A system set up to fail

[My Boy Harry]

Well whatever the OPs points the football club has failed for decades so something doesnt add up. I dont like saying it but the only constant is the fans so perhaps we are too impatient and demanding. The bairn was at Oxford on saturday and said that there was fighting between our fans - pro Ross and anti Ross. He wasnt very impressed by such antics and neither he should be.

 

[Coeus]

Well whatever the OPs points the football club has failed for decades so something doesnt add up. I dont like saying it but the only constant is the fans so perhaps we are too impatient and demanding. The bairn was at Oxford on saturday and said that there was fighting between our fans - pro Ross and anti Ross. He wasnt very impressed by such antics and neither he should be.

A compounded knock-on effect of the importance placed on the short term with each decision and opinion.

It's an epidemic that runs throughout the club from top to bottom, fed from all sides.

 

[Deleted member 37458]

Well whatever the OPs points the football club has failed for decades so something doesnt add up. I dont like saying it but the only constant is the fans so perhaps we are too impatient and demanding. The bairn was at Oxford on saturday and said that there was fighting between our fans - pro Ross and anti Ross. He wasnt very impressed by such antics and neither he should be.

I thought the atmosphere at Oxford during the game was better than the last few away games

 

[nz joe]

I'm sorry you've lost me?

What part have I undermined?

Regardless of any plan, they have sold off the kids and overpaid for a striker. I believe they have done so because all-encompassing importance placed on now.

To be fair to the new owners ,they have to prioritise promotion in the short term ,they know staying in League 1 would be a financial disaster . We are still way over the top as far as wages are concerned ,when you consider the number of players we still have whose contracts were negotiated when we were in the Premiership and Championship .
They want to be a self funding club and that impossible playing at this level too long.
I believe they have a long term,plan tempered by a bit of pragmatism .

All very sensible viewpoints with merit to them, I do disagree though.

When a club of Liverpool decides a player as young as Luca is worth 500k, you can sensibly believe that the player could become a premiership player, even a very good one that would net insane amounts of money. Rejecting 500k is the calculated gamble I would have took (although I am aware it wasn't as simple as saying yes or no).

I think if you have a strategy, implement it straight away, not when it becomes easy to do so as there will never be the right time. If you can't commit to doing it when the pressure and expectation is at an all-time low, then you never can.

I don't dislike Grigg, I just think the version of events in which we bought him, was panicked.

Let's call it 4 million, could we have used that 4 million to keep Maja and the youngsters we have lost? Im not sure but would if so, would we be in a better position mid term?

What would happen if the club turned down the 500K then the lad ,having been tapped up by Liverpool refuses to sign a contract when he turns 17 ?
We would be due compensation ,determined by a tribunal with no guarantee that it would be more than the 500K .
Surely the club is between a rock and a hard place ,with not a lot of alternatives.

I agree. That’s why I felt I needed to reply.

A club can’t hold a player hostage, but they certainly do hold the cards when it comes to youth players & allowing them to leave.

It’s a long drawn out process even when the holding club has been fully compliant, if they reject an approach I can only assume it would make it nye on impossible for the move to go ahead without a fight.

Good luck to your lad ,hope he has a stellar career in the game .
You must be very proud of him ,I know I would be .

 

[KStephenson]

.

Good luck to your lad ,hope he has a stellar career in the game .
You must be very proud of him ,I know I would be .

Thankyou. We are.
He’s got a long way to go. But he loves it & is & has done things some teenage boys could only wish for so only time will tell

 

[Ernie]

Well whatever the OPs points the football club has failed for decades so something doesnt add up. I dont like saying it but the only constant is the fans so perhaps we are too impatient and demanding. The bairn was at Oxford on saturday and said that there was fighting between our fans - pro Ross and anti Ross. He wasnt very impressed by such antics and neither he should be.

Codswallop. The blaming fans bit.

 

[makempride]

I believe us to have accepted offers as opposed to us being provided compensation, I'm happy to be shown otherwise and will accept it was out of our hands to a point.

One of the lads fathers has already said his son was open to staying but the club appeared keen for them to leave due to the fee.



It's true that they can afford to write off those wages, but there are things we can offer that they cannot.

ryan nobles dad still twisting like ?)

 

[Coeus]

And so, the next harvest draws near. A sacrifice must be given.

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[kildaremackem]

When so much onus is put upon the short term, a club is destined to fail in the long term imo.

You have a manager, that if he didn't before, will well and truly understand that he is only a month or two poor form away from the fans turning. This means he has to look at the immediate.

This will affect everything, style of play, transfers, confidence.

Similar to the owners, the plan is to build on the momentum for the immediate. Sell off the youngsters for low fee's while panic buying a striker at well over value. I don't doubt that the meaning isn't absolutely correct, it's just backwards imo. When you buy someone over value, you don't half ramp up the pressure so in a way, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Almost all weird decisions can be explained by this onus on the short term. The question is quite rightly being asked of the tactics, what happened to high pressing and why did this cautious approach take over? Well, the decision appears to have been made because we were leaking early goals and we have enough quality in McGeady & formerly Maja to win the game, so keep it safe. This alleviates the possible turning of the fans and certainly stops individual criticism should they lose the ball. We tried to play ourselves out of danger once against Oxford, the first time we had done it in weeks and we received a free kick, had we lost the ball and Oxford scored, there would have been hell to pay for the offender, why bother?

I'll stop prattling on now, but there you have it. A system set up to fail, if you can and do build momentum it will eventually crash and unless the onus, club-wide changes, we will never outperform.

TLDR = Manager is immaterial. Owners and fans fault.

eh? the problem is the owners didnt try to think short-term..
instead of appointing a manager with a proven record at league one level, they trued to be clever and get a young manager who could be here for years..
instead of focusing on short-term and picking a team of knarled veterans, they played kids..
they havent sold off any youngsters except maja who refused to play.

I'm interested in what you feel I am excusing as it is not my point to excuse anything?



I'm open to a discussion as to why?

Selling off the 14,15 and 16-year-olds and investing a large amount of money on a striker because of the potential backlash if you don't, appears short term thinking on everyone part to me.

we havtn sold anyone-we have kept the best sixteen year olds we could-and didnt own any player younger than 16..

 

[vinegar hill]

Give the club to the OP.

 

[molthemackem]

When so much onus is put upon the short term, a club is destined to fail in the long term imo.

You have a manager, that if he didn't before, will well and truly understand that he is only a month or two poor form away from the fans turning. This means he has to look at the immediate.

This will affect everything, style of play, transfers, confidence.

Similar to the owners, the plan is to build on the momentum for the immediate. Sell off the youngsters for low fee's while panic buying a striker at well over value. I don't doubt that the meaning isn't absolutely correct, it's just backwards imo. When you buy someone over value, you don't half ramp up the pressure so in a way, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Almost all weird decisions can be explained by this onus on the short term. The question is quite rightly being asked of the tactics, what happened to high pressing and why did this cautious approach take over? Well, the decision appears to have been made because we were leaking early goals and we have enough quality in McGeady & formerly Maja to win the game, so keep it safe. This alleviates the possible turning of the fans and certainly stops individual criticism should they lose the ball. We tried to play ourselves out of danger once against Oxford, the first time we had done it in weeks and we received a free kick, had we lost the ball and Oxford scored, there would have been hell to pay for the offender, why bother?

I'll stop prattling on now, but there you have it. A system set up to fail, if you can and do build momentum it will eventually crash and unless the onus, club-wide changes, we will never outperform.

TLDR = Manager is immaterial. Owners and fans fault.

Just posted a similar view to this.

 

[Coeus]

Just posted a similar view to this.

Seems logical to me, doesn't matter who the manager is, doesn't matter if we go up or stay down. It will always fail eventually without a massive change to the ethos and onus of the clubs owners.

 

[Coeus]

It doesn't sound to me as if lessons have been learnt. The club looking for investment is an indication of the lack of faith they have in their own plan.

Instead of buying our way out of trouble (possibly very poorly), implementing a plan and staff to effectively carry it out would benefit us much more in the long term.

 

[kildaremackem]

When so much onus is put upon the short term, a club is destined to fail in the long term imo.

You have a manager, that if he didn't before, will well and truly understand that he is only a month or two poor form away from the fans turning. This means he has to look at the immediate.

This will affect everything, style of play, transfers, confidence.

Similar to the owners, the plan is to build on the momentum for the immediate. Sell off the youngsters for low fee's while panic buying a striker at well over value. I don't doubt that the meaning isn't absolutely correct, it's just backwards imo. When you buy someone over value, you don't half ramp up the pressure so in a way, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Almost all weird decisions can be explained by this onus on the short term. The question is quite rightly being asked of the tactics, what happened to high pressing and why did this cautious approach take over? Well, the decision appears to have been made because we were leaking early goals and we have enough quality in McGeady & formerly Maja to win the game, so keep it safe. This alleviates the possible turning of the fans and certainly stops individual criticism should they lose the ball. We tried to play ourselves out of danger once against Oxford, the first time we had done it in weeks and we received a free kick, had we lost the ball and Oxford scored, there would have been hell to pay for the offender, why bother?

I'll stop prattling on now, but there you have it. A system set up to fail, if you can and do build momentum it will eventually crash and unless the onus, club-wide changes, we will never outperform.

TLDR = Manager is immaterial. Owners and fans fault.

what youngstwers were sold off? all recruitment-including that of will grigg is the managers call-not the owenrs-stewrat donald doesnt decide what players to sign...its literally nowt to do with him.

Seems logical to me, doesn't matter who the manager is, doesn't matter if we go up or stay down. It will always fail eventually without a massive change to the ethos and onus of the clubs owners.

why? they have finded the club-and they dont sign the players-if the players signed were too old blame the manager that signed them-not the owners who have nothing to do with that.

It doesn't sound to me as if lessons have been learnt. The club looking for investment is an indication of the lack of faith they have in their own plan.

Instead of buying our way out of trouble (possibly very poorly), implementing a plan and staff to effectively carry it out would benefit us much more in the long term.

the plan was always investment-that is the plan-as they said from day one.

 

[Deleted User 18963]

More excuses. You've seen the standard in the league yourself, we aren't playing well it's as simple as that and I don't think it has anything to do with short-termism.

In the short-term we do need to get out of this league from a financial aspect. We're Sunderland in league one mate, we should be challenging for promotion, which we are.

Fans are behind Ross and the players, but performances still need to improve.

Performances have been abysmal this season. We have played 60 games and generally been the better team on about 5 of these. We rarely go out and dominate like league winners should. The standard is utter dross and we are not dominating. That's not a good sign. We create hardly no changes and look suspect at the back. Our keeper has save our arse on many occasions too.

Getting to the play off final and just missing out as masked our performances this season. We have been very poor for so many games, including those at the SOL.

 

[Coeus]

what youngstwers were sold off? all recruitment-including that of will grigg is the managers call-not the owenrs-stewrat donald doesnt decide what players to sign...its literally nowt to do with him.

We've been through the youngsters many times, I'm not doing it again.

Donald didn't have a say in Maguire, Leadbetter and Grigg? Not how it sounded to me. Either way, the staff who pick the players were appointed by him (Coton, Hill) so they're an extension.

 

[kildaremackem]

We've been through the youngsters many times, I'm not doing it again.

Donald didn't have a say in Maguire, Leadbetter and Grigg? Not how it sounded to me. Either way, the staff who pick the players were appointed by him (Coton, Hill) so they're an extension.

yes he is accountable for hiring the staff-but richard hill has no involvement in first team scouting..and jack ross has final say on all signings.
What dso you mena "thats not how it sounded to you" were you in the room when the decisons were taken? Sd does not sign footballers-he just does the negotiations..JR has final say on all transfers..SD has no say beyond on the money questions.

We've been through the youngsters many times, I'm not doing it again.

Donald didn't have a say in Maguire, Leadbetter and Grigg? Not how it sounded to me. Either way, the staff who pick the players were appointed by him (Coton, Hill) so they're an extension.

yes you have lied about the youngsters many times-been shown to be wrong and kept lting.

 

[Coeus]

yes he is accountable for hiring the staff-but richard hill has no involvement in first team scouting..and jack ross has final say on all signings.
What dso you mena "thats not how it sounded to you" were you in the room when the decisons were taken? Sd does not sign footballers-he just does the negotiations..JR has final say on all transfers..SD has no say beyond on the money questions.


yes you have lied about the youngsters many times-been shown to be wrong and kept lting.

Kildare, you're a funny one. We have been through all of these things about 5 times involving many many posts and we have always come to the conclusion that I am right or you have taken something the wrong way, only then to come back a week later to say the same thing. It's bizarre as is the whole Stewrat thing, I don't know what to make of you matey?

 

[kildaremackem]

Kildare, you're a funny one. We have been through all of these things about 5 times involving many many posts and we have always come to the conclusion that I am right or you have taken something the wrong way, only then to come back a week later to say the same thing. It's bizarre as is the whole Stewrat thing, I don't know what to make of you matey?

so im wrong to state that RH doesnt work with the first team recruitment department-despite that being the official club positon? or that SD doesnt sign players...despite SD saying he doesnt sign players? On the youngsters..Greenwood rejected a contract-what were they do to? and young players cannot be sold by SAFC as professional clubs do not own them..the player can decide whether to go or not.

 

[Coeus]

so im wrong to state that RH doesnt work with the first team recruitment department-despite that being the official club positon? or that SD doesnt sign players...despite SD saying he doesnt sign players? On the youngsters..Greenwood rejected a contract-what were they do to? and young players cannot be sold by SAFC as professional clubs do not own them..the player can decide whether to go or not.

RH is on negotiating, so will have been involved in Grigg.

SD suggested Grigg to Ross, not the other way round.

I'm not going through the youngsters again with you. You have been shown to not understand the contractual rules despite it being shown to you many times.