So January the big test

Then the dish ran away with the spoon.

 

Absolutely not - and I'm sure that nobody is suggesting that has ever been said because its illogical. There's less revenue, less income, less gate money and less resale value for players. To say they want to go down is wrong.

However, for supposed "successful" business persons, they aren't have making a balls of avoiding it.

 

Not at all.

what he said was ambiguous, the conclusion chosen by many is that on field success isn’t important. That is fc uking idiotic IMO.

You can choose to believe that our owners are stupid enough to choose relegation because of a mistaken belief it’ll improve player values. But for me; whilst I don’t think they’re genius’, I can believe they’re that stupid.

 

Agree they might not actually have a clue about how to run a successful football club, but they havent got to where they are(in their respective careers) by being stupid.

 

Yes I agree they obviously don't want us to be relegated but the path they chose increases the chance of that.

 

Putting the CEO's comments about bids and player value to one side, mainly because it was lunacy. I can see why we'd want to evolve the style from last season, to be a bit better in possession because you would burn your forwards out pretty quickly. But to try to switch from a high press style to a deep lying counter attacking team was just lunacy.

January will be a big test. It is possible to make profit on player sales but still improve the starting 11, such is the inbalance of the squad. If a couple of midfielders could be brought in, loan or otherwise then it would make the sale of one or two players a bit more palatable.

 

I suppose the thinking is that if we are doing well in league one out players will have more value than struggling in the championship. Of course the massive offset in revenue doesn't cover that so it clearly nonsense.
I suppose the bottom line of why were are going to be relegated is we have one of the lowest budgets in the league.
We stick to our policy of bringing in young inexperienced players with the hope of a profit.
We generally refuse to use the loan market as a way to supplement the squad with experience. (Some expectations)
We have left ourselves with a poor unbalanced squad attempting to play a style of football beyond their ability.

 

Regardless of whether the style was entertaining or how many players we sold, that style of football won us football games, which is the whole point of the game in the first place! The CEO & the owners are wrong, & couldn’t run a piss up in a brewery, it’s time they pissed off because nobody wants em at the club anymore! We are a laughing stock.

 

I've searched and can't find it.

But im sure one of our "owners" was quoted in summing up as saying to Khaled the style last season brought no bids.

Until I find the post, I'll not mention the specific owner who was noted


Edit

It's here

http://barnsleyfc.org.uk/threads/ch...is-to-increase-the-value-of-the-squad.308909/

 

I no longer believe we make any decisions with sporting success being the main reason for that decision. We are run by an investment vehicle. All decisions made by that vehicle are to minimise investment and maximise profit. It’s the reason they exists and stating so should be uncontroversial.

Sure a successful side where we make sone valuable player sales is a bonus but we must to achieve the requisite play in a style that maximises potential reward.

Players may very well be more valuable after a successful season on L1 rather than abject failure in the Championship.

With that as background I think the CEO was just being honest when he said the change in style was in part an attempt to add value to the playing squad

The surprise for a financially driven board was to replace MS with a more defensive version. It won’t maximise value in attacking players (where the money is) and is an abject failure.


At the same time let’s be honest based on performance we should have been relegated in 19/20

in terms of relations between board and fans it will always be tense as we want different things. We want sporting success to at least play a part in the decision making (like the signing of Solbauer for example).

In an ideal world they find a buyer with a slightly different mindset. Not one who wants to Chuck the plan away but realises it needs to be flexible and funding needs to be increased to make it work in the Championship. But it’s not an ideal world do the unhappy marriage will potentially continue.

 

El-Ahmad talking about the change in style from Ismael

"Barnsley had one of the five best seasons in their history - but there was not one offer for any player. If you look at developing and marketing the players, the value was zero."

They changed a successful style to improve the chance to sell players.

 

And who fed that to the CEO

 

They haven't changed it though have they despite as you say it going catastrophically wrong and surely if league position was even a small factor in the boards thinking changes to the playing style and set up would have been made. I mean the issues with the new system have been evident since the first game and were still evident during the last one yet apart from the new head coach tinkering around the edges to try and make us more defensive it's still 343 and trying to play out from the back and a left back playing in the front three.

 

It's only mental if you believe turnover is more important than profit, which, ironically, is mental.

I can't and haven't spoken about the club's intentions or ambitions in this regard, but it is my belief there is much better potential for profit while flirting with promotion in League 1 than relegation from the Championship using the model we adopt.

Of course, that precludes you from the huge profit that could be made with promotion to the Premier League, but if you don't think that's possible...

 

The biggest problem with what he said was, that it was bs. In the summer, noises from the club were that bids would have to be record fees received for us to consider selling, so around £5m+. If they'd said Helik was available for £2.5m, there'd have been a bid and he'd have been sold. Less than 12 months after signing him for a six figure fee. Similarly, if the club had put a price on Brittain's head that was double what they paid for him, in all likelyhood there would have been a taker.

The players' values did go up, just not to a level that the club wanted to sell for at the time.