Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:20 am
Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:31 am
Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:35 am
Bluebird-in-Jackland wrote:To be fair that’s a great article by Glen Williams and I very rarely agree with some of the stuff he says. And the paragraph on Bacuna being out back in the middle is definitely right. His best games for us have been when he’s played in the centre. I know he gets a lot of stick as the new scapegoat of the team but Bacuna has had great games for us in the middle of the park and I’d like to see that again, because he’s certainly not a winger!
Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:41 am
Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:49 am
theclaw wrote:Annis you might be right or wrong about the youngsters but I’m not giving up on them until we try to play some football.I just think we to changer approach to the game,it’s just so negative.
Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:54 am
theclaw wrote:Annis you might be right or wrong about the youngsters but I’m not giving up on them until we try to play some football.I just think we to changer approach to the game,it’s just so negative.
Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:05 am
Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:24 am
Tony Blue Williams wrote:Our transfer policy wasn't a 'gamble' it was a necessity. We lost £12m according to the last accounts which is a whisker away from the £13m maximum allowed by Profit and Sustainability (aka FFP) Rules.
During that period we were in receipt of £36m in parachute payments which have now ended. Therefore we have to make cuts in our outgoings of at least £36m in order to comply with P&S/FFP rules or we will face repeated points deductions until we do.
Therefore we had no option but to reshape the squad by relying on free transfers and promoting academy players in order to balance the books. Trying to portray this policy as some kind of mismanagement by the owners/board members is misleading and a bit dishonest.
However, what the above article does get right is the observation that we are not getting the best out of the players we have. As already mentioned by Bluebird in Jackland Bacuna is being totally wasted in his current position. Glen Williams is also correct in identifying the problem of playing slow central defenders in a high line.
Personally I would play Sang on the right wing with Giles on the left. Both are capable of supplying quality crosses for KM.
What we can all agree on is the present playing system and personnel selection is not working and something needs to change pretty dam soon.
Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:24 am
Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:36 am
Forever Blue wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:Our transfer policy wasn't a 'gamble' it was a necessity. We lost £12m according to the last accounts which is a whisker away from the £13m maximum allowed by Profit and Sustainability (aka FFP) Rules.
During that period we were in receipt of £36m in parachute payments which have now ended. Therefore we have to make cuts in our outgoings of at least £36m in order to comply with P&S/FFP rules or we will face repeated points deductions until we do.
Therefore we had no option but to reshape the squad by relying on free transfers and promoting academy players in order to balance the books. Trying to portray this policy as some kind of mismanagement by the owners/board members is misleading and a bit dishonest.
However, what the above article does get right is the observation that we are not getting the best out of the players we have. As already mentioned by Bluebird in Jackland Bacuna is being totally wasted in his current position. Glen Williams is also correct in identifying the problem of playing slow central defenders in a high line.
Personally I would play Sang on the right wing with Giles on the left. Both are capable of supplying quality crosses for KM.
What we can all agree on is the present playing system and personnel selection is not working and something needs to change pretty dam soon.
Glen Willians headlines not mine.
We had three years of good parachute payments coming in and money once again not used wisely and now we have nothing coming in, that’s the truth and reality.
Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:44 am
biglad6 wrote:Thats a decent article but the truth is that we`re trying to make something out of nothing.
Four things everybody knows about this team is
The midfield is uncreative and packed full of the same players added to by Wintle who was immediately sent out on loan
Going forward we have apart from Giles a loan player we have absolutely no pace and consequently don`t look like scoring from open play and have`nt done so at all in the first half
The youngsters some might make it but most of them won`t and the reason why we`re playing most of them is because theyre cheap.
The bench is a joke, offers no threat and no opportunity to change things round.
We`ve got here because of the committee. Two seasons ago we were blessed with Pace out wide Hoillet, Mendez Laing, Harris and Murphy. Now we`ve got Giles on loan and thats it , who thought of that?
The midfield the same old same old no pace, backwards and sideways. A poor transfer policy of permanent players has left us look better than we are plastered by loan players like Wilson and Ojo. Again no long term policy.
hence the bench being what it is.
The committee need to quickly address what we need out wide and in midfield next year half this team will leave. There are more free agents than ever now so the choice should be pretty wide. Tomlin and Vassell would have made a difference but again two crocks signed. Went for Marley Watkins scored two goals then rejected ? Why have him in the first place ? Seems all disjointed and amatuerish and we are seeing the results on the pitch.
West Brom and Reading up next and two defeats could see McCarthy gone. To be replaced by whom , the club has tried young managers Harris, Solsjaer,Trollope, old heads Slade, McCarthy. Its not the managers who are at fault its the core of the club that lurch from crisis to crisis that is. Short, medium and long term planning is needed , we won`t get it though from this set up.
Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:21 pm
Tony Blue Williams wrote:Forever Blue wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:Our transfer policy wasn't a 'gamble' it was a necessity. We lost £12m according to the last accounts which is a whisker away from the £13m maximum allowed by Profit and Sustainability (aka FFP) Rules.
During that period we were in receipt of £36m in parachute payments which have now ended. Therefore we have to make cuts in our outgoings of at least £36m in order to comply with P&S/FFP rules or we will face repeated points deductions until we do.
Therefore we had no option but to reshape the squad by relying on free transfers and promoting academy players in order to balance the books. Trying to portray this policy as some kind of mismanagement by the owners/board members is misleading and a bit dishonest.
However, what the above article does get right is the observation that we are not getting the best out of the players we have. As already mentioned by Bluebird in Jackland Bacuna is being totally wasted in his current position. Glen Williams is also correct in identifying the problem of playing slow central defenders in a high line.
Personally I would play Sang on the right wing with Giles on the left. Both are capable of supplying quality crosses for KM.
What we can all agree on is the present playing system and personnel selection is not working and something needs to change pretty dam soon.
Glen Willians headlines not mine.
We had three years of good parachute payments coming in and money once again not used wisely and now we have nothing coming in, that’s the truth and reality.
No Annis we had TWO years of parachute payments as we only stayed in the PL for one season hence we didn't qualify for the third year.
Yes the truth is we don't have Parachute Payments coming in anymore hence we need to cut our costs. Do you think that the club are wrong to do this to comply with P&S/FFP?
The article was written by Glen Williams but you have constantly moaned the club has played too many young players. If these players hadn't been used who would you have played instead?
Please remember we can't spend money we don't have even if Vincent Tan did find an extra £100m down the back of his sofa it would make no difference. So how would we fund replacements for the academy players without spending money we don't have?
Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:24 pm
Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:41 pm
Forever Blue wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:Forever Blue wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:Our transfer policy wasn't a 'gamble' it was a necessity. We lost £12m according to the last accounts which is a whisker away from the £13m maximum allowed by Profit and Sustainability (aka FFP) Rules.
During that period we were in receipt of £36m in parachute payments which have now ended. Therefore we have to make cuts in our outgoings of at least £36m in order to comply with P&S/FFP rules or we will face repeated points deductions until we do.
Therefore we had no option but to reshape the squad by relying on free transfers and promoting academy players in order to balance the books. Trying to portray this policy as some kind of mismanagement by the owners/board members is misleading and a bit dishonest.
However, what the above article does get right is the observation that we are not getting the best out of the players we have. As already mentioned by Bluebird in Jackland Bacuna is being totally wasted in his current position. Glen Williams is also correct in identifying the problem of playing slow central defenders in a high line.
Personally I would play Sang on the right wing with Giles on the left. Both are capable of supplying quality crosses for KM.
What we can all agree on is the present playing system and personnel selection is not working and something needs to change pretty dam soon.
Glen Willians headlines not mine.
We had three years of good parachute payments coming in and money once again not used wisely and now we have nothing coming in, that’s the truth and reality.
No Annis we had TWO years of parachute payments as we only stayed in the PL for one season hence we didn't qualify for the third year.
Yes the truth is we don't have Parachute Payments coming in anymore hence we need to cut our costs. Do you think that the club are wrong to do this to comply with P&S/FFP?
The article was written by Glen Williams but you have constantly moaned the club has played too many young players. If these players hadn't been used who would you have played instead?
Please remember we can't spend money we don't have even if Vincent Tan did find an extra £100m down the back of his sofa it would make no difference. So how would we fund replacements for the academy players without spending money we don't have?
Tony,
I will stand by this Tan has wasted £mill upon in £mill on rebrand, lost all court cases, wasted on so many duff players, nearly as many managers as his 11 yr ownership, 6 CEO ‘s etc etc and a badly run club.
And you know that’s all true.
Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:59 pm
Tony Blue Williams wrote:Forever Blue wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:Forever Blue wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:Our transfer policy wasn't a 'gamble' it was a necessity. We lost £12m according to the last accounts which is a whisker away from the £13m maximum allowed by Profit and Sustainability (aka FFP) Rules.
During that period we were in receipt of £36m in parachute payments which have now ended. Therefore we have to make cuts in our outgoings of at least £36m in order to comply with P&S/FFP rules or we will face repeated points deductions until we do.
Therefore we had no option but to reshape the squad by relying on free transfers and promoting academy players in order to balance the books. Trying to portray this policy as some kind of mismanagement by the owners/board members is misleading and a bit dishonest.
However, what the above article does get right is the observation that we are not getting the best out of the players we have. As already mentioned by Bluebird in Jackland Bacuna is being totally wasted in his current position. Glen Williams is also correct in identifying the problem of playing slow central defenders in a high line.
Personally I would play Sang on the right wing with Giles on the left. Both are capable of supplying quality crosses for KM.
What we can all agree on is the present playing system and personnel selection is not working and something needs to change pretty dam soon.
Glen Willians headlines not mine.
We had three years of good parachute payments coming in and money once again not used wisely and now we have nothing coming in, that’s the truth and reality.
No Annis we had TWO years of parachute payments as we only stayed in the PL for one season hence we didn't qualify for the third year.
Yes the truth is we don't have Parachute Payments coming in anymore hence we need to cut our costs. Do you think that the club are wrong to do this to comply with P&S/FFP?
The article was written by Glen Williams but you have constantly moaned the club has played too many young players. If these players hadn't been used who would you have played instead?
Please remember we can't spend money we don't have even if Vincent Tan did find an extra £100m down the back of his sofa it would make no difference. So how would we fund replacements for the academy players without spending money we don't have?
Tony,
I will stand by this Tan has wasted £mill upon in £mill on rebrand, lost all court cases, wasted on so many duff players, nearly as many managers as his 11 yr ownership, 6 CEO ‘s etc etc and a badly run club.
And you know that’s all true.
I agree the rebrand was a mistake, we have bought some awful players (on the recommendation of the managers) and there have been court cases.
But all that is retrospective.
My question to you is what should the club do with regard to the future? Should we cost cut to make up for the loss of parachute payments or should Vincent Tan break P&S/FFP rules and sign more players with money we don't have and therefore face a points deduction?
Personally I think the club have made the correct decision all facts considered. Breaking P&S/FFP is not an option so cutting costs and playing academy players is the only way ahead.
Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:30 pm
Forever Blue wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:Forever Blue wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:Forever Blue wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:Our transfer policy wasn't a 'gamble' it was a necessity. We lost £12m according to the last accounts which is a whisker away from the £13m maximum allowed by Profit and Sustainability (aka FFP) Rules.
During that period we were in receipt of £36m in parachute payments which have now ended. Therefore we have to make cuts in our outgoings of at least £36m in order to comply with P&S/FFP rules or we will face repeated points deductions until we do.
Therefore we had no option but to reshape the squad by relying on free transfers and promoting academy players in order to balance the books. Trying to portray this policy as some kind of mismanagement by the owners/board members is misleading and a bit dishonest.
However, what the above article does get right is the observation that we are not getting the best out of the players we have. As already mentioned by Bluebird in Jackland Bacuna is being totally wasted in his current position. Glen Williams is also correct in identifying the problem of playing slow central defenders in a high line.
Personally I would play Sang on the right wing with Giles on the left. Both are capable of supplying quality crosses for KM.
What we can all agree on is the present playing system and personnel selection is not working and something needs to change pretty dam soon.
Glen Willians headlines not mine.
We had three years of good parachute payments coming in and money once again not used wisely and now we have nothing coming in, that’s the truth and reality.
No Annis we had TWO years of parachute payments as we only stayed in the PL for one season hence we didn't qualify for the third year.
Yes the truth is we don't have Parachute Payments coming in anymore hence we need to cut our costs. Do you think that the club are wrong to do this to comply with P&S/FFP?
The article was written by Glen Williams but you have constantly moaned the club has played too many young players. If these players hadn't been used who would you have played instead?
Please remember we can't spend money we don't have even if Vincent Tan did find an extra £100m down the back of his sofa it would make no difference. So how would we fund replacements for the academy players without spending money we don't have?
Tony,
I will stand by this Tan has wasted £mill upon in £mill on rebrand, lost all court cases, wasted on so many duff players, nearly as many managers as his 11 yr ownership, 6 CEO ‘s etc etc and a badly run club.
And you know that’s all true.
I agree the rebrand was a mistake, we have bought some awful players (on the recommendation of the managers) and there have been court cases.
But all that is retrospective.
My question to you is what should the club do with regard to the future? Should we cost cut to make up for the loss of parachute payments or should Vincent Tan break P&S/FFP rules and sign more players with money we don't have and therefore face a points deduction?
Personally I think the club have made the correct decision all facts considered. Breaking P&S/FFP is not an option so cutting costs and playing academy players is the only way ahead.
What should the owners do?
My view cut their losses and sell at fair price.
I know 100% what happened with the last two offers / deals.
The American group pulled out after see the books etc
And the other group Tan stopped due to his hatred.
That’s all I can say.
Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:43 am
Forever Blue wrote:
What should the owners do?
My view cut their losses and sell at fair price.
I know 100% what happened with the last two offers / deals.
The American group pulled out after see the books etc
And the other group Tan stopped due to his hatred.
That’s all I can say.
Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:51 am
bluelover wrote:
To be fair i'm guessing there aren't many clubs the American's would have been happy with after seeing the books. Any investor would have to be made to invest in a football club. And hatred is a strong emotion and there aren't many of us who would be prepared sell to our enemies if we didn't have to sell
Out of interest Annis, would you have been happy with either buyer in terms of them being able to make a success of things?