Scott Twine - Loan Confirmed - No option to buy

[italian dave]

35 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

He later went on and said something about "we will see" about signing Twine in the summer. If Twine is a success here, his price rises. Burnley are not going to give us a discount just because we've paid a loan fee. If he's a success, over clubs may be interested. If Burnley go down they may wish to keep him. 

Maybe I should have wrote we've thrown money at a short term solution instead but thought that was clear what I meant. 

My point is he's clearly said we don't usually do this. This is not our method but we've had to do it to back the coach they've brought in because quite frankly, results haven't been acceptable in big parts, despite us already having an oven ready top 6 side. 

 

That's football. It's not all black and white, easily defined and predictable.

And I see nothing wrong with there being a degree of flexibility, initiative, to allow us to take an opportunity that comes along, at minimal net cost, at little risk, for the right reasons, which are explained. Nothing at all. I suspect that in different circumstances you'd criticise the Lansdowns for their inflexibility.

I'm sorry, but you just come across as thinking Pearson can never ever do anything wrong, the Lansdowns can never ever do anything right, Manning will never ever match up to your beloved 'Nige', and who frames everything in that context, repeatedly, on thread after thread and post after post. And it gets a bit tedious. And, as most of us move on from what happened weeks ago, it becomes increasingly irrelevant to any real 'discussion'.

 

[Lrrr]

59 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

And 99.9% probability that we paid a loan fee. 

You can frame it as he's just taking over Weimanns wages but to send Weimann there we agreed to buy TGH and therefore committed to pay him over 3 years. 

Unless you know what that loan fee is then it’s impossible to say whether we’re paying too much 

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 minutes ago, italian dave said:

That's football. It's not all black and white, easily defined and predictable.

And I see nothing wrong with there being a degree of flexibility, initiative, to allow us to take an opportunity that comes along, at minimal net cost, at little risk, for the right reasons, which are explained. Nothing at all. I suspect that in different circumstances you'd criticise the Lansdowns for their inflexibility.

I'm sorry, but you just come across as thinking Pearson can never ever do anything wrong, the Lansdowns can never ever do anything right, Manning will never ever match up to your beloved 'Nige', and who frames everything in that context, repeatedly, on thread after thread and post after post. And it gets a bit tedious. And, as most of us move on from what happened weeks ago, it becomes increasingly irrelevant to any real 'discussion'.

 

You're the only one bringing Nige into this mate. 

My comments are very clearly centered around around the shift to short term thinking on this signing. My comments are based on something JL said TWO DAYS AGO. 

For the record, I'd have been very haply to sign Azaz for the reported 2.5 million. Because that's a long term signing, shrewd bit of buisness. 

You may be happy with this deal, fair play to you, I'm happy to see him in a City shirt too but no need to be be berating others for posting a different opinion to yours mate, I'll continue to have issues with how this club is run until its run properly. And if you don't have those same issues, fair play, I'm not going to tell you to have the same issues as I do. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

Just now, Lrrr said:

Unless you know what that loan fee is then it’s impossible to say whether we’re paying too much 

What we know is that we've essentially swapped his and Weimanns wages. 

Lets say Weimann is on 10k a week. Over the next 6 months what's that? 250k? So rather than looking at is as not spending extra, I see it as we've not saved that 250k and on top of that we've paid a loan fee. What that is I don't know, but for me 250-500k would seem the going rate. 

[transfer reader]

14 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

You're the only one bringing Nige into this mate. 

My comments are very clearly centered around around the shift to short term thinking on this signing. My comments are based on something JL said TWO DAYS AGO. 

For the record, I'd have been very haply to sign Azaz for the reported 2.5 million. Because that's a long term signing, shrewd bit of buisness. 

You may be happy with this deal, fair play to you, I'm happy to see him in a City shirt too but no need to be be berating others for posting a different opinion to yours mate, I'll continue to have issues with how this club is run until its run properly. And if you don't have those same issues, fair play, I'm not going to tell you to have the same issues as I do. 

Berating

[Lrrr]

39 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Plus agents fees. We would have paid Weimanns agent from our end to move him on early and Twines to negotiate the loan here.

You assume the negotiations weren’t just straight club to club for Twine?

[Harry]

20 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

What we know is that we've essentially swapped his and Weimanns wages. 

Lets say Weimann is on 10k a week. Over the next 6 months what's that? 250k? So rather than looking at is as not spending extra, I see it as we've not saved that 250k and on top of that we've paid a loan fee. What that is I don't know, but for me 250-500k would seem the going rate. 

I’ll quote it to you again. 
 

“it’s not costing anywhere near what you think it is”. 
 

That’s on a “trust me bro” basis. There are people posting in this thread who absolutely and categorically know the details of this deal because they have it first hand from one of the involved parties. Trust them 

[Numero Uno]

14 minutes ago, Harry said:

I’ll quote it to you again. 
 

“it’s not costing anywhere near what you think it is”. 
 

That’s on a “trust me bro” basis. There are people posting in this thread who absolutely and categorically know the details of this deal because they have it first hand from one of the involved parties. Trust them 

Not doubting you for a second. My question is "is it appropriate for the people in this thread that do have the details to have them?" or are we looking at another "I'll just let my mate on X know the commercial ins and outs" situation? It makes no difference to the Twine deal, except to make the point he isn't costing as much as the lay people on here like myself might think he is, more a case of how the club is being ran generally and the information that is reaching the public domain (if that is the case obviously).

[Silvio Dante]

45 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

What we know is that we've essentially swapped his and Weimanns wages. 

Lets say Weimann is on 10k a week. Over the next 6 months what's that? 250k? So rather than looking at is as not spending extra, I see it as we've not saved that 250k and on top of that we've paid a loan fee. What that is I don't know, but for me 250-500k would seem the going rate. 

I think the thing you’re missing there is that in view of the size of our squad if we were losing AW we’d have needed to replace - so we weren’t ever really going to save those wages. 
 

As I’ve said before on the thread, I do think there are some people double counting the impact of AW going both on us funding Twine and getting TGH early, but even on my worst case scenario I can’t see us being more than 1/4 - 1/2m down on the transaction (and as Harry indicates, likely less). That isn’t the biggest layout or going to cause us to fail FFP so I’m pretty relaxed. Once more, this doesn’t mean I don’t still question the long term sense of the deal in terms of potential fee and considering where we are positionally, but I’m not sure that what we are paying for the loan is the biggest concern.

The other point is that there does clearly remain money available for the right player. It has increased from the summer - that’s not a Twine assumption but based on the known Azaz bid. And I’m as annoyed about the duplicity of that as anyone, but I’d rather it was spent than not as long as it’s a long term position.

[Harry]

12 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Not doubting you for a second. My question is "is it appropriate for the people in this thread that do have the details to have them?" or are we looking at another "I'll just let my mate on X know the commercial ins and outs" situation? It makes no difference to the Twine deal, except to make the point he isn't costing as much as the lay people on here like myself might think he is, more a case of how the club is being ran generally and the information that is reaching the public domain (if that is the case obviously).

It’s only fair that the sources remain anonymous. 
Sorry. 
But put it this way - it may not be ‘the club’ per se. It could come from someone connected to the player or his agent? Or simply someone who is ‘in football’ and knows these things. 
There are data bases available to clubs, agents etc which show the detail of the finances involved in deals. 

[Mr Hankey]

Just hope that if he has a successful spell here & he seems happy at the club, that it is all sorted nice & early in the pre-season one way or the other so we don't spend the whole summer on here with a "will he, won't he" saga that we had with Tomlin!

[RedRock]

The problem is, as supporters, we’ve now be trained over several years by the Club to think we need to be financially smart, prudent, spend-thrift and think long-term evolution, more than short-term revolution.

Bizzare now that the Club with this ‘deal’, seemingly, are acting the opposite. 

Anyhows, all onboard the City Express heading for Europe! 
 

Let’s hope reversion back to the ‘LJ strategy’ works with LM (who has any similarities to the former) in charge.

 

[Alessandro]

@W-S-M Seagull - like you my initial reaction was one of suspicion - mainly because I am suspicious of BT and JL right now.

Having heard a few more details on here, I think we’ve made a pragmatic deal, albeit not ideal, with no major risk for any parties involved and have added something we need in the squad.

One to reassess in the summer - for now I’m happy just see what value he brings on the pitch. 

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

You're the only one bringing Nige into this mate. 

My comments are very clearly centered around around the shift to short term thinking on this signing. My comments are based on something JL said TWO DAYS AGO. 

For the record, I'd have been very haply to sign Azaz for the reported 2.5 million. Because that's a long term signing, shrewd bit of buisness. 

You may be happy with this deal, fair play to you, I'm happy to see him in a City shirt too but no need to be be berating others for posting a different opinion to yours mate, I'll continue to have issues with how this club is run until its run properly. And if you don't have those same issues, fair play, I'm not going to tell you to have the same issues as I do. 

My comment was about you, not Nige!

The thing is, I’m happy to see ST in a City shirt and, knowing nothing about the deal, cost or future options, I’m prepared to take what’s said at face value, accept this doesn’t break the bank, and that we see what happens.

You, on the other hand, either know a lot more about the deal (in which case, perhaps you could enlighten us) or you default to an assumption that it’s all bad.

I don’t “berate” anyone for expressing their views. I just find it hard going when those views are so relentlessly negative, and that negativity is repeated so frequently. 

[italian dave]

33 minutes ago, RedRock said:

The problem is, as supporters, we’ve now be trained over several years by the Club to think we need to be financially smart, prudent, spend-thrift and think long-term evolution, more than short-term revolution.

Bizzare now that the Club with this ‘deal’, seemingly, are acting the opposite. 

Anyhows, all onboard the City Express heading for Europe! 
 

Let’s hope reversion back to the ‘LJ strategy’ works with LM (who has any similarities to the former) in charge.

 

So, you think this deal is financially unwise and foolish? What do you know about the deal that makes you think that?

(I’m assuming that you don’t mean “spendthrift”which means spending money in an extravagant and irresponsible way: the polar opposite of everything else you’ve said the club have been training us to accept!) 

[Ian M]

59 minutes ago, Mr Hankey said:

Just hope that if he has a successful spell here & he seems happy at the club, that it is all sorted nice & early in the pre-season one way or the other so we don't spend the whole summer on here with a "will he, won't he" saga that we had with Tomlin!

On the presumption that at some point between this window closing and the next opening, we continue to liaise with Burnley and reach an agreement on a fee, it could be that we delay for accounting purposes. I can see pro's and con's for both completing a deal in this season's accounts and next season's, but as we reach the end of the season and the club have concrete numbers to work with, they will know far better than this layman which date would be preferable.

[TonyTonyTony]

3 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

If I wish to be concerned at us doing things differently to usual

But that's the point though isn't it? If you take a macro-view, the events of the last few months are entirely normal for Bristol City. Say one thing, do another  - Top 6 squad. No more spending. Don't like loans. It been a constant flip flop for years in fact the flip-flopping is the only thing that's been consistent.

As for holding them "to account" - this is an internet forum not the boardroom in AG.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Exactly as I see it.

I didn’t want Pearson sacked but you can’t spin a narrative saying Manning is suddenly getting more funds when all we have effectively done so far is brought the signing of TGH forward a few months & swapped Weimann for Twine.

I think to just clarify my point….we are spending more money, ie the budget has been increased, for the second half of the season….but we aren’t going mad.

If we suddenly spend £5m on another player I’d change that view and say that’s a significant uplift.

As it stands the net position of Murphy, TGH and Twine is not offset by Weimann, but it’s sensible increase, and in Murphy and TGH’s case for sure, there is long-term thinking too.

If you’re really sad / boring you’d have a spreadsheet mapping out every players transfer / amortisation cost from 2013/14 to 2027/28 (yeah, yeah, I know, but when the covid / ffp stuff was sailing close to the wind it felt like a good thing to do ).  Smoothing out TGH’s fee means less budget used in subsequent years, so even when I talk about this season’s budget, it ain’t as black and white as I paint.

3 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

And 99.9% probability that we paid a loan fee. 

You can frame it as he's just taking over Weimanns wages but to send Weimann there we agreed to buy TGH and therefore committed to pay him over 3 years. 

See above.

2 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Yes thats all good, but how does that fit in to our already oven ready top 6 team? I should probably point out that this is a tongue in cheek comment. 

Without knowing the loan fee, its difficult to know if it's value for money or not but I think it's safe to say it's not shrewd bit of buisness at this time. Delighted to have him in our team of course. But let's say we've paid 500k (complete guess) that's 500k less to spend in the summer, plus the wages we've had to pay him. That sort of fee would equate to 26k a game plus his wages. Would that be vfm? 

After getting close to breaching ffp, there are many of us that are very weary of us spending money. No problem with spending money, but it has to be done sensibly. 

If Scott Twine fires us to the premier league I'll come back to this thread and beg for forgiveness. 

FWIW the loan fee and wages will use less budget than had we tried to sign him permanently and had the cost of amortisation and wages in this year’s budget.

What’s been done has been done, I’m not stopping the debate either, but the club won’t just be thinking about this season’s budget, it will filter into next year and the year after, etc.

I think someone else also highlighted that the budget might have flexed because we now have a cup run.  That in itself could cover the cost of Scott Twine.

At this stage, I’m more interested in how LM accommodates Twine into the team.

Imho, we didn’t play 2 no10s on Tuesday (3421box), but neither did we play 343 (two wide forwards) either!  The front-five worked several shapes on Tuesday.

Im firmly coming to the opinion (based on what I thought was a weak answer to a Piercy question pre-Tuesday) that Manning doesn’t think about formations at all, so when someone asks him about conceding a 2nd goal at PNE just after changing to a back three, he kinda refutes that we did.  So it’s gonna be hard for people to get their heads around what formation he is playing, because he isn’t really doing so.

 

[bcfc01]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

Im firmly coming to the opinion (based on what I thought was a weak answer to a Piercy question pre-Tuesday) that Manning doesn’t think about formations at all, so when someone asks him about conceding a 2nd goal at PNE just after changing to a back three, he kinda refutes that we did.  So it’s gonna be hard for people to get their heads around what formation he is playing, because he isn’t really doing so.

 

That explains a few things.

 

 

 

[ExiledAjax]

20 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Im firmly coming to the opinion (based on what I thought was a weak answer to a Piercy question pre-Tuesday) that Manning doesn’t think about formations at all, so when someone asks him about conceding a 2nd goal at PNE just after changing to a back three, he kinda refutes that we did.  So it’s gonna be hard for people to get their heads around what formation he is playing, because he isn’t really doing so

But surely there are still building blocks made of units of players? Pairs of trios who are designated as operating within a role in certain areas of the pitch?

3 CBs who predominantly operate in our half and control the space between our 6yd box and the half way line.

1 striker (with support) who operates in the opponent's half and tries to get in their box.

A LW and a LB in tandem who operate on our left.

Fit those blocks together and in effect you get a de facto formation don't you?

He might not label it a "343" but it is still a formation. 

So in terms of accommodating Twine it becomes a question of "which block/unit does he slot into?". Then "how does that adjusted unit fit with the others?".

Edited January 18 by ExiledAjax

[spudski]

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

But surely there are still building blocks made of units of players? Pairs of trios who are designated as operating within a role in certain areas of the pitch?

3 CBs who predominantly operate in our half and control the space between our 6yd box and the half way line.

1 striker (with support) who operates in the opponent's half and tries to get in their box.

A LW and a LB in tandem who operate on our left.

Fit those blocks together and in effect you get a de facto formation don't you?

He might not label it a "343" but it is still a formation. 

So in terms of accommodating Twine it becomes a question of "which block/unit does he slot into?". Then "how does that adjusted unit fit with the others?".

To me, it's very obvious from those designated areas on the pitch, that the players are being coached into passing patterns to play through lines. We now take our time to create the space to make those passes. 

When we go away from those coached patterns, we seem less able to create. 

Very noticeable when Dickie makes a marauding run through into the opposition's half ...the players in front often look confused in where to go to receive a pass. He'll stop, see no pass, and knock it sideways instead...losing all ground and space gained. 

Sometimes, players creating for themselves is needed away from the game plan when opportunity arises. 

From watching...I wonder how long it's gonna take a plan B to come into action once we are thoroughly sussed. 

[Davefevs]

41 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

But surely there are still building blocks made of units of players? Pairs of trios who are designated as operating within a role in certain areas of the pitch?

3 CBs who predominantly operate in our half and control the space between our 6yd box and the half way line.

1 striker (with support) who operates in the opponent's half and tries to get in their box.

A LW and a LB in tandem who operate on our left.

Fit those blocks together and in effect you get a de facto formation don't you?

He might not label it a "343" but it is still a formation. 

So in terms of accommodating Twine it becomes a question of "which block/unit does he slot into?". Then "how does that adjusted unit fit with the others?".

I’m not a coach, just an observer of what I see on the pitch, so you’ll need someone like @Cowshed’s view.

But I suspect he will answer along the lines of “formations are fluid, there are different game states, with the ball,  without the ball, transitioning into possession, transitioning out of possession, set-pieces”

Thats not me trying to be flippant, just I imagine LM doesn’t see City as playing a certain formation or not overall, just what shape we might get into in each phase above.

I think we are all (bar Cowshed and his type - again not being flippant) in for a bit of a learning curve under LM!

~~~~~

Mikel Arteta said he played 50+ formations against Man City!

Edited January 18 by Davefevs

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m not a coach, just an observer of what I see on the pitch, so you’ll need someone like @Cowshed’s view.

But I suspect he will answer along the lines of “formations are fluid, there are different game states, with the ball,  without the ball, transitioning into possession, transitioning out of possession, set-pieces”

Thats not me trying to be flippant, just I imagine LM doesn’t see City as playing a certain formation or not overall, just what shape we might get into in each phase above.

I think we are all (bar Cowshed and his type - again not being flippant) in for a bit of a learning curve under LM!

~~~~~

Mikel Arteta said he played 50+ formations against Man City!

I agree, and I am even less of a coach than you.

I've know coaches sometimes speak about "systems" rather than "formations". A system being a term used to set out an overall method of playing. Within that system you can have ways of setting up in the different game states and scenarios that you see across 90 minutes of football.

It's maybe a case of semantics and language...maybe a case that we use formations but we don't play in a rigid formation. I doubt any team really  does that at our level (or even national league level).

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

I agree, and I am even less of a coach than you.

I've know coaches sometimes speak about "systems" rather than "formations". A system being a term used to set out an overall method of playing. Within that system you can have ways of setting up in the different game states and scenarios that you see across 90 minutes of football.

It's maybe a case of semantics and language...maybe a case that we use formations but we don't play in a rigid formation. I doubt any team really  does that at our level (or even national league level).

And as you know I’ve never been one big on formations, I’m mainly about players and partnerships (you ref that above).

I do chuckle sometimes when I’m think how we might line up and I see things like 442 in possession 451 out of possesion.  Because they is never any thought about how you get from 442 to 451 and then back into 442, which is in effect what those transitional shapes are about.  I often think about how our 3 forwards (pre-Tuesday) are gonna split the opposition CBs and FBs but then how they are gonna be able to play close to Tommy too.

Its why (I guess ) a very simple game is so complicated!

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

And as you know I’ve never been one big on formations, I’m mainly about players and partnerships (you ref that above).

I do chuckle sometimes when I’m think how we might line up and I see things like 442 in possession 451 out of possesion.  Because they is never any thought about how you get from 442 to 451 and then back into 442, which is in effect what those transitional shapes are about.  I often think about how our 3 forwards (pre-Tuesday) are gonna split the opposition CBs and FBs but then how they are gonna be able to play close to Tommy too.

Its why (I guess ) a very simple game is so complicated!

We're about to start talking about double pivots aren't we!

But yeh that's part of the system isn't it. How does a back 3 in possession become a back 4 out of possession? Which wing back comes back and which stays up, which direction do the CBs shift (if they do at all), and who decides that. 

How Scott Twine slots into all of this, and how that improves us is the thing.

Ps. Twine aside, I am excited by next season. I feel like a lot of things are potentially aligning and we may have the best opportunity for some while to push for that top 6 finish.

[Cowshed]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

But surely there are still building blocks made of units of players? Pairs of trios who are designated as operating within a role in certain areas of the pitch?

3 CBs who predominantly operate in our half and control the space between our 6yd box and the half way line.

1 striker (with support) who operates in the opponent's half and tries to get in their box.

A LW and a LB in tandem who operate on our left.

Fit those blocks together and in effect you get a de facto formation don't you?

He might not label it a "343" but it is still a formation. 

So in terms of accommodating Twine it becomes a question of "which block/unit does he slot into?". Then "how does that adjusted unit fit with the others?".

 

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I’m not a coach, just an observer of what I see on the pitch, so you’ll need someone like @Cowshed’s view.

But I suspect he will answer along the lines of “formations are fluid, there are different game states, with the ball,  without the ball, transitioning into possession, transitioning out of possession, set-pieces”

Thats not me trying to be flippant, just I imagine LM doesn’t see City as playing a certain formation or not overall, just what shape we might get into in each phase above.

I think we are all (bar Cowshed and his type - again not being flippant) in for a bit of a learning curve under LM!

~~~~~

Mikel Arteta said he played 50+ formations against Man City!

 

There are formations and expectations across stages of play - Game is five elements and each element has its response and differing formations. 

In possession as the ball is progressed through the thirds, the team can fall into differing shapes which are relational  to where the ball is e.g third, or zone. Players move in patterns in accordance to where the ball is across zones, and the teams formation alters as players drop one, move across one which means the formation is effectively altering. 

Out of possession, the process reverses, behaviour (!?) sees the team shutting down, getting compact, like a flower shutting, and when the ball is regained the flower transitionally opens.     

There is no traditional one formation. Its fluid, but fluid in relation to who has the ball, and where it is. 

Edited January 18 by Cowshed

[DaveInSA]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

We're about to start talking about double pivots aren't we!

But yeh that's part of the system isn't it. How does a back 3 in possession become a back 4 out of possession? Which wing back comes back and which stays up, which direction do the CBs shift (if they do at all), and who decides that. 

How Scott Twine slots into all of this, and how that improves us is the thing.

Ps. Twine aside, I am excited by next season. I feel like a lot of things are potentially aligning and we may have the best opportunity for some while to push for that top 6 finish.

Unfortunately, I'm seeing something else play out - a relegation dog-fight. I hope I am wrong. I will, of course change my opinion if results improve between now and the end of the season. But I've been here multiple times with BCFC and just when we're on the cusp of something quite good (or maybe even excellent) we nosedive due to those muppets running the club.

Time will tell.

[ExiledAjax]

13 minutes ago, DaveInSA said:

Unfortunately, I'm seeing something else play out - a relegation dog-fight. I hope I am wrong. I will, of course change my opinion if results improve between now and the end of the season. But I've been here multiple times with BCFC and just when we're on the cusp of something quite good (or maybe even excellent) we nosedive due to those muppets running the club.

Time will tell.

This is why I carefully used the word "opportunity".

I think we will have a good opportunity. A balanced squad of a good age, many of whom have played together for a while. Good financial situation with zero FFP concerns. Possibly beneficial rotation of teams being promoted and relegated from/to the division. Hopefully a settled backroom. 

That opportunity still needs to be grasped of course. That requires good decision making, good preparation, good execution, plus a dose of good luck.

I can understand your reticence to get excited, but I think the opportunity will be there where it hasn't really been for a few seasons now.

Ps. I'll be amazed if we're in relegation danger. We've not been anywhere near that since Holden left and we're just not that kind of team.

Edited January 18 by ExiledAjax

[DaveInSA]

21 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

This is why I carefully used the word "opportunity".

I think we will have a good opportunity. A balanced squad of a good age, many of whom have played together for a while. Good financial situation with zero FFP concerns. Possibly beneficial rotation of teams being promoted and relegated from/to the division. Hopefully a settled backroom. 

That opportunity still needs to be grasped of course. That requires good decision making, good preparation, good execution, plus a dose of good luck.

I can understand your reticence to get excited, but I think the opportunity will be there where it hasn't really been for a few seasons now.

Ps. I'll be amazed if we're in relegation danger. We've not been anywhere near that since Holden left and we're just not that kind of team.

Thanks for the clarification. In my judgement you’re one of the more sensible posters on here.

We do have the opportunity and maybe Manning is the man. Hence my “time will tell” point.

I’ve just been here before I guess. Multiple times in my 40 years of following this underperforming and inconsistent club.

My relegation comment stems from the concern I have that Manning is hardly pulling up trees. And, if we don’t recruit well in summer, a bad start could snowball into a crisis. 

 

[ExiledAjax]

25 minutes ago, DaveInSA said:

Thanks for the clarification. In my judgement you’re one of the more sensible posters on here.

We do have the opportunity and maybe Manning is the man. Hence my “time will tell” point.

I’ve just been here before I guess. Multiple times in my 40 years of following this underperforming and inconsistent club.

My relegation comment stems from the concern I have that Manning is hardly pulling up trees. And, if we don’t recruit well in summer, a bad start could snowball into a crisis. 

 

Your too kind.

I'm probably a bit more sold on Manning then, but I respect your experience and I of course agree that recruitment is key (as it always is). Age isn't everything and I think we do need 1 or 2 quality and successful transfers to just put that icing on the cake.

I'd also clarify that when I say "push for top 6" I expect a scrap for 6th place rather than a cruise to 3rd or 4th. So I'm not predicting an easy season, but I do think that next season will be our best opportunity for a long time.