On The Radio

[Guest ashtonyate]

The Western daily press reporter said we have some experance players but if we have an injury we have no cover except for young players.He went on to say too many youngsters in a team is no good. This is what i have said all a long I just hope the new manager is in the same frame of mind as me.Remembering you don't win anything with kids.

[RedUn]

The Western daily press reporter said we have some experance players but if we have an injury we have no cover except for young players.He went on to say too many youngsters in a team is no good.

Well stap me! Who has it taken longer to realise that him or you? (How I wish Radio Bristol would get Paul Cheesely back in the summariser's chair so that we could get some genuine insight into what is going on)

I can't remember in which of the interminably long academy threads you started last season it was but I distinctly remember arguing that a successful team would generally have no more than a couple of old heads (30+), no more than four young pros (U/23) with the remaining places comprised of mature, reliable, consistent performers in the senior pro (24-29yrs) bracket*. The bench would generally comprise say three youngsters and two seniors. The rest of the squad be similarly balanced to provide cover and competition with no room for dead wood. By contrast, you told us we needed a squad of 26 senior players! (without suggesting how their wages would be met or how you'd keep that many journeymen happy)

Ever since we returned to this division the main problem has been to find enough senior players with the characteristics highlighted above, and that remains the case.

There is some mitigation in the current situation as we have yet to see the first-choice spine that Tinnion had in mind: Phillips - Heywood - Russell - Brooker. However, what we have seen is that there is scant, if any, cover for the role those outfielders perform. It never should have been the case that nippers would be asked to take over the leadership roles while they are finding their feet at this level but that is what has happened.

This is what i have said all a long

←

No it isn't, what you have said all along is cut off the source of quality youngsters so that even more money could be spent (wasted) on the sort of journeymen whose only consistency is to prove incapable of raising our game while picking up fancy wages.

* Last night's starting line-up had 3 x 30+ (two of them out on the same flank), 5 x U/23 plus Phillips, Smith(G) & Partridge as the senior pros - unsurprisingly as soon as they got in front the game was over.

[Guest ashtonyate]

Well stap me! Who has it taken longer to realise that him or you? (How I wish Radio Bristol would get Paul Cheesely back in the summariser's chair so that we could get some genuine insight into what is going on)

I can't remember in which of the interminably long academy threads you started last season it was but I distinctly remember arguing that a successful team would generally have no more than a couple of old heads (30+), no more than four young pros (U/23) with the remaining places comprised of mature, reliable, consistent performers in the senior pro (24-29yrs) bracket*. The bench would generally comprise say three youngsters and two seniors. The rest of the squad be similarly balanced to provide cover and competition with no room for dead wood. By contrast, you told us we needed a squad of 26 senior players! (without suggesting how their wages would be met or how you'd keep that many journeymen happy)

Ever since we returned to this division the main problem has been to find enough senior players with the characteristics highlighted above, and that remains the case.

There is some mitigation in the current situation as we have yet to see the first-choice spine that Tinnion had in mind: Phillips - Heywood - Russell - Brooker. However, what we have seen is that there is scant, if any, cover for the role those outfielders perform. It never should have been the case that nippers would be asked to take over the leadership roles while they are finding their feet at this level but that is what has happened.

No it isn't, what you have said all along is cut off the source of quality youngsters so that even more money could be spent (wasted) on the sort of journeymen whose only consistency is to prove incapable of raising our game while picking up fancy wages.

* Last night's starting line-up had 3 x 30+ (two of them out on the same flank), 5 x U/23 plus Phillips, Smith(G) & Partridge as the senior pros - unsurprisingly as soon as they got in front the game was over.

←

Well you wanted youngters you got them,prehaps if we go down too the conferance

they might their level

[purple_monkey_dishwasher]

Well you wanted youngters you got them

←

Thank you for providing a laugh in these troubled times

Did you even bother to read what RedUn posted?

[Guest ashtonyate]

Well stap me! Who has it taken longer to realise that him or you? (How I wish Radio Bristol would get Paul Cheesely back in the summariser's chair so that we could get some genuine insight into what is going on)

I can't remember in which of the interminably long academy threads you started last season it was but I distinctly remember arguing that a successful team would generally have no more than a couple of old heads (30+), no more than four young pros (U/23) with the remaining places comprised of mature, reliable, consistent performers in the senior pro (24-29yrs) bracket*. The bench would generally comprise say three youngsters and two seniors. The rest of the squad be similarly balanced to provide cover and competition with no room for dead wood. By contrast, you told us we needed a squad of 26 senior players! (without suggesting how their wages would be met or how you'd keep that many journeymen happy)

Ever since we returned to this division the main problem has been to find enough senior players with the characteristics highlighted above, and that remains the case.

The reason we buy poor quailty journeymen is we can't afford the academy and good senior pros that the simple anwser.We havent got the money and thats it

so you decide what you want good youngster that you cant keep or good players where ever they come from.

There is some mitigation in the current situation as we have yet to see the first-choice spine that Tinnion had in mind: Phillips - Heywood - Russell - Brooker. However, what we have seen is that there is scant, if any, cover for the role those outfielders perform. It never should have been the case that nippers would be asked to take over the leadership roles while they are finding their feet at this level but that is what has happened.

No it isn't, what you have said all along is cut off the source of quality youngsters so that even more money could be spent (wasted) on the sort of journeymen whose only consistency is to prove incapable of raising our game while picking up fancy wages.

* Last night's starting line-up had 3 x 30+ (two of them out on the same flank), 5 x U/23 plus Phillips, Smith(G) & Partridge as the senior pros - unsurprisingly as soon as they got in front the game was over.

←

[Guest ashtonyate]

←

The reason we buy poor quailty journeymen is we can't afford the academy and good senior pros that the simple anwser.We havent got the money and thats it

so you decide what you want good youngster that you cant keep, or good players where ever they come from.

[Guest routabout]

ashtonyate. Do you suffer from senility? Seriously, there is evidence of it in this thread. Would you like me to elaborate?

[Guest ashtonyate]

ashtonyate. Do you suffer from senility? Seriously, there is evidence of it in this thread. Would you like me to elaborate?

←

I think bottom of the league is proof that we have not a squad good enough why is

that we sell nearly 2 million worth of players and replace that with players worth 200k. because the academy has got us into debt. you can elaborate as much you like but thats the facts.

[Guest routabout]

I think bottom of the league is proof that we have not a squad good enough  why is

that we sell nearly 2 million worth of players and replace that with players worth 200k. because the academy has got us into debt. you can elaborate as much you like but thats the facts.

←

I was referring more towards the facts that you repeated somebody else, verbatim, adding nothing else. Than managed to specifically quote and reply to thin air. Seriously, I'm worried for you.

[Dastardly and Muttley]

The reason we buy poor quailty journeymen is we can't afford the academy and good senior pros that the simple anwser.We havent got the money and thats it

so you decide what you want good youngster that you cant keep, or good players where ever they come from.

←

Which quality players were we signing in the seasons leading up to the introduction of the academy?

I can't remember exactly when the Academy was introduced, so I can't remember which players were around at that time.

Would be interesting to know what quality "senior players" we were signing before we "wasted" money on the academy, and whether they compare to the post-academy signings such as Peacock, Partridge, Wilkshire etc...

[Guest ashtonyate]

Which quality players were we signing in the seasons leading up to the introduction of the academy?

I can't remember exactly when the Academy was introduced, so I can't remember which players were around at that time.

Would be interesting to know what quality "senior players" we were signing before we "wasted" money on the academy, and whether they compare to the post-academy signings such as Peacock, Partridge, Wilkshire etc...

←

That was around the last time we were promoted I think ever one thought we were on the crest of a wave now we are drowning in debt.

[Dastardly and Muttley]

That was around the last time we were promoted I think ever one thought we were on the crest of a wave now we are drowning in debt.

←

Isn't it partly because of the high fees that we paid for those players that we are in debt now?

£1.2 million on Akinbiyi, good business.

£1 million on Thorpe. Bit of a waste, did well for us but left for nowt.

£? on Andersen, again did ok but left quickly and didn't fulfil potential.

Add to that, Dyche, Sebok, Testimetanu, Watts, Hutchings et al and we have a list of players that we paid over the odds for.

Going back to the pre-Academy days of spending bigger fees is still no guarantee of quality or success.

[Guest ashtonyate]

Isn't it partly because of the high fees that we paid for those players that we are in debt now?

£1.2 million on Akinbiyi, good business.

£1 million on Thorpe. Bit of a waste, did well for us but left for nowt.

£? on Andersen, again did ok but left quickly and didn't fulfil potential.

Add to that, Dyche, Sebok, Testimetanu, Watts, Hutchings et al and we have a list of players that we paid over the odds for.

Going back to the pre-Academy days of spending bigger fees is still no guarantee of quality or success.

←

we were never in the mess that we are in now

[RedUn]

we were never in the mess that we are in now

←

So you slept through 1982 did you?

[Guest ashtonyate]

So you slept through 1982 did you?

←

If you remember we had just got demoted in 1982 and had our ex youth players on very long contracts as some would like us now to do.But we moved on from there but since we had our new cross to bare the academy we have been crucified by debt

[greenun]

If you remember we had just got demoted in 1982 and had our ex youth players on very long contracts as some would like us now to do.But we moved on from there but since we had our new cross to bare the academy we have been crucified by debt

←

Please show us the figures that prove this, beyond all doubt AshtonYate.