The same squad?

[PeteBlade]

The issue for me only occurs because they want to keep up an unbelievable lie about how two permanent signings (one of which was Woolford) and a few loans is showing ambition for promotion.

And sadly, with how hysterical some people's dislike of Adkins is because of the under performance this season, they're letting the board off scot-free by making him their scapegoat and defending this lack of backing.

 

[PokerBlade]

And sadly, with how hysterical some people's dislike of Adkins is because of the under performance this season, they're letting the board off scot-free by making him their scapegoat and defending this lack of backing.

I also wonder to what extent some people delude themselves into thinking players are better than they are. I call it Michael Tonge Syndrome, where a player lives off the occasional good game or past performance and fools people into thinking that someday they'll be able to play like that every week. Tonge wasn't the player that played out of his skin half a dozen times a season, he was the mediocre one that played in the other forty. People still talk about how McEveley is "good enough" because of occasional up turns in form. It reminds me of how fans would talk about if we just played to Asaba's strengths that he could score a hatful. Eventually you have to accept that they're just distinctly average.

 

[PeteBlade]

I also wonder to what extent some people delude themselves into thinking players are better than they are. I call it Michael Tonge Syndrome, where a player lives off the occasional good game or past performance and fools people into thinking that someday they'll be able to play like that every week. Tonge wasn't the player that played out of his skin half a dozen times a season, he was the mediocre one that played in the other forty. People still talk about how McEveley is "good enough" because of occasional up turns in form. It reminds me of how fans would talk about if we just played to Asaba's strengths that he could score a hatful. Eventually you have to accept that they're just distinctly average.

Yes, this led me to post about the oft trotted out "They were good enough to get to 2 semi- finals" as a defence/critique of the current manager.

 

[PokerBlade]

The semi-final thing is pretty meaningless to me. Bradford also had big cup runs.

 

[Bladesway]

22 signings in a season is hardly having the rug pulled from under him.

Continually having your best players sold is exactly that.

 

[Barney]

So to be clear your point is: Even if Nigel Adkins has brought in a budget surplus, - like the dubious ikn nopigfansintown is claiming, - he still should've been able to achieve a much higher league position than the one we currently occupy? He has unequivocally been backed by the board in order to do this.

If so our definition of being 'backed' is radically different.

I'll try and break it down for the nth time.

Forget old trafford and anything else you're pretending to be ITK about straight away. You seem to have decided they are some how relevant to the point, and they aren't.

Adkins was given the budget. Considering we can afford to pay the types of wages of the players we have signed, it is therefore sensible to assume we would have had no trouble in bringing in younger players from the lower divisions who won't have wanted as much. We're currently paying top whack for players that aren't even half as good as what we probably could have got on much lower wages. It's back to front. If it had been spent wisely, it should have been enough to at the very least get somewhere near the automatics.

I wouldn't be surprised if just a couple of our new signings are on double if not more than the majority of the players in the teams all sitting prettily above us in the league.

 

[PeteBlade]

I'll try and break it down for the nth time.

Forget old trafford and anything else you're pretending to be ITK about straight away. You seem to have decided they are some how relevant to the point, and they aren't.

Adkins was given the budget. Considering we can afford to pay the types of wages of the players we have signed, it is therefore sensible to assume we would have had no trouble in bringing in younger players from the lower divisions who won't have wanted as much. We're currently paying top whack for players that aren't even half as good as what we probably could have got on much lower wages. It's back to front. If it had been spent wisely, it should have been enough to at the very least get somewhere near the automatics.

I wouldn't be surprised if just a couple of our new signings are on double if not more than the majority of the players in the teams all sitting prettily above us in the league.

You don't need to "break it down" to anyone. You aren't splitting the atom. People know your point, they just disagree with you.

 

[Barney]

You don't need to "break it down" to anyone. You aren't splitting the atom. People know your point, they just disagree with you.

It seemed to me as though he was indirectly asking for clarification.

 

[PeteBlade]

It seemed to me as though he was indirectly asking for clarification.

It's seems to me that you're wrong.

 

[Barney]

It's seems to me that you're wrong.

It seems to me as though you're assuming to speak on behalf of somebody else. Tut tut.

 

[Tyler Durden]

It seems to me as though you're assuming to speak on behalf of somebody else. Tut tut.

No you did the same "As I keep saying" stuff with me too. After having been wrong repeatedly.

 

[Baxter]

Maybe it's just me (individual talents aside) but I can't help but feel like we seem a better team when Edgar, Baptiste, Sharp and Hammond are all on the pitch at the same time.

 

[Barney]

After having been wrong repeatedly.

Martin Luther eat your heart out.

 

[Woodwardfan]

The perpetual debate about Board's fault/ manager's fault/ players' fault/ even fans' fault. On it goes, nobody being able to win the arguments because each side of the debate has no intention of absorbing what's being said by the 'opposition', other than to find fault and discredit. In any case, as with most things in life- it's a bit of everything that contributes to the failures..

Let's face it, none of the above stakeholders, apart from the fans ( not including those who boo though!!!) have achieved enough to stop the rot since we dropped into free-fall in 2007.

What I would say about the owners is that they have coughed up millions ( some say £10m, some say less, maybe it's more) during this season alone to balance the books. Of course anyone can say they should have thrown even more cash at the problems though nobody would claim more money guarantees success, nobody would say that more money on new players means they are any good or are guaranteed to make any difference. They can always say we should have a couple of better quality players as can every club in the land apart from Leicester at this point in time, certainly Man Utd, Chelsea, Man City and Arsenal fans are distraught right now.

As regards the manager, he has every right to resign if he feels the club is being run poorly or if he feels he has been misled about the financial conditions he is working under. As far as I know only Steve Bruce and Nigel Spackman have ever taken that step at Bramall Lane. Speed resigned for different reasons but all the other recent managers were sacked. John Harris once threatened to leave when Mick Jones was sold but he stayed. If Adkins was to resign quoting a difficult relationship with the owners, his reputation would be preserved as far as possible and he should get another good job elsewhere. Stay on and fail and his reputation could be damaged forever.

As far as we know Adkins is all square with the owners and the way the club is run. His job could well be under pressure but I doubt it. I think he has been telling the owners for months that a wholesale clear-out is needed and they have believed him and therefore understand the performances this season. Most Boards would not have adopted such a generous interpretation of the manager's performance and credibility after a season like this one. Part of the rebuild is offloading poor players who are paid too much. The squad needed deep surgery and plenty of players have been given the chance to show other clubs how they can play on loan. We have not got rid of some of them yet and may have to subsidise departures.

Adkins told us he was in the market for players in the JTW and in the loan window. None of us know the reasons why only Hammond and Baptiste were signed. Was Adkins aiming too high relative to his budget? Had we hoped to unload more players before signing new ones? Is Adkins determined to sign certain players and willing to wait longer for them? Had we given up on this season with the intention of doing the job right next summer and going up in much better shape next season?

Nobody knows in truth, only the men in the hot seats. Remember though, Adkins has the option to resign if he thinks his job stinks.

 

[nopigfansintown]

I was at Old Trafford; Jamie Murphy and Alcock were sold and other players loaned out. Once again, there is nothing ikn about these facts that are on the public record. That's just a diversion. You wrote: "they indicated to Adkins that he'd already used and wasted the budget that should have been enough for promotion". I disagree that the budget was a budget capable of achieving promotion or, indeed, that he's wasted it. To not even countenance that any managers spending is judged on the amount of the owners own (external) wealth it entails is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Money that comes not from the business, but your own pocket, hurts a lot more (see Clough's reign). Any discernible football supporter knows that a manager who is only recycling a percentage of player proceeds, - and monies from his on field success, - and not getting relegated in the process, is not doing too badly. Anything above that wold be success despite the prevailing winds. When judging Clough you also have to factor in cup success and transfer fees in and out. As well as wages.

Poiny of order: if ikn information on wages is inadmissible then your guess work on wages is too. So its two permanents (one free) and three loans. Also Diego and Kieran Wallace contract extensions that entail the budget.

 

[nopigfansintown]

I'll try and break it down for the nth time.

Forget old trafford and anything else you're pretending to be ITK about straight away. You seem to have decided they are some how relevant to the point, and they aren't.

Adkins was given the budget. Considering we can afford to pay the types of wages of the players we have signed, it is therefore sensible to assume we would have had no trouble in bringing in younger players from the lower divisions who won't have wanted as much. We're currently paying top whack for players that aren't even half as good as what we probably could have got on much lower wages. It's back to front. If it had been spent wisely, it should have been enough to at the very least get somewhere near the automatics.

I wouldn't be surprised if just a couple of our new signings are on double if not more than the majority of the players in the teams all sitting prettily above us in the league.

I was at Old Trafford; Jamie Murphy and Alcock were sold and other players loaned out. Once again, there is nothing ikn about these facts - they are on the public record. That's just a diversion. You wrote: "they indicated to Adkins that he'd already used and wasted the budget that should have been enough for promotion". I disagree that the budget was a budget capable of achieving promotion or, indeed, that he's wasted it. To not even countenance that any managers spending is judged on the amount of the owners own (external) wealth it entails is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Money that comes not from the business, but your own pocket, hurts a lot more (see Clough's reign). Any discernible football supporter knows that a manager who is only recycling a percentage of player proceeds, - and monies from his on field success, - and not getting relegated in the process, is not doing too badly. Anything above that wold be success despite the prevailing winds. When judging Clough you also have to factor in cup success and transfer fees in and out. As well as wages.

Poiny of order: if ikn information on wages is inadmissible then your guess work on wages is too. So its two permanents (one free) and three loans. Also Diego and Kieran Wallace contract extensions that entail the budget.

 

[Barney]

I was at Old Trafford; Jamie Murphy and Alcock were sold and other players loaned out. Once again, there is nothing ikn about these facts that are on the public record. That's just a diversion. You wrote: "they indicated to Adkins that he'd already used and wasted the budget that should have been enough for promotion". I disagree that the budget was a budget capable of achieving promotion or, indeed, that he's wasted it. To not even countenance that any managers spending is judged on the amount of the owners own (external) wealth it entails is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Money that comes not from the business, but your own pocket, hurts a lot more (see Clough's reign). Any discernible football supporter knows that a manager who is only recycling a percentage of player proceeds, - and monies from his on field success, - and not getting relegated in the process, is not doing too badly. Anything above that wold be success despite the prevailing winds. When judging Clough you also have to factor in cup success and transfer fees in and out. As well as wages.

Poiny of order: if ikn information on wages is inadmissible then your guess work on wages is too. So its two permanents (one free) and three loans. Also Diego and Kieran Wallace contract extensions that entail the budget.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make about the owners own wealth. That isn't something I have been talking about. So your main point is that when a club has brought in more money than it has dished out, then anything above relegation and it's doing well? I think that's a rather daft point to make. There are many teams above us in this league that have been put together without shelling out half as much as what we sold Murphy for.

 

[boo radley]

"fucking Cup Tarts"

tm Kenilworth (?) I think..

is sufficent....

Oh to have had some of those to brighten up this most dismal season

 

[nopigfansintown]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make about the owners own wealth. That isn't something I have been talking about. So your main point is that when a club has brought in more money than it has dished out, then anything above relegation and it's doing well? I think that's a rather daft point to make. There are many teams above us in this league that have been put together without shelling out half as much as what we sold Murphy for.

I'll try a different angle. The board has clearly (I think most would agree?) invested enough money for a promotion winning side to be assembled over the last three seasons (don't think we have any players from before this period). Since NA's appointment, the vast majority of this money (particularly external investment) had already been invested in seasons one and two. It had not resulted in promotion. If promotion isn't achieved, it isn't unreasonable to blame the main culprit for the unwise investment of the budget in the first place? That's not to say that the man in charge of the third season couldn't get more out of his inheritance, or do better with the few additions he's self financed. But to blame him for a squad that we're told entails 65% of the whole running costs of the club and a further eight million (or so were told) in external investment is apportioning far too much blame in the wrong place. The majority aren't his players. The board could have substantially invested again but chose not to (see Phipps' comments).

"So your main point is that when a club has brought in more money than it has dished out, then anything above relegation and it's doing well?"
We tried to let the club stand on its own two feet (David Weir's reign), and the manager self finance his squad - it didn't work out too well. The clubs that do well with this, or a similar model, tend to give their managers time...

 

[Barney]

I'll try a different angle. The board has clearly (I think most would agree?) invested enough money for a promotion winning side to be assembled over the last three seasons (don't think we have any players from before this period). Since NA's appointment, the vast majority of this money (particularly external investment) had already been invested in seasons one and two. It had not resulted in promotion. If promotion isn't achieved, it isn't unreasonable to blame the main culprit for the unwise investment of the budget in the first place? That's not to say that the man in charge of the third season couldn't get more out of his inheritance, or do better with the few additions he's self financed. But to blame him for a squad that we're told entails 65% of the whole running costs of the club and a further eight million (or so were told) in external investment is apportioning far too much blame in the wrong place. The majority aren't his players. The board could have substantially invested again but chose not to (see Phipps' comments).

"So your main point is that when a club has brought in more money than it has dished out, then anything above relegation and it's doing well?"
We tried to let the club stand on its own two feet (David Weir's reign), and the manager self finance his squad - it didn't work out too well. The clubs that do well with this, or a similar model, tend to give their managers time...

I think you may have misread a few of my posts as nowhere have I apportioned blame on Adkins for signings or actions that weren't his. Nor have I blamed him for any previous seasons. I'm not sure where you've got this from, you seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent. All I have said is that the funds he was given and has since spent should have been enough for promotion.

 

[nopigfansintown]

I think you may have misread a few of my posts as nowhere have I apportioned blame on Adkins for signings or actions that weren't his. Nor have I blamed him for any previous seasons. I'm not sure where you've got this from, you seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent. All I have said is that the funds he was given and has since spent should have been enough for promotion.

Oh, well, I fundamentally disagree. Your basically saying that you could give a manager our academy players, two permanent signings and three loan signings and that should be enough for promotion. Wow! You know that's what you just said right? If not you inevitably have to bring into your argument the pre Adkins budget and legacy players.

 

[Barney]

Oh, well, I fundamentally disagree. Your basically saying that you could give a manager our academy players, two permanent signings and three loan signings and that should be enough for promotion.

No, that isn't what I am saying and no I don't have to bring anything else in to the argument. I'm saying the funds he was given for the 5 players should have been enough of a budget to add to the squad we already had at the time.

Prior squad + poor signings --> Backwards.
Prior squad + quality signings --> Forwards.

It is no more complex than that.

The prior squad wasn't anything to do with Adkins but that has absolutely no effect on the fact that Adkins had the power to add five signings to determine whether we went forwards, backwards, promoted, not promoted. You are insisting that the prior squad having nothing to do with Adkins and Adkins having the potential power over whether we are promoted or not are mutually exclusive, and they are not.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Now you've changed tack, but I'd still disagree. I think the prior squad meant substantial enough change couldn't be achieved. If we hadn't sold our best player and got to the cup third round, the evidence is that no signings could have been financed.

 

[Barney]

Now you've changed tack, but I'd still disagree. I think the prior squad meant substantial enough change couldn't be achieved. If we hadn't sold our best player and got to the cup third round, the evidence is that no signings could have been financed.

How have I changed tack? You've obviously not been paying attention then as that has been my underlying point throughout the entire thread. That could also explain the tangents you always seem to want to go off on. The latter part of that post doesn't make any sense either.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Maybe its more a disagreement about the way football works. I find it difficult to believe that we can judge a manager with little or no reference to the financial parameters and squad he inherited. They're real focal points for me. As is how any signings are financed: I don't agree he was "given funds for five signings", he raised them. If Adkins had squandered a large budget and had capable incumbent players, I'd be as critical as anyone else. Particularly if he was backed by the board's cash.

 

[Barney]

Maybe its more a disagreement about the way football works. I find it difficult to believe that we can judge a manager with little or no reference to the financial parameters and squad he inherited. They're real focal points for me. As is how any signings are financed: I don't agree he was "given funds for five signings", he raised them. If Adkins had squandered a large budget and had capable incumbent players, I'd be as critical as anyone else. Particularly if he was backed by the board's cash.

We sold Murphy and given that he was our best player you have to take that in to account, but I have addressed that in saying that even in Murphy's absence I believe we had a squad there that if added to in the right way could have made the automatics. The other things you mention are irrelevant to me.

It doesn't matter to me how the funds were raised or whether or not the board financed them out of their pocket, out of McCabe's backside or anywhere else to be honest. Regardless of everything else, he had the funds available to him to improve the squad he had to the point where automatics would have been a real possibility and he did not utilise them effectively enough.

 

[Woodwardfan]

I'll try a different angle. The board has clearly (I think most would agree?) invested enough money for a promotion winning side to be assembled over the last three seasons (don't think we have any players from before this period). Since NA's appointment, the vast majority of this money (particularly external investment) had already been invested in seasons one and two. It had not resulted in promotion. If promotion isn't achieved, it isn't unreasonable to blame the main culprit for the unwise investment of the budget in the first place? That's not to say that the man in charge of the third season couldn't get more out of his inheritance, or do better with the few additions he's self financed. But to blame him for a squad that we're told entails 65% of the whole running costs of the club and a further eight million (or so were told) in external investment is apportioning far too much blame in the wrong place. The majority aren't his players. The board could have substantially invested again but chose not to (see Phipps' comments).

"So your main point is that when a club has brought in more money than it has dished out, then anything above relegation and it's doing well?"
We tried to let the club stand on its own two feet (David Weir's reign), and the manager self finance his squad - it didn't work out too well. The clubs that do well with this, or a similar model, tend to give their managers time...

And of those which give their managers time, the ones who pick the right managers can succeed with luck and a following wind and the ones who don't simply fail.

None of those clubs can be 100% sure they have chosen the right managers even 10 months after an appointment. There are plenty of signs though whether a manager is tackling the issues and developing a culture within the club and loyalty from the players.

After 10 months Clough looked like a round peg in a round hole, everything seemed to be set fair until he started signing his own players who were so distinctly average and those who were above average for a while cost way over the odds.

Adkins is at the other end of the scale after his first 10 months, in charge of a shambles with little sign of organisation or team spirit. Perhaps his will start to shine brightly at the stage Clough's light dimmed and then flickered.

Certainly you can see that Adkins might well have the enthusiasm and ability to fan the flames once they are lit.

 

[Snowman]

The perpetual debate about Board's fault/ manager's fault/ players' fault/ even fans' fault. On it goes, nobody being able to win the arguments because each side of the debate has no intention of absorbing what's being said by the 'opposition', other than to find fault and discredit. In any case, as with most things in life- it's a bit of everything that contributes to the failures..

Let's face it, none of the above stakeholders, apart from the fans ( not including those who boo though!!!) have achieved enough to stop the rot since we dropped into free-fall in 2007.

What I would say about the owners is that they have coughed up millions ( some say £10m, some say less, maybe it's more) during this season alone to balance the books. Of course anyone can say they should have thrown even more cash at the problems though nobody would claim more money guarantees success, nobody would say that more money on new players means they are any good or are guaranteed to make any difference. They can always say we should have a couple of better quality players as can every club in the land apart from Leicester at this point in time, certainly Man Utd, Chelsea, Man City and Arsenal fans are distraught right now.

As regards the manager, he has every right to resign if he feels the club is being run poorly or if he feels he has been misled about the financial conditions he is working under. As far as I know only Steve Bruce and Nigel Spackman have ever taken that step at Bramall Lane. Speed resigned for different reasons but all the other recent managers were sacked. John Harris once threatened to leave when Mick Jones was sold but he stayed. If Adkins was to resign quoting a difficult relationship with the owners, his reputation would be preserved as far as possible and he should get another good job elsewhere. Stay on and fail and his reputation could be damaged forever.

As far as we know Adkins is all square with the owners and the way the club is run. His job could well be under pressure but I doubt it. I think he has been telling the owners for months that a wholesale clear-out is needed and they have believed him and therefore understand the performances this season. Most Boards would not have adopted such a generous interpretation of the manager's performance and credibility after a season like this one. Part of the rebuild is offloading poor players who are paid too much. The squad needed deep surgery and plenty of players have been given the chance to show other clubs how they can play on loan. We have not got rid of some of them yet and may have to subsidise departures.

Adkins told us he was in the market for players in the JTW and in the loan window. None of us know the reasons why only Hammond and Baptiste were signed. Was Adkins aiming too high relative to his budget? Had we hoped to unload more players before signing new ones? Is Adkins determined to sign certain players and willing to wait longer for them? Had we given up on this season with the intention of doing the job right next summer and going up in much better shape next season?

Nobody knows in truth, only the men in the hot seats. Remember though, Adkins has the option to resign if he thinks his job stinks.

Amen to that Brother WWF. No one knows. I think I side with the school of "there was a fundamental problem that needed sorting and Posnig has a grand plan". He doesn't do himself any favours though with stuff like the pursuit of Dan Burn and his "game day" decisions.

 

[Darthblade]

I'll try and break it down for the nth time.

Forget old trafford and anything else you're pretending to be ITK about straight away. You seem to have decided they are some how relevant to the point, and they aren't.

Adkins was given the budget. Considering we can afford to pay the types of wages of the players we have signed, it is therefore sensible to assume we would have had no trouble in bringing in younger players from the lower divisions who won't have wanted as much. We're currently paying top whack for players that aren't even half as good as what we probably could have got on much lower wages. It's back to front. If it had been spent wisely, it should have been enough to at the very least get somewhere near the automatics.

I wouldn't be surprised if just a couple of our new signings are on double if not more than the majority of the players in the teams all sitting prettily above us in the league.

What exactly is this "budget" of which you speak.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread ....... NA has only signed Sharp !!

None of our other "many bids for players" were successful ....... amazingly !!

UTB & FTP

 

[Jan Age]

Did we not get something like 71 points last season? Let's see how near we finish to that before we start the postmortem.

The fact we were in the play-offs last year is irrelevant we were so far off the pace, it was a non-starter, Swindon stuck 7 past us (yes we scored 6) and then capitulated 4-0 to Preston.

The cup runs are just that, cup runs, Bradford made the final 12.13 and then the quarters should they be going up automatically?

I think the board brought Adkins in as a 'motivator' knowing there would be no real money for investment. (Whether Adkins knew this remains to be seen)

Adkins inherited a squad of players many of whom were marginalised by Clough and the rot had already set in.

Adkins one signing that cost us money in the sense of a trf fee has been a huge success. All others smack of desperation because he had been told there was no more money available.

Clough's way of handling players was fall out with them, stick them in the reserves and purchase another player in that position (is that the right way to manage any business?) ... Leading to an bloated squad of many unhappy players.

Adkins, at least is trying to change the ethos by percevering with how he wants them to play and giving them a chance to prove themselves (both on and off the pitch) before moving them on if they don't meet the standard.

However he does make some strange decisions both tactically and with player/role selection and either needs to eradicate this or communicate his thinking better.