Confused by your use of the word ‘players’ Mr Badger. Do you mean saleable assets? You’ll be talking about old fashioned ideas like ‘winning’ next. Profit not points Mr B. Profit not points.
Yes problem is Conway's version of leveling up is the same as Boris Johnsons it's more like ******* up than leveling up. If what's happening at the club is the model / strategy / plan or whatever you want to call working god help us if it starts to fail .
Let me understand this correctly. You don’t think signing Kitching when we already have Helik, Madds, Sibbick and Soll is a sign the strategy was working in that moment? Surely that’s exactly what we want? Signing the future of the a certain position before we ultimately move a high performer on?
Where are the high performers apart from the goal keeper. We should be signing players to strengthen weak positions in the squad first and foremost not to cover future asset stripping. How long have we needed a decent left back.
Yes we signed a center half when we'd already got 5 at the club to cover a future sale but didn't strengthen an area that's needed strengthening for God knows how many windows. That's the problem with the way the board are running things we've had a good recent record of signing and selling center halves so all the attention is on on that position to the detriment of overall squad strength. We needed a left back but signed a center half then we try and fill the gap with some kid on loan from Germany and hope it works cause he's from a big club.
Mate I think you’re all over the place on this one. Do you think we definitely needed a LB in January? I think one would have helped, but wasn’t essential and didn’t hinder our shot at promotion. We brought in Dike and Morris as were criminally short up front for Val’s style to really work? I’m not taking about the Summer. Because we didn’t sign Kitching in the Summer.
We've needed a left back for years the problem is we sign players for one reason and that's to sell we've deviated once from that while this board have been in charge and it was a success on the field but according to the board not off it, which is probably why the architects of Dykes and Morris's signatures are earning a living elsewhere and Barnsley FC are bottom of the league but for Derby getting a 21 point deduction.
Quick question. If we only ‘buy to sell’ where do you think success comes in to it make that strategy work? Surely without it everything falls down?
On field success doesn't factor in the boards current strategy, success to them is player sales profit. Ultimately the strategy will fail because while ever the focus is on buying players solely with a view to sales and profitability with no thought given to the overall needs of the squad youll end up with an unbalanced squad. Do you think John Dennis sanctioned the signings of Thompson, Wilkinson, then Hendrie with a view to future profit from selling them or Patrick Cryne signed Adam Hamill because he thought hed make millions selling him. They signed those players because the manager at the time thought they'd improve the squad. You cannot run a sports team like a supermarket yes Barnsley FC need to sell players to survive it always has but unlike today players in the past were brought in because the manager needed them for his squad not because some analyst with a spreadsheet thought that in a couple of years we might be able to sell them for a bit of profit. In the past profitable sales were a handy by product of striving for on field success now they are the sole reason we sign a player and on field success doesn't even figure in the equation. A sports team no longer interested in trying to achieve success in its sport is by definition no longer a sports team we have owners who sadly just don't understand the nature of the beast they own
I’ve not seen anything to suggest this to be true though? You’re also suggesting that signing for success and future profit is mutually exclusive. It can be be both. And if there’s no success you’re chance of future profit diminishes.
Here we go again with the head in the sand act. If on field success was important why have we just suffered the last 6 months. Yes it can be both if you do it right and take into account where you need to strengthen the squad and also don't set arbitrary constraints on things like players ages. Sadly our board don't do it right. Don't tell me on field success will increase the chance of future profit tell the CEO and board they are the ones who believe it doesn't not me.
We lost arguably the third most successful manager in our history. Along with the club captain, the CEO, the club secretary, the star loan signing, the assistant manager, the sports analyst, and probably others. It was a terrible Summer overseen by acting CEO Paul Conway. But it wasn’t done on purpose. Again. Nothing I’ve seen suggests the board don’t want on the field success.
Ask yourself why we lost those people amongst others and your eyes may suddenly lose the rose tinted glasses. What about the sudden change of style from one that brought success to one that's brought anything but success. You've seen nothing that suggests the board don't want on field success because you haven't looked because you don't want to believe it's true. But it's strange that everytime the club looks to be on the up the board have managed to stuff things up led by wrecker in chief Conway
We were always going to change our style of play. Which manager out there plays similar football to Val? Who would you have hired to continue that? In terms of why those people left. Some of them fairly followed Val because of what he achieved here, at Oakwell. Whilst others probably just took a promotion and a pay rise as anyone in an office based/non playing or training staff role would. Is it because I haven’t looked or because you’re obsessed with finding it? Answer is neither, because this suggestion they don’t want success is so out of sync with the same people suggesting they just want to make money from the club. They both go hand in hand - like recruiting a player to make money money further down the line.
There’s been lots talked about our owners and their intentions. I think that there is a strong correlation between player values and success on the field. Unless a club has an unbelievable talent, the value of players in a team is heavily driven by the league they are playing, the contract they are on and and their recent success. This probably goes some way to explaining why the transfer fees received by BFC lag other championship clubs. With the exception of last year we’ve struggled at the wrong end of the league and players have been on relatively short contracts. The average fees received are also massively skewed by relegated teams from the premier league off loading star talents. So are Conway et al deliberately scuppering the clubs chances on the field? I actually don’t think this at all, as it would make no financial sense. They’ve come in to football with a view that there are profits to be made by utilising data. They have minimal experience of football prior to their investment in Nice. Sometimes, what we may see as a conspiracy, is more incompetence. Let’s hope there isn’t more incompetence to come. On the question of players sold for profit, I doubt, with the exception of Helik, Collins and maybe Styles, none of our players could be sold for profit in the current market.
Heres a question that plays on me....hypothetically lets pretend we sell a star player for £20 million (more than enough to get another half decent player in and pay eveyone else a good wage to keep them at oakwell) then we get offers for 2 or 3 of our other better players......what do you think our owners would do?