Do you trust Adkins with the transfer budget this Summer?

[1danewhitehouse]

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

You have been proven a liar (or just very very wrong and ill-informed) on many occasions on here.


“17 teams have stayed in the Prem with less points than us since” They haven’t

“Wallace, McGahey and Adams are all teenagers”- they are not.

“Adkins has 2 promotions on his CV”- he has 4 and a couple of Welsh league titles to boot


That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure there are many more instances if I bother to use the search function.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

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.

All managers want to spend money on better players. Do you think it’s by choice that we’ve spent only a third (if we assume £500k and £1.5 mil for Sharp and Murphy respectively) of what we have received on new players? Do you think Adkins would rather not spend the other million? Yes there’s wages but I’ve just posted a massive list of players he’s moved out to counter the contributions towards the wages of the incoming loans. All manager’s have restrictions the evidence suggests that Adkins has been significantly more restricted than his predecessor.

 

[Barney]

All managers want to spend money on better players. Do you think it’s by choice that we’ve spent only a third (if we assume £500k and £1.5 mil for Sharp and Murphy respectively) of what we have received on new players? Do you think Adkins would rather not spend the other million? Yes there’s wages but I’ve just posted a massive list of players he’s moved out to counter the contributions towards the wages of the incoming loans. All manager’s have restrictions the evidence suggests that Adkins has been significantly more restricted than his predecessor.

I'm not entirely convinced any of what you have said is clean cut evidence that he has been restricted, and despite evidence, it wasn't a fact we were after Dan Burn or the other one by the way (you put it across as though it was). That said, I have never argued he hasn't been restricted either.

My most important point regardless of anything else is that what he was given money for, if spent wisely, could have seen a progression on 5th and not a 7 place backward regression. That in itself, is the fault of the manager and only the manager. It is more than enough of a warning sign to say that it would be an extremely daft thing to do to allow him to continue this on a much larger, riskier scale in the summer.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I'm not entirely convinced any of what you have said is clean cut evidence that he has been restricted, and despite evidence, it wasn't a fact we were after Dan Burn or the other one by the way (you put it across as though it was). That said, I have never argued he hasn't been restricted either.

My most important point regardless of anything else is that what he was given money for, if spent wisely, could have seen a progression on 5th and not a 7 place backward regression. That in itself, is the fault of the manager and only the manager. It is more than enough of a warning sign to say that it would be an extremely daft thing to do to allow him to continue this on a much larger, riskier scale in the summer.

I agree he hasn't had value for money in terms of what he's spent. But I think it would have been very difficult to progress after selling your best player and only reinvesting about a third of the proceeds.

 

[Barney]

I agree he hasn't had value for money in terms of what he's spent. But I think it would have been very difficult to progress after selling your best player and only reinvesting about a third of the proceeds.

It has been said (by Jim if I'm not mistaken) that the Murphy money has been entirely re invested, more than likely in to our bottomless pit of ridiculous wage payments.

Despite that, shelling the same amount of money out for 5 players who were the right one's in the right positions as opposed to the opposite would have been enough to progress in my opinion.

It was almost a unanimous opinion that all we needed were 4 or 5 additions to be actively competitive amongst the top two, even after Murphy was sold if I remember rightly.

 

[blade too long]

You have been proven a liar (or just very very wrong and ill-informed) on many occasions on here.


“17 teams have stayed in the Prem with less points than us since” They haven’t

“Wallace, McGahey and Adams are all teenagers”- they are not.

“Adkins has 2 promotions on his CV”- he has 4 and a couple of Welsh league titles to boot


That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure there are many more instances if I bother to use the search function.

well just of the top of my head I like a lot recall from memory yes might be one out now and again but its not a lie
have you never put we won 2=0 when it was 2=1

the thing is the point not minute detail
adkins cv of the last 4 seasons is one of desperate failure is the point , not how many promotions or welsh titles he got

 

[1danewhitehouse]

well just of the top of my head I like a lot recall from memory yes might be one out now and again but its not a lie
have you never put we won 2=0 when it was 2=1


No, I don't think I have. I don't struggle with things like the score of the match I've seen.




the thing is the point not minute detail
adkins cv of the last 4 seasons is one of desperate failure is the point , not how many promotions or welsh titles he got

Again, why 4 seasons? And no it's not desperate failure. It's mid-table mediocrity. Don't get me wrong, it's not good but let's not pretend he's Weir or Robson- You know Robson- that guy that you, Kevin McCabe and absolutely no fucker else thought was a good appointment at the time.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

It has been said (by Jim if I'm not mistaken) that the Murphy money has been entirely re invested, more than likely in to our bottomless pit of ridiculous wage payments.

Despite that, shelling the same amount of money out for 5 players who were the right one's in the right positions as opposed to the opposite would have been enough to progress in my opinion.

It was almost a unanimous opinion that all we needed were 4 or 5 additions to be actively competitive amongst the top two, even after Murphy was sold if I remember rightly.

I wouldn't say he did the opposite. Edgar and Hammond, on paper looked very astute signings. Neither has lived up to what we would have hoped admittedly. Sharp has done well. Sammon and Woolford have been disappointing.