This Forum, Our Fans, Expectations and Reality.

[Guest]

Just now, Moments of Pleasure said:

I think he's had it now, mate; he never did take his protein pills and put 'is helmet on, then he turnt all funk to funky and got into the old narcotics and we've not heard from him for years now.

But Captain Tom's in good hands - I reckon he always put his helmet on - and we wish him all the best.

 ok should be a major

[Capman]

18 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Many hereabouts love to claim we are overachieving or have overachieved, all of which of course is rendered meaningless unless one references the comparator. So what is that?

If the suggestion is the squad has done better than otherwise their talents might suggest, you are probably right.

I, however, would choose to benchmark against clubs of a similar status in which case we massively underperform. Few clubs in our position have had access to so much resource. No club, I'd argue, had spent so much to achieve so little. Others may have boomed and bust. We, without SL's patronage, ARE bust yet never boomed in the first place.

Simply by the amount we've spent acquiring, developing and funding players we should be mid to upper 2nd tier. A randomly selected squad of 25 coached by a randomly selected management would have achieved what we have.

And that, perhaps, is exactly what we are? A random selection of lower tier players managed by lower tier management benefitting from the fact superior talents are unable to compete with us financially.

Last time I checked City were well into the bottom half of net spenders in the championship over the last 5 years. So tbh I am struggling to understand your assessment. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

You cannot make the point on Twitter because of how the platform works.

The facebook groups are a mess and get ridiculed on here often.

Nor would making a point about the facebook groups, made on OTIB necessarily be seen by the people making the posts on facebook.

 

But weirdly, the people that post on OTIB *would* see posts made on OTIB, so the point could be made to those.

 

If you have a problem at Sainsburys, you aren't going to phone Tesco are you?

My point is that the thoughts and posts on here are not unique to OTIB. I see as much, if not worse, feelings elsewhere but somehow it always comes back that its just here

[JamesBCFC]

13 minutes ago, TomF said:

My point is that the thoughts and posts on here are not unique to OTIB. I see as much, if not worse, feelings elsewhere but somehow it always comes back that its just here

I dont think anyone has said it only happens on here, and it would be foolish for anyone to think it is exclusive to OTIB

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Capman said:

So tbh I am struggling to understand your assessment. 

Clearly.

Look at those who've spent more than us and, surprise, surprise, they've achieved something, albeit sometimes fleetingly. We've achieved zip.

I take it you also won't have assessed spending against income where, surprise, surprise, spending brings rich rewards.  The greater the success on the pitch the more you earn and the more you spend, hence you move higher up the spending table. The differential between Premier and Championship is so vast a single season in the top flight massively moves the numbers, not we'd ever find out.

Try comparing us to clubs who've never been in the Premier, though of our supposed 'status' there aren't many.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JamesBCFC said:

I dont think anyone has said it only happens on here, and it would be foolish for anyone to think it is exclusive to OTIB

But this place is the one that is always singled out as being such.  I'm so sick and tired of it. Even the club cite this place as some sort of evil place and that no other medium on the www creates such topics/viewpoints. 

[Sheltons Army]

Just now, TomF said:

But this place is the one that is always singled out as being such.  I'm so sick and tired of it. Even the club cite this place as some sort of evil place and that no other medium on the www creates such topics/viewpoints. 

No other place creates the incredible quantity of decent threads and interesting posts either Tom - 

I like to read a lot of Club Forums and this forum is both one of the busiest , and the best

So thanks 

[Robbored]

1 minute ago, Sheltons Army said:

No other place creates the incredible quantity of decent threads and interesting posts either Tom - 

I like to read a lot of Club Forums and this forum is both one of the busiest , and the best

So thanks 

Well said. Like you I like reading other Championship clubs forums and the only one I’ve found remotely as decent as otib is Owlstalk.

Most of them are decent posters but just like otib some are.............

 

 

[Sheltons Army]

Just now, Robbored said:

Well said. Like you I like reading other Championship clubs forums and the only one I’ve found remotely as decent as otib is Owlstalk.

Most of them are decent posters but just like otib some are.............

 

 

Not many have their own excellent analyst

Several knowledgable posters on Finances

etc

Even some connoisseurs of Red wine 

[Robbored]

21 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

Not many have their own excellent analyst

Several knowledgable posters on Finances

etc

Even some connoisseurs of Red wine 

DaveFev must be the envy of any away fans who visit otib!  

When we played The Owls I put the link up on their forum - they loved it!

[Lanterne Rouge]

I`ve only found a couple that are even remotely as good as OTIB. OwlsTalk as mentioned and the Derby one is pretty good too but the rest.....................

Keep up the good work @TomF

[Mr Popodopolous]

It's a good forum tbh- good range of posters, post content and I suspect cross-section of fans.

What others have said about the club, controlling the message etc- certainly agree with that. Couldn't do that on here.

[Capman]

9 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Clearly.

Look at those who've spent more than us and, surprise, surprise, they've achieved something, albeit sometimes fleetingly. We've achieved zip.

I take it you also won't have assessed spending against income where, surprise, surprise, spending brings rich rewards.  The greater the success on the pitch the more you earn and the more you spend, hence you move higher up the spending table. The differential between Premier and Championship is so vast a single season in the top flight massively moves the numbers, not we'd ever find out.

Try comparing us to clubs who've never been in the Premier, though of our supposed 'status' there aren't many.

So I check the facts and ask a simple question, your response is ‘clearly’ to moan and moan but produce not a single example.  Oh well.

 

Still I get it, you want Landsdown to throw a fortune at the issue and try and get in the premier league for a season. Some of us are old enough to remember a number of our players having to rip up their contracts last time the club displayed that level of recklessness. A period from which it took the club many many years to recover. 
 

Personally I never want the club to go there again. 

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Capman said:

So I check the facts and ask a simple question, your response is ‘clearly’ to moan and moan but produce not a single example.  Oh well.

 

Still I get it, you want Landsdown to throw a fortune at the issue and try and get in the premier league for a season. Some of us are old enough to remember a number of our players having to rip up their contracts last time the club displayed that level of recklessness. A period from which it took the club many many years to recover. 
 

Personally I never want the club to go there again. 

If you want me to go into detail happy so to do, I'll draw up a list.

Your powers of logical deduction are also sadly diminished as nowhere do I clamour for SL to throw a fortune to get us to The Premier. I pointed out to those who carp he's already doing just that, ****ing a King's ransom up the wall. That's the point I cannot fathom, why do so without any apparent strategy? I did suggest if he did go for **** or bust that's a strategic gamble I could understand. Doesn't mean I condone it.  High risk, unlikely to pay long-term dividends but it might just work. On the other hand and to the reality of losing £30m a year on the talentless rabble he's financed, well that's also disinterestingly bound to end in failure. So why bother?

If you look at the original context of my response it was to counter the utter BS of the suggestion we have overachieved or are overachieving. We've done nothing of the sort and are the antithesis of success. Lower in the league than when I started watching 56 years ago.

You also don't have remind of our spectacular downfall, I observed it in its full glory. You may recall, unlike the yung 'uns who incorrectly lionise 'The 8', that the reason we failed so spectacularly was we spent top bucks tying up crap. We failed to invest wisely, much the same as we've been doing of late.

[BTRFTG]

3 hours ago, Capman said:

So I check the facts and ask a simple question, your response is ‘clearly’ to moan and moan but produce not a single example.  Oh well.

 

Still I get it, you want Landsdown to throw a fortune at the issue and try and get in the premier league for a season. Some of us are old enough to remember a number of our players having to rip up their contracts last time the club displayed that level of recklessness. A period from which it took the club many many years to recover. 
 

Personally I never want the club to go there again. 

So here goes.

There are 49 clubs who've played in The Premier, who've reached the top and reaped rewards. Who've given their fans something of which to be proud, a season or more of thrills at the top of the tree.

Looking at club's history, size of catchment, fanbase, popularity & financial attractiveness here's a comparative list which in my opinion one might use to assess whether or not City are perennial underachievers?

Ignoring those clubs who are clearly much larger, important and significant than we'll ever be here's a list of those I believe against which we hold equal stature and those who hold a lesser stature, usually the result of much smaller catchments and access to resource (not pre-Premier history,) the teams who we've regularly competed against at various levels over the decades. There's also a brief column for those who probably should have played Premier at some stage, but who never have. The remaining 20 league sides in my opinion are of a lower stature and may never dream of reaching the top.

Premier = Stature Premier < Stature Never Made It       Brighton HA Blackpool City Burnley Bournemouth Brentford Crystal Palace Bradford City Preston Fulham Huddersfield Town   Sheffield U Oldham Athletic   Southampton Barnsley   WBA Swindon Town   Wolves Wigan Athletic   Birmingham C Wimbledon    Blackburn R     Bolton Wanderers     Cardiff City     Charlton Athletic     Coventry City     Derby County     Hull City     Ipswich Town     Middlesbrough     Norwich City     Nottingham Forest     Portsmouth     Queens Park Rangers     Reading     Sheffield Wednesday     Stoke City     Sunderland     Swansea City     Watford

Of the 3 I've listed as underachievers ( I ignored Millwall) we have by far and away the greatest access to resource and fanbase. We're also least likely of the 3 to achieve anything anytime soon.

Historically and by resource I think City should occupy a position roughly where we were when I first started watching, mid to lower 2nd tier. In respect of success we're somewhere toward the top of the 4th tier. Of course key to that is the fact we missed the boat when the Premier was conceived. The longer we missed out the more likely we'd always be perennial also rans.  In my list there are a dozen or more sides who one might now argue are massively bigger than City (and will likely remain so by virtue of their success in reaching and consolidating at the top, often by fliting between the top two tiers.) The thing I find galling is that 'trickle down' means we're similarly becoming non-competitive in The Championship. Were we declining 'on the cheap' I'd understand it, but we're not. We're 'bust' going nowhere slowly. But its Mr Lansdown's club and money and with the results his strategy is delivering its no surprise disillusionment sets in.

Dream? What dream?

 

[exAtyeoMax]

I don’t have real expectations anymore. The last time I actually felt we could push on what when we got promoted with Cotts, however that momentum was quashed spectacularly in my mind with the almost engineered installation of LJ. (Not blaming LJ) I know, the whole scenario has been done to death on here but hey ho that’s how I feel.

SL telling me that I should put up and shut up because he invests more than me was another milestone. 
I certainly don’t expect to get promoted anytime soon, this year mainly because of covid and injuries etc. I don’t have a massive problem with DH but I do question the philosophy of “trading players” being at the forefront as I think that may contribute to a feeling of instability, instead of focussing on the actual team, skills of players, style, whatever.

that said, I think it’s really important to discuss and debate issues that we may have. You shouldn’t underestimate the importance of being able to.

 

I don’t have real expectations anymore. The last time I actually felt we could push on what when we got promoted with Cotts, however that momentum was quashed spectacularly in my mind with the almost engineered installation of LJ. (Not blaming LJ) I know, the whole scenario has been done to death on here but hey ho that’s how I feel.

SL telling me that I should put up and shut up because he invests more than me was another milestone. 
I certainly don’t expect to get promoted anytime soon, this year mainly because of covid and injuries etc. I don’t have a massive problem with DH but I do question the philosophy of “trading players” being at the forefront as I think that may contribute to a feeling of instability, instead of focussing on the actual team, skills of players, style, whatever.

that said, I think it’s really important to discuss and debate issues that we may have. You shouldn’t underestimate the importance of being able to.

 

[Capman]

On 02/02/2021 at 00:55, BTRFTG said:

So here goes.

There are 49 clubs who've played in The Premier, who've reached the top and reaped rewards. Who've given their fans something of which to be proud, a season or more of thrills at the top of the tree.

Looking at club's history, size of catchment, fanbase, popularity & financial attractiveness here's a comparative list which in my opinion one might use to assess whether or not City are perennial underachievers?

Ignoring those clubs who are clearly much larger, important and significant than we'll ever be here's a list of those I believe against which we hold equal stature and those who hold a lesser stature, usually the result of much smaller catchments and access to resource (not pre-Premier history,) the teams who we've regularly competed against at various levels over the decades. There's also a brief column for those who probably should have played Premier at some stage, but who never have. The remaining 20 league sides in my opinion are of a lower stature and may never dream of reaching the top.

Premier = Stature Premier < Stature Never Made It       Brighton HA Blackpool City Burnley Bournemouth Brentford Crystal Palace Bradford City Preston Fulham Huddersfield Town   Sheffield U Oldham Athletic   Southampton Barnsley   WBA Swindon Town   Wolves Wigan Athletic   Birmingham C Wimbledon    Blackburn R     Bolton Wanderers     Cardiff City     Charlton Athletic     Coventry City     Derby County     Hull City     Ipswich Town     Middlesbrough     Norwich City     Nottingham Forest     Portsmouth     Queens Park Rangers     Reading     Sheffield Wednesday     Stoke City     Sunderland     Swansea City     Watford

Of the 3 I've listed as underachievers ( I ignored Millwall) we have by far and away the greatest access to resource and fanbase. We're also least likely of the 3 to achieve anything anytime soon.

Historically and by resource I think City should occupy a position roughly where we were when I first started watching, mid to lower 2nd tier. In respect of success we're somewhere toward the top of the 4th tier. Of course key to that is the fact we missed the boat when the Premier was conceived. The longer we missed out the more likely we'd always be perennial also rans.  In my list there are a dozen or more sides who one might now argue are massively bigger than City (and will likely remain so by virtue of their success in reaching and consolidating at the top, often by fliting between the top two tiers.) The thing I find galling is that 'trickle down' means we're similarly becoming non-competitive in The Championship. Were we declining 'on the cheap' I'd understand it, but we're not. We're 'bust' going nowhere slowly. But its Mr Lansdown's club and money and with the results his strategy is delivering its no surprise disillusionment sets in.

Dream? What dream?

 

Sorry been a busy few days. The point I was making was that the stats do not support the suggestion that we have been a big net spenders. The numbers seem to show our net spend is low for the championship. I agree the parachute payments make the league unfair and at some point we need to break that cycle if we want to make it to the next level.  
 

Having said that, I understand the frustration of the fans. Johnson going seemed like a decision made by a board determined to make it that next level and I expected an ambitious appointment to replace him. But we appointed Holden and having made that decision we need to give him time to see if it works. 
 

For what it’s worth I agree that city have been underachieving for almost 50 years. What I would say for Lansdown is he has turned us into a top half 2nd tier team. I am sure he wants to take it one level up from that but suspect he wants to be more of a Newcastle not a Reading. Time will tell if he is successful. 

[BTRFTG]

13 hours ago, Capman said:

The point I was making was that the stats do not support the suggestion that we have been a big net spenders.

Disraeli highlighted the problem with stats and the old 'net spending' chestnut is right up there with the best. What we should focus on is the total liability of each deal, what each cost over its lifecycle. Not just the 'ins and outs' , also associated fees, finance costs and WAGES. 

By that measure I think the only two clubs worse than us who've either not made The Premier or who haven't been there for ages are Sheff Wed & Birmingham and we all know what trouble they're in. In terms of 'net spending' , courtesy of a few prime deals we've had of late (but which won't materialise in the near future,) we appear better off than the likes of Hull & Rotherham. But whilst they were turning small profits we were shipping £30m+ per season in operational losses. That's the problem, we appear more "net' prudent than the likes of Preston but their wage bill is £20m a year less than ours. Mates laugh at my old yet fully functional, 6 year old phone (purchased not contracted.) "You can get a new top of the range phone for £30," ignoring the fact for the next 3 years I'm paying £12 each month for more than I can use whilst they're forking out £65 or more for something that does the same job.

SLs gamble of running huge operational losses, deploying vast squads, funded by assumed sales of 2 or 3 future stars each year is no more prudent than the likes of Villa & Leeds who paid top bucks for stars to get them promotion. When sales dry up we're stuck with the wage liability and, unlike those who spent big and may still realise some value from those superior assets should things go belly up, we're relatively unable to do anything about it. I'd argue SL's strategy, if that is what it is supposed to be, is even higher risk. If he was going to spend I think it should have been on fewer, higher quality, higher earning payers, not the bench & treatment room nomarks we've assembled. Look at the 'Premier' guys we took on loan from Chelsea. First season here were they good enough to get us into the play-offs? So why pay big money to sign them on expensive deals? No surprises they haven't pulled up trees since settling for an easy life at AG. That's dumb purchasing. Better we exploit options for loan deals, not cheap, but the proven route for sides making themselves competitive. We should also invest and review back of house. Our injuries over the past 5 seasons, particularly to loanees, needs investigating. It's not just bad luck, either we're failing to identify (pre deal) crocked liabilities else whatever we're doing in training isn't right. Truth is it's probably both.