Do you trust Adkins with the transfer budget this Summer?

[blade too long]

look Pete I can post this

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foot...lly-behind-adkins-says-kevin-mccabe-1-7741805

Adkins given the ok to get in players
surely you can back up your fairy story that he was blocked from signing players

 

[The Crab]

I want to say we can't keep sacking and paying off managers, really I do. I want to say I trust him with whatever budget there is. But I just can't.

 

[PeteBlade]

look Pete I can post this

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foot...lly-behind-adkins-says-kevin-mccabe-1-7741805

Adkins given the ok to get in players
surely you can back up your fairy story that he was blocked from signing players

Google "Jim Phipps January Transfer Window."

I will warn you though, as much as you'd like everything spoon feeding to you, you're going to have to attempt to be a grown up and do some of your own deductions.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

which is pete speak for I cant post anything as its never been said he cant sign players

any paper article will do saying Adkins told definitely he couldnt sign even a loan signing for free

put up or shut up
shouldnt be hard to find if its universally known as you put it across

 

[Barney]

Is it beyond you to reasonably put across your side of the argument?

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Prove hes been denied getting replacements

show me the link where the boards put a transfer ban

You had to have the entirety of the Ched Evans case spoon fed to you yesterday when you were spouting nonsense. I'm not going to spend all my time scouring the internet to spoon feed you information that has been available in the past and clear for anyone with half a brain to see. If you're not wiling to educate yourself, don't come on here shouting the odds and demanding to be talked through how everything works

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Is it beyond you to reasonably put across your side of the argument?

 

[Barney]

If someone reasonably puts across their opinion to me, I do my best to return the favour.

If someone doesn't reasonably put across their opinion, I also do my best to return the favour.

I follow the lead of the post I'm replying to.

You however, have a tendency to not be reasonable even when the post you're replying to is. It might also not be a coincidence that said posts you do this in reply to are normally very good points well made.

It was bugging me - that was all.

Proceed as you were.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

If someone reasonably puts across their opinion to me, I do my best to return the favour.

If someone doesn't reasonably put across their opinion, I also do my best to return the favour.

I follow the lead of the post I'm replying to.

You however, have a tendency to not be reasonable even when the post you're replying to is. It was bugging me - that was all.

Proceed as you were.

I'm not going to get into this and repeat myself over and over as I have work to do. However, if I believe someone is discussing a subject reasonably, I will respond accordingly. When people are shouting the odds without educating themselves on the facts and just making shit up to suit their argument, then I will just mock them.

 

[PeteBlade]

If someone reasonably puts across their opinion to me, I do my best to return the favour.

If someone doesn't reasonably put across their opinion, I also do my best to return the favour.

I follow the lead of the post I'm replying to.

You however, have a tendency to not be reasonable even when the post you're replying to is. It might also not be a coincidence that said posts you do this in reply to are normally very good points well made.

It was bugging me - that was all.

Proceed as you were.

You think it was a reasonable point well made that Adkins has been completely unrestricted in regards to transfer dealings this season, has been able to sign whomever he likes and the proof of this being that there is no article published online from him or a board member saying he couldn't sign players?

 

[Barney]

You think it was a reasonable point well made that Adkins has been completely unrestricted in regards to transfer dealings this season, has been able to sign whomever he likes and the proof of this being that there is no article published online from him or a board member saying he couldn't sign players?

He was saying there is no evidence to say he has been restricted, which is true. That is something that has been made up and presumed to be true for some reason. There is, however, evidence to suggest he was able to bring players in. 5 in total, 1 on a huge fee and 4 more on no doubt huge wages.

He is also, no doubt, making the point that the money shelled out on those 5 could have been much better spent, meaning we could have made progress on 5th as opposed to a backward movement of 7 places.

 

[PeteBlade]

He was saying there is no evidence to say he has been restricted, which is true. That is something that has been made up and presumed to be true for some reason. There is, however, evidence to suggest he was able to bring players in. 5 in total, 1 on a huge fee and 4 more on no doubt huge wages.

He is also, no doubt, making the point that the money shelled out on those 5 could have been much better spent, meaning we could have made progress on 5th as opposed to a backward movement of 7 places.

That wasn't his point at all. He said that Adkins refused to replace Murphy and had no restrictions on his transfer dealings.

There is no evidence to suggest we brought anyone in on "a huge fee". This is something that has been made up and presumed to be true for some reason.

The bottom point is your point, not his point, and not an argument he put forward.

 

[Barney]

That wasn't his point at all. He said that Adkins refused to replace Murphy and had no restrictions on his transfer dealings.

There is no evidence to suggest we brought anyone in on "a huge fee". This is something that has been made up and presumed to be true for some reason.

The bottom point is your point, not his point, and not an argument he put forward.

I admittedly only saw the post of his making the point that there is no evidence to suggest he has been restricted. I can't be bothered to look through it all but if he did say he had no restrictions at all in replacing Murphy then I'd agree he would be making a daft point, as you can't say he had absolutely no restrictions just as you can't say he did have them. As there is no evidence to prove either.

What you can say is he has been allowed to bring 5 players in. And all you can go on are the signings he has brought in, and it has been my underlying point all along that those signings and the money we have shelled out in total for all 5, could have been spent much, much better. I think this is one of the main reasons we have gone significantly backwards from 5th place. The responsibility for choosing players lies with Adkins.

 

[PeteBlade]

I admittedly only saw the post of his making the point that there is no evidence to suggest he has been restricted. I can't be bothered to look through it all but if he did say he had no restrictions at all in replacing Murphy then I'd agree he would be making a daft point, as you can't say he had absolutely no restrictions just as you can't say he did have them. As there is no evidence to prove either.

What you can say is he has been allowed to bring 5 players in. And all you can go on are the signings he has brought in, and it has been my underlying point all along that those signings and the money we have shelled out in total for all 5, could have been spent much, much better. And I think this is one of the main reasons we have gone significantly backwards from 5th place.

But you're making an entirely different point to the one you bowled in and starting going on about, and not one he made.

You've also done the same thing you've had a go at others for by talking about a "huge fee" when I've never seen the fee quoted by anyone, anywhere.

 

[Maidenhead]

Nothing remotely inevitable about success and SUFC. Adkins has had an under-par season, as did Clough the year before. But the funny thing in all this is, I didn't want Clough sacked but couldn't fault the appointment of Adkins. Yet now, it seems quite likely Clough would have done better than Adkins this season.

Conclusion: don't underestimate the cost of change.

Exactly how I see it and the reason Adkins has to be given more time.

The cost of constant change has been for too expensive for us

 

[Barney]

But you're making an entirely different point to the one you bowled in and starting going on about, and not one he made.

You've also done the same thing you've had a go at others for by talking about a "huge fee" when I've never seen the fee quoted by anyone, anywhere.

He did make the point about there not being any evidence to suggest Adkins has been restricted (previous page I believe) I bowled in to say that that was true, because it is. The other points I have made might not have been his, fair enough.

There has been evidence to suggest we paid £500,000 for Sharp. It was quoted by more than one newspaper at the time we purchased him. It's not a fact, but there's more evidence than the zero there is to suggest Adkins has been restricted.

 

[Maidenhead]

Is it a pro Adkins camp? Or is it an anti sacking another bastard manager camp?

Or even a looking at the bigger picture camp?

I'm definitely in two of those camps but reserving judgement on the third

 

[blade too long]

Google "Jim Phipps January Transfer Window."

I will warn you though, as much as you'd like everything spoon feeding to you, you're going to have to attempt to be a grown up and do some of your own deductions.

post the link

 

[PeteBlade]

He did make the point about there not being any evidence to suggest Adkins has been restricted (previous page I believe) I bowled in to say that that was true, because it is. The other points I have made might not have been his, fair enough.

There has been evidence to suggest we paid £500,000 for Sharp. It was quoted by more than one newspaper at the time we purchased him. It's not a fact, but there's more evidence than the zero there is to suggest Adkins has been restricted.

It's seems you're happy to accept a lack of evidence if you think it proves a point you've made but demand hard evidence if it doesn't.

It's safe to say we pad "A" fee for Sharp, I've not seen these various articles stating 500k however.

It's also safe to say that Adkins has worked under transfer restrictions this season, especially given Jim's January statement.

Id say that was a pretty assessment.

 

[Maidenhead]

Thats exactly how i look at things BOS

I'm also hoping to meet BornOnShoreham at some stage

 

[PeteBlade]

It is the opinion of all we dont want to carry on remo


post the link

Google it.
It's not difficult.

 

[Barney]

It's seems you're happy to accept a lack of evidence if you think it proves a point you've made but demand hard evidence if it doesn't.

It's safe to say we pad "A" fee for Sharp, I've not seen these various articles stating 500k however.

It's also safe to say that Adkins has worked under transfer restrictions this season, especially given Jim's January statement.

Id say that was a pretty assessment.

No, I'm saying there is some evidence in favour of us paying £500,000 for Billy Sharp and zero evidence to suggest Adkins has been restricted. Nowhere in Jim's January statement does it say that Adkins has been restricted, so that doesn't count as evidence.

 

[blade too long]

Google it.
It's not difficult.

you insisted I showed you links then called me a liar
surely you can copy and paste one of the thousands of references to our board restricting Adkins

all you ever do is post unsubstantiated opinions
I say unsubstantiated as you never prove it

 

[PeteBlade]

you insisted I showed you links then called me a liar
surely you can copy and paste one of the thousands of references to our board restricting Adkins

all you ever do is post unsubstantiated opinions
I say unsubstantiated as you never prove it

I insisted no such thing.
I've given you the spoon, you'll have to put it in your own mouth.

 

[PeteBlade]

No, I'm saying there is some evidence in favour of us paying £500,000 for Billy Sharp and zero evidence to suggest Adkins has been restricted. Nowhere in Jim's January statement does it say that Adkins has been restricted, so that doesn't count as evidence.

Most reports I read simply said "undisclosed".
You now decide what counts as evidence as it adds to your agenda?
It's clear from his statement that there's been restriction, or "right sizing".

 

[blade too long]

heres some comments phipps disclosed in October

http://www.southyorkshiretimes.co.u...d-lane-chief-reveals-spending-plans-1-7537026

 

[Barney]

Most reports I read simply said "undisclosed".
You now decide what counts as evidence as it adds to your agenda?
It's clear from his statement that there's been restriction, or "right sizing".

Alright then, then you could say there's far more evidence in favour of him not being restricted, as above for one example. So if you want to weight it up like that, it disqualifies your point even more. There's been no articles suggesting we paid £100k for Sharp for example.

 

[PeteBlade]

Alright then, then you could say there's far more evidence in favour of him not being restricted, as above for one example. So if you want to weight it up like that, it disqualifies your point even more. There's been no articles suggesting we paid £100k for Sharp for example.

Nothing you've said "disqualifies" my point in anyway, simply because you want it to have.

You and your new best buddies argument seems to be that Adkins could have signed anyone he liked but just didn't bother.

In who's world does that make sense, except for people who are very keen on sacking the manager?

And if you don't think Jim's January statements alludes to the restrictions, there's really no point in discussion as we'll never agree.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

He did make the point about there not being any evidence to suggest Adkins has been restricted (previous page I believe) I bowled in to say that that was true, because it is. The other points I have made might not have been his, fair enough.

There has been evidence to suggest we paid £500,000 for Sharp. It was quoted by more than one newspaper at the time we purchased him. It's not a fact, but there's more evidence than the zero there is to suggest Adkins has been restricted.

OK, how about this for evidence of restrictions. We already know that Adkins doesn’t conduct the transfer negotiations himself. This was previously handled by Mal Brannigan and now I believe Dave Green. We know Adkins has had targets which haven’t arrived (Dan Burn, Ryan Kent etc.). That suggests, powers above Adkins didn’t get the deals done presumably because of financial constraints. Adkins has acknowledged the need to also consider the business side of things and not liking it but having to accept it. He also said we probably had about the 6th biggest budget in the division when he arrived. He also said the players he had were not good enough and that he didn’t want to sell Murphy. He and McCabe and Phipps have also talked about the need to trim the wage bill and he has been doing that moving on McNulty, Freeman, Alcock, Higdon, JCR, Scougall, Kennedy, Collins, J. Wallace, Harris, Calvert Lewin, David Brooks, Julian Banton, George Willis, CJ Hamilton, Ottis Khan etc. all either on loan deals or permanent deals. That’s 16 inherited players moved out at some time or another throughout his first 9-10 months in charge on top of those Clough released last season and the enforced Murphy sale. Let’s face it, all the “evidence” points to Adkins’s reign being one of much greater austerity than the era where Clough was in charge.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

It's seems you're happy to accept a lack of evidence if you think it proves a point you've made but demand hard evidence if it doesn't.

It's safe to say we pad "A" fee for Sharp, I've not seen these various articles stating 500k however.

It's also safe to say that Adkins has worked under transfer restrictions this season, especially given Jim's January statement.

Id say that was a pretty assessment.

In @Barney’s defence, I do believe there were lines of “believed to be in the region of £500k” at the time we signed Sharp. But if the argument is that he’s had 30% of what has been raised through players sales to take us forward, I’m still not sure how success was considered likely. That being said, I agree that with what little he had, he can be disappointed with the return on investments (Sharp apart).