The Office (UK): Ipswich Town edition

[Mr Hankey]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fair points although the pedant in me points out that the rules were different then but there were no points deductions for breaches so could've gone either way.

The Rule changes seem to catch us at bad times..it was 1 year £13m loss plus Allowables but the following season snapped into 3 Year Losses.

No that’s true and you are right about Ipswich’s situation compared to our’s……it’s just bloody infuritating seeing another club get ahead, particularly when it’s our former CEO who we all ridiculed and even warned the Ipswich fans about!

[Numero Uno]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They've pulled a 1 in a 20 chance season IMO.

Of course credit is due but so very much will have gone their way in a big picture sense.

Not churlish but there is a bit of both.

But that would need the case for us to go up. We do not have anywhere near the quality to dominate a division. Would we be bothered?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Mr Hankey said:

No that’s true and you are right about Ipswich’s situation compared to our’s……it’s just bloody infuritating seeing another club get ahead, particularly when it’s our former CEO who we all ridiculed and even warned the Ipswich fans about!

Totally agree.

Not only that but check their continuity of a lot key players....infuriating and then some! That same combination helped to oversee average to terrible injury positions and of course given Ashton and his role in the financial disaster.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Numero Uno said:

But that would need the case for us to go up. We do not have anywhere near the quality to dominate a division. Would we be bothered?

Our best hope realistically is certain stars align, keep James and Williams, plus Conway and anyone else who is important, manage to really have a good season for fitness, the number 9 and 10 and maybe one or two valuable depth players.

Even then playoffs most likely although the 3 who drop feel like they could be less strong.

[Jose]

That’s how you keep the momentum after getting promoted from League One. Unfortunately we have Lansdown at the helm who royally ****** up our chance to push on. 

[Bristol Rob]

32 minutes ago, Jose said:

That’s how you keep the momentum after getting promoted from League One. Unfortunately we have Lansdown at the helm who royally ****** up our chance to push on. 

So we need to get relegated before we can challenge!

[Mr Popodopolous]

35 minutes ago, Jose said:

That’s how you keep the momentum after getting promoted from League One. Unfortunately we have Lansdown at the helm who royally ****** up our chance to push on. 

Genuinely 1 in 20 I reckon. Retaining momentum is of course very important and we very much botched that among other things!

[Randy Marsh II]

They clearly picked a very good manager, would Ashton have been better here being allowed to pick a man than Lansdowns weeble figurine?

[Numero Uno]

14 minutes ago, Randy Marsh II said:

They clearly picked a very good manager, would Ashton have been better here being allowed to pick a man than Lansdowns weeble figurine?

The problem was that FFFP wise the damage had already been done. Pep could have been brought in and the constraints would have been the same as Holden and Pearson were working under. Holden was just too inexperienced to work under those constraints.

[Phileas Fogg]

37 minutes ago, Randy Marsh II said:

They clearly picked a very good manager, would Ashton have been better here being allowed to pick a man than Lansdowns weeble figurine?

I know he's an annoying git, but Ipswich's success definitely evidences the theory that it's the Lansdowns (not Ashton) who are the real problem.

Edited May 4 by Phileas Fogg

[Bris Red]

23 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

The problem was that FFFP wise the damage had already been done. Pep could have been brought in and the constraints would have been the same as Holden and Pearson were working under. Holden was just too inexperienced to work under those constraints.

Damage was done the moment Lansdown didn't cut his losses on LJ and just thought that throwing more and more money at it would be the solution.

Credit to Ipswich and if it ever was proof that Mark Ashton was never the real issue than this surely is it. Steve Lansdown is utterly clueless at running a successful football club at this level it has been proven time and time again.

[Henry]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They've pulled a 1 in a 20 chance season IMO.

Of course credit is due but so very much will have gone their way in a big picture sense.

Not churlish but there is a bit of both.

They got promoted then finished on 96 points. That’s nothing to do with luck or things going their way. They’ve had an absolutely incredible season. Not quite leicester levels but not far off it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Henry said:

They got promoted then finished on 96 points. That’s nothing to do with luck or things going their way. They’ve had an absolutely incredible season. Not quite leicester levels but not far off it.

I agree incredible but everything went right broadly speaking. I agree but unsure how many times they would pull it off...the injuries or lack of, some hitherto unremarkable individuals at this level as a number did their squad surging as they did with 3 Relegated bolstered by Parachute Payments major clubs for the level.

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

I know he's an annoying git, but Ipswich's success definitely evidences the theory that it's the Lansdowns (not Ashton) who are the real problem.

Far too easy to excuse Ashton from the blame based on what he did at Ipswich.  He was in the thick of it here aided on both sides, up and down the hierarchy.

Let’s not overplay what he’s done at Ipswich.  He may have identified a diamond in McKenna, but it’s McKenna who has delivered.  He didn’t do well with Cook did he?

He is a leopard whose spots won’t change, but cage him correctly and he’s a good football businessman for your club.  If Ipswich hadn’t done that, he’d have run amok with their finances.

[JAWS]

16 minutes ago, Bris Red said:

Damage was done the moment Lansdown didn't cut his losses on LJ and just thought that throwing more and more money at it would be the solution.

Credit to Ipswich and if it ever was proof that Mark Ashton was never the real issue than this surely is it. Steve Lansdown is utterly clueless at running a successful football club at this level it has been proven time and time again.

The damage was done when SL pulled the rug from under Cotts feet then proceeded to appoint LJ. Nothing to do with Ashton. He just followed orders. The bloke is a clown. Lansclown 

[Mr Hankey]

40 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Far too easy to excuse Ashton from the blame based on what he did at Ipswich.  He was in the thick of it here aided on both sides, up and down the hierarchy.

Let’s not overplay what he’s done at Ipswich.  He may have identified a diamond in McKenna, but it’s McKenna who has delivered.  He didn’t do well with Cook did he?

He is a leopard whose spots won’t change, but cage him correctly and he’s a good football businessman for your club.  If Ipswich hadn’t done that, he’d have run amok with their finances.

The same Paul Cook that is with Chesterfield in non-league? Granted, i know they just got promoted, but lets not pretend he is a good manager - probably could of had Man City’s CEO and he still would of been crap.

Give Ashton his credit. You say not “overplay”  what he’s done at Ipswich, yet he single handedly delivered (McKenna) the reason that they have had back to back promotions - Ashton deserves all the credit possible in the role he is doing in my opinion

Edited May 4 by Mr Hankey

[Phileas Fogg]

33 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Far too easy to excuse Ashton from the blame based on what he did at Ipswich.  He was in the thick of it here aided on both sides, up and down the hierarchy.

Let’s not overplay what he’s done at Ipswich.  He may have identified a diamond in McKenna, but it’s McKenna who has delivered.  He didn’t do well with Cook did he?

He is a leopard whose spots won’t change, but cage him correctly and he’s a good football businessman for your club.  If Ipswich hadn’t done that, he’d have run amok with their finances.

It's fairly tricky for us to accurately assess success of his role, but from what we can see - whilst he's been there they've been promoted twice, and employed a fantastic manager. "Let’s not overplay what he’s done at Ipswich." seems a bit disingenuous based on this.

I know you nailed your colours to the mast on Ashton, so it's probably a bit of a kick in the nuts, but there's nothing wrong with giving him credit where it's due - and I think it's difficult to argue he's done anything less than a really good job based on what we can see.

[Numero Uno]

59 minutes ago, Bris Red said:

Damage was done the moment Lansdown didn't cut his losses on LJ and just thought that throwing more and more money at it would be the solution.

Credit to Ipswich and if it ever was proof that Mark Ashton was never the real issue than this surely is it. Steve Lansdown is utterly clueless at running a successful football club at this level it has been proven time and time again.

Ashton was an issue insofar as he was given free rein with no restrictions and that messed us right up for three seasons. However you are correct in that the Owner could have stepped in and didn’t, he sanctioned the spending because he thought LJ was the next Brian Clough or something……..give Swiss some boundaries as the American Pension Fund did and he’s proven at Ipswich he can work.

[Numero Uno]

6 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

It's fairly tricky for us to accurately assess success of his role, but from what we can see - whilst he's been there they've been promoted twice, and employed a fantastic manager. "Let’s not overplay what he’s done at Ipswich." seems a bit disingenuous based on this.

I know you nailed your colours to the mast on Ashton, so it's probably a bit of a kick in the nuts, but there's nothing wrong with giving him credit where it's due - and I think it's difficult to argue he's done anything less than a really good job based on what we can see.

Nobody is denying that. It’s a fact he has been successful working within clear boundaries set by people who don’t **** about. Those pesky Americans as it happens!!

[BrizzleRed]

9 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

It's fairly tricky for us to accurately assess success of his role, but from what we can see - whilst he's been there they've been promoted twice, and employed a fantastic manager. "Let’s not overplay what he’s done at Ipswich." seems a bit disingenuous based on this.

I know you nailed your colours to the mast on Ashton, so it's probably a bit of a kick in the nuts, but there's nothing wrong with giving him credit where it's due - and I think it's difficult to argue he's done anything less than a really good job based on what we can see.

So where do you think the problem is at City then, where during MA’s time, we were on the brink of ffp disaster?  Someone has to be the cause of that surely.

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, Mr Hankey said:

The same Paul Cook that is with Chesterfield in non-league? Granted, i know they just got promoted, but lets not pretend he is a good manager - probably could of had Man City’s CEO and he still would of been crap.

Give Ashton his credit. You say not “overplay”  what he’s done at Ipswich, yet he single handedly delivered (McKenna) the reason that they have had back to back promotions - Ashton deserves all the credit possible in the role he is doing in my opinion

7 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

It's fairly tricky for us to accurately assess success of his role, but from what we can see - whilst he's been there they've been promoted twice, and employed a fantastic manager. "Let’s not overplay what he’s done at Ipswich." seems a bit disingenuous based on this.

I know you nailed your colours to the mast on Ashton, so it's probably a bit of a kick in the nuts, but there's nothing wrong with giving him credit where it's due - and I think it's difficult to argue he's done anything less than a really good job based on what we can see.

What I’m saying is that if you allow him to interfere too much in the stuff that the people with football knowledge should be doing then he’s dangerous.

Keep him in his place of football “administration” and he’ll deliver.

It is clear that in his opening months at Ipswich he did what he did here, got involved in recruitment, used his small pool of favourable agents, etc, etc.  But he got McKenna in, the Pension fund guy came over and spelled out the objective…and it’s gone great.

[ohhhshauntaylor]

Credit where it’s due. 
Maybe he wasn’t the issue after all! 

[Numero Uno]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

What I’m saying is that if you allow him to interfere too much in the stuff that the people with football knowledge should be doing then he’s dangerous.

Keep him in his place of football “administration” and he’ll deliver.

It is clear that in his opening months at Ipswich he did what he did here, got involved in recruitment, used his small pool of favourable agents, etc, etc.  But he got McKenna in, the Pension fund guy came over and spelled out the objective…and it’s gone great.

It’s about Owners getting involved in “Owning” and overall management and not interfering themselves. Making it clear to all what their roles are and what they don’t get involved in. Clear boundary setting. When it’s other peoples pension money they cannot afford to interfere and **** it up or allow maverick individuals to manage stuff they aren’t qualified to be running……when you aren’t answerable to ANYONE you can make those mistakes and allow it to happen……..for well over 20 years and counting.

[Super]

Certainly had the last laugh.

[exAtyeoMax]

I’m sure they’ll be a post season evaluation soon in EP. 

[Phileas Fogg]

1 hour ago, BrizzleRed said:

So where do you think the problem is at City then, where during MA’s time, we were on the brink of ffp disaster?  Someone has to be the cause of that surely.

The Lansdowns are the common denominator in our under achievement spanning many years

[BrizzleRed]

1 minute ago, Phileas Fogg said:

The Lansdowns are the common denominator in our under achievement spanning many years

We’re on the same page then PF

[Cannybluff]

I'm unsure on this, I think what happened was we had some good players at a high financial boom time, sold them for a lot of money and went to the model of acquiring players who were mainly identified within a data model whose value would increase.

To some extent it was a decent idea but the market totally fell through with covid and nobody was worth owt with a hefty wage bill to boot.

That meant that the model couldn't possibly work and we had a very difficult time getting back to an even keel. 

As mentioned he was a very good businessman within that model and negotiated well with purchases and sales of players. Whether we made the most of the talents we had isn't necessarily down to him.

 

I'd surmise he's good when given a big pot to play with, not so good at the steady Eddie constraints stuff... risk and reward. Not sure Lansdowns are happy gambling, particularly these days following covid and ffp.

 

 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Cannybluff said:

I'm unsure on this, I think what happened was we had some good players at a high financial boom time, sold them for a lot of money and went to the model of acquiring players who were mainly identified within a data model whose value would increase.

To some extent it was a decent idea but the market totally fell through with covid and nobody was worth owt with a hefty wage bill to boot.

That meant that the model couldn't possibly work and we had a very difficult time getting back to an even keel. 

As mentioned he was a very good businessman within that model and negotiated well with purchases and sales of players. Whether we made the most of the talents we had isn't necessarily down to him.

 

I'd surmise he's good when given a big pot to play with, not so good at the steady Eddie constraints stuff... risk and reward. Not sure Lansdowns are happy gambling, particularly these days following covid and ffp.

 

 

The problem with that model / approach is you need top, top, top recruitment and a manager with a football identity to recruit towards.  We didn’t have that.  Luton did.  They exploited a market of undervalued players that fitted their style of football.  You could see clubs like City having a snobbish attitude to buying someone like Elijah Adebayo for example.

Also, assuming you churn those players regularly, you only make a profit against their book value.  That becomes harder the more better established players you buy.  No disrespect to players like Weimann or Hunt, especially Weimann, but you were unlikely to ever get the money back on them.  Their fees were sunk.

you also need a steady stream of Academy players too, because they are pure profit.  You can’t do it all on “buy then sell”.

Someone like SL should know that “having your eggs in one basket” (one method) is poor investment advice.

Squad building is an art.  Very few get it right, very few get the time to get it right.

[Bedred31]

One key factor is not having your best players cherrypicked by clubs higher up the food chain. Leicester did this because they had the money to fight off raiders. Ipswich did it because they had no stand out individuals that caught the eye of the bottom tier prem clubs. Our academy produces cracking players who we get to rely on  but who invariably leave after 18 months or so. As SL searches for his magic fluke formula, this club needs to be either more ballsy when Bournemouth call, or more anonymous, or spend every penny of sales money wisely, like Brentford. As the third option is v difficult to do, and our academy will keep churning out good young players, we’re going to have to grow a pair when other clubs come sniffing.