Our 43 Professional Players - Who are they?

[Balham]

As mentioned before, Clough offloaded loads of players as well as bringing them in. Some within weeks of his arrival (e.g. King, Taylor):-

Signed: Scougall, Harris, JCR, McNulty, Basham, Wallace J, Butler, Davies, Alcock, McGahey, Higdon, McEveley, Turner, Adams, Wallace K, Coutts, Brayford, Done (18)
Outs: King, Williams, McMahon, Barry, Brandy, Westlake, Hill, Miller, McGinty, Whitehouse, Johns, Hodder, Smith, Taylor, Maguire, Butler, Ironside, Porter, McGinn (19)

It has to be pointed out that of the 19 players Clough released, 7 were youth teamers on their first professional deal. Every player he signed, with the possible exception of McGahey, was past that age which means that the net impact was the "bloated" squad people talk about..

 

[derryblade]

I would imagine there are a lot of factors involved in being able to move players on once we have given them a contract. Other clubs wanting them in the first place, clubs matching the players demands, the length of contract he has with us, the player willing to move or sit and see his contract out or our club brokering a deal to sweeten a players departure. I think the lesson here, and we never seem to learn it, is don't offer stupid wages and lengthy contract to average players.

 

[Woodwardfan]

As mentioned before, Clough offloaded loads of players as well as bringing them in. Some within weeks of his arrival (e.g. King, Taylor):-

Signed: Scougall, Harris, JCR, McNulty, Basham, Wallace J, Butler, Davies, Alcock, McGahey, Higdon, McEveley, Turner, Adams, Wallace K, Coutts, Brayford, Done (18)
Outs: King, Williams, McMahon, Barry, Brandy, Westlake, Hill, Miller, McGinty, Whitehouse, Johns, Hodder, Smith, Taylor, Maguire, Butler, Ironside, Porter, McGinn (19)

Adkins has so far added 5 new players (Sharp, Woolford, Sammon, Edgar, Hammond) and has not offloaded anyone on a permanent basis (except not by choice Murphy).
He also brought the likes of Diego, McFadzean and JCR back into the fold and has then hardly used them (+ Collins of course).
It's all very well him moaning about inheriting a squad of 43 players (only 25 of whom are seniors).
What has he done about it in his first six months in charge?

If you are asking me, I think I covered this in another post on this thread and re-quote it below:

In actual fact this thread demonstrates why we are not fulfilling expectations. So much of the Prince's new money has been wasted together with the cup money and Maguire and even Murphy money.

Clough and his brother have a lot to answer for and Adkins could have done so much better than Sammon, Woolford and Hammond.

We are left in a position where we can't move forward until we offload a number of players and that is not an unreasonable approach when you look at the list of long players above. Adding to that without moving on say half a dozen at least would be ridiculous frankly.

Good managers make their signings count because the club needs to improve to succeed and contracts mean players are at the club for years and we are stuck with crocks if they are crocks, under-performers and an unbalanced squad. How appalling it was for Clough to stuff the squad with lookalike, small midfielders and no height and power and pace. How poor it has been for Adkins not to introduce any pace.

The only defence for Adkins is that his joining in June meant he needed more than the summer to appraise each individual and the overall squad. He always said he would give every player a good chance and Klopp has made similar statements at Liverpool.

The injuries of Brayford, Done, Harris, Coutts in early season didn't help the new manager. For example my memory tells me that Coutts didn't play much at all before Hammond joined us. I seem to recall Coutts making another come-back when Hammond played his debut and Coutts was outstanding. It has dawned on me that if Adkins had known how good Coutts is or had been certain he would regain fitness, then he might not have needed Hammond as much as he thought he did. I don't think we should play them in the same midfield now that I have seen how restricted we have become.

Any new manager needs a year but unfortunately it's another year in the wilderness maybe.

 

[BushBlade]

As mentioned before, Clough offloaded loads of players as well as bringing them in. Some within weeks of his arrival (e.g. King, Taylor):-

Signed: Scougall, Harris, JCR, McNulty, Basham, Wallace J, Butler, Davies, Alcock, McGahey, Higdon, McEveley, Turner, Adams, Wallace K, Coutts, Brayford, Done (18)
Outs: King, Williams, McMahon, Barry, Brandy, Westlake, Hill, Miller, McGinty, Whitehouse, Johns, Hodder, Smith, Taylor, Maguire, Butler, Ironside, Porter, McGinn (19)

Adkins has so far added 5 new players (Sharp, Woolford, Sammon, Edgar, Hammond) and has not offloaded anyone on a permanent basis (except not by choice Murphy).
He also brought the likes of Diego, McFadzean and JCR back into the fold and has then hardly used them (+ Collins of course).
It's all very well him moaning about inheriting a squad of 43 players (only 25 of whom are seniors).
What has he done about it in his first six months in charge?

We lost Doyle and Davies too, both permanents. He didn't start the moaning, KM did, should NA now turn round and say KM's full of shit? He has to toe the line.
What could NA do? He didn't have control over the released list and a number of the players we need to offload were either injured or covering for injured players until after the window shut.
He's managed to get Higdon and McNulty out on loan plus some kids who now appear to be classed as senior players to suit KM's assertions that we have too many players. I can't imagine for one minute he hasn't asked the board for more players and been refused. I doubt we'd have brought Edgar in if we hadn't been tonked at Gillingham and I doubt we'd have brought Hammond in if we hadn't gone on a losing streak.

It seems to me he was told by the board that the squad was good enough for promotion providing the players who'd left were replaced and the main problem was that they were badly managed. I've learnt from experience that if you go into a new job and point out how shit everything is and how the company is run by idiots you're not going to make yourself popular.

Two absent owners and the former manager's mate running the club. Political minefield.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

We lost Doyle and Davies too, both permanents. He didn't start the moaning, KM did, should NA now turn round and say KM's full of shit? He has to toe the line.
What could NA do? He didn't have control over the released list and a number of the players we need to offload were either injured or covering for injured players until after the window shut.
He's managed to get Higdon and McNulty out on loan plus some kids who now appear to be classed as senior players to suit KM's assertions that we have too many players. I can't imagine for one minute he hasn't asked the board for more players and been refused. I doubt we'd have brought Edgar in if we hadn't been tonked at Gillingham and I doubt we'd have brought Hammond in if we hadn't gone on a losing streak.

It seems to me he was told by the board that the squad was good enough for promotion providing the players who'd left were replaced and the main problem was that they were badly managed. I've learnt from experience that if you go into a new job and point out how shit everything is and how the company is run by idiots you're not going to make yourself popular.

Two absent owners and the former manager's mate running the club. Political minefield.

This kind of fits in with NA's 'keep in touch til January' quote from a few months ago, he knew he'd need 6 months to fully assess the squad, particularly given the fact that several key players were out.

We can pretty much see who he fancies now and who he wants shut of but that doesn't make the job any easier, particularly if we have this one year rolling sword dangling over his head. Given the choice of riding this season out and re-building in the Summer, I'd be very confident of success next season but as we know, whether he gets that time, patience from the fans etc is another matter. Who knows, we may strike lucky yet this season but I think even NA has been surprised by where we are.

I still think we should be doing better even given the above but it must be a nightmare trying to get your 1st choice XI out and a settled team given the starting point he had.

 

[Woodwardfan]

We lost Doyle and Davies too, both permanents. He didn't start the moaning, KM did, should NA now turn round and say KM's full of shit? He has to toe the line.
What could NA do? He didn't have control over the released list and a number of the players we need to offload were either injured or covering for injured players until after the window shut.
He's managed to get Higdon and McNulty out on loan plus some kids who now appear to be classed as senior players to suit KM's assertions that we have too many players. I can't imagine for one minute he hasn't asked the board for more players and been refused. I doubt we'd have brought Edgar in if we hadn't been tonked at Gillingham and I doubt we'd have brought Hammond in if we hadn't gone on a losing streak.

It seems to me he was told by the board that the squad was good enough for promotion providing the players who'd left were replaced and the main problem was that they were badly managed. I've learnt from experience that if you go into a new job and point out how shit everything is and how the company is run by idiots you're not going to make yourself popular.

Two absent owners and the former manager's mate running the club. Political minefield.

My view is that the joint owners dictate strategy and budget.

Their two main sidekicks on the Board link to the M.D. and the Football Manager through Board Meetings and occasional visits to the club and they between them gauge the implementation of the strategy including the budget on a regular basis.

Player signings are down to the Recruitment Committee which includes the M.D., Head Scout and the football manager amongst others. There is a laid down procedure and authorities ( which Clough apparently circumvented).

The wage budget to include a rough optimum number of paid professionals is a strategic decision. It is right that the ownerS ( plural) dictate strategy.

No way does KM get involved in player recruitment choices these days, or the Prince for that matter.

The manager and the M.D. always have a joint responsibilty to work the club to the wages budget. It's a continuing exercise and the teaming and ladling of the stock of players will be in the daily thoughts of them both. The budget is overstretched at present and everybody must see that. The reason is we have too many paid professionals, everybody knows that.

Under these circumstances no owner, Board, MD or manager would see us signing three or four new players on top of what we've got. Some have to make way.

Nobody is "full of shit", it's obvious and the manager will be all square with it.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

It has to be pointed out that of the 19 players Clough released, 7 were youth teamers on their first professional deal. Every player he signed, with the possible exception of McGahey, was past that age which means that the net impact was the "bloated" squad people talk about..

That’s not quite the case. Barry, McGinty, Whitehouse and Ironside were all about 21 when they left.
Older (and worse) than McGahey, Adams and K.Wallace who were all about 19 when signed.
In most cases the players that Clough brought in were younger and/or better than those they replaced.
(Harris being swapped for McMahon is another obvious example).


The underlying problem is changing the manager too often.
Every new manager brings in their own men who are then deemed as surplus (but under contract) by their successor.
(Although Clough did still manage to get rid of some of his unwanted but contracted inheritance)
Adkins seemed reluctant to make a quick decision on the players he inherited which is causing him a recruitment problem now.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

We're all reading into it and making assumptions to suit whichever agenda we have but I'd be surprised if it's been any more than NA saying he wants A,B and C and the Board saying, no probs, but we also need to trim the squad, preferably sooner rather than later.

 

[Woodwardfan]

This kind of fits in with NA's 'keep in touch til January' quote from a few months ago, he knew he'd need 6 months to fully assess the squad, particularly given the fact that several key players were out.

We can pretty much see who he fancies now and who he wants shut of but that doesn't make the job any easier, particularly if we have this one year rolling sword dangling over his head. Given the choice of riding this season out and re-building in the Summer, I'd be very confident of success next season but as we know, whether he gets that time, patience from the fans etc is another matter. Who knows, we may strike lucky yet this season but I think even NA has been surprised by where we are.

I still think we should be doing better even given the above but it must be a nightmare trying to get your 1st choice XI out and a settled team given the starting point he had.

Absolutely right and without the injuries to some of the best players we would be better off at this stage. However I think we were a bit too confident and over-attacked for months and played a system beyond the capability of the players available and both those are the manager's responsibilities. The manger has only made two good signings ( Sharp and Edgar) out of five IMO and they all cost money of course. As a result everybody is disappointed where we are now.

Seriously I do not think it's the Board's fault at all. Realistically Murphy wanted to leave and 5 expensive signings in replacement is a lot; 1 out 5 in and 43 paid professionals on the books, with something like a 28 man first team squad, far too many and far too expensive. Like Adkins says, the routes to first team for young lads are blocked, look at Reed for example he needs game time.

 

[Woodwardfan]

That’s not quite the case. Barry, McGinty, Whitehouse and Ironside were all about 21 when they left.
Older (and worse) than McGahey, Adams and K.Wallace who were all about 19 when signed.
In most cases the players that Clough brought in were younger and/or better than those they replaced.
(Harris being swapped for McMahon is another obvious example).


The underlying problem is changing the manager too often.
Every new manager brings in their own men who are then deemed as surplus (but under contract) by their successor.
(Although Clough did still manage to get rid of some of his unwanted but contracted inheritance)
Adkins seemed reluctant to make a quick decision on the players he inherited which is causing him a recruitment problem now.

Spot on. In fact I hate to say that if Clough had stayed and had been given a budget for 5 players in and 1 out, then we would be say 10 points better off by now. However IMO the club will be far better served by Adkins in post over the next few years and if the change just sets us back a year then fair enough. If whatever circumstances lead to Adkins not staying with us for a few years then United will have gone down all the wrong avenues yet again. Surely just one avenue will prove fruitful as we have been going up blind and wrong alleys ever since 2007 and it's hard, really hard to bear, especially now S6 is in good order.

 

[judge]

My view is that the joint owners dictate strategy .

hmmm
Thought provoking stuff
What are your thoughts on bears shitting in the woods and the popes religion ?

 

[Woodwardfan]

hmmm
Thought provoking stuff
What are your thoughts on bears shitting in the woods and the popes religion ?

Much the same as blokes who quote an odd sentence out of a post. Whatever they feel comes naturally is fine by me.

 

[ThatJa]

Based on your numbers, this is what i would do.

3 - Sell/Release
9 - Sell/Release
12 - Sell/Release (Only if we'll be replacing him)
14 - Sell/Release
17 - Sell/Release
18 - Sell/Release
19 - Sell/Release
22 - Sell/Release
23 - Out on Loan
24 - In on Loan (Terminate)
27 - (Loan Out)
30 - (Loan Out)
29 - (Loan Out)
31 - (Loan Out)
32 - (Loan Out)
35 - (Loan Out)

 

[1danewhitehouse]

As mentioned before, Clough offloaded loads of players as well as bringing them in. Some within weeks of his arrival (e.g. King, Taylor):-

Signed: Scougall, Harris, JCR, McNulty, Basham, Wallace J, Butler, Davies, Alcock, McGahey, Higdon, McEveley, Turner, Adams, Wallace K, Coutts, Brayford, Done (18)
Outs: King, Williams, McMahon, Barry, Brandy, Westlake, Hill, Miller, McGinty, Whitehouse, Johns, Hodder, Smith, Taylor, Maguire, Butler, Ironside, Porter, McGinn (19)

Adkins has so far added 5 new players (Sharp, Woolford, Sammon, Edgar, Hammond) and has not offloaded anyone on a permanent basis (except not by choice Murphy).
He also brought the likes of Diego, McFadzean and JCR back into the fold and has then hardly used them (+ Collins of course).
It's all very well him moaning about inheriting a squad of 43 players (only 25 of whom are seniors).
What has he done about it in his first six months in charge?

Clough got rid of youngsters who didn’t make it like Barry, Whitehouse, Hodder, Smith, Ironside etc. If they are recognised as outs, shouldn’t we recognise the youths he gave pro contracts to as ins? Thinking people like Reed, Dimaio, DCL, Whiteman etc. Also, Freeman appears to be missing from your ins? Plus, on top of those he had loans (McCarthy, O Grady, Holt, Davies, Paynter etc.). Adkins’ 3 loans have been counted so it seems only fair Clough’s should be? Or Adkins’ shouldn’t be?


I’m not trying to make any particular point here, just observations regarding the figures being quoted.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

The underlying problem is changing the manager too often.
Every new manager brings in their own men who are then deemed as surplus (but under contract) by their successor.
(Although Clough did still manage to get rid of some of his unwanted but contracted inheritance)
Adkins seemed reluctant to make a quick decision on the players he inherited which is causing him a recruitment problem now.

This I agree with. Those that want Adkins replaced need to consider how hamstrung any replacement will be in looking to bring in his own men. We’ve got the manager with the CV, let’s give him a chance to make the team his own and allow him every opportunity to succeed.

 

[Woodwardfan]

Clough got rid of youngsters who didn’t make it like Barry, Whitehouse, Hodder, Smith, Ironside etc. If they are recognised as outs, shouldn’t we recognise the youths he gave pro contracts to as ins? Thinking people like Reed, Dimaio, DCL, Whiteman etc. Also, Freeman appears to be missing from your ins? Plus, on top of those he had loans (McCarthy, O Grady, Holt, Davies, Paynter etc.). Adkins’ 3 loans have been counted so it seems only fair Clough’s should be? Or Adkins’ shouldn’t be?


I’m not trying to make any particular point here, just observations regarding the figures being quoted.

Well said . To those loan players add Adkins' three- Sammon, Edgar and Hammond. Clough re-signed Lappin too.

Thinking about young, hungry, pacey loanees at other clubs, how do we get it so wrong. I'd say only two we've signed are any good but not a single one has PACE.

Just going to settle down to watch Everton v Man City; wonder if there'll be any pace in that game?!!

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Clough got rid of youngsters who didn’t make it like Barry, Whitehouse, Hodder, Smith, Ironside etc. If they are recognised as outs, shouldn’t we recognise the youths he gave pro contracts to as ins? Thinking people like Reed, Dimaio, DCL, Whiteman etc. Also, Freeman appears to be missing from your ins? Plus, on top of those he had loans (McCarthy, O Grady, Holt, Davies, Paynter etc.). Adkins’ 3 loans have been counted so it seems only fair Clough’s should be? Or Adkins’ shouldn’t be?


I’m not trying to make any particular point here, just observations regarding the figures being quoted.

Personally I wouldn't count short-term loans like those you mention.
All Adkins three loans are likely to be for the full season.
If you count short-term "in" you have to offset them with short-term "out".
I.e. Collins, JCR, McFadzean, Diego etc in Clough's case.

I also don't think 18 year olds should be counted either way (e.g. Hodder, Heh)
21 year olds who have been around the squad for 3 years should (e.g. Ironside, McFadzean)

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Personally I wouldn't count short-term loans like those you mention.
All Adkins three loans are likely to be for the full season.
If you count short-term "in" you have to offset them with short-term "out".
I.e. Collins, JCR, McFadzean, Diego etc in Clough's case.

I also don't think 18 year olds should be counted either way (e.g. Hodder, Heh)
21 year olds who have been around the squad for 3 years should (e.g. Ironside, McFadzean)

Fair enough. I think that gives him slightly more in that out overall. The turnover was problematic as well. Butler in and out. JCR in and out etc.

 

[Balham]

Based on your numbers, this is what i would do.

3 Alcock - Sell/Release
9 Kennedy - Sell/Release
12 Campbell-Ryce - Sell/Release (Only if we'll be replacing him)
14 Cuvelier - Sell/Release
17 J Wallace - Sell/Release
18 McFadzean - Sell/Release
19 Scougall - Sell/Release
22 Higdon - Sell/Release
23 McNulty - Out on Loan
24 Sammon - In on Loan (Terminate)
27 McGahey - (Loan Out)
29 Dimaio - (Loan Out)
30 K Wallace - (Loan Out)
31 Khan - (Loan Out)
32 Reed - (Loan Out)
35 De Girolamo - (Loan Out)

Can't really disagree with any of that except I'd keep Cuvelier, look to loan or sell Freeman (much as I like him, he's not near the first team), keep Kieron Wallace and add Whiteman (L2) and the junior players (Eastwood, Evans, Banton, Phillips, Brooks, Heh, Cockerline and Wright) to the loan list.