i'm sure the words 'where possible' were in there somewhere.

I think you are correct.

Surely the five pillars should have been considered 'guidelines' rather than 'absolutes'.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Agreed.

 

Its obvious that signings such as Elliott makes sense and there should always be that caveat - it aided us escaping relegation.

 

There are also those that just have it in for SC for whatever reason which, at this moment in time, makes them look a bit daft. Although quite a few who expressed their displeasure at the time of his appointment have since said they were wrong fair play. I was ambivalent to his appointment but, ignoring his ramblings, I'm impressed so far.

 

And it seems the structure put in place during SODs time here is still relevant which is good.

 

Do you know what? I agree with all that, but to be fair the structure was actually started by DMC and SOD added to it and it appears to be being fine tuned to suit our actual requirements now.

 

When you try to micro scrutinise 'every' word that a 'football manager' utters and then claim it to be 'policy' at some stage you will have to eat your words.

[spudski]

Things must be changing then, as I was under the impression that SC did everything regarding recruitment apart from the medical examination, you must be ecstatic, the 5 pillars still standing and a DOF doing his job.

I really don't care anymore mate... I don't think anyone knows who is in charge of recruitment at this Club anymore.

 

You hear one thing from the Club, and then another from people within the game.

 

I would like it, if the Club was a little more transparent and informative to it's fans, as to who does what and when things change.

 

The misunderstanding and quotes made to the press I often feel lead to the disharmony amongst fans.

 

Like has been alluded too... It's probably not wise to scrutinise what SC, the Club or any manager say's to the press.

It's often smoke and mirrors and just plain waffle and soundbites.

 

This whole episode of SC or any manager quoting about ages of players, experience, hot dinners, girlfriends and marriage, nightlife in Bristol ( like no other City has great nightlife and it's just a problem for youngsters coming here...  ) is just total bull.... I would rather a manager said nothing, instead of spouting stuff that could be used against you or make fans make the wrong judgements, or as has been seen on here....a certain amount of disharmony amongst fans.

 

What has become apparent, is that certain fans think others have 'agendas' which just isn't true...and it's a muddy stick that is used in posts when it suits.

 

Half the things argued about on here, wouldn't be argued about, if the managers and clubs didn't spout bull and waffle to their paying support.

 

There is a thread presently going, on this forum, about fans feeling disengaged with the Club...from my own perspective....what I've heard from friends and colleagues, is that they just don't believe what is said by the board and most managers, and that they feel the Club treat them as idiots. The 'bigger' a Club becomes, the more they seem to get away with that. This is why smaller Clubs often feel like they appreciate their fans more imho. They are often more transparent and more engaging and truthful with their paying support.

 

From my own perspective... I tend to believe what I'm told personally by people who work in the game, rather than what I read through the media...as so far, they have been more accurate.

[Kid in the Riot]

Still i'm your you'll find something else.

 

I'm your I will.

 

But for the time being I doubt you'll find anyone more happy with this summers recruitment so far than "the ITKers" who have been advocating this recruitment policy for quite some time now...