We have changed the successful playing style to one which is designed to make our players more appealing to other sides. So let's see if we can manage to sell some players. If we do then those at the top will see it is vindication of the change. Because apparently results are secondary to this target.
The indirect quote is surely when Khaled said that our due to the playing style of last season we didn't receive a single bid for any of our players so he wanted to change that? Despite ignoring the fact that it was our 3rd highest league finish ever.
We don’t need to see any quotes. Actions speak louder than any words. The fact we’ve taken a small fee to allow Kane to stay at Oxford says it all really. We’ve accepted relegation and are grabbing what bit of cash we can on the way.
Yes and given he hadn't been here long when he said it I would guess it was something that was briefed to him. He probably wasn't supposed to share that with us though. Last season is seen as a failure because we didn't go up or receive and bids for players. Now I suppose that's a fair argument to be made from one perspective. It has however left me feeling rather disconnected from the club. We made the play offs last season with a team that on paper wasn't good enough to do so. The conclusion, we shouldn't play that way way anymore.
Have you been living on the moon? All folk have talked about for weeks since the indirect quote was made
But at no point has it been said by anyone at the club that success on the field is secondary to selling players. All that was said was a fair comment/observation that despite it being our third most successful league finish ever, we didn’t get any bids for our star players. As a club that relies on promotion or player sales to essentially survive, they wanted to enhance player value by playing a more attractive brand of football. It’s obviously gone catastrophically wrong but I’m pretty sure that decision wasn’t made with on the pitch failure in mind. Maybe they wanted both?
They probably did want both, doesn't everyone. It's hard for us fans as it's painful obvious what would happen.
they changed a successful style which had seen one of our most successful seasons. Instead of building on this the decided to change everything in search of improving our player value and saleability. They brought in a coach who played a completely different style. Had the chance after seeing it was a complete disaster to change things and bring in a coach who plays a closer style to last season and try to get us out of this mess. But they didn’t it’s just more of the same
People have repeated this a lot. But considering how ‘fan friendly’ Val’s style was (I loved it by the way), who else was out there to build on that style? I’ve never seen an opposition setup like we did last season. It wasn’t target man hoof ball like many would have you believe, so a British Warnock/McCarthy type wouldn’t have necessarily worked. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I also believe that more people than would be prepared to admit, would have accepted and encouraged a tweak to the style and for us to play more football. FYI they decided to change it because they didn’t believe it was sustainable. They’re being proven wrong on that, but player value wasn’t the only reason quoted in that interview.
No it’s not. It’s a ridiculous assumption based on a badly worded quote. No one with an IQ over 20 could believe that losing games and getting relegated will enhance the value of players. Yet bizarrely the Dunning Kruger crowd believe they know more than the people running the club, so therefore believe our owners are the only people in the world of football who don’t understand that on pitch failure equals financial failure. it’s idiocy - and it’s not the first time I’ve called it out, and I’m not the only one to have done so.
Regarding your last paragraph: Khaled said that they're changing the style because we didn't receive any bids. He didn't say that they're changing the style because it's not sustainable and they believe they can improve on it. Bids were mentioned specifically. On field improvement was not. Unless I'm spectacularly misremembering it - which has been known.
He also said they didn’t believe that our style was sustainable and talked about empty stadiums and the five subs.
Well there you go - I did misremember. I was probably blinded with rage that we were ripping up the template to a brilliant season.
Aren’t the assumptions coming from those who’ve taken his words and morphed it in to ‘on the field success is secondary to selling players’? As if the owners don’t want us to be successful?
I'm not interested in what our CEO has to say. As long as him and their lass are happy he couldn't give a toss. He'll measure his success on how many cars he has on his drive.
Mate everything else you said is right though. But I don’t think there was anything wrong with his observation on the incoming bids, or lack of. I think Covid was the actual reason but I’m also sure that the playing style would make potential suitors hesitant on a couple of players. Like I said. I think some, not all, of the people complaining also complained about Val’s style everytime we didn’t win and said he’d been ‘found out’.
I don’t think people are saying the owners don’t what to be successful. But they see success as how much money they make not how high up the league we are. had we been a little bit better than we are this season , finished 21st and sold 3 players they would be over the moon
Possibly. Massive assumption though and not what the quote said. Have you seen the posts that suggest the owners prefer us to be in League One by the way?