Well done Gregor McGregorface !

[CotswoldRed]

14 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Neither did Leeds, QPR, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday, Norwich, Hull or Sunderland.

I'm merely saying there's too much emphasis on the January window for what went wrong. If we'd signed nobody we should have performed much much better than we have since Christmas. That's where the autopsy for the season should focus. 

[ChippenhamRed]

2 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

I'm merely saying there's too much emphasis on the January window for what went wrong. If we'd signed nobody we should have performed much much better than we have since Christmas. That's where the autopsy for the season should focus. 

I agree.

[cidercity1987]

Should have paid a bit more for ya season tickets, then we might have afforded Mitrovoic 

[Kingswood Robin]

1 hour ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Surely we could've signed someone better than what we did without breaking the bank?

That's the point for me. I just cannot believe that was the best could sign, financial constraints or not.

Also, have we only been knocking it long for the last 2 games?

[Kingswood Robin]

16 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

Should have paid a bit more for ya season tickets, then we might have afforded Mitrovoic 

We have, lets see what happens.

[ZiderEyed]

2 hours ago, cidercity1987 said:

Should have paid a bit more for ya season tickets, then we might have afforded Mitrovoic 

Low quality bait.

[pillred]

24 minutes ago, ZiderEyed said:

Low quality bait.

oh I don't know, as baits go I thought it was the master.

[Robin1988]

4 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Interesting the claim on Mitrovics wages

Fulham aren’t in receipt of parachute payments atm

Is it a surprise? Newcastle pay silly money for wages (Ritchie is on something like 80k/week, and he signed in the Champ) and Mitrovic was on the fringes of their first-team squad in the Prem earlier in the season. He's on at least £30-40k at Fulham. No question.

To be honest the first person I thought of watching that interview was you, Bob. We've talked about recruitment and is what it is, and in the grand scheme of things the club didn't back LJ when he most needed them seems to be the reality. And one to his credit he was happy to hide until now.

[havanatopia]

 

8 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Difficult to argue with him on that isn’t it. He’s working with financial constraints. If we’re going to be critical of that, the criticism should be aimed at the board rather than Johnson. Clearly he had little option but to take a punt on unproven players in January, rather than proven quality.

Wrong; if these players were risky punts he should have done nothing. 

Been banging on about that for a while; coasting along nicely, brings 3 duds in, as a punt you say, and the wheels fall off big time.

Why risk it? Total madness. 

[RedRock]

21 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

 

Wrong; if these players were risky punts he should have done nothing. 

Been banging on about that for a while; coasting along nicely, brings 3 duds in, as a punt you say, and the wheels fall off big time.

Why risk it? Total madness. 

Yep... and he had Woodrow/Engval for Centre Forward - which were far better fits for our style of play than Diony - and Elliason a winger who can cross a ball who doesn’t hit glass walls outside the penalty box ala Kent - all sat on the bench picking up splinters in their arses. Plus zillions of ‘one’s for the future’ eg Hinds who could have been given an opportunity and were instead blocked by these out-of-form, devoid of confidence punts.

Just totally, utterly bizarre. Gamble on one may be, but three all from the ‘damaged goods’ basket was just wreckless and stupid - almost as if we didn’t want promotion.

Never mind, a massive missed opportunity unlikely to be repeated for many years. No doubt there will be an end-of-season inquest and we will learn naff all and repeat the same mistakes over and over again. 

 

[ChippenhamRed]

54 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

 

Wrong; if these players were risky punts he should have done nothing. 

Been banging on about that for a while; coasting along nicely, brings 3 duds in, as a punt you say, and the wheels fall off big time.

Why risk it? Total madness. 

Doing nothing was also a risk. Our squad was diminished by injury and overworked with the number of games we’d already had by January whilst playing an intense pressing style. There was an overwhelming consensus on here that fresh blood was needed in January so I don’t think we can now claim hindsight wisdom and hold it against him.

I don’t blame the arrival of new players for the wheels coming off; that may well have happened anyway.

Far from “total madness”. Simply gambles that didn’t pay off with no indication that our form wouldn’t have declined anyway.

[aa_bcfc]

10 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Difficult to argue with him on that isn’t it. He’s working with financial constraints. If we’re going to be critical of that, the criticism should be aimed at the board rather than Johnson. Clearly he had little option but to take a punt on unproven players in January, rather than proven quality.

Perhaps if he hadn’t wasted a pile of money previously paying millions for players he doesn’t play the ‘suits’ might have been keener to back him. 

With the scouting structure we’ve apparently have and then end up with the likes of diony and Kent we’d  just as we’ll sack the lot of them.  

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Interesting the claim on Mitrovics wages

Fulham aren’t in receipt of parachute payments atm

I thought parachute payments was four years but soon shifting to three?

[Natchfever]

11 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Difficult to argue with him on that isn’t it. He’s working with financial constraints. If we’re going to be critical of that, the criticism should be aimed at the board rather than Johnson. Clearly he had little option but to take a punt on unproven players in January, rather than proven quality.

Perhaps the constraints are due to the shite signings made during his tenure.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, Robin1988 said:

Is it a surprise? Newcastle pay silly money for wages (Ritchie is on something like 80k/week, and he signed in the Champ) and Mitrovic was on the fringes of their first-team squad in the Prem earlier in the season. He's on at least £30-40k at Fulham. No question.

To be honest the first person I thought of watching that interview was you, Bob. We've talked about recruitment and is what it is, and in the grand scheme of things the club didn't back LJ when he most needed them seems to be the reality. And one to his credit he was happy to hide until now.

Newcastle made £30m in transfer profit that summer, they could afford one year of gamble. Plus 50k gates even last year, their corporate facilities (most clubs at this level have it)... They were always likely to go straight back up.

[Olé]

11 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

Yes, not knocking LJ's answers, just applauding someone with the cojones to ask

And that's it, in a nutshell - you can both have tough questions for Johnson and applaud his feedback. 

Like so much in life at the moment, once you have an opinion you're supposed to take up arms and lose your mind about it - there is no nuance or middle ground, only extremes, and OTIB seems to be a microcosm at times where regardless of what you're saying, you can only be a happy-clapper, or want Lee Johnson strung up in public. 

In actuality, if you take the time to read threads on OTIB, there is so much sense spoken whether positive or critical, it doesn't all need lumping into irrational positive or negative extremes. And by extension, as in your comment above, it is always possible to ask serious questions without automatically being resentful of LJ's answers.

Accountability is such an important check and balance in any organisation in order to ensure high standards and get everyone pulling in the same direction. Strategy is nothing without someone explaining why some things work and others don't. Too often Bristol City has shied away from providing that transparency and accountability.

It is not about wanting Lee Johnson to lose his job, nor about (with a few exceptions on here  ) some deep seated repetitive grudge against him. He's clearly a smart chap who is able to articulate his thinking, for heavens sake ask the uncomfortable questions that can get us all understanding things and believing in the strategy.

[Olé]

Although LJ has let himself down in that interview by saying that Kent will be a £10m player in the next two years.

That will only happen if someone sellotapes £9m to him.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

1 hour ago, aa_bcfc said:

Perhaps if he hadn’t wasted a pile of money previously paying millions for players he doesn’t play the ‘suits’ might have been keener to back him. 

With the scouting structure we’ve apparently have and then end up with the likes of diony and Kent we’d  just as we’ll sack the lot of them.  

Sorry, I don't buy this.  If you offset the players who have improved and developed against those who have been a disappointment, then I believe Johnson is in credit.

Positive: Brownhill, O'Dowda, Paterson, Baker, Diedhiou, Wright, Cotterill (loan), Steele

Neutral: O'Neill, Djuric, Taylor, Walsh, Pisano

Negative: Engvall, Hegeler, Kent (loan), DIony (loan), Woodrow (loan), Giefer (loan)

Have I left anyone out?  Most of the out-and-out failures have been loan players, which to an extent are always gambles, but for me the only two signings that really have not worked at all at Engvall and Hegeler.  I still think Taylor will improve and do well for us, and I actually think that Cauley Woodrow might have been a decent acquistion if he'd been given more game time.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

1 minute ago, Olé said:

Although LJ has let himself down in that interview by saying that Kent will be a £10m player in the next two years.

That will only happen if someone sellotapes £9m to him.

Nice, but not quite how I interpreted what he said!  I thought he said that if Kent was in our academy, he'd be predicting that he'd be a £10m player one day.  He's got to be a decent player, but his head is not right at the moment and I suspect loan moves suit some players more than others.

[simon uk]

Someone mentioned scott hogan on another thread, he has proved he can score goals in the championship, clearly thats someone who would have suited us in the position we were in.

instead, we have wages tied up with diony woodrow, engvall, taylor, plus numerous others in the squad who arent good enough, leko was a waste of time, kent has done practically nothing, walsh was a million quid but mitrovic’s wages wouldnt have come to that, and we still dont have that quick attacking midfielder that we were crying out for. Oneill and hegeler are a waste of wages, elliason isnt getting a sniff. What are the wages of that lot? Probably 50000 per week? We have bought a lot and of dross, got the league 1 core to take us to 2nd place, then ballsed it up again.

[BRISTOL86]

25 minutes ago, Olé said:

And that's it, in a nutshell - you can both have tough questions for Johnson and applaud his feedback. 

Like so much in life at the moment, once you have an opinion you're supposed to take up arms and lose your mind about it - there is no nuance or middle ground, only extremes, and OTIB seems to be a microcosm at times where regardless of what you're saying, you can only be a happy-clapper, or want Lee Johnson strung up in public. 

In actuality, if you take the time to read threads on OTIB, there is so much sense spoken whether positive or critical, it doesn't all need lumping into irrational positive or negative extremes. And by extension, as in your comment above, it is always possible to ask serious questions without automatically being resentful of LJ's answers.

Accountability is such an important check and balance in any organisation in order to ensure high standards and get everyone pulling in the same direction. Strategy is nothing without someone explaining why some things work and others don't. Too often Bristol City has shied away from providing that transparency and accountability.

It is not about wanting Lee Johnson to lose his job, nor about (with a few exceptions on here  ) some deep seated repetitive grudge against him. He's clearly a smart chap who is able to articulate his thinking, for heavens sake ask the uncomfortable questions that can get us all understanding things and believing in the strategy.

Very well said. 

[RedRock]

13 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Sorry, I don't buy this.  If you offset the players who have improved and developed against those who have been a disappointment, then I believe Johnson is in credit.

Positive: Brownhill, O'Dowda, Paterson, Baker, Diedhiou, Wright, Cotterill (loan), Steele

Neutral: O'Neill, Djuric, Taylor, Walsh, Pisano

Negative: Engvall, Hegeler, Kent (loan), DIony (loan), Woodrow (loan), Giefer (loan)

Have I left anyone out?  Most of the out-and-out failures have been loan players, which to an extent are always gambles, but for me the only two signings that really have not worked at all at Engvall and Hegeler.  I still think Taylor will improve and do well for us, and I actually think that Cauley Woodrow might have been a decent acquistion if he'd been given more game time.

‘Have I left anyone out?’

Yes, many, and therein lies part of our problem. We’ve opted for the ‘quantity not quality’ tactic in the hope our scouts unearth hidden gems. That relies on your scouting system being really cute and clever. It isn’t, far from it. Certainly would question several of your ‘positives’ and ‘neutrals’, but when you add the likes of Taylor-Moore, Leko we are in deficit big time on LJs transfers.

Was an interesting comment by LJ about newbies not fitting in/being accepted by the squad. Maybe that’s an indication they are getting pissed off by the lack of quality being brought in/high churn rate.

Compare and contrast to the tight squad and great team spirit and togetherness under SC - which remains at the core in terms of personnel of the current team.

Maybe the ‘better quality not less quantity’ approach is the best way forward? 

[phantom]

13 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

Listened to the longish presser   and hussah for BP guy... he waded in more like a frustrated otib poster than your usual lickspittle journos !   Basically ..."Why are we so shite since when we were 2nd.........why was Jan window SO shite..........why didn't we go for a bit of quality , and the best one.........do you feel you've been shafted by THE SUITS ?"  The sort of questions that must have had "minder" Beanhead gagging !

Well done son, glad someone's got balls 

Just to note most of the questions were sent in by supporters

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I thought parachute payments was four years but soon shifting to three?

I had it look and it appeared their PP finished last season

 

http://www.friendsoffulham.com/forum/index.php?topic=60202.0

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, BobBobSuperBob said:

I had it look and it appeared their PP finished last season

 

Thanks.

I read somewhere 4 years and maybe it's changed again to 3.

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks.

I read somewhere 4 years and maybe it's changed again to 3.

Just posted the link (Which I also read in newspaper) in my post above

Constantly changes 

[RedM]

4 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

I had it look and it appeared their PP finished last season

 

http://www.friendsoffulham.com/forum/index.php?topic=60202.0

These parachute payments, please forgive me if it’s a stupid question but I genuinely don’t know, but what happens to the money if it isn’t spent? Can it be carried over to the next season and used  or will clubs then fall foul of the fair finances rule? If so with careful budgeting clubs could have an advantage well over the 3 or 4 years?

[BobBobSuperBob]

2 minutes ago, RedM said:

These parachute payments, please forgive me if it’s a stupid question but I genuinely don’t know, but what happens to the money if it isn’t spent? Can it be carried over to the next season and used  or will clubs then fall foul of the fair finances rule? If so with careful budgeting clubs could have an advantage well over the 3 or 4 years?

As I understand M they can do with it what they like , spend it , save it 

It’s allegedly to help with higher prem based wage bills when relegated but if

You don’t pay big prem wages

or

Have players insensible contracts with relegation clauses etc

You absolutely can / should  have an excess of funds for the life and possibly beyond the PPs 

Fulham have a new foreign owner IIRC and whether he’s putting money in or they still have a very healthy budget from good budgeting whilst in receipt of pps who knows

[ExiledAjax]

5 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Fulham have a new foreign owner IIRC and whether he’s putting money in or they still have a very healthy budget from good budgeting whilst in receipt of pps who knows

They also recently applied for planning for their redeveloped Riverside stand. https://www.fulhamfc.com/stadium-development

Won't be cheap.

[BobBobSuperBob]

18 minutes ago, RedM said:

These parachute payments, please forgive me if it’s a stupid question but I genuinely don’t know, but what happens to the money if it isn’t spent? Can it be carried over to the next season and used  or will clubs then fall foul of the fair finances rule? If so with careful budgeting clubs could have an advantage well over the 3 or 4 years?

 

13 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

As I understand M they can do with it what they like , spend it , save it 

It’s allegedly to help with higher prem based wage bills when relegated but if

You don’t pay big prem wages

or

Have players insensible contracts with relegation clauses etc

You absolutely can / should  have an excess of funds for the life and possibly beyond the PPs 

Fulham have a new foreign owner IIRC and whether he’s putting money in or they still have a very healthy budget from good budgeting whilst in receipt of pps who knows

Thinking about this it actually benefits even longer

FFP allows you to lose something like £39m over 3 years - most clubs running at a constant loss have to juggle this each year

If say you’ve had PPs and at the end of those payments have spent it all

You would even then start on 0 for 3 years of FFP (In otherwards you can punt a £39m over the next 3 years -in one season if so inclined without incurring FFP)