Jump to content
IGNORED

Come on SL, speak..

PFree

By PFree
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bazooka Joe

Bazooka Joe

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

NP is delivering better displays with a demonstrably thinner squad, working with one hand tied behind his back.

Spot on.

But to be more precise, I'd say with both hands tied behind his back.

It looks like Pearson is a hostage to fortune . . . unfortunately, Lansdown's fortune.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zuni

Zuni

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, petehinton said:

We definitely have that in Knight. Issue is, we sold Scott so lost the perfect partner for him. And weren’t allowed to replace. 

Knight definitely has that about him and maybe Benarous could fill the Scott role ?

Scott was irreplaceable, like for like at our level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Zuni said:

Knight definitely has that about him and maybe Benarous could fill the Scott role ?

Scott was irreplaceable, like for like at our level.

Benarous isn't Scott even if he was promising, Scott is potentially generational.

That aside, Benarous has been out of competitive football for 18 months or approaching it. Even if he came back match fit tomorrow who knows how impacted he is by his layoff, how much permanent damage to his damage may have resulted and even if not much, how long it will take to recover a lot of lost ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

Said this all summer. Lack of goals from midfield still an issue. 

I was hopeful Knight may start to provide but is hard to judge with a persistently patched up side..his first year or 2 at Derby looked promising in this area. Naismith in midfield may be able to find him if we but had the luxury of not havng to play Naismith at CB.

Sykes is another although somewhere between midfield and forward..was thinking 5-10 should have been a reasonable target,  from RB let alone LB not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bazooka Joe

Bazooka Joe

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, pillred said:

At this moment in time, I feel you are probably right on both counts, I still can't believe the number of posters on here who were glad we didn't move to Ashton Vale, and you are right the Atyeo will continue to look the poor relation for years to come, why we didn't use the redevelopment to move the ground a bit further away from those houses I will never know.

Wouldn't surprise me if the magnificent Ashton Vale stadium wasn't little more than a pipe-dream/distraction (dare I say, PR stunt?)

Did we fall for it, hook, line and sinker?

Was Lansdown's true intention/preferred option simply to redevelop Ashton Gate ?

Giving what's playing out in front of our very eyes, it makes me wonder.

IMO Lansdown seemed to cave in far too quickly and easliy to a relatively small number of Nimbys and "alleged" dog walkers. It all seems so abturd (sic).

The site was never a "Village Green"/community space and if it had been challenged more robustly, that absurd claim could have been exposed for what it was.

Lansdown is doing what is best for him, not for the club, and definitely not for the lifelong, ever-loyal supporters.

  • Haha 1
  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bazooka Joe

Bazooka Joe

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Just to add, IMO had we not sold Scott we would have been rather hemmed in transfer market wise.

However we sold him and for a record fee at that- and yet..here we are, relatively thin squad, decimated by injuries with only Gardner-Hickman on koan and Lewis Thomas on a free joining, the latter due to Wiles-Richards being injured so it's short term.

We had 8 on the bench yesterday, didn't fill it and of those 8 2 were keepers.

Presumably, we'll let the other six go.

Wow, things are a lot worse than I thought.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said:

Wouldn't surprise me if the magnificent Ashton Vale stadium wasn't little more than a pipe-dream/distraction (dare I say, PR stunt?)

Did we fall for it, hook, line and sinker?

Was Lansdown's true intention/preferred option simply to redevelop Ashton Gate ?

Giving what's playing out in front of our very eyes, it makes me wonder.

IMO Lansdown seemed to cave in far too quickly and easliy to a relatively small number of Nimbys and "alleged" dog walkers. It all seems so abturd (sic).

The site was never a "Village Green"/community space and if it had been challenged more robustly, that absurd claim could have been exposed for what it was.

Lansdown is doing what is best for him, not for the club, and definitely not for the lifelong, ever-loyal supporters.

Well there were 5, maybe 6 years of wrangling..

One public inquiry, was the second public inquiry ever heard in any event? How long should we have gone on for, thereby putting any expansion and redevelopment of AG on ice.

Perhaps you can elaborate, how long should we have gone on for, would the 2nd Public inquiry have gone our way.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bazooka Joe

Bazooka Joe

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

From a simplistic point of view, a business should communicate proactively, ie before the customer starts moaning (that indicates they foresaw problems).  Next best is reactive comms, at least recognising the customer is moaning.  Worst is no comms at all, treating your customers with contempt.

 

Dave, please stop being so sensible.

It's futile.

Anyway, our Board is being mentored and advised by a (probably rather expensive) consultant from the Idi Amin Instiutute of Marketing & Public Relations.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, robinforlife2 said:

It was not be the reinvesting the fans wanted, but it is reinvesting. When you sell 2 items, and bring in 7 items, that is reinvesting! Just because you haven't reinvested all you just collected, it doesn't mean you didn't reinvest. People keep going on that the club has not reinvested since selling the players, but we have added 7 players to the squad, that is reinvesting!

On an already thin / too-thin squad, and you've answered below, it wasn't 2 out (as you suggest) / 7 in, it was...

...multiple out, multiple in, to just about balance ins and outs...whilst retaining a huge slug off money.

continued below...

15 hours ago, robinforlife2 said:

All the others ?

Bentley - sold on, the club has faith in Max, and happy to have younger cover, so they don't see him as needing to be replaced, I personally disagree, but the club are/were happy with this scenario.

Kalas - Injured 90% of last season, so in theory, whilst Dickie could be deemed a replacement or McCrorie, he didn't figure much last season.

Baker - Was never able to be selected last season, so not relatable

Klose - Had deal extended, struggled and left, didn't really feature last season, so again didn't need to be replaced.

DaSilva - Generally considered 2nd best behind Pring, Roberts in as cover.

Scott - Can be argued Knight was signed knowing Scott was off. Scott in his interviews, made it clear he wanted to go and club knew at the end of last season, so I personally don't buy into the comments Knight was signed to play with Scott, I think that was just club talk, as they were harbouring the best deal possible for a player who was definitely going.

Semenyo - The progression of Bell, Conway, arrival of Mehmeti and Cornick, meant we had enough attacking options to cover his departure.

Martin - Bit part player, who was released as we had enough attacking options, didn't need replacing.

So, to answer your question, yes, the 7 players we have added to the squad, more than covered the players we lost and it was only really Semenyo, Scott and Baker who were key players, but we've added 7 players who were supposed to be first team players.

Now, we have been unlucky with injuries and there is every chance that the fans feel we need a keeper, another option at centre back, possibly an attacking midfielder and a natural finisher, but if that's the case, it can only be said the recruitment failed in its job when bringing in 7 players. Keeper aside, we have added to the other positions that many fans are crying out for. If we didn't have the injuries, we have a competitive side, the problem is, we don't have strength in depth, but the club are unwilling to expose the club financially and therefore, with a small squad, we are relying on the youngsters being the back up and the future. 

But to say, we haven't reinvested, or replaced players we've lost, sold or let go is untrue. The more apt question could be, have we replaced them very well, and the answer to that, is on the whole probably not. 

very difficult to replace adequately on a budget that constrains who you recruit.

And again the point of budget necessitating a "too-thin" squad.  Of course, being cynical, maybe we should should bought 4 inadequate players rather than Knight, using the same budget.  Quite simply, the wage budget is too low...too low to build a squad WITH ENOUGH scope to cover injuries to COMPETE at the top end.  If we want to rely on having no injuries then that's naive.

I'm still in shock that a £20-25m sale of Scott was ANTICIPATED IN MARCH and budget set accordingly for his sale.  To my mind that is absolute horse-shit and they've made a story fit what happened.

Our bench yesterday was an embarrassing highlighting of those budgetary decisions in March.

I don't believe recruitment failed, I don't think it was given a fair chance to meet the naive aspirations of the Hierarchy.

37 minutes ago, Zuni said:

We desperately need(ed) a dynamic, athletic, forward thinking CM - Have never replaced Brownhill.

I think we saw signs of the future with a 21 and a 22 year old doing well in midfield, with a 22 year old playing in-front of them.  Might not be quite there, but encouraging signs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)

I still wonder if we somehow botched things in March and agreed to a budget in terms of Future Financial Information which tied our hands for this season or would be tricky to overturn. When clubs lose between £x and £y over a given period they must submit this up to 2 years in advance.

Hopefully the accounts will reveal all, it's probably 2+2=5 by me.

Nagle at Huddersfield seems to have his hands tied a bit by the budgets agreed by Hoyle. Although this wouldn't explain a host of other clubs and their recent activities.

Perhaps we agreed with the League a budget factoring in no Scott sale.

8 minutes ago, Redhed123 said:

Didn't he get sacked from Leicester?

Rennie? Tell us more.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
exAtyeoMax

exAtyeoMax

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Redhed123 said:

Didn't Dave Rennie get sacked from Leicester?

https://trainingground.guru/articles/head-physio-rennie-leaving-leicester-after-two-decades#:~:text=LEICESTER CITY Head Physio Dave,managers in three different divisions.

2 minutes ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

Everyone keeps blaming the owners but who are in other key decision making positions! Wake up everyone! 

who?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shauntaylor85

Shauntaylor85

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

https://trainingground.guru/articles/head-physio-rennie-leaving-leicester-after-two-decades#:~:text=LEICESTER CITY Head Physio Dave,managers in three different divisions.

who?

Come on! I’m not going to spell it out! I can’t say anymore but there is allegedly a key driving force here to be the biggest voice! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shauntaylor85

Shauntaylor85

Posted
Posted

It’s a bit like Max isn’t it. Local lad, or club legends so our fans as usual absolve them from any blame. Yet when it’s a Mark Ashton with no club connection they get blamed left right and centre (Ipswich fans love him) but LJ because he played for the club was never really the issue (it couldn’t possibly have been him to sign M Watkins!!)

By the way there is a whole fantastic academy team at the club who don’t get the credit. Anyone remember failures of 2005/6 and shocking signings like Dinning, G Smith and Heywood?! To be ala Scott Davidson, what other club at this level would appoint former players consistently in senior football roles or in the backroom staff. What other area than the long standing owners is another constant at this club? Comfortable nature! Everyone is comfy! If new owners came in from the US for example there would be a completely different feel and more results driven, past connections are irrelevant. And by the way I’m talking about two of my favourite players of all time so not easy!  

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CodeRed

CodeRed

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, One Team said:

Not sure what’s being suggested here. Are people saying he’s gone all Machiavellian?

image.png.e80642eafa98763d9de10b00475133f0.png

"Machiavellian?  Triffic little player, wand of a left foot, are we in for him? ....that's up to the Chairman but he's a boy I rate!"

Edited by CodeRed
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Countryfile said:

Wouldn’t think for one minute that he would want to manage again.

DOF maybe, but first team coach or manager no.

He’s DoF already in many regards.

On the Rowett thread I just asked if he has designs on being manager again?  Surely not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zuni

Zuni

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

He’s DoF already in many regards.

On the Rowett thread I just asked if he has designs on being manager again?  Surely not!

He doing a fantastic job where he is, has experienced managing before. Can't see him swapping what he has for that again.

Although a temporary until the end of the season type thing may appeal. If that necessity should ever arise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Zuni said:

He doing a fantastic job where he is, has experienced managing before. Can't see him swapping what he has for that again.

Although a temporary until the end of the season type thing may appeal. If that necessity should ever arise.

That doesn’t answer why he’s allegedly being divisive behind the scenes though.

Who would do his role?  Tom Rawcliffe!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...