Press conference today?

[1danewhitehouse]

Even after selling Murphy, the outlay Adkins sanctioned should have been enough to see progress on 5th. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Even using your bizarre argument, Adkins should have finished 5th then, should he not?

"explained to me?" I don't need it explaining. It's your opinion and one that I disagree with. I would say he could and should have done better than he did but looking at the backing he had, the job was a lot harder than most imagined it would be when he was appointed and this summer would have been his first proper crack at it. The circumstances he was managing under last season were such that it didn't constitute a fair crack of the whip. You've had that "explained" to you quite a few times too.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Nope. Walsall gave their previous manager 2.5 months and a full 16 games.

I meant Dean Smith. He assembled the team over a number of years to get them up there challenging. Same with Robinson at MK. Even Preston gave Grayson a 2nd season.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Anyone with two eyes and a brain can see how "Adkins raised his own funds" is not a sufficient excuse for an 11th placed finish in division three. Even using the argument, he should have finished 5th - which is still a 6 place underachievement. This has been tediously spelt out to him on many occasions.

How can you be so utterly stupid? Sell players for a total of over £1.5 million (undisclosed fee for Alcock on top of the Murphy fee). Only buy one player for £500k, a freebie and 4 loans (one right at the end of the season) whilst moving on around 20 players. That's having less than he raised with a squad that is not his and he should at least repeat the achievements of his pre-decessor who got to spend millions putting a team together how he wanted? You don't have talk some shit.

 

[JohnDenver]

He’s got a bit of a double chin. I don’t like that in a manager.

Steve Evans loves you too.

 

[PeteBlade]

Been talking to one of the sponsors today ,he told me the relationship between Adkins and the players was horrendous. He was a very arrogant man who thought he was above everyone and talked down to everyone including sponsors ,he says he was a very difficult man ,but the manager/coach relationship with the players had broken even with Billy Sharp which I am glad about because I thought Sharp would be some sort of teachers pet with him ,but he reckons Billys relationship with the other players is very good.

A very convenient story that a 'sponsor' would definitely know about.

 

[sitwell]

A very convenient story that a 'sponsor' would definitely know about.

what do you mean by that ?

 

[Pollingtonblade]

what do you mean by that ?

He thinks you're making it up.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

He thinks you're making it up.

Or that Adkins irked the sponsor in some way so said sponsor embellished?

 

[PeteBlade]

what do you mean by that ?

You loved Clough, thought he could do no wrong, couldn't stand Adkins, blamed him for everything.

Then suddenly you meet a sponsor that apparently knows the inner workings of the relationships between Adkins and the squad.

Slightly suspicious.

 

[sitwell]

He thinks you're making it up.

Well he needs to have the bottle to call me or my friend a liar then ,what possible thing would I or he have to gain by it ? It was just one bit of a conversation and of course main sponsors have more access to the club than we do ,but this was from the players awards.
PeteBlade of course can think what he wants but if he wants to call me a liar ,go for it.

 

[PeteBlade]

Well he needs to have the bottle to call me or my friend a liar then ,what possible thing would I or he have to gain by it ? It was just one bit of a conversation and of course main sponsors have more access to the club than we do ,but this was from the players awards.
PeteBlade of course can think what he wants but if he wants to call me a liar ,go for it.

PeteBlade quite adequately explained himself above.

 

[sheffielder]

To be fair PeteBlade i have heard a lot of the same from one of my best mates who saw him through work most weeks. A few times my mate has had to walk away.

 

[sitwell]

You loved Clough, thought he could do no wrong, couldn't stand Adkins, blamed him for everything.

Then suddenly you meet a sponsor that apparently knows the inner workings of the relationships between Adkins and the squad.

Slightly suspicious.

Suddenly met a mate who I have known for over 40 years who now sponsors Utd ,who I also do business with ,and what the fucking hell has Clough got to do with anything ? Shove your suspicions up your fucking arse and try and get out a bit.

 

[sheffielder]

And for the record I wanted Adkins and hated Clough

 

[sitwell]

To be fair PeteBlade i have heard a lot of the same from one of my best mates who saw him through work most weeks. A few times my mate has had to walk away.

Liar.

 

[PeteBlade]

Suddenly met a mate who I have known for over 40 years who now sponsors Utd ,who I also do business with ,and what the fucking hell has Clough got to do with anything ? Shove your suspicions up your fucking arse and try and get out a bit.

You get very over excited on this forum.

 

[Barney]

How can you be so utterly stupid? Sell players for a total of over £1.5 million (undisclosed fee for Alcock on top of the Murphy fee). Only buy one player for £500k, a freebie and 4 loans (one right at the end of the season) whilst moving on around 20 players. That's having less than he raised with a squad that is not his and he should at least repeat the achievements of his pre-decessor who got to spend millions putting a team together how he wanted? You don't have talk some shit.

No, it's taking a 5th placed division three side, adding 5 players on huge wages to it and not just failing to make progress, but going backwards to 11th.

Even your own argument goes against what you're now saying. Using the idea that he had to raise his own funds or spent as much as he raised, that logic suggests he should have finished at least 5th. And should have made progress had he added better quality than he lost. So that means he's still underachieved by a 6 place margin.

Your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on, no matter how hard you might try and ignore those telling you this.

 

[sitwell]

You get very over excited on this forum.

You talk shit on this forum. Maybe people did make things up on your previous forum ,maybe this is different.

 

[PeteBlade]

You talk shit on this forum. Maybe people did make things up on your previous forum ,maybe this is different.

Maybe they did. Maybe they do on this one.
Maybe they get very upset when people call them out on it.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

No, it's taking a 5th placed division three side, adding 5 players on huge wages to it and not just failing to make progress, but going backwards to 11th.

Even your own argument goes against what you're now saying. Using the idea that he had to raise his own funds or spent as much as he raised, that logic suggests he should have finished at least 5th. And should have made progress had he added better quality than he lost. So that means he's still underachieved by a 6 place margin.

Your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on, no matter how hard you might try and ignore those telling you this.

That's not my argument at all though. My argument is that he raised his own funds and then much more both in terms of transfer fees and wages meaning going backwards was never particularly unlikely. Not that it wasn't possible to get in the playoffs or get the extra 6 points required to equal Clough's tally but that it was a hell of a lot more difficult than you choose to pretend.

 

[sitwell]

Maybe they did. Maybe they do on this one.
Maybe they get very upset when people call them out on it.

Maybe some people try to stimulate discussion by posting things they hear that might be of interest.
Maybe some people have nothing to add so resort to calling people liars and killing discussion.. Grow the fuck up.

 

[PeteBlade]

Maybe some people try to stimulate discussion by posting things they hear that might be of interest.
Maybe some people have nothing to add so resort to calling people liars and killing discussion.. Grow the fuck up.

As always, calm yourself down.

 

[Barney]

That's not my argument at all though. My argument is that he raised his own funds and then much more both in terms of transfer fees

He didn't though.

But for the sake of this argument, let's say his total outlay including wages was around £1.75M. I don't know the exact figure, neither do you. Someone ITK has said it to be £1.5M without factoring in Sammon or Baptiste's wages. We can both accept that it was in this region.

Total funds incoming from transfers were what, a similar figure?

In theory then this means Adkins should have finished 5th. Higher if he had anything about him in the transfer market and could buy in more quality with the money he raised from the transfer.

Now you're saying that because Adkins freed up wages, this made him less likely to finish 5th?

Considering it has been a commonly argued argument, by you too oddly enough, that the majority of the squad are poor and could be done without, can you see how this makes what you're saying slightly daft?

 

[sitwell]

As always, calm yourself down.

You don't come close to the pig result to bothering me ,don't flatter yourself.
\I see you haven't called Sheffielder a liar yet ?

 

[PeteBlade]

You don't come close to the pig result to bothering me ,don't flatter yourself.
\I see you haven't called Sheffielder a liar yet ?

I've never come across someone so overly sensitive when they post something that may or may not be true.

 

[JohnDenver]

I've never come across someone so overly sensitive when they post something that may or may not be true.

On that note, it seems like an opportune moment to mention my 10 inch todger.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

He didn't though.

But for the sake of this argument, let's say his total outlay including wages was around £1.75M. I don't know the exact figure, neither do you. Someone ITK has said it to be £1.5M without factoring in Sammon or Baptiste's wages. We can both accept that it was in this region.

Total funds incoming from transfers were what, a similar figure?

In theory then this means Adkins should have finished 5th. Higher if he had anything about him in the transfer market and could buy in more quality with the money he raised from the transfer.

Now you're saying that because Adkins freed up wages, this made him less likely to finish 5th?

Considering it has been a commonly argued argument, by you too oddly enough, that the majority of the squad are poor and could be done without, can you see how this makes what you're saying slightly daft?

So wages of incoming players count but wages removed from the bill don't count? Great logic there. Also, loans like McCarthy, O Grady, Davies, Holt etc. don't count and it's the same squad except loans like Edgar, Hammond, Sammon and Baptiste are money spent? It's a completely nonsensical argument.

As I say, if WIlder has to generate a transfer fee to pay the wages of any incomings and wages saved from players released don't count (as you suggest is the case with Adkins) then he's fucked before he even starts.

 

[Barney]

So wages of incoming players count but wages removed from the bill don't count? Great logic there. Also, loans like McCarthy, O Grady, Davies, Holt etc. don't count and it's the same squad except loans like Edgar, Hammond, Sammon and Baptiste are money spent? It's a completely nonsensical argument.

As I say, if WIlder has to generate a transfer fee to pay the wages of any incomings and wages saved from players released don't count (as you suggest is the case with Adkins) then he's fucked before he even starts.

What it boils down to is you saying that because we lost all the utter dross we did, whilst freeing up wages in the process, this made us less likely to finish 5th.

The dross that everyone couldn't wait to get rid of.

Anyone can see that this is a stupid argument to put forward.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

What it boils down to is you saying that because we lost all the utter dross we did, whilst freeing up wages in the process, this made us less likely to finish 5th.

The dross that everyone couldn't wait to get rid of.

Anyone can see that this is a stupid argument to put forward.

No, you're oversimplifying and bending my argument to suit your agenda again. My argument is multi-pronged.

1. We had a huge squad of limited ability restricting the ability to recruit (brought in the least players of anyone in the division despite probably moving on the most).
2. The best of the ability from last season was sold or injured (Murphy and Brayford). When players of Murphy's calibre are sold, it is impossible to bring in players of equal quality as they will have offers from higher placed teams (like Murphy).
3. They were players signed by Clough to suite the way he way he wanted to play.
4. Despite much of what had gone being "dross" wages were still required to replace players like Doyle, Davies etc.
5. Baxter has rendered himself unavailable for much of the season. Despite his faults, he was an option that contributed goals and assits leaving us with one less.
6. If we were going to be so restrictive in terms of bringing players in, we might as well have stuck with Clough as they were at least his players and we could have saved some money on the sacking towards strengthening.
7. Having got rid of Clough in spite of the above, sacking his replacement before he's even had time to assemble his own team (that time was this summer after the expiry of so many contracts) was utter madness.
8. I have been disappointed with Adkins' performance this year but when taking into account all of the above, it's not hard to understand how it happened and in that context, shouldn't have warranted the sack,
9. Regardless of whether he "deserves" to keep his job or not, I still believe it would have been in the best interests of the club to sack him for tthe following reasons:-

i. The new man inevitably has a less impressive track record (though not bad).
ii. Another change in style makes it harder to develop any sort of pattern or way of playing.
iii. The cost of the managerial change will eat into the player budget.
iv. The new man is not as well placed to see who should be retained having not worked with them.
v. The culture of sacking every manager who doesn't get us up creates pressure for immediate results and dissuades managers from developing youth, buying players for the future as in all likelihood they won't be here so they are forced to focus only on the present.

 

[Barney]

No, you're oversimplifying and bending my argument to suit your agenda again. My argument is multi-pronged.

1. We had a huge squad of limited ability restricting the ability to recruit (brought in the least players of anyone in the division despite probably moving on the most).
2. The best of the ability from last season was sold or injured (Murphy and Brayford). When players of Murphy's calibre are sold, it is impossible to bring in players of equal quality as they will have offers from higher placed teams (like Murphy).
3. They were players signed by Clough to suite the way he way he wanted to play.
4. Despite much of what had gone being "dross" wages were still required to replace players like Doyle, Davies etc.
5. Baxter has rendered himself unavailable for much of the season. Despite his faults, he was an option that contributed goals and assits leaving us with one less.
6. If we were going to be so restrictive in terms of bringing players in, we might as well have stuck with Clough as they were at least his players and we could have saved some money on the sacking towards strengthening.
7. Having got rid of Clough in spite of the above, sacking his replacement before he's even had time to assemble his own team (that time was this summer after the expiry of so many contracts) was utter madness.
8. I have been disappointed with Adkins' performance this year but when taking into account all of the above, it's not hard to understand how it happened and in that context, shouldn't have warranted the sack,
9. Regardless of whether he "deserves" to keep his job or not, I still believe it would have been in the best interests of the club to sack him for tthe following reasons:-

i. The new man inevitably has a less impressive track record (though not bad).
ii. Another change in style makes it harder to develop any sort of pattern or way of playing.
iii. The cost of the managerial change will eat into the player budget.
iv. The new man is not as well placed to see who should be retained having not worked with them.
v. The culture of sacking every manager who doesn't get us up creates pressure for immediate results and dissuades managers from developing youth, buying players for the future as in all likelihood they won't be here so they are forced to focus only on the present.

You made a point. Were pulled up on it and had it dismantled.

Now you're bringing up totally different points because you know you haven't a leg to stand on.