Press conference today?

[1danewhitehouse]

You made a point. Were pulled up on it and had it dismantled.

Now you're bringing up totally different points because you know you haven't a leg to stand on.

Utter bollocks and you know it. You took one sentence out of a multitude of points and pretended it was the whole basis of what I was saying because you favour straw men over discussing the issues. The "point" you refer to wasn't even about Adkins going but about how Wilder might fare. You'd said if he can spend what Adkins did it's doable. I was pointing out that if he has to raise over £1.5 million in transfer fees and shift about 15-20 wages off the wage bill to spend that, he hasn't got a cat in hell's chance.

 

[PeteBlade]

You made a point. Were pulled up on it and had it dismantled.

Now you're bringing up totally different points because you know you haven't a leg to stand on.

Which point was dismantled and by who?

It's easier to say you've dismantled something than it is to actually dismantle it.

I've read nothing from any armchair fan that dismantled anything written by a regular attendee of football matches.

 

[Barney]

Utter bollocks and you know it. You took one sentence out of a multitude of points and pretended it was the whole basis of what I was saying because you favour straw men over discussing the issues. The "point" you refer to wasn't even about Adkins going but about how Wilder might fare. You'd said if he can spend what Adkins did it's doable. I was pointing out that if he has to raise over £1.5 million in transfer fees and shift about 15-20 wages off the wage bill to spend that, he hasn't got a cat in hell's chance.

He wouldn't have 15-20 players to get rid of for starters. But given only about 10 are out of contract and the rest all shite, it's nigh on impossible anyway. And my initial point was if Wilder has the same outlay as Adkins had i.e £1.7M ish.

I made no comment on shifting anyone on or raising any funds to do this.

As for the rest of it - oh I see, so we're fine to debate something, but only up to the point where you realise your argument falls down, then we have to pretend we're debating something else? Right, got it.

 

[Barney]

Which point was dismantled and by who?

It's easier to say you've dismantled something than it is to actually dismantle it.

I've read nothing from any armchair fan that dismantled anything written by a regular attendee of football matches.

Luckily for me the point in hand has nothing to do with attending football matches.

But don't ever let that stop you keeping that as a last resort for whenever you're struggling.

 

[PeteBlade]

Luckily for me the point in hand has nothing to do with attending football matches.

But don't ever let that stop you keeping that as a last resort for every discussion you're struggling in.

Yes luckily for you, not attending football matches has nothing to do with your endless criticism of how we play during football matches, how the manager performs during football matches and how individuals perform during football matches.

 

[Barney]

Yes luckily for you, not attending football matches has nothing to do with your endless criticism of how we play during football matches, how the manager performs during football matches and how individuals perform during football matches.

I'd love to see this endless criticism of how we play during football matches, how the manager performs during football matches, and how individuals perform during football matches.

Can you provide me with some quotes to back this up at all?

 

[PeteBlade]

I'd love to see this endless criticism of how we play during football matches, how the manager performs during football matches, and how individuals perform during football matches.

Can you provide me with some quotes to back this up at all?

Sure, click on your own name, and look back through your own posts. It'll all be there.

 

[Barney]

Sure, click on your own name, and look back through your own posts. It'll all be there.

You made the point. You provide the evidence to back it up.

Are you ever so sure you don't deep down know your statement wasn't quite true and are avoiding giving the non-existent evidence as a result?

 

[HillmortonBlade]

He is a league 1 manager , we are a league 1 club

How many matches has Wilder managed in League 1? Our expectation levels have been matched with this appointment, I seem to remember people suggesting Big Sam this time last year, and a few days ago McCarthy or managers from other Yorkshire clubs in the Championship.

Having said that, a manager on the way up is preferable and I think Wilder is as good an appointment as we could hope for in our current predicament and I wish him all the best as I would any new manager. (Because at heart, all I want is to see the Blades win... in the Premier League... and Champions League.)

 

[PeteBlade]

You made the point. You provide the evidence to back it up.

Are you ever so sure you don't deep down know your statement wasn't quite true and are avoiding giving the non-existent evidence as a result?

If only you provided evidence for most of your bulllshit claims.

 

[bladesmanluke]

When you sell a player you don't necessarily lose his wages from the wage bill. That's what transfer fees are for. You still have to pay off their contracts. Which makes it even more stupid the meesley amount of money we've gotten for some of our better players.

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

How many matches has Wilder managed in League 1? Our expectation levels have been matched with this appointment, I seem to remember people suggesting Big Sam this time last year, and a few days ago McCarthy or managers from other Yorkshire clubs in the Championship.

Having said that, a manager on the way up is preferable and I think Wilder is as good an appointment as we could hope for in our current predicament and I wish him all the best as I would any new manager. (Because at heart, all I want is to see the Blades win... in the Premier League... and Champions League.)

Hillmorton as usual good points . We should on law of averages , have got the appointment right . ( hats off to McCabe ). . Wilder to me is a league 1 manager untried but hungry for success and not living off past glories . When , , not if , when. we get in the championship , Wilder will push us on . All managers at the end of the day leave on there own accord or get sack . For me let's enjoy Wilder , blades and our football again . Winning helps , even when it's 1-0 to the Arsenal syndrome.

UTB

 

[sitwell]

Yes luckily for you, not attending football matches has nothing to do with your endless criticism of how we play during football matches, how the manager performs during football matches and how individuals perform during football matches.

He was right about the manager.

 

[PeteBlade]

He was right about the manager.

Hardly. Never had the chance to find out.
And those who critisced the way we are run were actually bang on.

 

[sitwell]

Hardly. Never had the chance to find out.
And those who critisced the way we are run were actually bang on.

He had over 50 games to show how incompetent he was.

 

[PeteBlade]

He had over 50 games to show how incompetent he was.

Using your man Clough's terrible legacy of piss poor leftovers.

 

[sitwell]

Using your man Clough's terrible legacy of piss poor leftovers.

Well Wilder has been left with a much harder job ,the squad is much worse than the squad Clough left. A decent manager manages to make something of players ,Adkins is not a decent manager.

 

[PeteBlade]

Well Wilder has been left with a much harder job ,the squad is much worse than the squad Clough left. A decent manager manages to make something of players ,Adkins is not a decent manager.

Completely incorrect, his task is much easier.
All of Clough's shit will finally be gone, never to be seen again, thank god.
He will be able to start with a clean slate, has made one of the two permanent signings Adkins was allowed to make club captain, and will be able to build his own squad, a luxury not afforded to Adkins.
He won't have a big budget though, another legacy of Brian's son.

 

[Bladeinleeds]

Let's not get bogged down over who signed who. we are at a point for a clean slate.

Baring Adams, sharp and Brayford there is no one i'm bothered about losing.

Sack off Hammond, baxter, sammon Howard on decent wages and let's look to bring in Players on the up.

One thing that struck me from McCabe yesterday is that he's correct that we haven't given the young players a chance since long and Maguire . The likes of mk Dons did it it's much more cost effective. We can then actually use a decent budget wisely on a few quality additions

 

[1danewhitehouse]

When you sell a player you don't necessarily lose his wages from the wage bill. That's what transfer fees are for. You still have to pay off their contracts. Which makes it even more stupid the meesley amount of money we've gotten for some of our better players.

Not if said player has handed in a written transfer request as in JM's case

 

[alcoblade]

When you sell a player you don't necessarily lose his wages from the wage bill. That's what transfer fees are for. You still have to pay off their contracts. Which makes it even more stupid the meesley amount of money we've gotten for some of our better players.

That's not correct. When you sell a player, the contract ends. That's why we're stuck with all the shite Clough bought. There's nobody daft enough to match it and the players know it.

UTB

 

[1danewhitehouse]

1. He wouldn't have 15-20 players to get rid of for starters. But given only about 10 are out of contract and the rest all shite, it's nigh on impossible anyway.

2. And my initial point was if Wilder has the same outlay as Adkins had i.e £1.7M ish.. I made no comment on shifting anyone on or raising any funds to do this.

3. As for the rest of it - oh I see, so we're fine to debate something, but only up to the point where you realise your argument falls down, then we have to pretend we're debating something else? Right, got it.

1. I disagree that Sharp, Adams, Basham, Brayford and Long are shite but I suppose it's a subjective issue.

2. I know that was your point. And in response to that point, I made the point that if he has to raise/ free up way more than that to spend it, he's got little chance of success. Fortunately, I don't think that will be the case as he's not inheriting an enormous squad that need shifting on as Adkins did. You then pretended that sentence was my entire reasoning on why Adkins finished 11th. It wasn't. I have made several comments about the contributing factors to that all condensed into one post for you earlier in this thread.

3. No, you pretended a point I made on one issue was my entire reasoning for another. It wasn't but it made it easier for you to "win" the debate in your own head. Google "Straw man argument" and you might begin to understand what happened.

 

[alcoblade]

Not if said player has handed in a written transfer request as in JM's case

If they hand in s request, they lose a slice of the fee. They don't get their contracts paid up either way.

UTB

 

[1danewhitehouse]

If they hand in s request, they lose a slice of the fee. They don't get their contracts paid up either way.

UTB

Yes I think that's right. Wasn't sure on the specifics except that written transfer request = forefeit your piece of pie (however much that is).

 

[Barney]

1. I disagree that Sharp, Adams, Basham, Brayford and Long are shite but I suppose it's a subjective issue.

2. I know that was your point. And in response to that point, I made the point that if he has to raise/ free up way more than that to spend it, he's got little chance of success. Fortunately, I don't think that will be the case as he's not inheriting an enormous squad that need shifting on as Adkins did. You then pretended that sentence was my entire reasoning on why Adkins finished 11th. It wasn't. I have made several comments about the contributing factors to that all condensed into one post for you earlier in this thread.

3. No, you pretended a point I made on one issue was my entire reasoning for another. It wasn't but it made it easier for you to "win" the debate in your own head. Google "Straw man argument" and you might begin to understand what happened.

No need for Google here. But that wasn't what it was. That particular thing was what we were debating, until you threw your toys out of your pram when you realised your own argument wasn't a very good one, decided you didn't want to debate that part any more as a result and instisted we discuss a million totally different points instead.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Well Wilder has been left with a much harder job ,the squad is much worse than the squad Clough left. A decent manager manages to make something of players ,Adkins is not a decent manager.

Massively disagree that Wilder has a harder job than Adkins. Many have been saying for the last 12 months that summer 2016 (like summer 2014) represented a big opportunity with so many out of contract. Summer 2015, with the number of crap players under contract. compounded by the sale of Murphy, it was a horrendous situation for an incoming manager.

I fancy that either WIlder or Adkins would improve on the season just gone by vritue of the fact that they should be able to imrpove the squad (barring sales of Sharp, Adams, Brayford, Basham and Long).

 

[alcoblade]

Massively disagree that Wilder has a harder job than Adkins. Many have been saying for the last 12 months that summer 2016 (like summer 2014) represented a big opportunity with so many out of contract. Summer 2015, with the number of crap players under contract. compounded by the sale of Murphy, it was a horrendous situation for an incoming manager.

I fancy that either WIlder or Adkins would improve on the season just gone by vritue of the fact that they should be able to imrpove the squad (barring sales of Sharp, Adams, Brayford, Basham and Long).

Wilder has an easier job than Adkins in that it's nearer to the end of the contracts that Clough threw about.

It's possibly harder in that the budget is getting smaller.

You have to appreciate Sitters thinks Coutts is the type of player you can build a midfield around. Rather than the useless twat that he is.

UTB

 

[1danewhitehouse]

It also depends on whether he has to generate it himself with players sales and moving players off the wage bill like Adkins did.

Even after selling Murphy, the outlay Adkins sanctioned should have been enough to see progress on 5th. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Even using your bizarre argument, Adkins should have finished 5th then, should he not?

"explained to me?" I don't need it explaining. It's your opinion and one that I disagree with. I would say he could and should have done better than he did but looking at the backing he had, the job was a lot harder than most imagined it would be when he was appointed and this summer would have been his first proper crack at it. The circumstances he was managing under last season were such that it didn't constitute a fair crack of the whip. You've had that "explained" to you quite a few times too.

How can you be so utterly stupid? Sell players for a total of over £1.5 million (undisclosed fee for Alcock on top of the Murphy fee). Only buy one player for £500k, a freebie and 4 loans (one right at the end of the season) whilst moving on around 20 players. That's having less than he raised with a squad that is not his and he should at least repeat the achievements of his pre-decessor who got to spend millions putting a team together how he wanted? You don't have talk some shit.

No, it's taking a 5th placed division three side, adding 5 players on huge wages to it and not just failing to make progress, but going backwards to 11th.

Even your own argument goes against what you're now saying. Using the idea that he had to raise his own funds or spent as much as he raised, that logic suggests he should have finished at least 5th. And should have made progress had he added better quality than he lost. So that means he's still underachieved by a 6 place margin.

Your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on, no matter how hard you might try and ignore those telling you this.

That's not my argument at all though. My argument is that he raised his own funds and then much more both in terms of transfer fees and wages meaning going backwards was never particularly unlikely. Not that it wasn't possible to get in the playoffs or get the extra 6 points required to equal Clough's tally but that it was a hell of a lot more difficult than you choose to pretend.

He didn't though.

But for the sake of this argument, let's say his total outlay including wages was around £1.75M. I don't know the exact figure, neither do you. Someone ITK has said it to be £1.5M without factoring in Sammon or Baptiste's wages. We can both accept that it was in this region.

Total funds incoming from transfers were what, a similar figure?

In theory then this means Adkins should have finished 5th. Higher if he had anything about him in the transfer market and could buy in more quality with the money he raised from the transfer.

Now you're saying that because Adkins freed up wages, this made him less likely to finish 5th?

Considering it has been a commonly argued argument, by you too oddly enough, that the majority of the squad are poor and could be done without, can you see how this makes what you're saying slightly daft?

What it boils down to is you saying that because we lost all the utter dross we did, whilst freeing up wages in the process, this made us less likely to finish 5th.

The dross that everyone couldn't wait to get rid of.

Anyone can see that this is a stupid argument to put forward.

No, you're oversimplifying and bending my argument to suit your agenda again. My argument is multi-pronged.

1. We had a huge squad of limited ability restricting the ability to recruit (brought in the least players of anyone in the division despite probably moving on the most).
2. The best of the ability from last season was sold or injured (Murphy and Brayford). When players of Murphy's calibre are sold, it is impossible to bring in players of equal quality as they will have offers from higher placed teams (like Murphy).
3. They were players signed by Clough to suite the way he way he wanted to play.
4. Despite much of what had gone being "dross" wages were still required to replace players like Doyle, Davies etc.
5. Baxter has rendered himself unavailable for much of the season. Despite his faults, he was an option that contributed goals and assits leaving us with one less.
6. If we were going to be so restrictive in terms of bringing players in, we might as well have stuck with Clough as they were at least his players and we could have saved some money on the sacking towards strengthening.
7. Having got rid of Clough in spite of the above, sacking his replacement before he's even had time to assemble his own team (that time was this summer after the expiry of so many contracts) was utter madness.
8. I have been disappointed with Adkins' performance this year but when taking into account all of the above, it's not hard to understand how it happened and in that context, shouldn't have warranted the sack,
9. Regardless of whether he "deserves" to keep his job or not, I still believe it would have been in the best interests of the club to sack him for tthe following reasons:-

i. The new man inevitably has a less impressive track record (though not bad).
ii. Another change in style makes it harder to develop any sort of pattern or way of playing.
iii. The cost of the managerial change will eat into the player budget.
iv. The new man is not as well placed to see who should be retained having not worked with them.
v. The culture of sacking every manager who doesn't get us up creates pressure for immediate results and dissuades managers from developing youth, buying players for the future as in all likelihood they won't be here so they are forced to focus only on the present.

You made a point. Were pulled up on it and had it dismantled.

Now you're bringing up totally different points because you know you haven't a leg to stand on.

Utter bollocks and you know it. You took one sentence out of a multitude of points and pretended it was the whole basis of what I was saying because you favour straw men over discussing the issues. The "point" you refer to wasn't even about Adkins going but about how Wilder might fare. You'd said if he can spend what Adkins did it's doable. I was pointing out that if he has to raise over £1.5 million in transfer fees and shift about 15-20 wages off the wage bill to spend that, he hasn't got a cat in hell's chance.

He wouldn't have 15-20 players to get rid of for starters. But given only about 10 are out of contract and the rest all shite, it's nigh on impossible anyway. And my initial point was if Wilder has the same outlay as Adkins had i.e £1.7M ish.

I made no comment on shifting anyone on or raising any funds to do this.

As for the rest of it - oh I see, so we're fine to debate something, but only up to the point where you realise your argument falls down, then we have to pretend we're debating something else? Right, got it.

1. I disagree that Sharp, Adams, Basham, Brayford and Long are shite but I suppose it's a subjective issue.

2. I know that was your point. And in response to that point, I made the point that if he has to raise/ free up way more than that to spend it, he's got little chance of success. Fortunately, I don't think that will be the case as he's not inheriting an enormous squad that need shifting on as Adkins did. You then pretended that sentence was my entire reasoning on why Adkins finished 11th. It wasn't. I have made several comments about the contributing factors to that all condensed into one post for you earlier in this thread.

3. No, you pretended a point I made on one issue was my entire reasoning for another. It wasn't but it made it easier for you to "win" the debate in your own head. Google "Straw man argument" and you might begin to understand what happened.

No need for Google here. But that wasn't what it was. That particular thing was what we were debating, until you threw your toys out of your pram when you realised your own argument wasn't a very good one, decided you didn't want to debate that part any more as a result and instisted we discuss a million totally different points instead.

There's the conversation. It clearly shows that you were talking bout Adkins having the same funds as Adkins and how that affected his prospects. I contributed that if he has to raise these funds himself as Adkins did (Adklins raised much more- I didn't expressly state that in my first post but I have made the point countless times before) then he would struggle. You then pretended that my argument was "Adkins raised the same as he spent and that explains him taking us from 5th to 11th". That's the first time anyone changed the issues being discussed. I explained this wasn't my point and then went onto explain what I believe are the many contributing factors to our regression. You didn't have any response to those points so complained that I had moved the goalposts.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Wilder has an easier job than Adkins in that it's nearer to the end of the contracts that Clough threw about.

It's possibly harder in that the budget is getting smaller.

You have to appreciate Sitters thinks Coutts is the type of player you can build a midfield around. Rather than the useless twat that he is.

UTB

To be fair re Coutts, I sit somewhere in between those positions. I think he has some good qualities and can be useful at times. He's a more intelligent and skilful player than most of our squad. But his shortcomings make him more liability than asset for me.

 

[Barney]

There's the conversation. It clearly shows that you were talking bout Adkins having the same funds as Adkins and how that affected his prospects. I contributed that if he has to raise these funds himself as Adkins did (Adklins raised much more- I didn't expressly state that in my first post but I have made the point countless times before) then he would struggle. You then pretended that my argument was "Adkins raised the same as he spent and that explains him taking us from 5th to 11th". That's the first time anyone changed the issues being discussed. I explained this wasn't my point and then went onto explain what I believe are the many contributing factors to our regression. You didn't have any response to those points so complained that I had moved the goalposts.

This is starting to get as tedious as some of the other discussions I've had with you so I'll just leave it with this.

Morale of the story is you were perfectly content to argue the point (even getting cocky with it 4th quote down), until you suddenly decided (9th quote) that you suddenly didn't want to discuss that point any more and started bringing up loads of totally different points.

One might conclude that this is because you realised your argument wasn't particularly strong after the 8th quote, to which you then proceeded to panic and throw about 10 different points into it out of absolutely no where so you could pretend that's what we were discussing instead.

Argue and backtrack all you want, that's what happened.