Nige is back!

[Kid in the Riot]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Not the old nett spend argument again

Player values did increase, I’m sure some of that was down to him….but how do you explain the many players whose values didn’t increase?

Why isn't the net spend argument a legitimate one? It is surely true to say that he recouped a large amount of the money he spent.

10 minutes ago, Taylor10 said:

Amazes me people still try and defend Johnson and his/MA’s scattergun transfer dealings. Of course he improved or enhanced some players but he also had the biggest budget in the clubs history any other club in this division with those resources would of been at the very least finishing in the top 6 each season.

I won't disagree that the approach was scattergun and has ultimately contributed to the position we now find ourselves in, where we are having to cut costs and have very little resale value in the squad.

However, when LJ was here our wage bill was still not in the top half of the Championship. There is a very direct correlation between wage bills and finishing position- look at the Premier League, for example. 

Therefore, I think it's unfair to suggest he should "at the very least" of been finishing top 6. Challenging for it, yes, but even when LJ was here we weren't paying that top dollar you need to get the best in the division to the club. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Kid in the Riot

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Why isn't the net spend argument a legitimate one? It is surely true to say that he recouped a large amount of the money he spent.

it is a legitimate argument if you add context, and / or frame how you’re quantifying it’s success or not.  If you just want to look at it purely from a money out versus money in, that’s fine…but then again does LJ take all the credit for that.  He didn’t buy some of those players in the first place, in fact none of the players sold during 16/17 were signed by him.  But as we saw above, someone used 16/17 season as comparison in terms of where we are now versus where we were then.  Someone else then added in that LJ had little investment, and used Kodjia’s money as the justification.  Someone else added that he had to sell his best players.  There’s a flipside that says he might’ve been able to keep some of them had he not spent money on lots of other players.

Thats the point I’m trying to make.

13 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Therefore, I think it's unfair to suggest he should "at the very least" of been finishing top 6. Challenging for it, yes, but even when LJ was here we weren't paying that top dollar you need to get the best in the division to the club. 

Agree.  He did some good things for us on the pitch, I’d say we slightly punched above our weight in those two seasons (17/18 and 18/19), and although we were well positioned pre-Covid in 19/20 I thought results were way better than performances and it was about to catch up with us.  It did.

[Taylor10]

30 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Why isn't the net spend argument a legitimate one? It is surely true to say that he recouped a large amount of the money he spent.

I won't disagree that the approach was scattergun and has ultimately contributed to the position we now find ourselves in, where we are having to cut costs and have very little resale value in the squad.

However, when LJ was here our wage bill was still not in the top half of the Championship. There is a very direct correlation between wage bills and finishing position- look at the Premier League, for example. 

Therefore, I think it's unfair to suggest he should "at the very least" of been finishing top 6. Challenging for it, yes, but even when LJ was here we weren't paying that top dollar you need to get the best in the division to the club. 

I’m not sure kid. Yes the wages were and probably never will be that of ‘top 6’ in comparison to a lot of sides in this division. However without meaning to go over old LJ ground again, in my opinion the scattergun approach and any lack of recruitment plan/recruiting to a style of play or having any sort of plan was the main restriction as such, not wages. I think with those type of resources at another club say, we would probably be saying ‘that club should be finishing in the play offs’.

That’s not to discredit the good work LJ did in raising some of the funds to spend in the first place and indeed maximising some players value. I dont think he gets the credit he deserves at times for this because of the heavy investment or ‘clubs in the back approach’ on the playing side which didn’t pay off, that as you say now is coming back to bite us. Every club outside of the top 6 in England have to sell their best players, but LJ was fortunate he was afforded the resources to replace them. A little harsh to of expected a top 6 finish in each season he was here granted, but at the very least should have finished in the top 6 in one of those seasons. His last one I guess was the best chance, given that he didn’t do this at least once with his resources, was a failure. Of course during his tenure some clubs occupying the top 6 were paying astronomical wages but to have got nowhere near to breaking into it with a good few years of solid investment was a major disappointment. 

[Shaun Taylor]

I really enjoyed this interview by Nigel and certainly makes it clear he will get rid of players who don't want to be there.

Having recently had Covid myself I fully understand what he means about needing reassurances about his health as it's not like the common cold where it gradually goes away and you feel better as each day can be different leaving you feeling fatigued and emotionally drained.

i do find all of the local reporters annoying as they constantly ask the same questions and poor Nige had made it clear he was OK but obviously didn't want to go into too much detail.

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Shaun Taylor

[prankerd]

7 hours ago, MC RISK77 said:

Don’t think Johnson had significantly more investment than Pearson tbf. Also don’t forget we sold Kodjia that season right at the start for £11m. Tammy as with most loans would have been a punt and the only player who he bought for any real money was Tomlin £3m and pato £1m?

I get really frustrated with the constant Johnson had more money- yes while he did make some significant signings, but he also had to deal with our best players being sold every year.

Yes the club got 11 million but lee spent nearly 8 million on 10 players in his first full season! 

Pearson has spent like 1.7 mill on 4 players and got rid of 10 ...

Pearson didnt get the luxury of being able to sell a player for 11 million, as the club has been so badly run that all our best assets got let go for free when their contracts ran down!

Im not saying lee didnt do a good job, he gave us some great moments and he had to put up with the ridiculous model of selling our best players within the slightest sniff of them getting value ( always a good model when wanting to get promoted)

But yes lee had a better situation than pearson and i cant see why anyone would be arguing otherwise..

[Ostrich]

3 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Quite a risky game insinuating that Pearson is a bully @VT05763  A nasty accusation in this day and age

We see him in the image above being embraced with a hug by Baker, he was loved by his players at Leicester and Watford, but yes I am sure you know best...

He certainly wasn’t loved by a few he inherited when he returned which is exactly the situation here. Kasper says he’s a fantastic man manager but Matt Mills thinks he’s a complete ***, some might think he can be a bit of a bully. Don’t think Albrighton was his biggest fan and I think he and Knockaert fell out in the end too.

Plenty of successful organisations swear by recruiting for culture, particularly in their growth phase, and weed out those that don’t fit. That’s what happening here. It’s up to the players to prove that they fit or they’re on the sidelines and free to leave. We can’t all fit in every environment, if there’s a split it will be between those that can thrive in Pearson’s environment and those that don’t, entirely possible it exists but it has a purpose at the end of the day. Kasper says that Pearson walked in thinking Kasper wouldn’t be his type but he changed his mind within a week.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Ostrich

[Kid in the Riot]

23 minutes ago, Ostrich said:

He certainly wasn’t loved by a few he inherited when he returned which is exactly the situation here. Kasper says he’s a fantastic man manager but Matt Mills thinks he’s a complete ***, some might think he can be a bit of a bully. Don’t think Albrighton was his biggest fan and I think he and Knockaert fell out in the end too.

Plenty of successful organisations swear by recruiting for culture, particularly in their growth phase, and weed out those that don’t fit. That’s what happening here. It’s up to the players to prove that they fit or they’re on the sidelines and free to leave. We can’t all fit in every environment, if there’s a split it will be between those that can thrive in Pearson’s environment and those that don’t, entirely possible it exists but it has a purpose at the end of the day. Kasper says that Pearson walked in thinking Kasper wouldn’t be his type but he changed his mind within a week.

I think like many managers, Pearson has gone away, reassessed and changed some aspects of his management style though. "Bullying" is a significant accusation, which I don't believe is tolerated in the modern dressing room. No doubt he had fallings out at Leicester with existing squad members (was Mills the one he allegedly punched in the stomach?!) but that was many years ago. 

Some of my info comes from your former journo up there - Ian Baker - the man responsible for your username. He told me that the players at Leicester overwhelmingly spoke highly of him and felt great loyalty to him. Bullying certainly wasn't mentioned as a trait, more firm and fair. But if you are not with him and where he wants to go, then it's true to say you will not last long. 

[tts_city]

3 hours ago, Street red said:

Believe me he will once he gets rid of the c**p, You can't polish a turd.

But you can roll it in glitter.

[Rossi the Robin]

4 hours ago, Tomo said:

 

You only have to look back at his Twitter and see what he writes - seems a very caring type of guy 

[Waconda]

" We had too big a squad last year, we had a big clear out in the summer, brought some new players in who, generally speaking have done pretty well, but we need to affect a change and I will do it by removing players or not playing them if I can't get rid of them."

On further reading this makes more sense, he will not play the ones he doesn't want, where as previously he has picked them.

Tomorrows team therefore will only contain players he wants.

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by VT05763

[DaveF]

5 minutes ago, VT05763 said:

" We had too big a squad last year, we had a big clear out in the summer, brought some new players in who, generally speaking have done pretty well, but we need to affect a change and I will do it by removing players or not playing them if I can't get rid of them."

On further reading this makes more sense, he will not play the ones he doesn't want, where as previously he has picked them.

Tomorrows team therefore will only contain players he wants.

 

He goes on to say we have a reasonably small squad and he may have to use them, so tomorrow's team may contain players he doesn't want out of necessity.

[Waconda]

1 minute ago, DaveF said:

He goes on to say we have a reasonably small squad and he may have to use them, so tomorrow's team may contain players he doesn't want out of necessity.

Surely he isn't going to use players he has no faith or belief in ?

He will select committed  youngsters instead.

[DaveF]

Just now, VT05763 said:

Surely he isn't going to use players he has no faith or belief in ?

He will select committed  youngsters instead.

He said he may have to, they're professionals at the end of the day so do a job regardless. Appreciate they aren't doing much of a job recently...

[Waconda]

2 minutes ago, DaveF said:

He said he may have to, they're professionals at the end of the day so do a job regardless. Appreciate they aren't doing much of a job recently...

I'm confused, surely you can't question a players integrity and commitment on one hand and then pick them in your team ? regardless of numbers.

Remove them from your group and move on with the others, we literally couldn't perform any worse.

[DaveF]

Just now, VT05763 said:

I'm confused, surely you can't question a players integrity and commitment on one hand and then pick them in your team ? regardless of numbers.

Remove them from your group and move on with the others, we literally couldn't perform any worse.

I'm just quoting what Pearson said in the full interview. 

[Kid in the Riot]

18 minutes ago, VT05763 said:

I'm confused, surely you can't question a players integrity and commitment on one hand and then pick them in your team ? regardless of numbers.

Remove them from your group and move on with the others, we literally couldn't perform any worse.

He said he may have to, due to lack of options. It isn't too difficult to understand.

Are you standing by your opinion of Pearson having a "bullying management style"? It's a strong accusation so it'd be useful if you could clarify. 

You also haven't told us who the "6 or 7 players" are that are on the wrong side of a supposed dressing room split.

Look forward to your reply 

[Davefevs]

@VT05763/ @DaveF

Its possible that a player who doesn’t want to be here is still a better option than someone who does….in certain circumstances.  I think most of us hope that with a fuller squad to puck from tomorrow, it ought to be less likely to see any (many?) of those included.

But we will have to wait and see.

[Waconda]

Just now, Davefevs said:

@VT05763/ @DaveF

Its possible that a player who doesn’t want to be here is still a better option than someone who does….in certain circumstances.  I think most of us hope that with a fuller squad to puck from tomorrow, it ought to be less likely to see any (many?) of those included.

But we will have to wait and see.

Not possible IMO but you may be right.

 

[DaveF]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@VT05763/ @DaveF

Its possible that a player who doesn’t want to be here is still a better option than someone who does….in certain circumstances.  I think most of us hope that with a fuller squad to puck from tomorrow, it ought to be less likely to see any (many?) of those included.

But we will have to wait and see.

I agree. Could be better than throwing a youngster in at the deep end as well.

[Street red]

1 hour ago, tts_city said:

1 hour ago, tts_city said:

But you can roll it in glitter.

 

True story but I wouldn't bother with some of this lot.

[Sleepy1968]

9 hours ago, supercidered said:

You and me both. However, those dark days in 80's the were also some of the most memorable and not just because of the dire situation. Time can cloud things a bit but I've never felt closer to my beloved City that through those times. A feeling that we were all in it together and we all had a common goal which was initially just to survive. I'm glad I was there to go through those times as it makes the current negative times look like a walk in the park!

The Fulham 0-0 games sticks in my mind as does a 4-2 (? win v Wimdledon in the 4th when I believe we took out their goalie, and another game in the 4th v York - I think Alan Hay was playing for them - it was a night game I think we got 10,000 (well, it was a big gate considering our plight) and a 1-0 win.

[redsquirrel]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@VT05763/ @DaveF

Its possible that a player who doesn’t want to be here is still a better option than someone who does….in certain circumstances.  I think most of us hope that with a fuller squad to puck from tomorrow, it ought to be less likely to see any (many?) of those included.

But we will have to wait and see.

you will soon see who doesnt want to be here. we had that last season just before the jan window opened,played their socks off until the window closed then went dormant

[archie andrews]

2 hours ago, Sleepy1968 said:

The Fulham 0-0 games sticks in my mind as does a 4-2 (? win v Wimdledon in the 4th when I believe we took out their goalie, and another game in the 4th v York - I think Alan Hay was playing for them - it was a night game I think we got 10,000 (well, it was a big gate considering our plight) and a 1-0 win.

that york game was they was top and we was about say 3rd massive game at the time paul stevens goal settled it 

i was there...

[Sleepy1968]

19 minutes ago, archie andrews said:

that york game was they was top and we was about say 3rd massive game at the time paul stevens goal settled it 

i was there...

Wow, that's well remembered. I haven't heard Paul Stevens name mentioned for so many years.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just watched the press Conference.

Seems healthy- good! Health is top priority here.

He seems determined, to have a clear plan...that he knows. That's positive.

His stuff about players who are no longer required- mentioned it on 9 mins and later again in the Press Conference. "Not onside..." Wonder who? Palmer and Wells, possibly in his case not fitting tactical plan rather than much else, strike me as two candidates- who else?

Edited November 20, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 hours ago, Taylor10 said:

Amazes me people still try and defend Johnson and his/MA’s scattergun transfer dealings. Of course he improved or enhanced some players but he also had the biggest budget in the clubs history any other club in this division with those resources would of been at the very least finishing in the top 6 each season.

This bolded bit I really query, think we signed and sold far too many players under LJ's reign, Ashton or LJ to blame who knows- both? A reasonable number of signings also had injuries over a medium term and beyond period, is that bad recruitment, bad luck or a bit of both? Didn't help though!

Unsure I agree on that last bit though, our wage bill taken as a whole over the period was fundamentally a midtable wage bill. That's not to say that a) Missing the top 6 in 2017/18 and b) Arguably too 2018/19 wasn't a missed opportunity, definitely not...even in 2019/20 we didn't get the best out of those we added in January, LJ set us up in a questionable manner at times. In the case of the 2017/18 and 2018/19 we still had a squad with significant experience of Cup runs which would have been good for us in the playoffs!

Budget doesn't always determine fortune though- see Brentford, Huddersfield, Sheffield United to name 3...Leeds had a fairly expensive wage bill although worth bearing in mind a) Adjustment for a 13 month period, b) £20m in Promotion Bonuses- which of course only kick in if promoted! Think Barnsley did really well last year and sides like Luton, Millwall, Preston- unsure how QPR are managed these days, certainly outperform it...

...Then again, Birmingham almost went down with a £37m wage bill in 2017/18, Reading struggled with a wage bill that was £35-40m, maybe more- not checked in full- how big was Stoke's when they had bad year 1 and struggle in 2019/20?? £50m+ on each occasion!

Would say that for us, not making the top 6 once was a failure- not once. Like I say one and arguably two missed opportunities when we had all those players with Cup experience, big Cup ties- that and playoffs is a perfect match.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Taylor10]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This bolded bit I really query, think we signed and sold far too many players under LJ's reign, Ashton or LJ to blame who knows- both? A reasonable number of signings also had injuries over a medium term and beyond period, is that bad recruitment, bad luck or a bit of both? Didn't help though!

Unsure I agree on that last bit though, our wage bill taken as a whole over the period was fundamentally a midtable wage bill. That's not to say that a) Missing the top 6 in 2017/18 and b) Arguably too 2018/19 wasn't a missed opportunity, definitely not...even in 2019/20 we didn't get the best out of those we added in January, LJ set us up in a questionable manner at times. In the case of the 2017/18 and 2018/19 we still had a squad with significant experience of Cup runs which would have been good for us in the playoffs!

Budget doesn't always determine fortune though- see Brentford, Huddersfield, Sheffield United to name 3...Leeds had a fairly expensive wage bill although worth bearing in mind a) Adjustment for a 13 month period, b) £20m in Promotion Bonuses- which of course only kick in if promoted! Think Barnsley did really well last year and sides like Luton, Millwall, Preston- unsure how QPR are managed these days, certainly outperform it...

...Then again, Birmingham almost went down with a £37m wage bill in 2017/18, Reading struggled with a wage bill that was £35-40m, maybe more- not checked in full- how big was Stoke's when they had bad year 1 and struggle in 2019/20?? £50m+ on each occasion!

Would say that for us, not making the top 6 once was a failure- not once. Like I say one and arguably two missed opportunities when we had all those players with Cup experience, big Cup ties- that and playoffs is a perfect match.

Some good points@Mr Popodopolous

I completely agree RE budget not always determining fortune and I recognise that we have not been able to pay anywhere near the wages of a lot of clubs in this division, throughout LJ’s reign and of course even more so now.
 

My point regarding resources though isn’t just around wages or transfer fees as such. I include player turn over in and out in that, as well as loans.
I guess you could refer back to the old ‘clubs in the bag approach’ as well whereby if say we as City fans, hypothetically speaking if we were looking at another champ club spending those transfer fees, recouping fees at a rate the manager can then go and heavily reinvest back in the playing squad having such a high volume of player incomings from fees, loans and free transfers I think we would quite rightly be saying said club should be at least finishing in the play offs, so why not us, even with the wage restriction in comparison?

To clarify my point, which I should of eluded to in my post was mainly about the resources LJ had going into the 19/20 season. Any other club, even if unable to spend the top wages, after recruiting so many players and spending so much in transfer fees (although LJ earned the right to do that) would have been at the very least expected to finish in the top 6, so to get nowhere near is quite astounding and in turn brings us to where we are today.
I just can’t help but feel any other club in this division, that was in our/LJ’s/MA’s position at the start of that season and of course going into Jan still able to reinvest so heavily would be expecting to finish at least top 6, so again I ask why not us? To have not got anywhere near was criminal really.

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by Taylor10

[MC RISK77]

18 hours ago, Davefevs said:

it is a legitimate argument if you add context, and / or frame how you’re quantifying it’s success or not.  If you just want to look at it purely from a money out versus money in, that’s fine…but then again does LJ take all the credit for that.  He didn’t buy some of those players in the first place, in fact none of the players sold during 16/17 were signed by him.  But as we saw above, someone used 16/17 season as comparison in terms of where we are now versus where we were then.  Someone else then added in that LJ had little investment, and used Kodjia’s money as the justification.  Someone else added that he had to sell his best players.  There’s a flipside that says he might’ve been able to keep some of them had he not spent money on lots of other players.

Thats the point I’m trying to make.

Agree.  He did some good things for us on the pitch, I’d say we slightly punched above our weight in those two seasons (17/18 and 18/19), and although we were well positioned pre-Covid in 19/20 I thought results were way better than performances and it was about to catch up with us.  It did.

Not sure what overall net spend during his tenure was but guessing from a pure transfer fee perspective it was circa -£20m. Ok so he didn’t sign Kodjis, Freeman or ayling, I would argue though that although he didn’t  sign Reid or Bryan, we would have been unlikely to of got the fees we did for them without his development, could argue same for Flint.

Its also easy to criticise in hindsight the money wasted on the signings that didn’t come off but I don’t remember too many people being unhappy at the signing of Kasey Palmer at the time, we all seemed pretty excited at signing a keeper from Bayern Munich and a centre back from Juve. Djuric was viewed as a important club in the bag the list goes on!!

I wanted Johnson to go as much as anyone else at the end and he made lots of mistakes, was he far off from building a team to take up if he wasn’t part of that model though? Who knows

 

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, MC RISK77 said:

Not sure what overall net spend during his tenure was but guessing from a pure transfer fee perspective it was circa -£20m. Ok so he didn’t sign Kodjis, Freeman or ayling, I would argue though that although he didn’t  sign Reid or Bryan, we would have been unlikely to of got the fees we did for them without his development, could argue same for Flint.

yep, and to some extent that’s why I don’t like the net spend argument, it’s got too many variables to attribute to one manager / head coach.  If you take it purely in isolation, don’t try and put it down to how successful or not the manager was…and just take it purely as transfer fees paid and received in a period, then we did better than any time in City’s history.  But there are lots of things to consider, inflationary market for one.

Its also easy to criticise in hindsight the money wasted on the signings that didn’t come off but I don’t remember too many people being unhappy at the signing of Kasey Palmer at the time, we all seemed pretty excited at signing a keeper from Bayern Munich and a centre back from Juve. Djuric was viewed as a important club in the bag the list goes on!!

Of the players I knew anything about (exc. Hegeler, Geiger, Engvall, etc, who I had never heard of) I don’t think there were many signings I didn’t see some logic in.  It’s funny about Palmer, because although there was huge clamour from the fans, I couldn’t see why we signed him having signed Szmodics.  But the questions therefore become, why if on paper (our paper) most signings seemed decent, why did so few actually make an impact / play games.  For me it’s because not enough due diligence and critical analysis was done in “recruitment” and that’s not aimed at the talent I’d team, but the collective that includes SL, MA and LJ.  If you were SL surely you’d be asking “Lee, you know you want another £1.5m for a player, what happened to the one you already have”.  

I wanted Johnson to go as much as anyone else at the end and he made lots of mistakes, was he far off from building a team to take up if he wasn’t part of that model though? Who knows

No, not a million miles away….but I think we saw through the boom and bust runs, I’m not sure he knew what the final directions of the last few miles were.  In some ways he was destructive, impatient.  17/18, surely was the blueprint, yet he’d bought a £5.3m (record signing at the time) striker that didn’t fit the 4-6-0 busy bees system he developed / stumbled on.  Easy in hindsight for me to say he should’ve sold Diedhiou in the summer of 2018 after just a season here.  I still think Weimann with Taylor or Paterson was a better partnership than Weimann and Diedhiou ever was.  Imagine an extra £10m on top of Flint, Reid and Bryan money to then beef up the midfield of Smith, Pack, Brownhill to give rest and rotation / injury cover, get a LB to compete with Kelly.  We’d bought Webster…big tick in the box.  But we didn’t buy in Centre midfield. Frustrating.

 

 

[exAtyeoMax]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

Did LJ actually want KP? I got the impression he didn’t, and was a Mashton signing?

I could be wrong. 
 

I got the impression that there wasn’t any cohesion or collaboration on the recruitment side, between LJ and those higher up