hippo Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 2 hours ago, sharkyvilla said: Personally I don't see much point in ripping everything up and start again. The problem imo was the squad that got promoted and the sheer number of players that needed replacing in one window and that was a problem that Suso and Dean inherited. Could it have gone better, yes of course but I don't think it's as disastrous as being worth sacking either of them. I think sacking both of them is very much on the cards. Wouldn't surprise me if Susso isn't replaced - and we go back and appoint a manager. The profits made on players are dwarfed by staying in the PL - and I think the club are realising this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 2 hours ago, sharkyvilla said: Personally I don't see much point in ripping everything up and start again. The problem imo was the squad that got promoted and the sheer number of players that needed replacing in one window and that was a problem that Suso and Dean inherited. Could it have gone better, yes of course but I don't think it's as disastrous as being worth sacking either of them. We have lost 19 games and conceded 60 goals and its not disastrous, on that basis,god knows what disaster looks like? so the only other alternative is to keep them and see what happens over the course of another 12 months, to see whether, it really was them or the previous manager's fault. That does not sound like a hierarchy, that is keen on decision making.....and based on their accrued personal wealth, I think that is a long shot. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 3 hours ago, TRO said: We have lost 19 games and conceded 60 goals and its not disastrous, on that basis,god knows what disaster looks like? so the only other alternative is to keep them and see what happens over the course of another 12 months, to see whether, it really was them or the previous manager's fault. That does not sound like a hierarchy, that is keen on decision making.....and based on their accrued personal wealth, I think that is a long shot. I'm not really sure how were supposed to judge him. Assume the team goals were likely finish 17th or above, have a decent cup run, reduce the wage bill, comply with FFP, overhaul the youth team, find players that can be sold for a profit. Some of that is too early to say, some of it possibly on target. I'm not really sure whats expected to be honest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, cheltenham_villa said: I'm not really sure how were supposed to judge him. Assume the team goals were likely finish 17th or above, have a decent cup run, reduce the wage bill, comply with FFP, overhaul the youth team, find players that can be sold for a profit. Some of that is too early to say, some of it possibly on target. I'm not really sure whats expected to be honest. Not 19 defeats and 60 goals against.....I am pretty sure that wasn't expected. We will soon know what the expectations was, if he walks the plank. Edited July 2, 2020 by TRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 60 goals against... Jesus Christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 27 minutes ago, TRO said: Not 19 defeats and 60 goals against.....I am pretty sure that wasn't expected. I think that depends, I wonder what the average is for a team finishing in the bottom 5? Not condoning just think a lot of defeats comes with the territory of finishing near the bottom of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said: I think that depends, I wonder what the average is for a team finishing in the bottom 5? Not condoning just think a lot of defeats comes with the territory of finishing near the bottom of the league. Oh! Its ok then. I just watched a West Ham side show, grit and determination and a never say die attitude....and "Forced" a poor / subdued performance out of Chelsea.....thats what i was expecting from us. Edited July 1, 2020 by TRO 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M_Afro Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 36 minutes ago, villalad21 said: 60 goals against... Jesus Christ Only got Liverpool and a very in form Man Utd to come next two games................could by seventy something by then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 minute ago, TRO said: Oh! Its ok then. I just watched a West Ham side show, grit and determination and a never say die attitude....and "Forced" a poor perfirmance out of Chelsea.....thats what i was expecting from us. Similarly disappointed, But in the context of Pitarch and judging how hes performed how should we seperate him from the team or if they fail, has everyone failed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 hour ago, cheltenham_villa said: I'm not really sure how were supposed to judge him. Assume the team goals were likely finish 17th or above, have a decent cup run, reduce the wage bill, comply with FFP, overhaul the youth team, find players that can be sold for a profit. Some of that is too early to say, some of it possibly on target. I'm not really sure whats expected to be honest. Judge on the above criteria if you wish. We look unlikely to hit 17th The players purchased for 140m - we don't look like recouping that. So that's two of your criteria failed. The youth set up - as you say to early - but given 15,16,17 years are generally harder to judge than senior pros - are you that confident? FFP - not Suresh thats his remit - but £22m on Wesley isn't helping FFP. You say you weren't sure what was expected ? - I am pretty sure Purslow and those above had expectations - to sign all those players and not have one look the part - must disappoint them . My only arguement is maybe the approach was totally wrong - we should be 100% focused on winning premier league matches - instead a % of that focus was "I wonder what we might sell him for in 2 years" ...... A bit like Lerner and his 5 year plan - we overlooked the here and now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 19 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said: Similarly disappointed, But in the context of Pitarch and judging how hes performed how should we seperate him from the team or if they fail, has everyone failed? If you're advocating keep in pitach on merit - then you've set the bar very low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 26 minutes ago, TRO said: Oh! Its ok then. I just watched a West Ham side show, grit and determination and a never say die attitude....and "Forced" a poor / subdued performance out of Chelsea.....thats what i was expecting from us. They had 1 shot on target in the 2 games before that so I guess or shows there is still a glimmer of hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 8 hours ago, hippo said: Judge on the above criteria if you wish. We look unlikely to hit 17th The players purchased for 140m - we don't look like recouping that. So that's two of your criteria failed. The youth set up - as you say to early - but given 15,16,17 years are generally harder to judge than senior pros - are you that confident? FFP - not Suresh thats his remit - but £22m on Wesley isn't helping FFP. You say you weren't sure what was expected ? - I am pretty sure Purslow and those above had expectations - to sign all those players and not have one look the part - must disappoint them . My only arguement is maybe the approach was totally wrong - we should be 100% focused on winning premier league matches - instead a % of that focus was "I wonder what we might sell him for in 2 years" ...... A bit like Lerner and his 5 year plan - we overlooked the here and now. Should be clear, I dont have any clear feelings about keeping him or getting rid. I was trying to draw a difference between him and dean and playing devils advocate for the debate (this is an internet forum after all). We look unlikely to hit 17th but are only 1 point off, is that 1 point the difference between success and failure. Luiz, Guilbert, Trez will all likely leave for greater sums than we paid. Is that success? With Lerner I'd argue to opposite, he had a 5 year plan but focused to much on here and now. It left us with an ageing squad. So the Pitarch role is about finding a balance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delphinho123 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Trez won’t leave for more than we paid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 21 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said: We look unlikely to hit 17th but are only 1 point off, is that 1 point the difference between success and failure. It only takes 1 Watford win and we're in big, big trouble. And remember they are playing Norwich soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveAV1 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 I doubt that the target set was ever 17th. It should have been say 12th. That’s not to say it’s an expectation, but a target to aim for that leaves a margin of error. As for reducing the wage bill when moving up to the PL, I doubt that was an aim, or even possible, if we wanted to be competitive. Sure get rid of the dead wood, but reducing the wage bill when entering the richest league in the world, just ain’t gonna happen. Aa for future saleability, that should be a very minor part of our recruitment not a major criteria. Building a good team should be the criteria. Yes of course paying lots of money for lots of ageing players is an extreme. But a good team needs a balance of youth and experience, plus of course the right quality. Success is measured on the pitch not the P&L account. I’m not dismissing the business element but teams that are successful trade up players and sell their surplus to requirement players for top money. However teams that fail and are ultimately relegated generally lose their players, good and bad, for significantly less than their market value had they been successful. Football is a unique business where product is everything and accounts a sideshow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjvilla Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 15 hours ago, TRO said: We have lost 19 games and conceded 60 goals and its not disastrous, on that basis,god knows what disaster looks like? so the only other alternative is to keep them and see what happens over the course of another 12 months, to see whether, it really was them or the previous manager's fault. That does not sound like a hierarchy, that is keen on decision making.....and based on their accrued personal wealth, I think that is a long shot. The last time we went down? That was far worse than this. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcTheObsession Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 17 hours ago, Tomaszk said: Myth? How have you come to that conclusion? Because you disagree? Are you saying this to try and reaffirm criticism of Smith out of interest? Just wondering. Outgoings on transfers for Brentford: 2016/17 £4.63m 2017/18 £5.4m 2018/19 £5.9m 2019/20 Over £31.5m Not a myth I'm afraid. Very much fact. This is the year they've gone for it. They didn't buy gems who could develop, the bought gems ready to go right into the team. Want to know when they signed their seven most expensive players ever? The summer of 2019. How have you come to the conclusion they've 'gone for it' this year when they've done the same as they always do, spend the majority of what they bring in, but always have a negative net spend. They sold more star players last summer so had to spend more to replace them, but they did what they always do, brought in more than they spent, the exact same thing they did in 17/18 when Smith was there. negative net spend summer just gone: £8m. 18/19 had a bigger negative net spend £25.5m. 17/18 negative net spend £8.5m. They spent money on 8 players last summer, only 2 of them older than 23, Jansson was the main exception to the usual young players from abroad policy. There has been a slight change in policy in signing some others from bigger clubs, but it was still mixed with signings from Barnsley, Sparta, Piast Gliwice, Blackburn, Troyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 We only remove half the problem if we sack only Suso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 3 hours ago, cheltenham_villa said: Should be clear, I dont have any clear feelings about keeping him or getting rid. I was trying to draw a difference between him and dean and playing devils advocate for the debate (this is an internet forum after all). We look unlikely to hit 17th but are only 1 point off, is that 1 point the difference between success and failure. Luiz, Guilbert, Trez will all likely leave for greater sums than we paid. Is that success? With Lerner I'd argue to opposite, he had a 5 year plan but focused to much on here and now. It left us with an ageing squad. So the Pitarch role is about finding a balance? Luiz has buyback clause. Gilbert and certainly Trez - wouldn't show a profit should we sell them Imo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts