The same squad?

[blade too long]

While Adkins’s transfer kitty was unlikely to match that of predecessor Nigel Clough, the current United manager did have cash to spend.

“The crux of it is we wanted to bring a couple in,” Adkins said. “The crux of it is that there was money put on the table.



Read more: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/spor...hrough-lack-of-effort-1-7716893#ixzz44sV963WO

doesnt get more explicit than that
saying the board werent prepared to give the funds is just plain wrong

so the only reason we didnt bring someone in is down solely to Adkins

 

[Sean Thornton]

Are season ticket holders counted on the attendance figure if they don't go?

 

[blade too long]

thought that due to fire regulations only those counted through turnstles counted as attendants , so fireman dont try and bring out invisible people
well thats the theory

 

[Woodwardfan]

I know we already have some off topic forums but is there any chance of setting up another for 'Pointless Arguments Against Insane Gibberish'?

Just an opportunity to repeat time and again their guesswork. Say it enough times and it becomes the truth. Try to influence the odd undecided man in the street. Listen just enough to the 'opposition' to score another futile point which nobody with any sense is still listening to. Personal animosity flourishes at every opportunity. Nobody knows the real facts but as always there are extreme fanatics looking for trouble and to cause a fight.

Of course I'm talking about the Brexit Referendum

 

[wizadry]

so the only reason we didnt bring someone in is down solely to Adkins

Is it fuck! What about the player himself and his agent? What about our chief scout? And Adkins can say whatever he wants regarding money on the table but he won't neccessarily mean it as he won't want to piss the board off. Nobody knows!

 

[Barney]

Is it fuck! What about the player himself and his agent? What about our chief scout? And Adkins can say whatever he wants regarding money on the table but he won't neccessarily mean it as he won't want to piss the board off. Nobody knows!

So either he's an honest, hard working professional, the money was on the table and he messed up a job he had the responsibility over, or he's lying.

 

[BeatleBlade]

losing our best player , really
tell me one league one club thats not lost some of its best players to ambition
Swindon were decimated by players leaving Chesterfield lost several
cant think of many that havent lost players

are we really saying we have become so much worse for losing one player , who actually played , oh let me rephrase that turned out at Gillingham , What if he we kept him and hed done his cruciate , would we feel sorry for ourselves or say we should have replaced him

Swindon sit 15th and Chesterfield are 17th which I think proves my point.
He was by far our best player for most of that season. He turned many games around completely, like Swindon at home last year. He got us 12 goals on the wing and numerous assists. For the money that we got for him it was going to be incredibly difficult to replace him. We have Sharp now who has been great but before he came here he wasn't performing at the level Murphy currently is (3rd with Brighton) indicating its not been a straight swap.
Add to that the 16 out of contract players, Baxter, unmotivated/disrupted dressing room, little money available. I think Adkins has done quite well given the circumstances.

 

[blade too long]

Is it fuck! What about the player himself and his agent? What about our chief scout? And Adkins can say whatever he wants regarding money on the table but he won't neccessarily mean it as he won't want to piss the board off. Nobody knows!

lets chase players that are available , , always a better road to go down

so Adkins is taking all the blame and telling porkies to cover the board now
got to admire your persistance

 

[blade too long]

Swindon sit 15th and Chesterfield are 17th which I think proves my point.
He was by far our best player for most of that season. He turned many games around completely, like Swindon at home last year. He got us 12 goals on the wing and numerous assists. For the money that we got for him it was going to be incredibly difficult to replace him. We have Sharp now who has been great but before he came here he wasn't performing at the level Murphy currently is (3rd with Brighton) indicating its not been a straight swap.
Add to that the 16 out of contract players, Baxter, unmotivated/disrupted dressing room, little money available. I think Adkins has done quite well given the circumstances.

actually it shows we coped better without him than the other 2 did

 

[wizadry]

So either he's an honest, hard working professional, the money was on the table and he messed up a job he had the responsibility over, or he's a lying bastard. Guess what my money's on.

I think i and many others could guess

 

[BeatleBlade]

actually it shows we coped better without him than the other 2 did

It shows selling your best player(s) makes you a worser team. Swindon and Chesterfield lost more players. We may have coped better than those teams but despite the injuries we lost less players this season than those teams. Chesterfield and Swindon lost more players than we did and are doing worse as a result.

 

[wizadry]

lets chase players that are available , , always a better road to go down

so Adkins is taking all the blame and telling porkies to cover the board now
got to admire your persistance

No, what i'm saying is nobody knows, including you but thank you for the admirance.

 

[BeatleBlade]

Also, with last years points tally at this stage we would only be one place higher in 7th.

 

[PeteBlade]

again it was clearly stated on Skys coverage , the leagues biggest spenders, and where have the board declined any loans

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/spor...nings-wasn-t-through-lack-of-effort-1-7716893


MONEY WAS PUT ON THE TABLE,,, aDKINS QUOTE

There's little point arguing with a guy that thinks buying Billy Sharp and Martin Woolford makes us the league's top spenders because Sky Sports told him so.

It's idiotic. And therefore I'm out.

 

[Barney]

There's little point arguing with a guy that thinks buying Billy Sharp and Martin Woolford makes us the league's top spenders because Sky Sports told him so.

It's idiotic. And therefore I'm out.

 

[nopigfansintown]

losing our best player , really
tell me one league one club thats not lost some of its best players to ambition
Swindon were decimated by players leaving Chesterfield lost several
cant think of many that havent lost players

are we really saying we have become so much worse for losing one player , who actually played , oh let me rephrase that turned out at Gillingham , What if he we kept him and hed done his cruciate , would we feel sorry for ourselves or say we should have replaced him

Chesterfield and Swindon's form has declined.They haven't recovered from losing these players.

 

[west_yorks_blade]

There's little point arguing with a guy that thinks buying Billy Sharp and Martin Woolford makes us the league's top spenders because Sky Sports told him so.

It's idiotic. And therefore I'm out.

on your 164th post Pete on this thread!

There's no point in arguing with stupid people because they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

[PeteBlade]

on your 164th post Pete on this thread!

There's no point in arguing with stupid people because they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

And half of them aren't even remotely related to my original point!

 

[west_yorks_blade]

And half of them aren't even remotely related to my original point!

I make it 90% but I may be one of the aforementioned stupid people.

 

[Woodwardfan]

on your 164th post Pete on this thread!

There's no point in arguing with stupid people because they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I'm going to defend Pete on this occasion. He has had 34 posts on 9 pages but this was his O.P. and I think he has a responsibility to ensure that the thread respects the original theme and to subtley steer the debate back on track.

 

[Barney]

I'm going to defend Pete on this occasion.

Snidey.

 

[PeteBlade]

I'm personally impressed with the effort it must have taken to go through 9 pages counting up how many times I've posted.

I commend the commitment

 

[Barney]

I'm personally impressed with the effort it must have taken to go through 9 pages counting up how many times I've posted.

I commend the commitment

Well, I thought he had you on ignore. It took just the one disagreement for me to be placed on there, shortly followed by the advice that I should follow a whole new sport.

 

[blade too long]

There's little point arguing with a guy that thinks buying Billy Sharp and Martin Woolford makes us the league's top spenders because Sky Sports told him so.

It's idiotic. And therefore I'm out.

name one club whos spent more

should be easy

 

[blade too long]

It shows selling your best player(s) makes you a worser team. Swindon and Chesterfield lost more players. We may have coped better than those teams but despite the injuries we lost less players this season than those teams. Chesterfield and Swindon lost more players than we did and are doing worse as a result.

all teams in the lower divisions , of which we undoubtedly are, lose their better players, either to ambition or money lust
we are not the only club that suffers this action
name any club and they would argue exactly the same thing
clubs only ever want your best players ,
when we got Done from Rochdale their fans were no doubt on their forum saying here we go again selling our best players

 

[BeatleBlade]

all teams in the lower divisions , of which we undoubtedly are, lose their better players, either to ambition or money lust
we are not the only club that suffers this action
name any club and they would argue exactly the same thing
clubs only ever want your best players ,
when we got Done from Rochdale their fans were no doubt on their forum saying here we go again selling our best players

Maybe Rochdale would have made the Play offs by keeping Done? They were in and around us at one point but their form worsened slightly. I think the problem lies with how unbalanced our squads have been. If you can maintain form when losing a key player it shows that you have enough quality on the rest of the pitch to compensate for that. However, we seem to have some quality players and average ones on the rest of the pitch and the bench meaning that when we lose one, our form dips.
Also, when we sell players it is against the manager's wishes. Clough didn't want Maguire gone, I doubt Adkins wanted Murphy gone. Often we don't leave enough times to find a valuable replacement or we don't get enough money for the player. Murphy was worth more than £1.5m.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

If that's what you had actually said then it would be different. You slowly evolved into making that point but initially you implied that the regression is solely down to the fact that Murphy was sold.

That was in response to btl’s “so much worse” comment. He was implying that we were loads worse than last season and it couldn’t all be down to the loss of Murphy. I was merely pointing out the small gap in performance from last season could easily be explained by the loss of such a key player. I admit without knowledge of the many, many times I’ve had the arguments on this point with btl, and that by reading my post as a stand alone post, one could be forgiven for thinking that I believe the sale of Murphy is the only issue that has changed. But over numerous threads I’ve pointed to the removal of many other (but less significant IMO) players (Davies, Doyle, Holt etc.) as well as the players in place being purchased to play to Clough’s style etc.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

but why havent we found anyone to ,if not replace cover for him

because the incumbent in the managers office chose not to
instead just waste moths chasing unavailable players

I wont say but we bought sharp as hes not a winger , but we in him got a good addition to the squad
so a slightly less adequate player to put in Murphys role could have come on loan

I find it odd that you cling to this idea that the manager chose not to bring players in. Every manager in the league wants to bring in players that are better than those they have. The issue is that the financial backing isn’t always there to allow it. Adkins has removed about 10 of the players he inherited to get the wage bill down to a more manageable level. At the same time he has had to try to recruit an entire spine of a team as despite having a million players, Clough left us with no quality at CB, no holding midfielder and a lack of firepower up front.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

fairly modest regression , by most doom sayers accounts we are thoroughly dreadful now


well the stats say we had a 100 per cent loss ratio this season when Murphy played if you insist on using stats we dont know if we would be better, some say we were nt that good last season with him
it changes to suit some peoples arguments how good bad we were
Ive had it argued we got to 5th by default as the league was so poor , which degrades Murphys input last season

I get told he was our leading light but we were still crap , which sort of is an argument in itself

I don’t know where to begin with the stupidity of this post. By that reckoning every player who played at Gillingham is terrible and should not play for us again. It’s one game and it’s just such an incredibly pointless and stupid argument I’m not going to dwell on it further.


“crap” is a relative term when describing our team. Most would say we’re crap this season but if we sold Brayford, Basham, Long and Sharp in the summer, we’d be even worse next season. Murphy was the best of a team that was not good enough last season. To improve, you need to keep the better performers and release and replace the weak links. But instead we gave McEveley another year, brought Collins back into the fold and sold our best player.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

While Adkins’s transfer kitty was unlikely to match that of predecessor Nigel Clough, the current United manager did have cash to spend.

“The crux of it is we wanted to bring a couple in,” Adkins said. “The crux of it is that there was money put on the table.



Read more: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/spor...hrough-lack-of-effort-1-7716893#ixzz44sV963WO

doesnt get more explicit than that
saying the board werent prepared to give the funds is just plain wrong

so the only reason we didnt bring someone in is down solely to Adkins

Adkins doesn’t negotiate the deals. He identified targets. Put them to the board. They made offers. Those offers were rejected. That has to be either


NA identified only unavailable targets

The board made offers which were too low to land the targets


Or a combination of those. One thing’s for sure. Adkins didn’t just decide our squad was good enough and choose not to bring anyone in as you keep implying.


Also, as the article you have quoted says, Adkins has had less money than his predecessor as well as less time.