Player Suggestion Unattached players

[Harrisblade]

Dammed if they do, dammed if they don't

It's the Blade way

 

[BushBlade]

Dammed if they do, dammed if they don't

No, damned if they get it wrong. I'm not saying it is easy finding a balance but their job is to run the club. Sometimes that means saying to a manager 'that signing is disproportionate to our budget and will cause us serious financial problems if we sign him and don't get promoted'. Did Clough really push for Brayford?

It was a daft signing because it transpired that we couldn't really afford him. It was unfortunate that he also got a bad injury. I see it as putting all your eggs in one basket, spending too much of our budget on one player. Isn't that what CW is trying to avoid? So if we make a bad signing (which every manager does) or sign someone who then gets injured, it doesn't have a huge impact on us.

 

[Mouth of the South]

No, damned if they get it wrong. I'm not saying it is easy finding a balance but their job is to run the club. Sometimes that means saying to a manager 'that signing is disproportionate to our budget and will cause us serious financial problems if we sign him and don't get promoted'. Did Clough really push for Brayford?

It was a daft signing because it transpired that we couldn't really afford him. It was unfortunate that he also got a bad injury. I see it as putting all your eggs in one basket, spending too much of our budget on one player. Isn't that what CW is trying to avoid? So if we make a bad signing (which every manager does) or sign someone who then gets injured, it doesn't have a huge impact on us.

No, the Board made funds available in a bid to get out of L1 for which credit should be given (don't forget Coutts arrived at the same time!) - it is hardly their fault if the authority to which they delegated responsibility for transfers (Clough, Brannigan & co) invested it wrongly (although the decision to appoint those two in the first place would be a fair challenge). Unless of course you'd prefer for the Board to make decisions (inc. a veto right) on recruitment, which IMHO would be dangerous and potentially suicidal given a certain Board member's track record in club related decisions, particularly appointments on the footballing/managerial side. If so, perhaps the re-signing of Sharp, a player fast approaching 30 at the time whose value would only reduce and with limited success in the previous times at the club, would have, on paper, appeared to not be a wise decision to someone with more knowledge and experience with accounts than the game itself.

I agree with the points you make regarding putting all eggs in one basket. I also thought it was daft for such a sum to be paid for a RB when the club were so short (numbers and quality) up front but you need to be careful making sweeping statements like the Board should interfere with recruitment without properly thinking through the possible implications

 

[BushBlade]

No, the Board made funds available in a bid to get out of L1 for which credit should be given (don't forget Coutts arrived at the same time!) - it is hardly their fault if the authority to which they delegated responsibility for transfers (Clough, Brannigan & co) invested it wrongly (although the decision to appoint those two in the first place would be a fair challenge). Unless of course you'd prefer for the Board to make decisions (inc. a veto right) on recruitment, which IMHO would be dangerous and potentially suicidal given a certain Board member's track record in club related decisions, particularly appointments on the footballing/managerial side. If so, perhaps the re-signing of Sharp, a player fast approaching 30 at the time whose value would only reduce and with limited success in the previous times at the club, would have, on paper, appeared to not be a wise decision to someone with more knowledge and experience with accounts than the game itself.

I agree with the points you make regarding putting all eggs in one basket. I also thought it was daft for such a sum to be paid for a RB when the club were so short (numbers and quality) up front but you need to be careful making sweeping statements like the Board should interfere with recruitment without properly thinking through the possible implications

Every board 'interferes' with transfers. Every board has the right to veto. Our board has every right to say 'we're not paying that' for a player, just like the board did when Bassett was in charge, just like they did when Warnock was in charge.

The days of Brian Clough going out and signing payers without telling the board are long gone. Clubs haven't been run like that since the eighties.

It's now a joint effort. That's why well run clubs change managers frequently without detriment and poorly run clubs are dependent on getting a good manager, to compensate for their deficiencies. Do you really think Man U just give Mourinho £200m and say 'go out and get some decent players'?

What they shouldn't do is sign players the manager doesn't want. Like those Maltese and Chinese players we signed to appease the sponsors.

 

[Mouth of the South]

Every board 'interferes' with transfers. Every board has the right to veto. Our board has every right to say 'we're not paying that' for a player, just like the board did when Bassett was in charge, just like they did when Warnock was in charge.

The days of Brian Clough going out and signing payers without telling the board are long gone. Clubs haven't been run like that since the eighties.

It's now a joint effort. That's why well run clubs change managers frequently without detriment and poorly run clubs are dependent on getting a good manager, to compensate for their deficiencies. Do you really think Man U just give Mourinho £200m and say 'go out and get some decent players'?

What they shouldn't do is sign players the manager doesn't want. Like those Maltese and Chinese players we signed to appease the sponsors.

Totally agree with your point on recruitment of unwanted players but if, as is still he case at Utd (and as highlighted by that excellent and insightful report and video by Bleacher Report), the responsibility and budget for transfers is delegated by the Board to a different group of employees (in Utd's case - Wilder, Knill, Mitchell, Schreiber etc.), they should not be involved (and especially interfere) unless parameters are to be breached e.g. additional budget sought, max transfer fee/salary to be exceeded etc.) Would you really want McCabe (or any current Board member given than none have ever played or managed a professional side) saying yay or nay to transfer targets?

Other clubs are obviously structured differently. The example you mention raise of Man U being case in point with Woodward as EVC obviously taking a lead role in player recruitment but I very much doubt he'll come up with targets or even dismiss targets identified by Mourinho outright as you seem to suggest he does and it being more a case of him failing to land targets.

I'm not saying either is right or wrong, it's more a case of horses for courses. While hindsight is always 20/20, it's cheating to use it to say what Utd should have done and kick them for historical mistakes made. In theory, delegating responsibility to SMEs seems like a good idea to me as long as you have the right SMEs to delegate to. CW and co's success rate since arriving at the club (>90%) would seemingly back this point up.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

Every board 'interferes' with transfers. Every board has the right to veto. Our board has every right to say 'we're not paying that' for a player, just like the board did when Bassett was in charge, just like they did when Warnock was in charge.

The days of Brian Clough going out and signing payers without telling the board are long gone. Clubs haven't been run like that since the eighties.

It's now a joint effort. That's why well run clubs change managers frequently without detriment and poorly run clubs are dependent on getting a good manager, to compensate for their deficiencies. Do you really think Man U just give Mourinho £200m and say 'go out and get some decent players'?

What they shouldn't do is sign players the manager doesn't want. Like those Maltese and Chinese players we signed to appease the sponsors.

Always thought Hao Haidong was an inspired signing.

 

[BushBlade]

Totally agree with your point on recruitment of unwanted players but if, as is still he case at Utd (and as highlighted by that excellent and insightful report and video by Bleacher Report), the responsibility and budget for transfers is delegated by the Board to a different group of employees (in Utd's case - Wilder, Knill, Mitchell, Schreiber etc.), they should not be involved (and especially interfere) unless parameters are to be breached e.g. additional budget sought, max transfer fee/salary to be exceeded etc.) Would you really want McCabe (or any current Board member given than none have ever played or managed a professional side) saying yay or nay to transfer targets?

Other clubs are obviously structured differently. The example you mention raise of Man U being case in point with Woodward as EVC obviously taking a lead role in player recruitment but I very much doubt he'll come up with targets or even dismiss targets identified by Mourinho outright as you seem to suggest he does and it being more a case of him failing to land targets.

I'm not saying either is right or wrong, it's more a case of horses for courses. While hindsight is always 20/20, it's cheating to use it to say what Utd should have done and kick them for historical mistakes made. In theory, delegating responsibility to SMEs seems like a good idea to me as long as you have the right SMEs to delegate to. CW and co's success rate since arriving at the club (>90%) would seemingly back this point up.

maxtransfer fee/salary to be exceeded etc.

Which is my point. They should have vetoed it on those reasons and those alone. I absolutely agree that the board shouldn't be saying 'he's not the type of striker we want', that should be left to Wilder and the recruitment team.

My understanding of the Brayford situation, based on what a poster on here who claims to know Brannigan, is that Clough wasn't pushing for him, he'd already signed Freeman for that position but was asked by the board if he wanted Brayford if they could get him.

I haven't heard the term SME (subject matter expert) for a couple of years or more now. Do you work for one of the big four?

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Let's face it, when John Brayford arrived, he quickly became a fan favourite. He popped up in local pubs with his girlfriend and chatted to anyone who wanted to talk, never aloof or playing the big "I am". He was outstanding when we beat Fulham 1-0 at their place, in the cup. Non stop bombing down the wings and often got into good positions to shoot. I remember the crowd going nuts when he scored against Charlton in a sold out BDTBL.



When we played Hull at Wembley, half the crowd were wearing John Brayford masks or false beards.

He took a wage cut to come to SUFC, let's not forget that.

It's not the fault of any player if a club is naive enough to offer them a long contract on big money, anyone of us would snatch their hand off in the same position.

He's gone now, but let's not forget the good times, let's stop slagging him off.

Agreed. Some of the venom aimed at him by some of our fans is bizarre (more on the FB groups than on here tbf). Always gave his all for our club. OK, Clough was his favourite manager but regardless of who our manager was, he always did any job he was asked. Came back probably before he was ready after the ACL injury because things were desperate under Adkins. Then suffered a series of niggles. Wilder was full of praise for him and his attitude when he arrived. Wilder has never been critical of him and always said that the reason he is not in the plans is financial. Every story of anyone who has met the bloke says he comes across as a really good guy. He has twice suffered injury making last ditch challenges to save us from conceding (Swindon in playoffs and Bolton on opening day of last season). All in all, a very good servant for the club but one who circumstances dictated didn’t represent value for money (injuries and change in managerial approaches).

GLTTL.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

"Board" @ fault for sanctioning 'over' spending on Brayford
"Board" @ fault for NOT backing Tufty
Discuss

I think the problem with the Brayford signing is we didn’t know quite how restrictive it would be to the rest of our business. Nobody knew where we were in terms of budget etc. and at the time it seemed like a great sign of intent. We were hoping we could add COG and a centre half that we needed to seriously compete for promotion. Had we known the percentage of the budget being used on Brayford and how the Clough assembled wage bill would cripple us for the following 18 months, it might not have been met with such a fanfare.


My criticism of the board isn’t for not backing Wilder specifically. It’s for going on about how much they are going to back when STs are up for renewal and then not following up on that lip service. If they were more open about budgetary restrictions, I’d be more comfortable with their approach.

 

[bertieblade]

My criticism of the board isn’t for not backing Wilder specifically. It’s for going on about how much they are going to back when STs are up for renewal and then not following up on that lip service. If they were more open about budgetary restrictions, I’d be more comfortable with their approach.


McCabe rolls that one out time and again and has subsequently lost credibility for doing so.
We are possibly the most realistic supporters in the football,league as our exploits and disappointments have taught us that. McCabe however continues to treat us as though we are gullible and subsequently people find reasons to have a go at him as he treats us with no respect!

 

[Harrisblade]

My criticism of the board isn’t for not backing Wilder specifically. It’s for going on about how much they are going to back when STs are up for renewal and then not following up on that lip service. If they were more open about budgetary restrictions, I’d be more comfortable with their approach.


McCabe rolls that one out time and again and has subsequently lost credibility for doing so.
We are possibly the most realistic supporters in the football,league as our exploits and disappointments have taught us that. McCabe however continues to treat us as though we are gullible and subsequently people find reasons to have a go at him as he treats us with no respect!

So he rips the fans off every year with his outrageous ST price increases?

 

[Mouth of the South]

I think the problem with the Brayford signing is we didn’t know quite how restrictive it would be to the rest of our business. Nobody knew where we were in terms of budget etc. and at the time it seemed like a great sign of intent. We were hoping we could add COG and a centre half that we needed to seriously compete for promotion. Had we known the percentage of the budget being used on Brayford and how the Clough assembled wage bill would cripple us for the following 18 months, it might not have been met with such a fanfare.


My criticism of the board isn’t for not backing Wilder specifically. It’s for going on about how much they are going to back when STs are up for renewal and then not following up on that lip service. If they were more open about budgetary restrictions, I’d be more comfortable with their approach.

So you want the Board to publicly state what the budget for the upcoming season will be at ST renewal time? Do you not think that would play into the hands of agents and other clubs?

 

[1danewhitehouse]

So you want the Board to publicly state what the budget for the upcoming season will be at ST renewal time? Do you not think that would play into the hands of agents and other clubs?

I think you missed my point. If anything, they oversold the budget so if anything did play into the hands of agents etc. If they managed expectations and didn't make out that investment would be higher than it actually would be, agents wouldn't think they were getting more from us and fans wouldn't be as pissed off when the investment turns out to be modest.

 

[BigBed]

What investment!!??
Kev spends more on furnishings than signings.

 

[Chali 2na]

No, damned if they get it wrong. I'm not saying it is easy finding a balance but their job is to run the club. Sometimes that means saying to a manager 'that signing is disproportionate to our budget and will cause us serious financial problems if we sign him and don't get promoted'. Did Clough really push for Brayford?

It was a daft signing because it transpired that we couldn't really afford him. It was unfortunate that he also got a bad injury. I see it as putting all your eggs in one basket, spending too much of our budget on one player. Isn't that what CW is trying to avoid? So if we make a bad signing (which every manager does) or sign someone who then gets injured, it doesn't have a huge impact on us.

No, the Board made funds available in a bid to get out of L1 for which credit should be given (don't forget Coutts arrived at the same time!) - it is hardly their fault if the authority to which they delegated responsibility for transfers (Clough, Brannigan & co) invested it wrongly (although the decision to appoint those two in the first place would be a fair challenge). Unless of course you'd prefer for the Board to make decisions (inc. a veto right) on recruitment, which IMHO would be dangerous and potentially suicidal given a certain Board member's track record in club related decisions, particularly appointments on the footballing/managerial side. If so, perhaps the re-signing of Sharp, a player fast approaching 30 at the time whose value would only reduce and with limited success in the previous times at the club, would have, on paper, appeared to not be a wise decision to someone with more knowledge and experience with accounts than the game itself.

I agree with the points you make regarding putting all eggs in one basket. I also thought it was daft for such a sum to be paid for a RB when the club were so short (numbers and quality) up front but you need to be careful making sweeping statements like the Board should interfere with recruitment without properly thinking through the possible implications

Every board 'interferes' with transfers. Every board has the right to veto. Our board has every right to say 'we're not paying that' for a player, just like the board did when Bassett was in charge, just like they did when Warnock was in charge.

The days of Brian Clough going out and signing payers without telling the board are long gone. Clubs haven't been run like that since the eighties.

It's now a joint effort. That's why well run clubs change managers frequently without detriment and poorly run clubs are dependent on getting a good manager, to compensate for their deficiencies. Do you really think Man U just give Mourinho £200m and say 'go out and get some decent players'?

What they shouldn't do is sign players the manager doesn't want. Like those Maltese and Chinese players we signed to appease the sponsors.

Totally agree with your point on recruitment of unwanted players but if, as is still he case at Utd (and as highlighted by that excellent and insightful report and video by Bleacher Report), the responsibility and budget for transfers is delegated by the Board to a different group of employees (in Utd's case - Wilder, Knill, Mitchell, Schreiber etc.), they should not be involved (and especially interfere) unless parameters are to be breached e.g. additional budget sought, max transfer fee/salary to be exceeded etc.) Would you really want McCabe (or any current Board member given than none have ever played or managed a professional side) saying yay or nay to transfer targets?

Other clubs are obviously structured differently. The example you mention raise of Man U being case in point with Woodward as EVC obviously taking a lead role in player recruitment but I very much doubt he'll come up with targets or even dismiss targets identified by Mourinho outright as you seem to suggest he does and it being more a case of him failing to land targets.

I'm not saying either is right or wrong, it's more a case of horses for courses. While hindsight is always 20/20, it's cheating to use it to say what Utd should have done and kick them for historical mistakes made. In theory, delegating responsibility to SMEs seems like a good idea to me as long as you have the right SMEs to delegate to. CW and co's success rate since arriving at the club (>90%) would seemingly back this point up.

maxtransfer fee/salary to be exceeded etc.

Which is my point. They should have vetoed it on those reasons and those alone. I absolutely agree that the board shouldn't be saying 'he's not the type of striker we want', that should be left to Wilder and the recruitment team.

My understanding of the Brayford situation, based on what a poster on here who claims to know Brannigan, is that Clough wasn't pushing for him, he'd already signed Freeman for that position but was asked by the board if he wanted Brayford if they could get him.

I haven't heard the term SME (subject matter expert) for a couple of years or more now. Do you work for one of the big four?

This is the S24SU equivalent of Ali vs. Fraizer

 

[Grappler]

This is the S24SU equivalent of Ali vs. Fraizer

Yes but which one?, they fought three times.........

 

[sitwell]

This is the S24SU equivalent of Ali vs. Fraizer

Chunder in the jungle ?

 

[Chali 2na]

Yes but which one?, they fought three times.........

1971.....obviously