FBC Podcast : Forest [A] ... it's a thumbs down from us

[Davefevs]

Ian’s view of Nige’s eleven:

433

Bentley | Tanner Kalas Baker Pring | Scott James Massengo | Weimann Martin Semenyo

Ian’s eleven (differences bold):

352

Bentley | Kalas Baker Klose | Tanner Scott James Massengo Pring | Weimann Semenyo

Mark’s view of Nige’s eleven:

3412 (when he realised he could only pick eleven)

Bentley | Kalas Baker Klose | Tanner Scott James Williams Pring | we never heard the full team, assume he quickly left Massengo out after naming him

Mark’s eleven (differences bold):

we didn’t get to hear it.

What was it Mark?

Surprised Williams doesn’t get in, but each to their own.

[exAtyeoMax]

37 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Ian’s view of Nige’s eleven:

433

Bentley | Tanner Kalas Baker Pring | Scott James Massengo | Weimann Martin Semenyo

Ian’s eleven (differences bold):

352

Bentley | Kalas Baker Klose | Tanner Scott James Massengo Pring | Weimann Semenyo

Mark’s view of Nige’s eleven:

3412 (when he realised he could only pick eleven)

Bentley | Kalas Baker Klose | Tanner Scott James Williams Pring | we never heard the full team, assume he quickly left Massengo out after naming him

Mark’s eleven (differences bold):

we didn’t get to hear it.

What was it Mark?

Surprised Williams doesn’t get in, but each to their own.

Do you think you are being a bit hyper critical? Perhaps it's me (as I don't know anything about formations and have never played the game?) but I see it as like a pub chat type podcast/fan based. I don't expect Sky type punditry…

[Davefevs]

Back to loans again…Ian would go and 3 / 4 signings and from the loan market.

Why?

“So we don’t have lots of cash going out”.

Cashflow isn’t the problem, P&L (FFP) is the problem.  Two different beasts.

Signing Balogun (or whoever) on loan for £1m loan fee and say £10k p.w wage contribution, is no different in FFP terms to signing a striker permanently for £4m on a 4 year deal on £10k p.w.  You might even be able to arrange staged payments across the term.  That player is also ours, we might have resale value too.  It’s an example where the loan transfer concept isn’t quite as “good” as it seems.  There are pros and cons of both to be fair.

But the thinking that loans are free (cheaper) is absolutely bonkers and naive.

I suspect we will be looking very closely at the free transfer market too…unless we get a windfall

Mark - re Barnsley, that was a club who’d developed a strategy over 2-3 seasons and last season they executed it really well both on and off the pitch.  But look how quickly it’s changed. Huddersfield a year ahead of us, but Corberan doing well.  For info he was already at Leeds, not a Bielsa man.  Will look forward to seeing their accounts for last season.  They potentially will be a good benchmark for us, struggle in year one, grow quickly on year 2.

4 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Do you think you are being a bit hyper critical? Perhaps it's me (as I don't know anything about formations and have never played the game?) but I see it as like a pub chat type podcast/fan based. I don't expect Sky type punditry…

I wasn’t commenting on the teams / formations per se, just made me laugh that Mark wanted to pick 12, and didn’t even get around to completing his Nige line-up or his own preference.  Had no issues with Ian’s choices…apart from formation and Martin, he picked the same player# he thought Nige would.

[Curr Avon]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Back to loans again…Ian would go and 3 / 4 signings and from the loan market.

Why?

“So we don’t have lots of cash going out”.

Cashflow isn’t the problem, P&L (FFP) is the problem.  Two different beasts.

Signing Balogun (or whoever) on loan for £1m loan fee and say £10k p.w wage contribution, is no different in FFP terms to signing a striker permanently for £4m on a 4 year deal on £10k p.w.  You might even be able to arrange staged payments across the term.  That player is also ours, we might have resale value too.  It’s an example where the loan transfer concept isn’t quite as “good” as it seems.  There are pros and cons of both to be fair.

But the thinking that loans are free (cheaper) is absolutely bonkers and naive.

I suspect we will be looking very closely at the free transfer market too…unless we get a windfall

Mark - re Barnsley, that was a club who’d developed a strategy over 2-3 seasons and last season they executed it really well both on and off the pitch.  But look how quickly it’s changed. Huddersfield a year ahead of us, but Corberan doing well.  For info he was already at Leeds, not a Bielsa man.  Will look forward to seeing their accounts for last season.  They potentially will be a good benchmark for us, struggle in year one, grow quickly on year 2.

I wasn’t commenting on the teams / formations per se, just made me laugh that Mark wanted to pick 12, and didn’t even get around to completing his Nige line-up or his own preference.  Had no issues with Ian’s choices…apart from formation and Martin, he picked the same player# he thought Nige would.

Yes, my 3-5-3 formation. I tried to laugh it off, but felt there was no coming back and stayed on the canvas. 

[Davefevs]

Mark - So, if you won’t trust him with any slice of the money generated from transfers to recruit the players he needs, you’re basically saying “Pearson Out”, despite saying you don’t wanna get rid of him, you want him to succeed.

I don’t think you can have both.  You either trust him with the budget given or you get rid.  For once there is no grey, it’s black or white (Did I just write that?)!

You’re both saying “get rid”.  That’s fine btw, everyone entitled to an opinion.

@headhuntergood pod btw, certainly created debate.

[Curr Avon]

37 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Mark - So, if you won’t trust him with any slice of the money generated from transfers to recruit the players he needs, you’re basically saying “Pearson Out”, despite saying you don’t wanna get rid of him, you want him to succeed.

I don’t think you can have both.  You either trust him with the budget given or you get rid.  For once there is no grey, it’s black or white (Did I just write that?)!

You’re both saying “get rid”.  That’s fine btw, everyone entitled to an opinion.

@headhuntergood pod btw, certainly created debate.

I said that I hoped our new Head of Recruitment, Ian Pearce could help Pearson, without realising that he's yet to be appointed.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Curr Avon said:

I said that I hoped our new Head of Recruitment, Ian Pearce could help Pearson, without realising that he's yet to be appointed.

So assuming he’s not appointed as there’s been no news since the rumour, does that make your “Pearson Out”, then?

[Curr Avon]

43 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

So assuming he’s not appointed as there’s been no news since the rumour, does that make your “Pearson Out”, then?

No. I'd like Nigel to stay and be a success at City.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Curr Avon said:

No. I'd like Nigel to stay and be a success at City.

But you’ve said you don’t trust him with any money to recruit.  The two are in conflict.…unless you expect him to improve us with the players we currently have, minus any we lose in the summer?

Maybe I’m missing something?  Sorry, if I’m being thick.

 

[exAtyeoMax]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But you’ve said you don’t trust him with any money to recruit.  The two are in conflict.…unless you expect him to improve us with the players we currently have, minus any we lose in the summer?

Maybe I’m missing something?  Sorry, if I’m being thick.

 

didn't Nige say he doesn't get involved in recruitment? 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, exAtyeoMax said:

didn't Nige say he doesn't get involved in recruitment? 

Nope, he said he doesn’t speak to Agents.  He did qualify that by saying that he might do a “polite hello” if the agent is around, but the discussions re contracts etc are dealt with by others (RG I can only assume).  There is more to recruitment than the bit with the agent.

He wants to focus on the player part of recruitment. He has (at least ) weekly meetings with Recruitment team, suspect it’s more regular than that during a window.  

 

[brady bunch]

On 27/02/2022 at 09:53, TomF said:

It maybe there is a expired invoice in the way - if you nudge me tomorrow morning I’ll resend the invoice 

Me too, it says I am a OTIB Supporter, but my subscription appears to have lapsed and I cannot seem to be able to repay, happy to support this amazing and ad free site, but need an invoice or some guidance.

 

[brady bunch]

3 hours ago, Curr Avon said:

Yes, my 3-5-3 formation. I tried to laugh it off, but felt there was no coming back and stayed on the canvas. 

It was the best bit of a very good podcast! you should have rolled with it! its VERY easily done, in a mad moment I put on 12 players at half time in an U14 game I was "managing", it was a friendly parent who informed me of the mistake 10 minutes into the second half................ fortunately no goals had been scored in that time frame....

I think with the standard of some of the refereeing we have faced this season, I think we would have half a chance of getting away with it.... 

[SouthS22]

On 26/02/2022 at 20:54, And Its Smith said:

Pearson’s lack of loans is easy to understand in my opinion. He is trying to build a long term side and squad. There is no point in doing that with loan players who won’t be here next season.  If we had a better squad and were pushing for play offs then I think he would get a loan or two to make us stronger and hopefully get us over the line.  There was no point this season in getting a loan or two and finish 12th instead of 16th.  What’s the point ?  Waste of money and resources.  The only benefit would be to make the fans feel a bit better. It’s a long term strategy and loans by definition are short term 

You've made a decent counter argument right there.  Make the fans feel a bit better.  Its been a tough few seasons and some of us really want to feel a bit better about our club.  If you're okay with seeing your football team surrender abjectly on a regular basis, giving away soft goal after soft goal, in the hope that its for the greater long term good, fair play to you.  Me personally, and I seem to be in a minority on here at least, I'm more impatient and less optimistic that there are sunlit uplands ahead if we just hang on in there through the current grimness.   I expect more than that after a year.  I want to at least see some organisation, a solid structure, and a lot more motivation on the field and some good decision making on the side lines.  Its true that threre has been progress on all fronts, and this is the thread that I'm clinging to as regards hopes for the future, but its an incredibly frustrating one step forward, a few indiscriminate shuffles in no discernable directon, and one step back again.       

I would argue also that accessing the loan market could very much be part of a good longer term strategy.  It's about momentum and trajectory and creating a sense of positivity and optimism about the football cllub again, and surely that's worth a few extra quid and NP compromising on his bloody-mindedness, and getting with the reality of modern football for at least part of a season. 

I also don't buy the reasoning that getting loans will damage efforts to build a long term side and squad.  How is one or two loans in positions where we are really short going to disrupt that?  All football clubs see player turnover and unless this particular leopard has turned into a zebra during Covid, we're not going to be any different in the summer when the transfer windows.  Given this reality in football, the focus becomes how you manage that turnover and how you get different players to fit into your philosophy and style, assuming of course that you have one.  Are those three loans fatally damaging Steve Cooper's efforts to build a long term side and squad?  I'm pretty sure he doesn't think so and he looks like he knows what he's doing to me.  

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, SouthS22 said:

You've made a decent counter argument right there.  Make the fans feel a bit better.  Its been a tough few seasons and some of us really want to feel a bit better about our club.  If you're okay with seeing your football team surrender abjectly on a regular basis, giving away soft goal after soft goal, in the hope that its for the greater long term good, fair play to you.  Me personally, and I seem to be in a minority on here at least, I'm more impatient and less optimistic that there are sunlit uplands ahead if we just hang on in there through the current grimness.   I expect more than that after a year.  I want to at least see some organisation, a solid structure, and a lot more motivation on the field and some good decision making on the side lines.  Its true that threre has been progress on all fronts, and this is the thread that I'm clinging to as regards hopes for the future, but its an incredibly frustrating one step forward, a few indiscriminate shuffles in no discernable directon, and one step back again.       

I would argue also that accessing the loan market could very much be part of a good longer term strategy.  It's about momentum and trajectory and creating a sense of positivity and optimism about the football cllub again, and surely that's worth a few extra quid and NP compromising on his bloody-mindedness, and getting with the reality of modern football for at least part of a season. 

I also don't buy the reasoning that getting loans will damage efforts to build a long term side and squad.  How is one or two loans in positions where we are really short going to disrupt that?  All football clubs see player turnover and unless this particular leopard has turned into a zebra during Covid, we're not going to be any different in the summer when the transfer windows.  Given this reality in football, the focus becomes how you manage that turnover and how you get different players to fit into your philosophy and style, assuming of course that you have one.  Are those three loans fatally damaging Steve Cooper's efforts to build a long term side and squad?  I'm pretty sure he doesn't think so and he looks like he knows what he's doing to me.  

Sensible, polite response to a sensible worded initial post.
 

I can totally get your reply.  Different sides of a middle line without going extreme.

When I was looking at the financial side, I looked at the Wolves model that gained promotion.  Neves, a huge signing (£15m something like that), but so highly rated, had Wolves failed they would’ve sold him, probably for more, and with his contract over 5 years was costing them £3m p.a in amortisation….that for a one season gamble was worth.  They signed Douglas and a couple of others for low fees (£2 m or less), but then went big on loans for Jota (what happened to him!!!), Boly, Afobe, N’Diaye, Bonatini to supplement an already good squad.

They got promoted, so no questions asked. Had they failed, the Mendes factor would’ve moved on players so Wolves didn’t feel the brunt (no not Chris!).  Same but different with Forest and their Olympiacos link…can bail out Forest with “dodgy inter-company transfers”.

I think we saw that strategy, it’s success and started to change our own strategy without necessarily being in a position to do so….Kalas, Palmer, Dasilva to supplement Webster, Hunt and Weimann.  But I don’t think we got it right, nor were we starting from a similar position.  They had Mendes, we had Mark Ashton.  I joke, but we got carried away.

I think the loan market became more costly in those 3-4 years also, as clubs tried to do a Wolves.

[And Its Smith]

23 minutes ago, SouthS22 said:

You've made a decent counter argument right there.  Make the fans feel a bit better.  Its been a tough few seasons and some of us really want to feel a bit better about our club.  If you're okay with seeing your football team surrender abjectly on a regular basis, giving away soft goal after soft goal, in the hope that its for the greater long term good, fair play to you.  Me personally, and I seem to be in a minority on here at least, I'm more impatient and less optimistic that there are sunlit uplands ahead if we just hang on in there through the current grimness.   I expect more than that after a year.  I want to at least see some organisation, a solid structure, and a lot more motivation on the field and some good decision making on the side lines.  Its true that threre has been progress on all fronts, and this is the thread that I'm clinging to as regards hopes for the future, but its an incredibly frustrating one step forward, a few indiscriminate shuffles in no discernable directon, and one step back again.       

I would argue also that accessing the loan market could very much be part of a good longer term strategy.  It's about momentum and trajectory and creating a sense of positivity and optimism about the football cllub again, and surely that's worth a few extra quid and NP compromising on his bloody-mindedness, and getting with the reality of modern football for at least part of a season. 

I also don't buy the reasoning that getting loans will damage efforts to build a long term side and squad.  How is one or two loans in positions where we are really short going to disrupt that?  All football clubs see player turnover and unless this particular leopard has turned into a zebra during Covid, we're not going to be any different in the summer when the transfer windows.  Given this reality in football, the focus becomes how you manage that turnover and how you get different players to fit into your philosophy and style, assuming of course that you have one.  Are those three loans fatally damaging Steve Cooper's efforts to build a long term side and squad?  I'm pretty sure he doesn't think so and he looks like he knows what he's doing to me.  

The Forest comparison isn’t relevant. They are going for the play offs.

Regardless, I was answering the question of why the lack of loans.  Whether you or I disagree with the current policy doesn’t really come into that.  The reason is clear.  I would say that for a podcast to be most affective it needs debate and even sometimes for people to play devils advocate to create that debate.  The fact that nobody could put the counter argument for not loaning players in (Pearsons argument) meant that an opportunity for debate was lost.  
 

As Fevs mentioned, some contributors seemed to pretend they didn’t know. Let’s not confuse understanding the reason behind the decision with agreeing with the decision itself. 
 

I actually do completely agree with Pearson on this but other views are fair enough. I’m certainly not going to disagree strongly with fans wanting short term plus points by way of loans even if I believe it just slows down long term success. It’s just personal preference.  

Edited February 28, 2022 by And Its Smith