Adkins has to stay.......

[PeteBlade]

Paul Coutts wins it.

I'm shocked.

Must sound bad on't radio.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I think money will speak a bit louder to most people than that unfortunately. Besides, the teams who face losing their players should get more money for them than the EPPP rules mean.

Pretty sure Adams came here despite offers from other clubs, one reason being a better chance of first team football.

I just don't think money is that big a motivator.

Let the mercenaries have their payday, let the players play.

 

[Barney]

I'm shocked.

Must sound bad on't radio.

I know, even Jonathan Buchan thinks Coutts is awful. I don't know whether he was pining for him to be signed up on as long a contract as possible when you were though. I suppose that's the real test.

 

[PeteBlade]

I know, even Jonathan Buchan thinks Coutts is awful.

Aww, you've learnt all the presenters names, nice one.

 

[Barney]

Aww, you've learnt all the presenters names, nice one.

It might have been easier if he were calling for Coutts to be signed.

 

[PeteBlade]

It might have been easier if he were calling for Coutts to be signed.

How do you sign someone that already plays for you?

Is this another football manager thing?

 

[Barney]

How do you sign someone that already plays for you?

Is this another football manager thing?

Easy. The act of "signing". He'd be signing a contract extension.

 

[sheffielder]

Fuck me, are Rita and Sue at it again

 

[BeatleBlade]

Pretty sure Adams came here despite offers from other clubs, one reason being a better chance of first team football.

I just don't think money is that big a motivator.

Let the mercenaries have their payday, let the players play.

As nopigsintown said, we've just lost three academy players to cat. 1 clubs. We haven't got much money for them either. Many clubs have shut their academies as a result of the EPPP. If money wasn't much of a factor these clubs wouldn't have done that.
Also, on top of money being a factor moving to a club with a better academy is also a pull for players and their parents. It's not fair on lower league clubs to have them taken away for so little.

 

[Grappler]

As nopigsintown said, we've just lost three academy players to cat. 1 clubs. We haven't got much money for them either. Many clubs have shut their academies as a result of the EPPP. If money wasn't much of a factor these clubs wouldn't have done that.
Also, on top of money being a factor moving to a club with a better academy is also a pull for players and their parents. It's not fair on lower league clubs to have them taken away for so little.

Who have we lost?

 

[BeatleBlade]

Who have we lost?

I don't know, but check post 63 as that is where I found that out. nopigfansintown seems to know more than most of us about what happens at the club.

 

[Grappler]

I don't know, but check post 63 as that is where I found that out. nopigfansintown seems to know more than most of us about what happens at the club.

Understood pal, was just curious, we seem to have a good set of lads at all levels, shame to start losing some.

 

[Balham]

I believe a few have heard similar rumours, but allegedly Adkins will part by mutual consent, and the board favour Chris Wilder - but with someone above him in a DOF kind of role. Guess we'll find out sooner or later.

If that happens then we'll go down before we go up. Wilder's methods are Micky Adams-esque and we all know how that worked out.

You might have a point there, if you had any first hand experience of how professional football works in the real world to be able to comment. I'm guessing you don't.

I know you do - taking time out from being a successful League Two striker and all.

 

[BushBlade]

If that happens then we'll go down before we go up. Wilder's methods are Micky Adams-esque and we all know how that worked out.



I know you do - taking time out from being a successful League Two striker and all.

What do you mean BB when you say 'methods'? Style of play? Management?

 

[1danewhitehouse]

He's had more than enough time and money. Get shut now before it gets any worse.

More than enough money? Really? Let’s look at last season’s squad, the ins and outs from then and the savings made since the end of last season. I’ve used estimated figures as none of us are privy to the details. I assume we pay 50% of loaned players likely wage at their parent club. Similarly, assume that players loaned out save us 50% of the players’ wage.



Outs


Doyle- released £4k off the wage bill

S. Davies- Loan Ended £4k off the wage bill

B. Davies- released £3k off the wage bill

Turner- released £1.5k off the wage bill

Holt- Loan Ended £1k off the wage bill

Berry- Released £500 off the wage bill

Paling- Released £500 off the wage bill

Scarisbrick- Released £500 off the wage bill

Alcock- sold- undisclosed fee £3k off the wage bill

Higdon- Contract cancelled £4k off the wage bill

McNulty Loaned out £1.5k off the wage bill

Scougall loaned out £1.5k off the wage bill

Harris loaned out £2k off the wage bill

JCR loaned out £1.5k off the wage bill

Murphy- Sold- un disclosed (£1.5 million) £5k off the wage bill

Dimaio- contract cancelled £500 off the wage bill

Khan- contract cancelled £500 off the wage bill

Freeman- Loaned out £1.5k off the wage bill

Collins- contract cancelled £4k off the wage bill

J. Wallace- loaned out £1.5k off the wage bill

McFadzean- loaned out £750 off the wage bill



So from our outs, we’ve probably reduced our wage bill by about £42k or so per week and brought in over £1.5million in transfer fees. Then let’s look at the ins


He’s also loaned out youths like Willis, Banton, Hamilton, Brooks, DCL, Heh, Kennedy etc. out at various points in the season.


Ins


Sharp- bought for undisclosed fee (£500k) £8k on the wage bill

Jake Phillips £750 on the wage bill

Woolford- free agent £3k on the wage bill

Sammon- Loan £6k on the wage bill

Hammond- Loan £10k on the wage bill

Edgar- Loan £5k on the wage bill

Baptiste- Loan £6k on the wage bill



About £38k per week added and £500k fees. So the weekly wage bill goes down slightly and yet we’ve raised around £1million in fees. He’s in effect had a negative net spend. How is that more than enough? When you consider he’s been gradually been moving these players on over the course of the season and that he didn’t have control over the retained list last summer, it’s also hard to argue he’s had enough time.


That said, he needs to make one or two excellent signings in the summer along with another 3 or 4 decent ones to have a chance.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Pretty sure Adams came here despite offers from other clubs, one reason being a better chance of first team football.

I just don't think money is that big a motivator.

Let the mercenaries have their payday, let the players play.

I think the issue with the image you portray is that these kids are being poached in some cases at 8 years old. There’s a kid in Barnsley being touted by Man City. They’ve taken him to matches, tours of the ground provided kits etc. and told the parents they’ll pay for private schooling etc. for him if he moves there. He’s currently playing under 8’s football. He’s also got offers from us, Barnsley, Huddersfield etc. but realistically, it’s going to be hard for anyone to compete with the big moneymen. He’ll then probably play most of his football between the ages of 16-22 on loan here and there before eventually being released/sold to a club lower down the pyramid because City have got another 30 like him. It means lower league clubs only get these kids on loan deals when they are young. They don’t get to enjoy their abilities for a couple of years and then benefit from the big transfer fees they would command after impressing at lower league level. It’s a system devised to benefit the big boys at the expense of the smaller clubs. I just really hope they don’t get to close ranks on the PL abolishing promotion and relegation. I think they’ve done that (or were trying to push it through) in Argentina and there was a thread on here about Everton’s takeover meaning 2/3 of prem clubs would be foreign owned and it might be in their interests to vote on such a reform.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I think the issue with the image you portray is that these kids are being poached in some cases at 8 years old. There’s a kid in Barnsley being touted by Man City. They’ve taken him to matches, tours of the ground provided kits etc. and told the parents they’ll pay for private schooling etc. for him if he moves there. He’s currently playing under 8’s football. He’s also got offers from us, Barnsley, Huddersfield etc. but realistically, it’s going to be hard for anyone to compete with the big moneymen. He’ll then probably play most of his football between the ages of 16-22 on loan here and there before eventually being released/sold to a club lower down the pyramid because City have got another 30 like him. It means lower league clubs only get these kids on loan deals when they are young. They don’t get to enjoy their abilities for a couple of years and then benefit from the big transfer fees they would command after impressing at lower league level. It’s a system devised to benefit the big boys at the expense of the smaller clubs. I just really hope they don’t get to close ranks on the PL abolishing promotion and relegation. I think they’ve done that (or were trying to push it through) in Argentina and there was a thread on here about Everton’s takeover meaning 2/3 of prem clubs would be foreign owned and it might be in their interests to vote on such a reform.

But this is one extreme case.

There are parents of young children who would decline those offers in the hope of a more rounded life for their kids.

I've seen plenty of it in junior football. The talented players are siphoned off by the high achieving teams, discarded in large numbers and become disillusioned and lost the game sometimes as early as 11 or 12.

Others have a longer term view.and will develop in lower divisions.

 

[Barney]

More than enough money? Really? Let’s look at last season’s squad, the ins and outs from then and the savings made since the end of last season. I’ve used estimated figures as none of us are privy to the details. I assume we pay 50% of loaned players likely wage at their parent club. Similarly, assume that players loaned out save us 50% of the players’ wage.



Outs


Doyle- released £4k off the wage bill

S. Davies- Loan Ended £4k off the wage bill

B. Davies- released £3k off the wage bill

Turner- released £1.5k off the wage bill

Holt- Loan Ended £1k off the wage bill

Berry- Released £500 off the wage bill

Paling- Released £500 off the wage bill

Scarisbrick- Released £500 off the wage bill

Alcock- sold- undisclosed fee £3k off the wage bill

Higdon- Contract cancelled £4k off the wage bill

McNulty Loaned out £1.5k off the wage bill

Scougall loaned out £1.5k off the wage bill

Harris loaned out £2k off the wage bill

JCR loaned out £1.5k off the wage bill

Murphy- Sold- un disclosed (£1.5 million) £5k off the wage bill

Dimaio- contract cancelled £500 off the wage bill

Khan- contract cancelled £500 off the wage bill

Freeman- Loaned out £1.5k off the wage bill

Collins- contract cancelled £4k off the wage bill

J. Wallace- loaned out £1.5k off the wage bill

McFadzean- loaned out £750 off the wage bill



So from our outs, we’ve probably reduced our wage bill by about £42k or so per week and brought in over £1.5million in transfer fees. Then let’s look at the ins


He’s also loaned out youths like Willis, Banton, Hamilton, Brooks, DCL, Heh, Kennedy etc. out at various points in the season.


Ins


Sharp- bought for undisclosed fee (£500k) £8k on the wage bill

Jake Phillips £750 on the wage bill

Woolford- free agent £3k on the wage bill

Sammon- Loan £6k on the wage bill

Hammond- Loan £10k on the wage bill

Edgar- Loan £5k on the wage bill

Baptiste- Loan £6k on the wage bill



About £38k per week added and £500k fees. So the weekly wage bill goes down slightly and yet we’ve raised around £1million in fees. He’s in effect had a negative net spend. How is that more than enough? When you consider he’s been gradually been moving these players on over the course of the season and that he didn’t have control over the retained list last summer, it’s also hard to argue he’s had enough time.


That said, he needs to make one or two excellent signings in the summer along with another 3 or 4 decent ones to have a chance.

And yet Jim Phipps has said that the Murphy money has all been used on wages. Something not quite adding up, which could be something to do with the fact that your post is almost entirely guesswork. I do admire your self confidence in predicting figures as specific as those though.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

But this is one extreme case.

There are parents of young children who would decline those offers in the hope of a more rounded life for their kids.

I've seen plenty of it in junior football. The talented players are siphoned off by the high achieving teams, discarded in large numbers and become disillusioned and lost the game sometimes as early as 11 or 12.

Others have a longer term view.and will develop in lower divisions.

True but the overall effect of this change, in my opinion, will be detrimental to the production of young talent in this country.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

And yet Jim Phipps has said that the Murphy money has all been used on wages. Something not quite adding up, which could be something to do with the fact that your post is almost entirely guesswork. I do admire your self confidence in predicting figures as specific as those though.

Yep, no doubt covering the wages not only of Adkins signings but of CLough's. Paying the wages of Coutts, McEveley, Flynn etc. whilst also paying the wages of those now moved on for some of the season. Our wage bill massively outweighed our income long before Adkins came. We were running at a £4million a year loss. Generating £1million of fees will of course be swallowed up in that black hole unless we're putting more money in to cover that.

Yes my figures are guesswork but it's not unreasonable to think that extensive list of outs has generated and saved more money than the few ins we've had over the same time.

 

[BushBlade]

But this is one extreme case.

There are parents of young children who would decline those offers in the hope of a more rounded life for their kids.

I've seen plenty of it in junior football. The talented players are siphoned off by the high achieving teams, discarded in large numbers and become disillusioned and lost the game sometimes as early as 11 or 12.

Others have a longer term view.and will develop in lower divisions.

No, it's an isolated example, not an extreme case. Not always as young as eight but it happens quite often, according to a number of items I've heard on five live and talk sport on this issue.

 

[Barney]

Yep, no doubt covering the wages not only of Adkins signings but of CLough's. Paying the wages of Coutts, McEveley, Flynn etc. whilst also paying the wages of those now moved on for some of the season. Our wage bill massively outweighed our income long before Adkins came. We were running at a £4million a year loss. Generating £1million of fees will of course be swallowed up in that black hole unless we're putting more money in to cover that.

Yes my figures are guesswork but it's not unreasonable to think that extensive list of outs has generated and saved more money than the few ins we've had over the same time.

I understand where you're coming but without wanting to put words in his mouth, I think the point he was trying to make was that regardless of net spend, and outgoings etc. and just isolating the money we have spent on incomings both in fee and wages, it was more than enough to be able to add enough quality to the squad to see us promotion.

I can all but guarantee that teams like Burton who are sitting top 2 in the league, will not have even come close to matching our total spend on fee and wages for incomings this season. This means that regardless of anything else, this amount of money we have spent on wages and fees for incomings should have been more than enough, as these teams sitting top 2 have managed to get there having spent much less.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I understand where you're coming but without wanting to put words in his mouth, I think the point he was trying to make was that regardless of net spend, and outgoings etc. and just isolating the money we have spent on incomings both in fee and wages, it was more than enough to be able to add enough quality to the squad to see us promotion.

I can all but guarantee that teams like Burton who are sitting top 2 in the league, will not have even come close to matching our total spend on fee and wages for incomings this season. This means that regardless of anything else, this amount of money we have spent on wages and fees for incomings should have been more than enough, as these teams sitting top 2 have managed to get there having spent much less.

Agree with some of what you say. We haven't made the best of what we've had that's for sure. But Burton for example have been on an upward curve for a while. They have momentum, team spirit etc that has been developed over time only needing to add the odd player here and there to keep it going. We on the other hand had a bloated squad full of questionable attitudes and needed (and to an extent still need) a significant overhaul. Wallsall have built their team over years. They've finally stood firm and not sold their best players after years of having to cope with the loss of Brandy, Butler, Patterson etc. and it's seen them mount a challenge. The one example that is closer to what we should have done is Gillingham. They were average when Edinburgh came in last season and he's turned them into challengers with some very good signings like Donnelly and Garnstorm. But even Edinburgh had the chance to assess the squad last season, control the retained list and make the changes he saw necessary earlier in the summer.

 

[Rodders]

Agree with some of what you say. We haven't made the best of what we've had that's for sure. But Burton for example have been on an upward curve for a while. They have momentum, team spirit etc that has been developed over time only needing to add the odd player here and there to keep it going. We on the other hand had a bloated squad full of questionable attitudes and needed (and to an extent still need) a significant overhaul. Wallsall have built their team over years. They've finally stood firm and not sold their best players after years of having to cope with the loss of Brandy, Butler, Patterson etc. and it's seen them mount a challenge. The one example that is closer to what we should have done is Gillingham. They were average when Edinburgh came in last season and he's turned them into challengers with some very good signings like Donnelly and Garnstorm. But even Edinburgh had the chance to assess the squad last season, control the retained list and make the changes he saw necessary earlier in the summer.

Not forgetting we seem to feel the need to rip up/return to the "ethos" when the last bloke didn't work out. It's no wonder more settled teams are riding higher than us.

 

[Barney]

Agree with some of what you say. We haven't made the best of what we've had that's for sure. But Burton for example have been on an upward curve for a while. They have momentum, team spirit etc that has been developed over time only needing to add the odd player here and there to keep it going. We on the other hand had a bloated squad full of questionable attitudes and needed (and to an extent still need) a significant overhaul. Wallsall have built their team over years. They've finally stood firm and not sold their best players after years of having to cope with the loss of Brandy, Butler, Patterson etc. and it's seen them mount a challenge. The one example that is closer to what we should have done is Gillingham. They were average when Edinburgh came in last season and he's turned them into challengers with some very good signings like Donnelly and Garnstorm. But even Edinburgh had the chance to assess the squad last season, control the retained list and make the changes he saw necessary earlier in the summer.

I suppose you can only on league positions last season. Gillingham, Walsall and Burton were all below us in league standing last season, which can only suggest that we had less to build upon than they did.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I suppose you can only on league positions last season. Gillingham, Walsall and Burton were all below us in league standing last season, which can only suggest that we had less to build upon than they did.

True but none of them sold their best player or had so much deadwood that needed moving on. Chesterfield and Swindon were the other teams that finished in the top 6 with us and they also sold star players and have dipped. Blackpool were also above us in the same way Burton were below.

 

[BushBlade]

Not forgetting we seem to feel the need to rip up/return to the "ethos" when the last bloke didn't work out. It's no wonder more settled teams are riding higher than us.

The leaders of the club have no real idea of how to achieve their aims. We're caught between spending money we haven't got but not spending enough money to blow our rivals out of the water. We keep overspending then having to cut back when we don't achieve our aims in one season. We've been doing this since Warnock left.
We keep employing the wrong managers, at the wrong times, for the wrong reasons. There appears to be no one at the club with the wherewithal to assess exactly what we need from a manager at any time we recruit one, or if there is, they can't be heard over the braying of the rest of the cattle who appear to take a very simplistic approach to what has become a complex problem. And our response to adversity is always to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The Prince's involvement has set us back IMHO as it gave us another chance to waste a load of money signing overpaid players just as we were starting to sort the finances out. We're back where we are when we came down, with an unsustainable wage bill but with much lower quality players.

 

[Barney]

True but none of them sold their best player or had so much deadwood that needed moving on. Chesterfield and Swindon were the other teams that finished in the top 6 with us and they also sold star players and have dipped. Blackpool were also above us in the same way Burton were below.

Surely if they were below us in the league, than that would mean they had more "deadwood" or players generally worse than ours.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Surely if they were below us in the league, than that would mean they had more "deadwood" or players generally worse than ours.

Well, they didn't have 40 man squads and the players signed were signed with a view to playing the way the manager wanted them to play.

Clough left behind a squad heavy on small midfielders, heavy on crocks, light on centre halves, light on height and light on character. We did have 2 very good players though. One was sold and one has been injured/ out of form.

 

[BushBlade]

Well, they didn't have 40 man squads and the players signed were signed with a view to playing the way the manager wanted them to play.

Clough left behind a squad heavy on small midfielders, heavy on crocks, light on centre halves, light on height and light on character. We did have 2 very good players though. One was sold and one has been injured/ out of form.

The reality is, you can double my wage but I won't work twice as well. In fact, I'll be the same. If I pay £100,000 for a Ford Focus, I haven't got a £100,000 car, I've just got a Ford Focus I've hugely overpaid for. I can't then complain when someone with a 50,000 car has got a better car than me.