Rob 7,421 11.3k Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 12 hours ago, Borodane said: Didn’t Pulis say it was a bigger achievement finishing 7th as opposed to the play offs? Maybe we are following his wise words. If promotion or at least play offs aren’t the target then why do we even bother? I don’t for a second doubt that they are and that’s what carrick and Scott should be judged on. sure we got 3m extra prize money from derby because it was a bigger achievement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edinboro 1,731 2.5k Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 (edited) Rogers sale gets us £17.5m. we paid £1.1m. Nice. Gazette article from interview in the Sun. If I put a link it needs approving. Edited March 21 by edinboro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humpty 6,204 11.2k Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 15 hours ago, Changing Times said: Unless the targets are to miss out on the play offs, increase costs, and have a first team squad decimated by injuries then I'm not sure what else he's accomplished exactly. It would certainly be another interesting move by Gibson to appoint a Head of Football whose aim wasn't to get us promoted though. Maybe Carrick's targets don't revolve around promotion as well? I'd say improving the viability of the club via improved recruitment will have been close to the top of his target personally. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScarBoro 1,232 1.6k Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 6 hours ago, Rob said: to play devils advocate, if it was partially or all down to carricks training methods, then that might be the reason why in his first half season you didn't see it so much as injuries from training methods likely are not instant injuries, its going to be the training catching up with people after its been going on for long term and the constant stress accumulates on the players, which might explain why injuries started to appear more in his 2nd season as the training accumulated, maybe I'm wrong but by the end of the season when around the play offs we did had a few players who were injured too, akpom was someone carrying injuries, which I don't think he fully recovered from before he moved to ajax, sure there might been others than just ramsay, and around the time the playoffs were guaranteed the team did feel like it was running a bit on empty (although that could just be down to coventry and the others we played countering our playing style, or maybe a bit of both) was the 2nd season also the year that all the stoppage time rules changed that added quite a decent bump to the length of injury time and time the ball was in play? I think this added to fitness stress levels too As does lack of substitutions! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Goat 978 1.4k Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Hopefully Scott and Gibson will be asking why we have had so many injuries during Carrick's tenure. I can't remember where I read it but Boro are top of the injury league. If we rule out that we are simply signing a load of crocks then something isn't right. We also pick up too many injuries in training. This has been a feature under Carrick. Of course it may be that the players are just not fit enough or athletic enough and conditioning is also poor. Like most things it will be a combination of several factors. Whatever it is, it needs sorting before the start of next season. Otherwise l the team will be constantly disrupted by injuries. Since Carrick took over we have never had a settled team. I think one of the reasons why Ipswich were promoted is that the virtually kept the same team all season. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Changing Times 17,358 24.2k Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 9 hours ago, Humpty said: I'd say improving the viability of the club via improved recruitment will have been close to the top of his target personally. And have we actually done that? Also, how does that as a main target for the Head of Football mesh with a promotion target for the Head Coach? Or is the Head Coach expected to make us more viable as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScarBoro 1,232 1.6k Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 17 hours ago, Changing Times said: And have we actually done that? Also, how does that as a main target for the Head of Football mesh with a promotion target for the Head Coach? Or is the Head Coach expected to make us more viable as well. I think in most companies individual heads of departments will have their own targets. These might not be the same - finance chief to reduce debt or improve balance sheet overall, sales director to increase sales, production director to reduce unit production costs. They will then all have a combined board target - often increasing profit, or maybe diversification to ensure long term stability of company. It’s the same with a football club. The overall target will presumably be promotion, but it’s quite possible Scott’s main target is financial and Carricks is league position. Like any management team they have to temper their own targets with those of other board members in order to achieve the main goal of the company. It’s up to the Chief Executive (SG?) to make them work together and realise the others targets help them as well. whether we have done it is a completely different question! The sale of players brings in money, so in simplistic terms answer is yes, but if it means we have to spend more to replace them, then that obviously reduces the viability. Compèred to previously, I would think yes, it has improved viability a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinoJo3 7,394 15.6k Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 1 hour ago, ScarBoro said: I think in most companies individual heads of departments will have their own targets. These might not be the same - finance chief to reduce debt or improve balance sheet overall, sales director to increase sales, production director to reduce unit production costs. They will then all have a combined board target - often increasing profit, or maybe diversification to ensure long term stability of company. It’s the same with a football club. The overall target will presumably be promotion, but it’s quite possible Scott’s main target is financial and Carricks is league position. Like any management team they have to temper their own targets with those of other board members in order to achieve the main goal of the company. It’s up to the Chief Executive (SG?) to make them work together and realise the others targets help them as well. whether we have done it is a completely different question! The sale of players brings in money, so in simplistic terms answer is yes, but if it means we have to spend more to replace them, then that obviously reduces the viability. Compèred to previously, I would think yes, it has improved viability a bit. It depends what ‘viable’ means though, for one football team it could mean covering every cost, for another team it could be covering costs and making profit. In our case looking at the rough figures were given as fans I’d say Scott has to find his own money to spend, we’re more viable in that we’re very competitive in the transfer market now without Gibson having to restructure or do whatever he did to use his own money. I expect Scott’s work has also made our ffp balance sheet thing pretty favourable. Tbh I can’t see how it can be questioned the rogers fee was revealed as £17m and Lath has gone for £18m. Thats (from the least optimistic point of view) £25m in pure profit. There are still other players VDB, Conway and Morris where I feel pretty certain we would make a profit on. Imo how it would work with the target of a head coach is simply allowing more freedom in the market to bring in better players for the team. We have a bit of a building job in the summer but have £18m and probably more to do it with. Had Scott not been here could we say the same? Not only do we have a chunk of money to spend but also we don’t ‘have’ to sell Hackney or VDB to fund anything. Lath leaving was a short term blow yes but there are still plenty of plus points. Those of us with longer memories can still remember the multiple, weekly comments in match day threads from September/October crying that Lath was most likely a one season wonder and we should have took the money and ran. If we have to do another season at this level is it really that big a deal? We have the money to be competitive, it’s a pretty exciting league and we will probably be somewhere around the top end of it again. With the £18m from Scott’s business shouldering a chunk of that responsibility. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Changing Times 17,358 24.2k Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 8 hours ago, ScarBoro said: I think in most companies individual heads of departments will have their own targets. These might not be the same - finance chief to reduce debt or improve balance sheet overall, sales director to increase sales, production director to reduce unit production costs. They will then all have a combined board target - often increasing profit, or maybe diversification to ensure long term stability of company. It’s the same with a football club. The overall target will presumably be promotion, but it’s quite possible Scott’s main target is financial and Carricks is league position. Like any management team they have to temper their own targets with those of other board members in order to achieve the main goal of the company. It’s up to the Chief Executive (SG?) to make them work together and realise the others targets help them as well. whether we have done it is a completely different question! The sale of players brings in money, so in simplistic terms answer is yes, but if it means we have to spend more to replace them, then that obviously reduces the viability. Compèred to previously, I would think yes, it has improved viability a bit. I understand how companies work mate. I think trying to compare a bog standard business with a football one is pretty difficult though. You could certainly have the goal of reducing costs and increasing sales in a non-football business but trying to do that in football is extremely difficult. We certainly aren't doing that at the moment. If Scott's goals are financial ones then I'm unclear as to what they'd be? So far we've spent what we've brought in via sales so it can't be reducing costs or increasing profitability unless something is going to change with how we operate. Improve the balance sheet maybe? Problem with that of course is it's reliant on you continuing to make signings whose value is above what you're paying or whose value grows. Are we doing that? I mean if you go beyond the big few hits are the rest of them doing that? I think you can point to someone like Azaz and say that he's worth more than £2m but he isn't going for big money. Unless Hamilton clicks and comes good and becomes the next Rogers, or Whittaker settles in and becomes the next Lath, there really aren't any others who are going for large amounts. That by itself isn't an issue I suppose except that we've already spent the Rogers money so for that to end up being a benefit to us then either those players need to increase in value or we need to get promoted. We used that money to buy Conway, Hamilton, Morris, Burgzorg and Borges. So one player swapped for five is on the face of it good. But now you're paying five lots of wages, and some of those players aren't increasing in value nor will they ever. If we don't get promoted then how are we better off? The answer, at least to me, is that we aren't better off. The Head of Football has to have the same primary goal/target as the Head Coach. If it's not set up like that then you can get a situation where the players being brought in aren't up to winning promotion or you sell your best players before you are able to accomplish promotion. Results aren't good enough and everyone gets *** off. Sounds kinda familiar to me but there you go. I don't think that we are more or less viable as things stand. That's entirely tied up in whatever Gibson wants to do. If we don't spend the Lath money then yeah you can argue that we're in a better financial position in the short term at least but long term nothing has changed unless we can keep repeating the trick, and that's something that I am doubtful about. I can't imagine this place being entirely supportive of us cashing in on players and not reinvesting. Of course the plan/model is that you buy low, sell high, then do it again, and again, and whilst you're picking up these bargains to sell for lots of money you also bring in other players to help you get promoted. Scott hasn't done that so far in my opinion, and this comes back to what I've said about there not being enough good signings. People keep saying we've had more hits but we just haven't. Hits are players that are going to get you promoted, and we don't have enough of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Changing Times 17,358 24.2k Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 7 hours ago, LinoJo3 said: If we have to do another season at this level is it really that big a deal? It must be a bit of a big deal for most otherwise why has everyone been annoyed for the past few months? Also, and I know I'm stating the obvious, but it might not be just another season. I honestly don't see why people would be that optimistic about us getting promoted next season assuming we miss out this season of course. I would say we were that close and it's not like the last two transfer windows have been a roaring success. So why will this summer's be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinoJo3 7,394 15.6k Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 4 hours ago, Changing Times said: It must be a bit of a big deal for most otherwise why has everyone been annoyed for the past few months? Also, and I know I'm stating the obvious, but it might not be just another season. I honestly don't see why people would be that optimistic about us getting promoted next season assuming we miss out this season of course. I would say we were that close and it's not like the last two transfer windows have been a roaring success. So why will this summer's be any different? I don’t really care what ‘everyone’ is annoyed about tbh, the club has been in this league for almost 10 years, so what’s another season? It’s not worth getting annoyed about. I also never mention getting promoted next season, we could or we couldn’t it’s a bit of a pointless debate really. The facts are if we don’t get promoted this season then next season is one more season at this level, not sure how else I could put it really. As for this summer I’d expect it to be better as we have more money but again who knows what could happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smogsterking the Inspirati 3,723 8.9k Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 We are only a couple of seasons away from being a couple of seasons away from our next rebuild 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Barnes 1,293 2.1k Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 7 minutes ago, smogsterking the Inspirati said: We are only a couple of seasons away from being a couple of seasons away from our next rebuild Every season is a complete rebuild, everything is short term... PS We should have kept Paddy McNair he would have played loads of games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroNBred 191 418 Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Any whispers then? Any rumours? Clubs talking with agents during the international break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Barnes 1,293 2.1k Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 6 minutes ago, BoroNBred said: Any whispers then? Any rumours? Clubs talking with agents during the international break. It's a good job I work here 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts