Steve Bruce

[AvfcRigo82]

Has he held his unveiling press conference yet? That will be amusing to watch.

I wonder how many times we get mentioned/compared with & referred to.

 

[Keyblade]

5 hours ago, kurtsimonw said:

His first winter transfer window we had a net spend of £5m. We were then 21st in net spend in his full season, then we had a net spend of £3m last summer. He wasn't able to reinvest all sales in to signings. I don't think anyone is suggested we were the poorest, least spending team on the planet, but this idea that we were even remotely competing with our outlay under Bruces tenure (Not RDMs) is completely false.

This idea that "He had more to spend than most Championship clubs!" (which is debatable given the above), the fact is he did finish above those clubs. People are acting like he didn't finish 4th and that we spent more than Rotherham and finished below them.

Given that we're the biggest spending club in the country right now, what exactly are people's expectations for Smith? Genuinely interested given people seem so fixated by how much Bruce supposedly spent?

Mate nobody is fixated on what Bruce spent, it's the notion that he was "cash-strapped" at Villa that's being contested. By all means, make the case that he was cash-strapped, but we can argue until the cows come home about where he ranked in the league in terms of spending power, especially if we continue to ignore wages. That was never the point.

[Zatman]

He spent little but Terry, Snodgrass, Whelan etc werent on minimum wage

[kurtsimonw]

3 minutes ago, Zatman said:

He spent little but Terry, Snodgrass, Whelan etc werent on minimum wage

Wages are overblown when it comes to most frees.

If someone signed a £2.5m player on 10k a week nobody would bat an eyelid.

[sne]

[Keyblade]

1 minute ago, kurtsimonw said:

Wages are overblown when it comes to most frees.

If someone signed a £2.5m player on 10k a week nobody would bat an eyelid.

It determines the quality of player your can bring in though. Terry, Snodgrass, Whelan etc could be acquired because we were willing to pay them what most other teams weren't, as evidenced by our gigantic wage bill, £20m more than the next highest team. We're spending at least an extra £20m/season than other teams right there.

[kurtsimonw]

3 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

It determines the quality of player your can bring in though. Terry, Snodgrass, Whelan etc could be acquired because we were willing to pay them what most other teams weren't, as evidenced by our gigantic wage bill, £20m more than the next highest team. We're spending at least an extra £20m/season than other teams right there.

And how much of that was Premier League players? How much was RDM signings?

But wages are truly insignificant compared to a transfer fee.

We sold Baker for over £3m to Bristol. Even if he played for free, the outlay is more than it cost to get Terry on £60k a week. Considering well over 100 players have moved to Championship clubs for over £3m, it shows that £60k a week on a free isn't all that massive an impact on its own.

I don't buy in to this "Let's criticise Bruce for Sherwood/RDM signings" way of thinking, I don't think it's right. Just like it would be unfair to beat Dean Smith with a stick if we can't shift Hogan, Bjarnasson, Lansbury, etc

Edited July 18, 2019 by kurtsimonw

[Zatman]

12 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said:

Wages are overblown when it comes to most frees.

If someone signed a £2.5m player on 10k a week nobody would bat an eyelid.

1 free signing. Snodgrass and Grabban prob also came on loan fees too which arent counted. Lansbury the modern day Darren Anderton is on 40k a week prob more since promotion

[Keyblade]

Just now, kurtsimonw said:

And how much of that was Premier League players? How much was RDM signings?

But wages are truly insignificant compared to a transfer fee.

We sold Baker for over £3m to Bristol. Even if he played for free, the outlay is more than it cost to get Terry on £60k a week. Considering well over 100 players have moved to Championship clubs for over £3m, it shows that £60k a week on a free isn't all that massive an impact on its own.

At the time of that statistic, so the end of his second season, half of the senior players in the squad were signed by Bruce. 

Even if we were to just assume for arguments sake that the wages were distributed evenly, and just take out Bruce's half of the squad...we'd still be in the top 8 biggest wage bills in the league.

You're right, on their own they aren't that expensive, but they add up quite quickly. Snodgrass by himself on £60k/week for one season won't break the bank, but then add Terry, Samba, Whelan, Elmo, Onomah, Grabban all in the same season. Maybe about 3-5 million between them all in fees, but around £15-20m in wages right there.

[Demitri_C]

Imagine giving fistface 90m. My god

[TRO]

6 hours ago, TheStagMan said:

If you think that, you clearly have some comprehension issues. Its quite comical really.

Stag Man.....I think the main issue is this.

You have failed to identify any positive or beneficial action SB made in the time he was with us.....If I have missed the slightest bit of praise on something I apologise in advance.

In Contrast

Those that are defending him have clearly outlined his shortcomings and have not been afraid to join in with his detractors on same points.

It strikes me his defenders are more likely to compromise than his detractors.

Also The Notion that all the media, soaked in the competitive nature they are... all have decent things to say about him, despite that being deemed as a "boys club" of inducements by his detractors, is far fetched to me.....The media would argue over 2 flies walking up the wall, for them to all say the same thing about him, has some creedence in my book.

[sne]

6 minutes ago, TRO said:

 

It strikes me his defenders are more likely to compromise than his detractors.

 

As someone on the opposing side I tend to disagree.

Just like you probably see people who only criticize and see nothing good, I find his "supporters" almost always feel a need to add a caveat of some sort when grudgingly acknowledging any shortcomings .

Over simplified I know.

But I think it's mostly down to people "arguing" in text over a forum, it has it's limitations and nuances are too time/text consuming to be fleshed out.

It all becomes a bit black or white.

And of course the longer and harder one fights for one's opinion, the harder it is to back down gracefully

[kurtsimonw]

8 minutes ago, sne said:

But I think it's mostly down to people "arguing" in text over a forum, it has it's limitations and nuances are too time/text consuming to be fleshed out.

Do you want to have a fight about it IRL then?

I'll bring my dad, he's bigger than yours.

[choffer]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Imagine giving fistface 90m. My god

You'd get one Bramble and one Cattermole for that.

[sne]

1 minute ago, kurtsimonw said:

Do you want to have a fight about it IRL then?

I'll bring my dad, he's bigger than yours.

Nah, I be terrible in a fight even on a good day.

And at the moment I'm nursing a broken bone in my hand and a dislocated finger.

Much more of a keyboard warrior me 

[TRO]

16 minutes ago, sne said:

As someone on the opposing side I tend to disagree.

Just like you probably see people who only criticize and see nothing good, I find his "supporters" almost always feel a need to add a caveat of some sort when grudgingly acknowledging any shortcomings .

Over simplified I know.

But I think it's mostly down to people "arguing" in text over a forum, it has it's limitations and nuances are too time/text consuming to be fleshed out.

It all becomes a bit black or white.

And of course the longer and harder one fights for one's opinion, the harder it is to back down gracefully

Not really surprising on this subject, but we have been known to agree on other points.

I guess its fair to use the word "grudgingly", because I wanted him to play good football and he didn't in the main....and more importantly he was our manager at the time.

To simplify it .........I think one faction is arguing about the man and his character.....and the other is arguing about what he did, his "actions".

I think it is also reasonable to say.....His "defenders" have agreed with some things his "detractors" have mentioned, (only for them to glean that the argument is won, as opposed to identifying with a reasonable response) rarely has it happened the other way around, if at all.

Your last line has a valid tone....but that's back to the personality of the poster and the ability of seeing all sides of a debate.

Edited July 18, 2019 by TRO

[TRO]

9 minutes ago, sne said:

Nah, I be terrible in a fight even on a good day.

And at the moment I'm nursing a broken bone in my hand and a dislocated finger.

Much more of a keyboard warrior me 

I'm an ex  "100 meters" &"Hide and seek" champion.......never refused a fight.

[TheStagMan]

45 minutes ago, TRO said:

Stag Man.....I think the main issue is this.

You have failed to identify any positive or beneficial action SB made in the time he was with us.....If I have missed the slightest bit of praise on something I apologise in advance.

In Contrast

Those that are defending him have clearly outlined his shortcomings and have not been afraid to join in with his detractors on same points.

It strikes me his defenders are more likely to compromise than his detractors.

Also The Notion that all the media, soaked in the competitive nature they are... all have decent things to say about him, despite that being deemed as a "boys club" of inducements by his detractors, is far fetched to me.....The media would argue over 2 flies walking up the wall, for them to all say the same thing about him, has some creedence in my book.

You have. 

I have praised elements of what he has done in the past. I supported him to varying degrees, right up to the play off defeat (although in all honesty he had lost me mid-season, but won me back so to speak with the run of victories), and in particular he lost a lot of goodwill when he criticised the fans

What I have done is called out what I consider to be hyperbole in support of Bruce - things like operating on a small budget, "cash-strapped", claims that he was never supported, never backed, did really well to get us to the playoffs etc. 

The problem is then the "other side" come in with their defence, and things deteriorate from there (on both sides) and I think the initial point is lost in the noise, and positions become more and more entrenched. 

On the criticism side a lot of it comes from expectations. Many people see what Steve Bruce did at Villa as decent, the problem is we needed more than decent, and as a club, I and others expected more and felt that the club deserved more. Especially when the man himself says things like "who could they get that is better?" Others were happy to stop the slide and not do a Sunderland. To me (and many others), it felt like we were paying for a Bentley but actually getting a Ford Focus, whilst all the time being told how great the Ford Focus was, even though it did not get us to our destination. The problem is that in my view, the things he did achieve are the things we should have expected from any competent manager - as Dean Smith has since proven.

So criticisms are made, frustrations are aired, what then happens is a point is made, taken out of context and seized upon by the other side, and the discussion disappears down a rabbit hole - this happens in both directions. 

 

What is certain that I think we can all agree on is that this man is now on his second club since leaving us, and yet he is still dividing the fanbase of this great club, and during the most exciting (and important) transfer window in many many years, the most active forum at the moment is the one arguing about Steve bloody Bruce (which I admit I am guilty of), which is wrong and we need to stop doing it and move on.

We should stop talking about his time here and if we do talk about him, talk about what he is doing now.

 

[Keyblade]

45 minutes ago, sne said:

As someone on the opposing side I tend to disagree.

Just like you probably see people who only criticize and see nothing good, I find his "supporters" almost always feel a need to add a caveat of some sort when grudgingly acknowledging any shortcomings .

Over simplified I know.

But I think it's mostly down to people "arguing" in text over a forum, it has it's limitations and nuances are too time/text consuming to be fleshed out.

It all becomes a bit black or white.

And of course the longer and harder one fights for one's opinion, the harder it is to back down gracefully

It's like the briefcases just have to come out whenever Bruce is criticized, regardless of what that criticism is.

I get it, he gets a lot of unfair criticism at times...like when people downplay his transfer dealings for example. But that doesn't mean all criticism of him is unfounded.

But I can't think of any more cut and dry instances of warranted criticism of him than his treatment of Sheffield Wednesday in this saga as well as the blatant lie that he was strapped for cash during his time at Villa. Wednesday themselves put out a statement saying they will take legal action against Bruce and his team for the way he handled the situation ffs, but apparently we're wrong for criticizing him for it. It really beggars belief.

[TheStagMan]

2 hours ago, kurtsimonw said:

And how much of that was Premier League players? How much was RDM signings?

But wages are truly insignificant compared to a transfer fee.

We sold Baker for over £3m to Bristol. Even if he played for free, the outlay is more than it cost to get Terry on £60k a week. Considering well over 100 players have moved to Championship clubs for over £3m, it shows that £60k a week on a free isn't all that massive an impact on its own.

I don't buy in to this "Let's criticise Bruce for Sherwood/RDM signings" way of thinking, I don't think it's right. Just like it would be unfair to beat Dean Smith with a stick if we can't shift Hogan, Bjarnasson, Lansbury, etc

No one is criticising him for Sherwood/RDM signings, that would be silly. This particular iteration of the discussion about how much he spent was started by a journalist stating that during his time here he was "cash strapped". That was the point that was being made. The statement made it sound like he was operating with no money to spend. it wasn't a discussion about how much he bought in, or his total spend against other teams. On this occasion the discussion was to whether he was "cash-strapped" and had his hands tied behind his back - which people are arguing he wasn't, and certainly not vs. what other managers at the level were able to spend. Whether he earned the money through player sales or not, he was allowed to keep it and spend. The stats show this.

 

Edit: couldn't help myself. Sorry. I'll stop now. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by TheStagMan