Todays Press Conference.

[ChippenhamRed]

36 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Unless it would've been a headline signing where SL didn't mind using his own money to pay him. Whereas Bennett was just a normal squad player that we wouldn't pay over our valuation of him. I don't get why being able to afford a high profile striker means we can pay average to above average players over what they should. So maybe SL was ok with paying a striker 20k because of resale value. Maybe he isn't comfortable paying 12k for a winger that while consistent wasn't spectacular. Don't take one quote and turn it into an argument for yourself(not just you but anyone for anything). 

I agree with everything you say but your last comment was a bit harsh. I am just offering my own assessment of how I think it may have played out based on what we have been told by SL about wages. Better that than basing my view on unfounded theories about what we will and will not pay.

[Chairman Mao]

wait, so we throw around £9 million in summer

 

and apparently don't have any money for transfers? wtf?

[MarkRed!]

Are the journalists spineless. They do not appear to ask any searching or probing questions of SC or the club... SC is asked, " what do you expect to get out of this month", FFS is that the quality of journalist we now have to deal with as well....no probing at all. I am not saying we should simply tell the world our plans but come on.... fans want some reassurance that the right targets are being pursued. SC was quick to publicise that we would take EB and look what happened there.....

There is something not right and this press conference says it all: 

1. We have bid 6 and 9 million pound for players - thus, we clearly have some financial muscle. Cant blame SC or the club if we make players a decent offer and they take more. We dont want to overspend on players. With respect, EB was mediocre. He hardly pulled up trees and plainly Norwich were going to let him leave anyway in the Summer on a free. Blackburn have already been embargoed and we don't want BCFC to be in that position.  QPR are on the verge of a 50 million fine which could send them into administration unless they challenge successfully the FFP rules. I have no problem if SC thinks EB has a certain value and Blackburn offer him lots more, which we choose not to match or better. EB has no resale value to us given his age and thus that is just as much a gamble as signing a third division french player. 

2. There is a clear difference in what SC is saying and what SL said during interview. I suspect, SC is simply giving us the facts whereas SL's views can be interpreted however you choose too - political spin. The facts are supportive of SC's position.  We have not "brought" in many players at all and have relied on the loan market. That would suggest that money is ultimately an issue. We have a director of football and are operating a club strategy towards the financing of the 1st team. I have no problem with that but it would be nice for the club to be transparent with the fans about it. It would be silly to say that we do not have such a policy. Hence the signing (apparently) of a third division french player for £50k, who the manager describes as a "punt".

3. I think we are towards the bottom end of the food chain as SC alluded too but the wider issue is the recruitment strategy of the club over a longer period of time. We say we want quality but sign a third division player from France. He might, might, be the signing of the century but it is a lot to expect of a young lad when SC has no recent track record of using youth players who are right under his nose within our Academy. The apparent rationale for signing JPG is clear, if it works it is a master stroke if it does not, he will play for U21 side until his contract expires.  Our attacking prowess therefore hinges on a gamble.....very brave indeed.  

4. We do have "plenty" of irons on the fire which makes SC's previous comment that we do not look stupid. However, the deals are not done because the players are waiting to see if they are made a better offer. Cannot do a lot about this and we wont be able to progress them until near the end of the window. Ultimately, its a case of wait and see what materialises. Phew, no one will be anxious on here anymore then! We could be down by then even though only a relatively small number of games will have passed. Problem is that we all think the "next game" will bring points and save us. There is no confidence this will happen.  

5. In all truth, I suspect we will delve into the loan market again and few permanent signings will be made.  The current 11 will be charged with saving our status. I am not sure that BCFC fans will applaud this approach. 

6. SC confirmed that Baker, Williams and Freeman are injury concerns. Very good news for us fans as we may just now get a game for our beloved club. SC, I am available. 

I have no problem with financial prudence and a coherent club policy. However, from watching the majority of games both home and away, the players are looking flogged and in desperate need of reinforcement and that little bit of quality. I was hoping to see at least 3 players before the WBA game and certainly before the next 2 home games. I now wont hold my breath generally or waste any more time worrying about it. 

Its been said on here already - an utter shambles given our reported ambitions and a total waste of the fine work done last year to reach the Championship. 

[GrahamC]

Just now, Chairman Mao said:

wait, so we throw around £9 million in summer

 

and apparently don't have any money for transfers? wtf?

I must have missed that, remind me who we bought again?

Oh we didn't, he plays for Burnley.

Do you want to come and see my million pound house I didn't buy either?

[Chairman Mao]

3 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

I must have missed that, remind me who we bought again?

Oh we didn't, he plays for Burnley.

Do you want to come and see my million pound house I didn't buy either?

if we don't have £9 million why did we bid ?

 

we also bid £6m for Gayle, don't be daft we have cash, something doesn't add up

[Vincent Vega]

1 minute ago, Chairman Mao said:

if we don't have £9 million why did we bid ?

 

we also bid £6m for Gayle, don't be daft we have cash, something doesn't add up

Really.....where is it then?

 

[Chairman Mao]

1 minute ago, Doozerchris said:

Really.....where is it then?

 

clearly there otherwise we wouldn't have bid 6-9 million for players in the summer

 

which part of it don't you guys get? we have money, or at least had it in the summer

[Vincent Vega]

1 minute ago, Chairman Mao said:

clearly there otherwise we wouldn't have bid 6-9 million for players in the summer

 

which part of it don't you guys get? we have money, or at least had it in the summer

The part where we will not pay the wages 

[deadredfred]

All sounds very familiar. As if I heard it just 5 months or so ago. 

Oh wait...

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/33732003

And I quote...

"We are now competing with lots of big clubs in the Championship and we may need to be even more patient for some of the right ones to drop,"

SC. 31 July 2015. 8 DAYS before the opening match!

'However, he says the club will not burden themselves financially by bringing in players they do not need or who are over-priced.' 

Cox anyone? And finally...

'Cotterill, whose side take on Sheffield Wednesday on the opening day, added: "I've seen it happen at clubs far too often where you end up taking people for back up. It isn't back up we want, it's competition for those 11.

Garita anyone? 

Spouting the same bunkum time and again is not filling me with confidence. Please, PLEASE City tell me we've learnt from the rediculous summer happenings and prove me wrong! PLEASE!

 

 

[Chairman Mao]

Just now, Doozerchris said:

The part where we will not pay the wages 

clearly, lansdown is obviously on some sort of substance if he thinks bidding millions but not paying wages is conducive to a decent side. Wage bills mirror league positions not transfer spends

[MarkRed!]

1 minute ago, Doozerchris said:

The part where we will not pay the wages 

That makes us bidding 9 million and 6 million for players utterly laughable. For those sums you are looking at 50-60K per week in wages.  

[Vincent Vega]

3 minutes ago, Chairman Mao said:

clearly, lansdown is obviously on some sort of substance if he thinks bidding millions but not paying wages is conducive to a decent side. Wage bills mirror league positions not transfer spends

 

2 minutes ago, MarkRed! said:

That makes us bidding 9 million and 6 million for players utterly laughable. For those sums you are looking at 50-60K per week in wages.  

Exactly...

Not sure about those wages though...

[joshthomson]

We still have 23 days. Yes we have important games in that period, but I would rather bring in the quality which we are surely aiming for than any random lie league fill ins. 

And remember although Gayle or gray would have been great in the summer. Kodjia wouldn't be half the player he is now if they had signed. No way would Cotterill started the season with Gayle/Gray and kodjia up top.

[Red Bill]

MarkRed is right.  Buying a young, untried, French non-league player is a huge gamble which I, for one, do not understand - though I hope to god I am proved wrong.  Surely if we are going to go down that route a more sensible approach would be to look at our own non-league players.  Such as:

Dennis of Macclesfield 20 goals

Amond of Grimsby 17 goals

Emmanuel of Bromley 17 goals

Rhead of Lincoln 15 goals

Hannah of Chester 13 goals

Burrow of Halifax 13 goals

Goddard of Woking 13 goals

Bowman of Gateshead 12 goals

etc. etc etc.

Of course I appreciate that they play in a lower division but.......so did our new signing.....and he has only scored 6.  There must surely be untapped talent in the lower divisions who would bite your hand off to play at the Gate.  Waters of Cheltenham is only 21 and has scored 20 from mid-field ffs.  It may seem fashionable to have foreign players in the team but I do hope we do not overlook home grown talent.

 

[MarkRed!]

8 minutes ago, deadredfred said:

All sounds very familiar. As if I heard it just 5 months or so ago. 

Oh wait...

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/33732003

And I quote...

"We are now competing with lots of big clubs in the Championship and we may need to be even more patient for some of the right ones to drop,"

SC. 31 July 2015. 8 DAYS before the opening match!

'However, he says the club will not burden themselves financially by bringing in players they do not need or who are over-priced.' 

Cox anyone? And finally...

'Cotterill, whose side take on Sheffield Wednesday on the opening day, added: "I've seen it happen at clubs far too often where you end up taking people for back up. It isn't back up we want, it's competition for those 11.

Garita anyone? 

Spouting the same bunkum time and again is not filling me with confidence. Please, PLEASE City tell me we've learnt from the rediculous summer happenings and prove me wrong! PLEASE!

 

 

Spot on.... the club strategy is diabolical and that must start from the Board and the Director of Football. The latter, why do we need one? He is not doing much directing! The journalists should be reminding SC of these little pearls of wisdom. Unbelievable and lazy journalism. 

[JoeAman08]

22 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

I agree with everything you say but your last comment was a bit harsh. I am just offering my own assessment of how I think it may have played out based on what we have been told by SL about wages. Better that than basing my view on unfounded theories about what we will and will not pay.

I apologize. It why I added the bit in the parenthesis. It's not just you and the point I'm trying to make is that many are assuming we can afford this player and that player because SL said we can afford Gray or Gayle. In my thinking and I could be wrong, is that one of those two would've been the exception to our wage limit. That SL told them I'll pay a top striker 20-25k a week if you can get them. That this doesn't apply to a central mid or a wing back and if those players require more than our limit(say 10k weekly) than they won't be signed. 

So again I apologize: did not intend to offend. 

[Northern Cider Ed]

1 minute ago, Red Bill said:

MarkRed is right.  Buying a young, untried, French non-league player is a huge gamble which I, for one, do not understand - though I hope to god I am proved wrong.  Surely if we are going to go down that route a more sensible approach would be to look at our own non-league players.  Such as:

Dennis of Macclesfield 20 goals

Amond of Grimsby 17 goals

Emmanuel of Bromley 17 goals

Rhead of Lincoln 15 goals

Hannah of Chester 13 goals

Burrow of Halifax 13 goals

Goddard of Woking 13 goals

Bowman of Gateshead 12 goals

etc. etc etc.

Of course I appreciate that they play in a lower division but.......so did our new signing.....and he has only scored 6.  There must surely be untapped talent in the lower divisions who would bite your hand off to play at the Gate.  Waters of Cheltenham is only 21 and has scored 20 from mid-field ffs.  It may seem fashionable to have foreign players in the team but I do hope we do not overlook home grown talent.

 

Ive been to a few conference games this season and I know Amond & Rhead & Hannah very well. Amond is a good goalscorer but is at his level, Rhead is 31 years old and just a massive lump that Mansfield don't want and Hannah is nothing special. I know your sentiment and I agree there are a few good players at this level but they would probably be a bigger risk than an unknown Cameroonian as clubs know about thses players. The best conference player I have seen is James McKeown the Grimsby GK. Surprised he hasn't been taken yet

 

[Jack Dawe]

4 minutes ago, Chairman Mao said:

clearly, lansdown is obviously on some sort of substance if he thinks bidding millions but not paying wages is conducive to a decent side. Wage bills mirror league positions not transfer spends

That's right. There's always exceptions to these rules though, for example, Bristol City relegated from the Championship in 2013 with a £18.6m wage bill (to widespread derision and incredulous comment, see SO'D, 2013 and others) which should have delivered a top half finish, going by the rule of thumb you mention.

The result of which is, SL desparate to do things "sustainably" and to a budget. To run a tight ship. And not sink this time

[GrahamC]

12 minutes ago, MarkRed! said:

That makes us bidding 9 million and 6 million for players utterly laughable. For those sums you are looking at 50-60K per week in wages.  

We know, but are not the people who needed telling.

Surprised more haven't picked up on our owners pertinent comment last week about us looking more in League One where wages are £2k on average...

 

[ChippenhamRed]

5 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

I apologize. It why I added the bit in the parenthesis. It's not just you and the point I'm trying to make is that many are assuming we can afford this player and that player because SL said we can afford Gray or Gayle. In my thinking and I could be wrong, is that one of those two would've been the exception to our wage limit. That SL told them I'll pay a top striker 20-25k a week if you can get them. That this doesn't apply to a central mid or a wing back and if those players require more than our limit(say 10k weekly) than they won't be signed. 

So again I apologize: did not intend to offend. 

Again, I agree with you - cheers for the apology too, appreciated!

[Vincent Vega]

2 minutes ago, Jack Dawe said:

That's right. There's always exceptions to these rules though, for example, Bristol City relegated from the Championship in 2013 with a £18.6m wage bill (to widespread derision and incredulous comment, see SO'D, 2013 and others) which should have delivered a top half finish, going by the rule of thumb you mention.

The result of which is, SL desparate to do things "sustainably" and to a budget. To run a tight ship. And not sink this time

Sink, good choice of words

 

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, deadredfred said:

All sounds very familiar. As if I heard it just 5 months or so ago. 

Oh wait...

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/33732003

And I quote...

"We are now competing with lots of big clubs in the Championship and we may need to be even more patient for some of the right ones to drop,"

SC. 31 July 2015. 8 DAYS before the opening match!

'However, he says the club will not burden themselves financially by bringing in players they do not need or who are over-priced.' 

Cox anyone? And finally...

'Cotterill, whose side take on Sheffield Wednesday on the opening day, added: "I've seen it happen at clubs far too often where you end up taking people for back up. It isn't back up we want, it's competition for those 11.

Garita anyone? 

Spouting the same bunkum time and again is not filling me with confidence. Please, PLEASE City tell me we've learnt from the rediculous summer happenings and prove me wrong! PLEASE!

 

 

I don't think he's bought Garita for the here and now, but may be forced to whilst numbers are short.  To be fair he didn't buy Kodjia and expect him to play every game either.

i think fair play that Cotterill has bought someone who he thinks has potential, that himself as Manager, might not be around to see fulfil.

I was gonna say if we had Warnock in charge, he'd be demanding blowing our budget left right and centre.  But in fairness to him when he went to Sheffield United, he used most of his budget setting up a youth system to give his reign a legacy.

[MarkRed!]

9 minutes ago, Red Bill said:

 Buying a young, untried, French non-league player is a huge gamble which I, for one, do not understand - though I hope to god I am proved wrong.  Surely if we are going to go down that route a more sensible approach would be to look at our own non-league players.  It may seem fashionable to have foreign players in the team but I do hope we do not overlook home grown talent.

Spot on Red Bill. Why are we also not looking to pick up those players in Lg 1 and Lg 2. We also have our own Academy which appears not to be getting a look in.They know the Lgs and they are a safer punt than someone from a third tier league.

Look at Aston Villa and those players they have got from Lique 1, they are 10 million pound + gambles ... 

[samo II]

After a crap day at work, to return to this is... well, it's made work look a damn sight better.

I cannot say this is anywhere close to what I wanted to hear; the movement over this French lad had me questioning my lack of faith that we had prepared for this window, only for me to find the same hope immediately dashed.

But if this is how it will be (and I'm sorry, but I've zero expectations of us signing anyone we truly want now, as waiting until the last minute didn't work in the summer, and it's not like we'll be richer or better off at the end of this one, if the league if form tells you anything), then this is how it will be.

Time to dig a moat and build those walls, as without an injection of quality, then all we have is mentality, spirit and fight to help make up for this squad's lack of depth and quality.

And let us spare a thought for our current under-21s, as with SC saying he'll use him whole numbers are down, I imagine a few of the more ambitious lads already here will wonder what on earth happened last time we couldn't fill a bench - part of me wonders what the point was giving Wade that job when we clearly don't care about the kids. 

Depressing.

[Jack Dawe]

2 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

We know, but are not the people who needed telling.

Surprised more haven't picked up on our owners pertinent comment last week about us looking more in League One where wages are £2k on average...

 

Was he telling the truth then, though? 

Last summer, the transfer policy seemed to be a pinball, all over the shop, approach. It could still be.

[RedRaw]

33 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Do you believe everyone always tells the truth?

Do you believe everything you read on a forum?

The fact is, nobody knows the truth and you're all getting your knickers in a twist based purely on conjecture, assumptions and fans frustrated opinions

[Red Rum]

2 hours ago, Selred said:

Please note all these tweets are from Andy Stockhausen.

• -       City boss Steve Cotterill confirmed he will use Garita in senior squad while numbers are down. Thereafter, in under-21s.

   

• -       Cotterill answered all questions at today's presser, citing financial reasons and position in table as reasons for not signing players

   

• -       He said he felt a majority of City's business will be done towards the back end of the January window.

   

• -       SC told journalists: "We are a way down the food chain when it comes to transfers. Money talks and we cannot compete with bigger clubs."

   

• -       Cotterill admitted he was "disappointed" not to land Elliott Bennett. He felt sure he would join City up until Monday morning.

   

• -       He suggested the main reason for Bennett chossing Blackburn over City was money. "We could not compete with what they were offering."

   

• -       Steve Cotterill also confirmed that Nathan Baker, Derrick Williams and Luke Freeman are doubts for Saturday's FA Cup tie at West Brom.

   

• -       He is resigned to having to work with a small squad until late in the transfer window. "We need a couple of good players in certain positions to make all the difference. You will then see us win games."

   

 

Personally not too happy with the financial excuse, especially after what Lansdown said. Also worried we will miss targets again and depend on loans. 

Roll on Saturday with our 4 players... 

This seems to be an outright acceptance of defeat. He focuses on the negative, i.e. what we can't do, with little in the way of answers.  It's all good needing 'a couple of good players in certain positions', however where will these come from if we are so far down the pecking order. Other than that, he is either relying on devine intervention or has accepted our fate.

The line regarding Garita sounds like desperation and can't be great for the player's confidence (we're only letting you near the first team while we have no other options, after that you're straight back to the under 21s). If he was truly good enough for the first team, SC wouldn't have mentioned this.

Surely someone in SC's position should be giving us solutions, not problems!

[CotswoldRed]

I think today's press conference confirms that from top to bottom the club is out of ideas and out of its depth. I refuse to acknowledge that a club in our position can't do better in the window. 

[deadredfred]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don't think he's bought Garita for the here and now, but may be forced to whilst numbers are short.  To be fair he didn't buy Kodjia and expect him to play every game either.

i think fair play that Cotterill has bought someone who he thinks has potential, that himself as Manager, might not be around to see fulfil.

I was gonna say if we had Warnock in charge, he'd be demanding blowing our budget left right and centre.  But in fairness to him when he went to Sheffield United, he used most of his budget setting up a youth system to give his reign a legacy.

I agree re Garita. But I'd be much more comfortable knowing that effort, time and money is being put into recruiting first team players, and not have the distraction of a lad if he's signed for the U21's . 

Buying young players for the future shows good vision and a long range plan, all of which is great. I have no issue with that at all.

But at a time when our tired squad is down to the bare bones, it would be nice if we see some transfer action that didn't regularly totally contradict the very thing our manager said less than 6 months ago.

[BRISTOL86]

The financial excuse on Bennett doesn't sit right with me. 

Bennett is an average championship player. No disrespect to him, but that's what he is. Nothing amazing but not too shabby either. 

Lansdown said that we could match the wage demands of both Gray and Gayle, who are both better players than Bennett. 

I can't see Blackburn throwing ludicrous wages to get Bennett, certainly not so ludicrous that we couldn't match it if we wanted him that badly (especially as Baker is apparently here because Birmingham couldn't match what we are paying him)

Smacks to me of Cotts not wanting to say 'he'd much rather play for Paul Lambert'.