Neil Warnock, Steve Gibson & Long Term Vision?

[Changing Times 12,343]

8 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

True but how many players have we lost in the previous 4 windows? Most of those above are filling gaps left by those players.
I'd imagine that the wages we've shed more than outweigh those brought in.

Firstly, Warnock hasn't been in charge for four windows, why would we look at that?  Secondly, the wages we've shed would be contracts we signed while in the Premier League so it shouldn't even be close.  Warnock doesn't work on a budget, I'm sure he has at some points in his career but certainly not all of them, and his most recent success came after increased spending, not cost cutting, as far as I can see.

[DanFromDownSouth 1,706]

3 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/21/leicester-settlement-football-league-ffp

I didn't realise it had actually happened! Remember there being talk they could be in trouble if they didn't get promotion.

[Changing Times 12,343]

6 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

I seem to recall Leicester breaching FFP rules the year they got Promotion.

Edit: I also remember going to watch us lose to them at the King Power/Walkers Stadium that season, which was also the wettest pre-match walk I've been on.

 

3 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/21/leicester-settlement-football-league-ffp

Breaching FFP rules is breaching FFP rules.  Didn't they change to the rolling 3 year thing after that precisely to allow clubs to go for it in a year without screwing them over? 

I'm asking how much debt have they accrued, which is a different thing.  

[Brunners 7,982]

3 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

I didn't realise it had actually happened! Remember there being talk they could be in trouble if they didn't get promotion.

"Hey now we're an established PL borderline top 6 club that makes 100s of millions a year, we're willing to give you 3m to *** off".

[DanFromDownSouth 1,706]

2 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Firstly, Warnock hasn't been in charge for four windows, why would we look at that?  Secondly, the wages we've shed would be contracts we signed while in the Premier League so it shouldn't even be close.  Warnock doesn't work on a budget, I'm sure he has at some points in his career but certainly not all of them, and his most recent success came after increased spending, not cost cutting, as far as I can see.

Because looking at the previous 4 windows it was obvious we would need to bring players in regardless of who was in charge, bringing in those players often leads to an increase in wages. Yes an shedding all of those players, plus the ones we signed in our first season after relegation has given us some leeway, but we are still not spending money hand over fist are we.

[Changing Times 12,343]

3 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

I didn't realise it had actually happened! Remember there being talk they could be in trouble if they didn't get promotion.

Come on mate.  You know enough about this stuff to know that isn't what I'm talking about.  A billionaire isn't required to fund a £21m loss in one year.  It might go against FFP regulations but that is far from spending fortunes.

[MMC 1,000]

1 minute ago, Brunners said:

"Hey now we're an established top 6 club that makes 100s of millions a year, we're willing to give you 3m to *** off".

[Changing Times 12,343]

Just now, DanFromDownSouth said:

Because looking at the previous 4 windows it was obvious we would need to bring players in regardless of who was in charge, bringing in those players often leads to an increase in wages. Yes an shedding all of those players, plus the ones we signed in our first season after relegation has given us some leeway, but we are still not spending money hand over fist are we.

But not those specific players.  I mean, if we're working on a limited budget then let's not sign players on loan for £30k per week?

[DanFromDownSouth 1,706]

1 minute ago, Changing Times said:

Come on mate.  You know enough about this stuff to know that isn't what I'm talking about.  A billionaire isn't required to fund a £21m loss in one year.  It might go against FFP regulations but that is far from spending fortunes.

I wasn't directing that at anyone, I was merely saying I remember there being talk of them breaching FFP at the time. Ideally if we follow their model we can achieve the same results without breaching it.

[DanFromDownSouth 1,706]

1 minute ago, Changing Times said:

But not those specific players.  I mean, if we're working on a limited budget then let's not sign players on loan for £30k per week?

True, but annoyingly the £30k week figure is a guess at this stage. Don't get me wrong it's probably not a million miles off, but unlike our previous windows we aren't committed to paying those wages past the summer.

[p_mards 1,365]

52 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

What a depressing read this thread is 😩

Let's build a future around Warnock and his beliefs?  Let's aspire to be like Burnley? 

Warnock has never managed to keep a team in the Premier League or top flight for more than one season.  Why would anyone think that's the thing to build our future on?  Do some of you watch games and then instantly forget them, because I read the match threads and it's full of people *** and moaning about what they are watching, then a couple of days after it's like it never happened, and people see Warnock as being our future.  He shouldn't be anywhere near it, as Smokedsalmon said.  There is absolutely no long term benefit to anything he's done anywhere as far as I can tell but let's give him another year or make him DoF anyway?  It's absolutely bonkers, it's almost like giving up on any ambition whatsoever.

As for Burnley, they've had a nice little run for a few seasons, but why would be look to them as an example rather than say Leicester?  I'd say our club is more similar to them than Burnley in terms of size, history and such?

I picked Burnley as they were the best fit for my point based upon the foundations currently in place, our fairly average Championship budget and Gibson not wanting to hand any control over to a Director of Football or Sporting Director.

Obviously the likes of Leicester, Leeds, Brentford & Norwich would be preferential options, it goes without saying, but considering Gibson’s clear limitations, they’re a pipe dream. My ideal vision is having a Director of Football, settled attack-minded style of play and a head coach to fit that. But that’s not going to happen under Gibson as he’s got his head in the sand to his own shortcomings. Therefore, unfortunately, I think the best we can realistically hope for under Gibson is for him to stop knee-jerking between managers with contrasting styles. That’s not a lot to ask for and it would solve the primary reason for our under achievement of the past decade and more.

The past decade and more we’ve been like a dog chasing it’s own tail: going around in circles and making no progress. Whenever we’ve aimed to go into an exciting new direction, Gibson over promises and under delivers, which leaves us in a vicious cycle of very rarely being a competitive Championship side.

I’m sick of years drifting away whilst we’re consistently in transition due to unavoidable poor management from Gibson. He isn’t running the club based upon his achievements within football; unlike someone like Stuart Webber at Norwich. The past decade and more of Gibson’s failings shows that fans understandable aspirations of us being like Leicester just aren’t realistic with him holding all the power at the top of the club. That’s why I’d just settle to be run in a cohesive and well run manner like Burnley. It’s not the sexy or popular option, but in my opinion it’s probably the best thing to guard against the fundamental weaknesses of Gibson.

[Dan_Boro_Till_I_Die 1,181]

Basically the idea we had last summer under Woodgate sounded promising we just got the wrong person installed to over view it.

 

Slightly off topic but Henry or Viera to Bournemouth potentially now as an opposition fan i think that's an accident waiting to happen. But at least for them it isn't being linked with Pulis, Cook, Pardew, Pearson. 

 

 

[Changing Times 12,343]

36 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

True, but annoyingly the £30k week figure is a guess at this stage. Don't get me wrong it's probably not a million miles off, but unlike our previous windows we aren't committed to paying those wages past the summer.

The previous windows were under completely different circumstances.  If we're spending that kind of money now, even for just one season loan deals, then we are clearly not operating under the kind of limited budget people seem to be inferring.

[Changing Times 12,343]

16 minutes ago, p_mards said:

I picked Burnley as they were the best fit for my point based upon the foundations currently in place, our fairly average Championship budget and Gibson not wanting to hand any control over to a Director of Football or Sporting Director.

Obviously the likes of Leicester, Leeds, Brentford & Norwich would be preferential options, it goes without saying, but considering Gibson’s clear limitations, they’re a pipe dream. My ideal vision is having a Director of Football, settled attack-minded style of play and a head coach to fit that. But that’s not going to happen under Gibson as he’s got his head in the sand to his own shortcomings. Therefore, unfortunately, I think the best we can realistically hope for under Gibson is for him to stop knee-jerking between managers with contrasting styles. That’s not a lot to ask for and it would solve the primary reason for our under achievement of the past decade and more.

The past decade and more we’ve been like a dog chasing it’s own tail: going around in circles and making no progress. Whenever we’ve aimed to go into an exciting new direction, Gibson over promises and under delivers, which leaves us in a vicious cycle of very rarely being a competitive Championship side.

I’m sick of years drifting away whilst we’re consistently in transition due to unavoidable poor management from Gibson. He isn’t running the club based upon his achievements within football; unlike someone like Stuart Webber at Norwich. The past decade and more of Gibson’s failings shows that fans understandable aspirations of us being like Leicester just aren’t realistic with him holding all the power at the top of the club. That’s why I’d just settle to be run in a cohesive and well run manner like Burnley. It’s not the sexy or popular option, but in my opinion it’s probably the best thing to guard against the fundamental weaknesses of Gibson.

Ok I get where you are coming from now and why you are saying it 👍

[Changing Times 12,343]

41 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

I wasn't directing that at anyone, I was merely saying I remember there being talk of them breaching FFP at the time. Ideally if we follow their model we can achieve the same results without breaching it.

I'm not really fussed about breaching it, if that's what's required to achieve our goals.  I don't have much time for FFP though.