Are we leaving it a bit late for signings?

[siblade]

Just before I get into it, Barny you mean 'imply'. The speaker/writer implies, the listener/reader infers. I only mention this because I know it gets the goat of a few people on here!

The point that I can only assume people are willfully missing at this junction is that the signing of James Beattie was a failure. The decision to buy him was a bad one. It ended up costing us.

Guesty, I think you mean at this juncture. I only mention this because I know it gets the goat of a few people on here!

 

[Guesty]

Guesty, I think you mean at this juncture. I only mention this because I know it gets the goat of a few people on here!

You know, I'd like to blame autocorrect. But I can't, since I typed it out on my laptop.

 

[Grecian2000]

Did James Beattie play well?
Absolutely yes, other than the occasional grumbling about work rate. He scored goals like they were going out of style. But those goals didn't do us any good, at least in terms of securing promotion. Hell, until Robson was sacked those goals were barely enough for mid table! Partly this was because Robson was a terrible manager but it didn't help that we had players like David Carney and Lee Hendrie in the side. A little more balance in the squad rather than the eggs in one basket approach might have helped immeasurably.

It was ENTIRELY down to Robson being an appalling manager.
The two players you specifically mention were his signings.
The players were completely and utterly unfit. His first game in charge saw the CM pairing of Legs Of Wood and Monty.
He was simply a disaster and as I pointed out earlier in this thread once he departed we ended the season at 1.92 points per game (enough for automatic that season) simply by getting properly match fit.

Consider this: why was Beattie sold when he was?
A) The board are evil and want what's worst for the club
B) The board didn't consider Beattie key to the team
C) The board considered Stoke's offer too good to turn down (even though it was less than we paid and despite Beattie's form)
D) The board thought the club was fucked financially and needed to sell assets.

He was sold when he was because he was injured in the summer. It was a one season gamble but he wasn't fit enough to sell when the time came (we sanctioned a 3 million spend on Henderson to replace him in the summer) and so we had to wait until the transfer window to recoup on him.

It's a moot point (because it's ancient history in effect) but the signing of Beattie may have been a contributing factor to our subsequent decline but it was only made that way by the appointment of Robson which was, inevitably as many said prior to it happening, the real crisis maker.

 

[brownie4583]

Only 3 weeks until the 1st league game now and only 1 new signing up to press Martyn Woolford.
We are leaving it late now as I reckon all signings should be done and the new players involved in all,or most,of the pre season friendlies to gel as a team,work on set pieces,formations etc to prepare for the start of the season.
It is risky to leave it too near to the 1st league game IMO
I know NA needed to assess the squad but as everybody knows we need 2 CH's and a striker minimum.

 

[Newbury Blade]

Are we leaving it a bit late for signings?
No.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

I know NA needed to assess the squad but as everybody knows we need 2 CH's and a striker minimum.

Was that pointed out at the interview?

Was he asked who he would target to solve the problem?

Did he make names up or did he have a plan?

 

[Revolution]

For instance, do you think Charlton consider the signing of Allan Simonsen a success? After all, he scored at a rate of better than 1 in 2 for them...

Yes, and they would have been relegated without him doing that. Check out the table. He stopped them going down. Ask any Charlton fan.

If we hadn't signed Beattie, where would we have been when Robson got fired? 23rd? 24th?

Jesus. By you reckoning every player signed by a non promoted club is a failure.

 

[Revolution]

Just before I get into it, Barny you mean 'imply'. The speaker/writer implies, the listener/reader infers. I only mention this because I know it gets the goat of a few people on here!

The point that I can only assume people are willfully missing at this junction is that the signing of James Beattie was a failure. The decision to buy him was a bad one. It ended up costing us.

Look at it from this angle. What are the criteria by which we can judge a signing?

Did we achieve our aims that season?
Categorically no. The team struggled around mid table until a late but ultimately futile surge took us close to the play-offs. The aim for the season was undoubtedly to get promoted at the first attempt. We missed by miles.

Did we receive any return on our investment?
Categorically no. Forgetting wages, we actually received a smaller transfer fee that the one we paid out, even though Beattie had been scoring for fun. Why? Well I admit I'm speculating somewhat here but I think it was a cost cutting move. Beattie was simply too expensive to keep. The board didn't even have the bollocks to hold out for the full amount we had paid to Everton, all this despite the team being in the midst of a promotion chase. If Beattie was so key, why was he sold? If we hadn't paid too much for him, why was it necessary to get shut of a player who had already scored 12 goals at such a vital part of the season?

Did James Beattie play well?
Absolutely yes, other than the occasional grumbling about work rate. He scored goals like they were going out of style. But those goals didn't do us any good, at least in terms of securing promotion. Hell, until Robson was sacked those goals were barely enough for mid table! Partly this was because Robson was a terrible manager but it didn't help that we had players like David Carney and Lee Hendrie in the side. A little more balance in the squad rather than the eggs in one basket approach might have helped immeasurably.

After Beattie was sold (at a loss, let's not forget) the team finished third and then lost in the play-off final. The cycle of cost cutting and lower placed finishes went on for five years, only stopping last season (which was the first time we'd finished in a higher position than the previous season since Kevin Blackwell was sacked). The club is, or was until very recently, suffering from having to replace good players with dreck in order to balance the books, a practice that started during Blackwell's reign due in large part to Bryan Robson's transfer policy, a large part of which was the signing of James Beattie, for a club record fee.

If you idea of success was that we saw some great goals then fine, Beattie was a roaring success. If your idea is that a signing should actually benefit a club in the long run and help them become stronger then the evidence is against it.

Consider this: why was Beattie sold when he was?
A) The board are evil and want what's worst for the club
B) The board didn't consider Beattie key to the team
C) The board considered Stoke's offer too good to turn down (even though it was less than we paid and despite Beattie's form)
D) The board thought the club was fucked financially and needed to sell assets.

If we can dismiss A) then the rest all suggest that signing Beattie was a poor decision in the first place (given that, if costs needed to be cut so badly, he was on the highest wage and had commanded the largest fee). Either he wasn't good enough or Stoke's offer was somehow considered reasonable (meaning we'd overpaid) or signing him in the first place had meant we'd over-stretched financially.

E) McCabe had no clue what he was doing and got fleeced.

Stoke knew his value. United didn't hold their nerve, as usual.

 

[Guesty]

[QUOTE="Revolution, post: 792469, member: 2349]

If we hadn't signed Beattie, where would we have been when Robson got fired? 23rd? 24th?

Jesus. By you reckoning every player signed by a non promoted club is a failure.[/QUOTE]

Yes, if you ignore the rest of what I said you might come to that conclusion. We spent huge money on Beattie, that's what started us on the road to relegation. Look at the players we sold (and who we replaced them with) under Blackwell, all in the name of cutting costs.

 

[Revolution]

[QUOTE="Revolution, post: 792469, member: 2349]

If we hadn't signed Beattie, where would we have been when Robson got fired? 23rd? 24th?

Jesus. By you reckoning every player signed by a non promoted club is a failure.

Yes, if you ignore the rest of what I said you might come to that conclusion. We spent huge money on Beattie, that's what started us on the road to relegation. Look at the players we sold (and who we replaced them with) under Blackwell, all in the name of cutting costs.[/QUOTE]

All of those players were sold after Beattie was off the books.

We were cutting the costs incurred on signing the likes of Hendrie, Shelton, Carney and Sharp.

As usual, the best player takes the blame when the team fails.

And for an even better example than Simonsen, Newcastle got Kevin Keegan in 1982-3. He scored a lot of goals but they didn't go up. Luckily for their fans, their chairman didn't give up and their good players were kept and they went up the year after.

 

[super_pig]

some good points here and funnily enough i think you're all right
it is the board. the 'timing' of some of our sales have been appalling.. if this was a company in the real world they'd have got the bullet years ago due to gross incomptence

 

[Guesty]

Yes but they were sold because we were in a hole financially due to the expense of signing Beattie and the loss we made on his sale.

Newcastle could clearly afford Keegan. We could not afford Beattie but we gambled that he'd get us promoted before those chickens came to roost. We lost, badly.

 

[Revolution]

Yes but they were sold because we were in a hole financially due to the expense of signing Beattie and the loss we made on his sale.

Newcastle could clearly afford Keegan. We could not afford Beattie but we gambled that he'd get us promoted before those chickens came to roost. We lost, badly.

McCabe could afford him. He chose to cut his losses. His choice, but a poor one.

It's like the summer of 2013. He decided we must be self funding. Fine, but you'll get relegated unless you appoint a good manager.

 

[Deleted member 1486]

Who needs CBs? We are playing the famous flat-back 0 formation!

 

[brownie4583]

I still think we need to add at least 4 more players to the squad and move on at least as many.
This is probably unlikely this late on in pre season and it's looking like we may start at Gillingham with the same squad plus Woolford now

 

[Barney]

I still think we need to add at least 4 more players to the squad and move on at least as many.
This is probably unlikely this late on in pre season and it's looking like we may start at Gillingham with the same squad plus Woolford now

I think we could possibly add one more before the opening game then we might get a few loans done on deadline day or something. Still think we'll struggle to offload some in our squad to make way for those new signings though and not very convinced they'll be the greatest of signings when it's rushed on the last day/days.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

I just hope they can get at least three in before the window shuts. The current squad is nowhere near good enough for a top two finish. Top six at best.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

at this junction

Doesn't junction/juncture get anyone's goat then?

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Guesty, I think you mean at this juncture. I only mention this because I know it gets the goat of a few people on here!

You beat me to it.

 

[Guesty]

For a mistake that has been pointed out about four time now, I gotta say that Juncture and Junction mean practically the same thing. Whereas 'imply' and 'infer' are a pair of opposites.

 

[Blade56]

Signings will be limited until we get rid of a few.

Woolford in and Sharpe any time soon so bodies need to be leaving. My guess is JCR, Done and Murphey as well as a few fringe players

 

[Pierre's PC]

My guess is JCR, Done and Murphey

Is this based on just letting your cat play on the keyboard and seeing what letters appear?

 

[Grappler]

Signings will be limited until we get rid of a few.

Woolford in and Sharpe any time soon so bodies need to be leaving. My guess is JCR, Done and Murphey as well as a few fringe players

OK I can see that we could live without JCR, but Done and Murphy? I would like to think that NA will not even consider moving them on

 

[BushBlade]

For a mistake that has been pointed out about four time now, I gotta say that Juncture and Junction mean practically the same thing. Whereas 'imply' and 'infer' are a pair of opposites.

There is a distinction in meaning between inferand imply. In the sentence the speaker implied that the General had been a traitor, implied means that the speaker subtlysuggested that this man was a traitor (though nothing so explicit was actually stated). However, in we inferred from his words that the General had been a traitor, inferredmeans that something in the speaker’s words enabled the listeners to deduce that the man was a traitor. The two words infer and implycan describe the same event, but from different angles. Use of infer to mean imply, as in are you inferring that I’m a liar? (instead ofare you implying that I’m a liar?), is an extremely common error.

 

[Barney]

OK I can see that we could live without JCR, but Done and Murphy? I would like to think that NA will not even consider moving them on

He said at 'An evening with Adkins' that Murphy isn't going anywhere.

 

[Guesty]

There is a distinction in meaning between inferand imply. In the sentence the speaker implied that the General had been a traitor, implied means that the speaker subtlysuggested that this man was a traitor (though nothing so explicit was actually stated). However, in we inferred from his words that the General had been a traitor, inferredmeans that something in the speaker’s words enabled the listeners to deduce that the man was a traitor. The two words infer and implycan describe the same event, but from different angles. Use of infer to mean imply, as in are you inferring that I’m a liar? (instead ofare you implying that I’m a liar?), is an extremely common error.

Which is what I said in my post!

By 'opposites' I mean that one refers to the speaker/writer and the other to the listener/reader - people on opposite sides of a dialogue.

 

[BushBlade]

Which is what I said in my post!

By 'opposites' I mean that one refers to the speaker/writer and the other to the listener/reader - people on opposite sides of a dialogue.

Then it should be fairly clear that I'm agreeing with you.

 

[Guesty]

That's what I inferred, yes.