TGH joins Brum on season long loan

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Why sign someone and then look to sell him 6 months later?  There are two answers I can think of:

1.  The player ability was misjudged

2. The price was so good that a quick profit could be turned

For me, it’s clearly the first one.  

Not really, Manager 1 has a different view to Manager 2.

Twine for the record averaged just checked 0.171 XA Per Game here.

That aside, the way we played him v Coventry we did him few favours. Can't see him in a central pair but that is a flawed approach anyway these days or can be.

[Pugofwar]

13 hours ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

Good job his name isn’t Nige, he would get offered Mickey Bell as a first team cover! All joking aside I thought Manning came across well the other day and our recruitment has been good, but I do feel we shouldn’t forget that he can do this BECAUSE Nige rebuild the foundations and developed Antoine and Scott into £40M of sales. 

Thanks for the reminder! I'd forgotten about Pearson 

[TammyAB]

"Further departures from City could follow Gardner-Hickman before Friday’s transfer deadline with Harry Cornick one individual whose position in the squad, and potential for game time looks limited after five of City’s six signings have been in that area of the field.

Cornick still has two years remaining on the contract he signed in January 2023, when he joined from Luton Town, which could make negotiating a possible sale difficult given he is now 29 and not offering any likely resale value."

[Mr Popodopolous]

He was also a bit of a victim when the fans were turning a bit in February, March time and Manning was throwing a lot of mud at the wall hoping something, anything might stick.

Chopping and changing we were.

The loud jeers v Swansea in March after a backward pass too many, still stick in the mind. Big pressure.

[CyderHead92]

Confirmed on OS

[Cov 77]

13 minutes ago, TammyAB said:

"Further departures from City could follow Gardner-Hickman before Friday’s transfer deadline with Harry Cornick one individual whose position in the squad, and potential for game time looks limited after five of City’s six signings have been in that area of the field.

Cornick still has two years remaining on the contract he signed in January 2023, when he joined from Luton Town, which could make negotiating a possible sale difficult given he is now 29 and not offering any likely resale value."

Where does this come from ? 

[And Its Smith]

19 minutes ago, JBFC II said:

Or maybe he's not a player that fits into the way Manning wants to play the game, the signing came from those above Manning and now he's looking to move him on.

Which makes more sense if McGuane is his replacement, who is evidently a player who fits into a 'Liam Manning team'

Well that’s equally ridiculous as Manning was here when he signed unless we were obliged to sign him?

Edited August 23 by And Its Smith

[TammyAB]

Just now, Cov 77 said:

Where does this come from ? 

James Piercy, Bristol Live

[And Its Smith]

17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Not really, Manager 1 has a different view to Manager 2.

Twine for the record averaged just checked 0.171 XA Per Game here.

That aside, the way we played him v Coventry we did him few favours. Can't see him in a central pair but that is a flawed approach anyway these days or can be.

Assist stats are nonsense so won’t comment on that. I’m assuming we were obliged to sign him then seeing as we signed him when Manning was here. I can’t remember as I’m getting old! 

[David Brent]

30 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Seems bizarre that we signed him. Never looked good enough for the first team. Decent back up option at best 

What’s bizarre about decent back up? Especially when we weren’t throwing money around.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

26 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Why sign someone and then look to sell him 6 months later?  There are two answers I can think of:

1.  The player ability was misjudged

2. The price was so good that a quick profit could be turned

For me, it’s clearly the first one.  

‘Clearly’?

[W-S-M Seagull]

10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Not really, Manager 1 has a different view to Manager 2.

Twine for the record averaged just checked 0.171 XA Per Game here.

That aside, the way we played him v Coventry we did him few favours. Can't see him in a central pair but that is a flawed approach anyway these days or can be.

I think the problem goes back to Manning not being suited to the squad we had. 

Now that's not a problem if the club are/were happy to rebuild the squad because they believe by backing Manning with funds and a rebuild that will give us a greater chance of success. 

It is a problem if we spend all this money to end up in the same position. 

The problem was with the communication, as always. It was communicated that Manning was brought in here to coach and get the best out of our current squad. 

If you look at Mannings career, he has made a he'll of a lot of signings in his short career. I think he needs to be careful of gaining a reputation of only being able to do well if he is allowed to sign lots of his own players. 

What we've seen is that Manning has needed to bring in his own players rather than getting the best out of the likes of TGH, Cornick etc. I expect players such as Tanner, Sykes, McCrorie and even maybe Mehmeti to be next out of the door. He will limit his future suitors by having an inability to work with what he's got. 

I'm not sure how I feel about previous investments being written off to make new investments. It doesn't seem financially prudent. 

Something has gone wrong if we are buying a player in January and then shipping them out half a season later. 

Also, does this now leave us a little short at rb? 

[And Its Smith]

3 minutes ago, David Brent said:

What’s bizarre about decent back up? Especially when we weren’t throwing money around.

Do you think choosing to sign someone who was here anyway and then choosing to sell them six months later is good or bad ?

3 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

‘Clearly’?

What do you think it is then?  

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Assist stats are nonsense so won’t comment on that. I’m assuming we were obliged to sign him then seeing as we signed him when Manning was here. I can’t remember as I’m getting old! 

It was an Option, not Obligation was my understanding.

Expected Assists he scored quite highly on too..shunted about, a few players were shunted about really.

[And Its Smith]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It was an Option, not Obligation was my understanding.

Expected Assists he scored quite highly on too..shunted about, a few players were shunted about really.

I’ve checked and yes it was an option. Just all seems bizarre 

[David Brent]

3 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Do you think choosing to sign someone who was here anyway and then choosing to sell them six months later is good or bad ?

At the time it was a good decision to sign. If it allows the manager to bring in someone he prefers then choosing to sell is also a good decision.

But it wasn’t bizarre to sign him in the first place.

[supercidered]

29 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Amazed it is with an “option” to buy.

Hope it’s a chunky loan fee & all of his wages.

It's all a bit weird to me.

They must be paying all his wages and a loan fee but if it's an option to buy rather than obligation, we may as well have kept him here.

Unless of course the loan fee is quite juicy but even then I don't like the option to buy. Strange.

I get that he may want out and or LM has told him that he can look elsewhere. 

 

[And Its Smith]

2 minutes ago, David Brent said:

At the time it was a good decision to sign. If it allows the manager to bring in someone he prefers then choosing to sell is also a good decision.

But it wasn’t bizarre to sign him in the first place.

Why didn’t we just keep him on loan? Why did we sign him?  I’m confused how anyone doesn’t think it was a weird decision! 

[Engvall’s Splinter]

No disrespect to TGH however, if Birmingham were to get promoted, I can’t see them taking the option up. They have the riches for better quality should they get promoted. Would’ve pushed for a perm. Hopefully we’ve got a decent loan fee. What a weird permanent signing for us at the time - flattered to deceive during his loan. 

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

I have to agree that the option to buy seems strange. Perhaps Brum are keeping their options open if they don't get promoted. 

[One Team]

I guess I am in a minority here then, but I quite rated him actually. He had some poor performances of course but also some very good ones so there was a decent player in there. 

[Red0499]

8 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Why didn’t we just keep him on loan? Why did we sign him?  I’m confused how anyone doesn’t think it was a weird decision! 

It would be weird if we signed him and got shot in the same window but things change. Balance of the squad with who we've signed, who is available in the market, maybe even TGH thoughts on if he wants to be here. Enough could have changed for both the decision to sign him then and now move out to both make sense?

[Port Said Red]

21 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Do you think choosing to sign someone who was here anyway and then choosing to sell them six months later is good or bad ?

What do you think it is then?  

I would say there was a deal to be had in the Weimann move and we saw an opportunity to turn a cost into an asset.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Birmingham and their riches are only as good as their 3 Year FFP Position and yes the Rules have amended again this Summer in favour of enhanced monitoring for Clubs who move between the Divisions, more looking at the present and future etc.

Edited August 23 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

46 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Why sign someone and then look to sell him 6 months later?  There are two answers I can think of:

1.  The player ability was misjudged

2. The price was so good that a quick profit could be turned

For me, it’s clearly the first one.  

Agree, more no1 with a bit of speculation that there’s a no3 - wanted to go home.

24 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Well that’s equally ridiculous as Manning was here when he signed unless we were obliged to sign him?

As I’m led to believe the option to buy was end of season but we brought forward.  Why.  Because of a multitude of factors, but centred around Weimann needed to be shifted for fear of triggering an extra year, and West Brom (no cash) happy to take him for 6 months for nothing and City taking TGH with an appropriate netting of Andi’s wages against TGH’s transfer fee.

We subsequently reduced TGH’s option fee from £1.3m to circa £1.0m.  We still ended up paying Andi!

7 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Why didn’t we just keep him on loan? Why did we sign him?  I’m confused how anyone doesn’t think it was a weird decision! 

I guess the cynical answer is - we didn’t want Andi to trigger an extra year, and we got TGH as a squad player in return.  But giving him a 3.5 year contract makes it difficult to move him on if you ain’t convinced.

Stories of Tinnion driving this, but feels more Finances driving it, or maybe trying to be too clever.

Re the option to buy, would not surprise me if it’s actually a conditional obligation (on promotion), but that just gets complicated in the announcement comms, but would suit both parties, especially Brum.

Ultimately, we’ve signed the wrong player, regardless of the rationale.

[sh1t_ref_again]

Perhaps TGH is pushing for a move, perhaps not settled in the area, perhaps seeing himself as only a back up and wants to be 1st on the team sheet, why does it have to be oh well LM f--- up by buying a player (perhaps TGH has not pushed on as they thought he would), 

[The Humble Realist]

Funny to revisit this thread. Just 8 months ago everyone seemed pretty happy at signing him...now hes out the door 

[Silvio Dante]

Echoing a few points here (including my own), in that I’m totally of the mind that if the player isn’t going to play and we think we have a better cover option in McGuane, we move on.

However, now the fee situation has been resolved (we certainly aren’t recouping a fee we paid in Jan via the loan fee and there are no guarantees on the option) it does call into question further the January decision (notwithstanding there were moving parts).

Its either a case of us having committed pretty much to the deal then and signed TGH even though the new manager didn’t really fancy him (where you’d lay the blame at Tinnions door) or the head coach, having seen the player at close quarters for a few months, decided to sign him but has changed his mind in double quick time (in which case it’s a poor show by Liam).

Again, no objection to this deal in isolation. But we can’t go around wasting money in this fashion which we did in January from the looks of it.

[RedM]

He lived in Cheltenham, but moved down here before he signed, he made that commitment.  I believe he had every intention of being here for a few years, but sometimes things just work out.

[Ian M]

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

I think the problem goes back to Manning not being suited to the squad we had. 

Now that's not a problem if the club are/were happy to rebuild the squad because they believe by backing Manning with funds and a rebuild that will give us a greater chance of success. 

It is a problem if we spend all this money to end up in the same position. 

The problem was with the communication, as always. It was communicated that Manning was brought in here to coach and get the best out of our current squad. 

If you look at Mannings career, he has made a he'll of a lot of signings in his short career. I think he needs to be careful of gaining a reputation of only being able to do well if he is allowed to sign lots of his own players. 

What we've seen is that Manning has needed to bring in his own players rather than getting the best out of the likes of TGH, Cornick etc. I expect players such as Tanner, Sykes, McCrorie and even maybe Mehmeti to be next out of the door. He will limit his future suitors by having an inability to work with what he's got. 

I'm not sure how I feel about previous investments being written off to make new investments. It doesn't seem financially prudent. 

Something has gone wrong if we are buying a player in January and then shipping them out half a season later. 

Also, does this now leave us a little short at rb? 

I think you need to forget absolutely everything Jon and Brian were telling us at the time about everything, as they were firing out sound bite after sound bite to cover up for the fact they couldn't 'manage' the previous incumbent.

So it turns out that Liam might turn out to be like 99% of managers out there who need to bring in some players more capable of playing his brand of football, it's not exactly scandalous.

Without wishing to create another ground-hog day of a thread, we know the handling of the switch was handled badly, people's positions over whether the previous manager was treated harshly are entrenched and it's clear that at least some of what Jon/Brian said at the time were falsehoods.

All that really matters now is if Manning can get a tune out of this new collection of players, because if he can't it won't just be a thread that is giving ground-hog day.

[Port Said Red]

1 minute ago, Silvio Dante said:

s either a case of us having committed pretty much to the deal then and signed TGH even though the new manager didn’t really fancy him (where you’d lay the blame at Tinnions door) or the head coach, having seen the player at close quarters for a few months, decided to sign him but has changed his mind in double quick time (in which case it’s a poor show by Liam).

Are those the only two options, or the only two negative ones from the clubs point of view? 

There is a third option where the player, wants to move back "home" or wants to go to play more regular football, isn't there? Some players just don't settle, no reflection on the club or area.

[Ivorguy]

These things happen in the non football world too, ie doesn’t turn out as expected, new management etc.

Nothing really to see here.  Pleased LM now looks in control of signings and releases.  Less BT perhaps as Manning finds his voice

[lenred]

4 minutes ago, Ivorguy said:

These things happen in the non football world too, ie doesn’t turn out as expected, new management etc.

Nothing really to see here.  Pleased LM now looks in control of signings and releases.  Less BT perhaps as Manning finds his voice

Mentioned it before but thought this was notable in the pre season conference they did together.   Manning seemed much more assured and was very assertive talking about new signings being needed whilst BT was sat next to him.  It was good to see and hear.  

[JBFC II]

54 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Well that’s equally ridiculous as Manning was here when he signed unless we were obliged to sign him?

I'm not sure.

We've seen before how those in the higher echelons of the club have made signings seemingly without involving the Head Coach (think Kasey Palmer in the same summer as Szmodics)

Wouldn't surprise me if the deal was all but wrapped up and Manning just accepted it, without being too sure about whether the player would fit.

Now after 8 months working with him, he's realised the TGH isn't the right man for him

[W-S-M Seagull]

10 minutes ago, Ian M said:

I think you need to forget absolutely everything Jon and Brian were telling us at the time about everything, as they were firing out sound bite after sound bite to cover up for the fact they couldn't 'manage' the previous incumbent.

So it turns out that Liam might turn out to be like 99% of managers out there who need to bring in some players more capable of playing his brand of football, it's not exactly scandalous.

Without wishing to create another ground-hog day of a thread, we know the handling of the switch was handled badly, people's positions over whether the previous manager was treated harshly are entrenched and it's clear that at least some of what Jon/Brian said at the time were falsehoods.

All that really matters now is if Manning can get a tune out of this new collection of players, because if he can't it won't just be a thread that is giving ground-hog day.

I think communication remains an issue at the club. 

In Liams short career as a manager he has made 50-60 signings. Not sure 99.9% of managers do that. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I hope TGH does well on Loan, still not so sure about whether it would have been worth keeping him but that's by the by.

[JBFC II]

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

I think communication remains an issue at the club. 

In Liams short career as a manager he has made 50-60 signings. Not sure 99.9% of managers do that. 

But then you take into account the jobs he has taken, what was at the club and who needed to move on.

This summer he's seen 6 depart and 6 join, hardly groundbreaking numbers. At MK Dons there was a lot of movement in his first summer, he had to bring in players to replace the players he lost. A similar thing happened at Oxford

He clearly has a way of playing, and likes a certain type of player to fit that system. There hasn't been some huge overhaul this summer, nor have we spent a massive amount on new players, it's been an exciting but not exactly monumental summer window

[Davefevs]

22 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Perhaps TGH is pushing for a move, perhaps not settled in the area, perhaps seeing himself as only a back up and wants to be 1st on the team sheet, why does it have to be oh well LM f--- up by buying a player (perhaps TGH has not pushed on as they thought he would), 

14 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Are those the only two options, or the only two negative ones from the clubs point of view? 

There is a third option where the player, wants to move back "home" or wants to go to play more regular football, isn't there? Some players just don't settle, no reflection on the club or area.

But all of those things you both mention highlight a flaw in our due diligence, especially January when he’d been here 4 months by then, current manager (and recruitment team) had seem him play…in a City shirt no less.  Recruitment decisions re other player contracts, who to look at this summer etc were formed on the back of signing him permanently.  We gave him a 3.5 year contract in January don’t forget.  Did we not know then?

Nobody is suggesting it’s the worst transfer ever, all people are doing is questioning it. Jeez, might we learn from these things, because we have a similar type situation with Hirakawa coming up.

Hopefully we have exited from him without too much pain, assumes Brum complete the deal in the summer if not earlier.

[BCFCGav]

1 hour ago, Big C said:

Bristol City can confirm Taylor Gardner-Hickman has joined Birmingham City on a season-long loan, with an option to buy.

Gardner-Hickman joined the Robins in August 2023 and has made 40 appearances for the club, scoring four goals, including a memorable strike against Middlesbrough at Ashton Gate.

The Club wishes Taylor all the very best in Birmingham, and thanks him for his contribution in a City shirt.

 

 

Did I miss 3 of his goals?

I was thinking the same. Did he really get four last season?

[BCFCGav]

I would have preferred a permanent transfer as Brum can fart us around next Summer now if they choose to. Though I'm sure the books will benefit from a loan fee/wage split in this deal.

Odd one really, not a player I particularly wanted to lose but if McGuane is the better option for the squad in the here and now, well done on the club for acting quickly and ruthlessly to improve us. 

[Port Said Red]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

But all of those things you both mention highlight a flaw in our due diligence, especially January when he’d been here 4 months by then, current manager (and recruitment team) had seem him play…in a City shirt no less.  Recruitment decisions re other player contracts, who to look at this summer etc were formed on the back of signing him permanently.  We gave him a 3.5 year contract in January don’t forget.  Did we not know then?

Nobody is suggesting it’s the worst transfer ever, all people are doing is questioning it. Jeez, might we learn from these things, because we have a similar type situation with Hirakawa coming up.

Hopefully we have exited from him without too much pain, assumes Brum complete the deal in the summer if not earlier.

Well situations change for players, they are as human as everyone else. Personal issues here or back home could have arisen since January, I just don't think it will turn out to be quite so black and white when the story comes out. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, BCFCGav said:

I was thinking the same. Did he really get four last season?

1 Goal, 4 Assists I make it.

[Numero Uno]

55 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Why didn’t we just keep him on loan? Why did we sign him?  I’m confused how anyone doesn’t think it was a weird decision! 

On the face of it it was a poor decision BUT there might be issues with the player since signing that we don’t know about. It happens.

However, whilst not wanting it to be a regular occurrence, if we go down the route that Liam and/or the club genuinely made a poor decision is it better that we rectify it or piss in the wind, keep the player  and hope it all comes good? What is better for the club AND the player?

As a Liverpool Centre Half recently said “when you make a mistake, don’t compound it by making another one”.

[Sir Geoff]

1 hour ago, And Its Smith said:

Why sign someone and then look to sell him 6 months later?  There are two answers I can think of:

1.  The player ability was misjudged

2. The price was so good that a quick profit could be turned

For me, it’s clearly the first one.  

But we watched him 40 times don't forget.

[Merrick's Marvels]

Goodbye and good luck.

Please play well enough for your new team to sign you permanently. But not so well that they're promoted.  

[BCFCGav]

3 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Goodbye and good luck.

Please play well enough for your new team to sign you permanently. But not so well that they're promoted.  

Ha - perfectly put.

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Well situations change for players, they are as human as everyone else. Personal issues here or back home could have arisen since January, I just don't think it will turn out to be quite so black and white when the story comes out. 

I’m not painting it as black and white.

5 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Goodbye and good luck.

Please play well enough for your new team to sign you permanently. But not so well that they're promoted.  

Unless that entitled us to a fee to make permanent!

[Sir Geoff]

44 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Are those the only two options, or the only two negative ones from the clubs point of view? 

There is a third option where the player, wants to move back "home" or wants to go to play more regular football, isn't there? Some players just don't settle, no reflection on the club or area.

Someone said he lives in Cheltenham. Surely he has stayed at home, not moved back.

[Port Said Red]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

I’m not painting it as black and white.

Yes sorry Dave, others were.

[Port Said Red]

Just now, Sir Geoff said:

Someone said he lives in Cheltenham. Surely he has stayed at home, not moved back.

I just saw a post from @RedM that said he had moved down here? 

His family are from Stourbridge apparently, I don't know if that has a bearing or not.

[And Its Smith]

39 minutes ago, JBFC II said:

I'm not sure.

We've seen before how those in the higher echelons of the club have made signings seemingly without involving the Head Coach (think Kasey Palmer in the same summer as Szmodics)

Wouldn't surprise me if the deal was all but wrapped up and Manning just accepted it, without being too sure about whether the player would fit.

Now after 8 months working with him, he's realised the TGH isn't the right man for him

Sounds madly disorganised to me 

[Merrick's Marvels]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Unless that entitled us to a fee to make permanent!

Given the choice of Brum remaining a Third Division team so TGH leaves for "free" or Brum get promoted and we get a million quid....

I know which one I'd prefer ! 

Edited August 23 by Merrick's Marvels

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Someone said he lives in Cheltenham. Surely he has stayed at home, not moved back.

Seem to recall saying he moved into a flat down here with his partner when he signed.  Was getting pally with Conway iirc.

[Natchfever]

51 minutes ago, lenred said:

Mentioned it before but thought this was notable in the pre season conference they did together.   Manning seemed much more assured and was very assertive talking about new signings being needed whilst BT was sat next to him.  It was good to see and hear.  

Not sure why Tinnion was anywhere near that tbh. Most fans want to hear from the manager.

[Davefevs]

Anyway, I think McGuane is a good signing.  Can only assume it’s gonna be a fee around the £500k mark, if anyone knows better, my xls would love to know!

He will bring the ability to get around the pitch in midfield.  I’m not convinced he will be a pivot, but will play as a pair.  @Harry alluded to this.  Not trying to compare to Smith and Pack, but Smith “ratted” about in front of Pack not as a screen / pivot.  And if we want to be “on the front foot” then we will want to win the ball earlier, not wait til we’ve set up as a block.  That’s where I see McGuane being useful.

I think he will give us a good squad capability, as (boringly) it is a squad game.  We don’t need to flog Williams and Knight.  We don’t necessarily need to drop Bird back in to do that either.

I think he’ll quickly become a player the fans like.  He’ll win it / intercept it, and then move the ball quickly.

I see him a bit more like Kante in style.  Kante is quite capable on the ball too.

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

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

I think communication remains an issue at the club. 

In Liams short career as a manager he has made 50-60 signings. Not sure 99.9% of managers do that. 

He's signed about 6 or 7 for BCFC, he signed about 7 or 8 at Oxford and none at FC Lommell as he was very much head coach with all deals being done by The City Group.

That makes roughly 14.

So whilst at MK Dons from August 2021 and December 2022  you are saying that he must have signed over 40 players. Even Chelsea would find that difficult.

Unless of course you are making stuff up to underpin a narrative?

 

[MythikRobins]

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

I think communication remains an issue at the club. 

In Liams short career as a manager he has made 50-60 signings. Not sure 99.9% of managers do that. 

Its not like we've signed many more players this season than we usually do? We've signed 6 players this window.  23/24 we signed 5, 22/23 we signed 5, 21/22 we signed 4 and 20/21 we signed 5, (only counting summer windows). Sure we've spent more, but even that's not absolutely out of whack for our general spend as a club over the last decade. 
 

Edited August 23 by MythikRobins

[Ian M]

11 minutes ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

He's signed about 6 or 7 for BCFC, he signed about 7 or 8 at Oxford and none at FC Lommell as he was very much head coach with all deals being done by The City Group.

That makes roughly 14.

So whilst at MK Dons from August 2021 and December 2022  you are saying that he must have signed over 40 players. Even Chelsea would find that difficult.

Unless of course you are making stuff up to underpin a narrative?

 

The City Group bought Lommel in May 2020 and promptly released/sold 20 players after their low finish. 19 players were then brought in, so I'm sure that inflates the numbers.

I looked at transfermarkt for League One clubs last season and a simple totting up of 'transfers in' (ignoring 'End of Loan' entries), they collectively signed 355 players in the Summer Window and 139 players in the Winter window which would average out at 20.5 players per season. I know he wasn't at Oxford/MK for full amounts of windows, but I do think he's not abnormally high for transfers in when you take this context.

I just think we were sold a lie of what he is as a manager, and now it is more a question of is he good at the type of the manager he actually is. This season we get to find out.

[Numero Uno]

42 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Sounds madly disorganised to me 

Assuming, of course, there isn't an issue with the player. That does happen in football from time to time.

[Davefevs]

35 minutes ago, Ian M said:

I just think we were sold a lie of what he is as a manager, and now it is more a question of is he good at the type of the manager he actually is. This season we get to find out.

That’s quite poetic Ian.  I like it.

[Numero Uno]

I'm just waiting for the post, when we next lose a game (might be tomorrow!!) that says "if we had TGH out there it would have been a different story"...........

[mozo]

2 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Its either a case of us having committed pretty much to the deal then and signed TGH even though the new manager didn’t really fancy him (where you’d lay the blame at Tinnions door) or the head coach, having seen the player at close quarters for a few months, decided to sign him but has changed his mind in double quick time (in which case it’s a poor show by Liam).

There are so many possibilities here but you've reduced the scenarios to the ones that lead to criticism of either Tinnion or Manning.

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

38 minutes ago, Ian M said:

The City Group bought Lommel in May 2020 and promptly released/sold 20 players after their low finish. 19 players were then brought in, so I'm sure that inflates the numbers.

I looked at transfermarkt for League One clubs last season and a simple totting up of 'transfers in' (ignoring 'End of Loan' entries), they collectively signed 355 players in the Summer Window and 139 players in the Winter window which would average out at 20.5 players per season. I know he wasn't at Oxford/MK for full amounts of windows, but I do think he's not abnormally high for transfers in when you take this context.

I just think we were sold a lie of what he is as a manager, and now it is more a question of is he good at the type of the manager he actually is. This season we get to find out.

Understood. At FC Lommell , LM's role was purely as a coach and played the players he was given and took no part in the transfers. When I first looked into it, it seemed quite a strange system.

My point was that he hasn't bought 50-60 players in his "short managerial career" which only started in August 2021.

As to what type of Manager he is or whether any good, indeed time will tell and a lot of stars will have to align in order for him to become a real success. I like  the signs so far and wish him every success . However, personally I never felt I was sold a lie but can appreciate that this is not a common opinion.

[W-S-M Seagull]

59 minutes ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

He's signed about 6 or 7 for BCFC, he signed about 7 or 8 at Oxford and none at FC Lommell as he was very much head coach with all deals being done by The City Group.

That makes roughly 14.

So whilst at MK Dons from August 2021 and December 2022  you are saying that he must have signed over 40 players. Even Chelsea would find that difficult.

Unless of course you are making stuff up to underpin a narrative?

 

At Lommell he signed 23 players which you're conveniently discounting. 

MK I'm an unsure of due to him arriving half way through the summer window where they brought in a total of 13 players and then 10 in winter window. The following summer he brought in 17 players. 

At Oxford he was heavily backed and brought in 14 players, not 7 or 8. 

Here he has made 11 signings so far. 

If we discount the 13 players MK signed in the summer window (cos he might not have been there) then that puts him at 75 signings, so I under estimated it.

If you want to discount the Lommel signings then that fits my previous suggestion of 50-60 signings. 

So no, no narrative, it's just factual. 

 

[SecretSam]

I think it's notable that he's gone back to the West Midlands.

Maybe TGH just didn't settle. 

[Silvio Dante]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

But all of those things you both mention highlight a flaw in our due diligence, especially January when he’d been here 4 months by then, current manager (and recruitment team) had seem him play…in a City shirt no less.  Recruitment decisions re other player contracts, who to look at this summer etc were formed on the back of signing him permanently.  We gave him a 3.5 year contract in January don’t forget.  Did we not know then?

Nobody is suggesting it’s the worst transfer ever, all people are doing is questioning it. Jeez, might we learn from these things, because we have a similar type situation with Hirakawa coming up.

Hopefully we have exited from him without too much pain, assumes Brum complete the deal in the summer if not earlier.

 

13 minutes ago, mozo said:

There are so many possibilities here but you've reduced the scenarios to the ones that lead to criticism of either Tinnion or Manning.

@mozo - Fevs has already expanded on this point more eloquently than me above. Ultimately nobody is saying that the McGuane/TGH overall deal isn’t OK - all anyone is saying is why sign him permanently in January, and as Fevs says - which is bottom line here there had to be a flaw in our due diligence.

I give credit for resolving it if our due diligence was off. But if we don’t acknowledge our due diligence was off, then we can’t learn why we have to get rid of a player - at financially what looks to be a loss - in the window after signing.

 

 

[Davefevs]

FWIW, his remit at Lommel was to develop and play the players brought in that he had at his disposal.  Several were brought in from countries like Brazil and Japan where Man City themselves couldn’t get a work permit.  Others were from Man City to get them exoerience / games.  All with the future benefit to Man City, or to increase value to sell-on elsewhere, including England (WP rules would now be passed).  Manning talks about this in an interview - might’ve been “Coaches Voice” website,

Up to each one of you how you take this (or not) into your arguments.

red - work permit reasons

green - Man City reasons

Edited August 23 by Davefevs

[Bs4Red]

I think this is a good outcome for everyone personally. TGH did okay in his time here, probably happy to move “home”

We have signed a player more suited to our style and will likely make similar money back, all while helping to get AW wages off the list.

Alongside this, Mcguane will likely come here on less wages than potentially TGH was on.

I don’t find it strange we signed him in January and it was likely pre agreed regarding appearances or other clauses. 
 

 

[Silvio Dante]

1 hour ago, Ian M said:

I just think we were sold a lie of what he is as a manager, and now it is more a question of is he good at the type of the manager he actually is. This season we get to find out.

Some of us were saying this from the start, and there is more than one way to skin a cat. To go back to an oft quoted theme that I’ve investigated, he’s not a coach that utilises youth (this season will be his fourth and he’s not developed an academy player to enduring first team yet), he’s not a coach who can improve an existing team on the grass, he is a coach who needs his own players and has a preferred methodology.

And to be clear, that doesn’t in isolation (a) make him a bad coach and (b) different from 99% of other coaches

Most coaches, unless desparate or you have an exceptional talent, seek to wholesale use youth. It’s madness to do so in view of an average coach life span.

And if there is a view that players are unadaptable, equally a lot of coaches can be so as well.

What it does say is that we didn’t do our due diligence (I think I said that before too!) Jon and Brian saw young coach with Liams background, Liam gave a stock answer he’s given at every job of wanting to use the academy and they got stars in their eyes.

If we’d wanted to continue to develop the team and club, in line with the clubs ethos of academy development, it was the wrong appointment.

But as you say - we are where we are. Hes no different to 99.9% of managers where his results are in direct proportion to resources that are (a) Of sufficient quality and (b) the way the coach wants to play.

So, where we are now is Liam has everything he wants. I have an inkling that he’s played the situation with JL/BT as he sussed the longer he was here last season that they couldn’t allow him to fail, so he’s out the squeeze on for the change in tack. Possibly a genius move.

Equally, for Jon and Brian, nobody can now accuse them of not backing the coach. The pressure is now all on him but they share in the success

And for Liam, he now has no better opportunity to show exactly what he can do with exactly what he wants.

[W-S-M Seagull]

5 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Some of us were saying this from the start, and there is more than one way to skin a cat. To go back to an oft quoted theme that I’ve investigated, he’s not a coach that utilises youth (this season will be his fourth and he’s not developed an academy player to enduring first team yet), he’s not a coach who can improve an existing team on the grass, he is a coach who needs his own players and has a preferred methodology.

And to be clear, that doesn’t in isolation (a) make him a bad coach and (b) different from 99% of other coaches

Most coaches, unless desparate or you have an exceptional talent, seek to wholesale use youth. It’s madness to do so in view of an average coach life span.

And if there is a view that players are unadaptable, equally a lot of coaches can be so as well.

What it does say is that we didn’t do our due diligence (I think I said that before too!) Jon and Brian saw young coach with Liams background, Liam gave a stock answer he’s given at every job of wanting to use the academy and they got stars in their eyes.

If we’d wanted to continue to develop the team and club, in line with the clubs ethos of academy development, it was the wrong appointment.

But as you say - we are where we are. Hes no different to 99.9% of managers where his results are in direct proportion to resources that are (a) Of sufficient quality and (b) the way the coach wants to play.

So, where we are now is Liam has everything he wants. I have an inkling that he’s played the situation with JL/BT as he sussed the longer he was here last season that they couldn’t allow him to fail, so he’s out the squeeze on for the change in tack. Possibly a genius move.

Equally, for Jon and Brian, nobody can now accuse them of not backing the coach. The pressure is now all on him but they share in the success

And for Liam, he now has no better opportunity to show exactly what he can do with exactly what he wants.

Perfectly put.