Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2021 17:52:43 GMT
He did and Garner's response was he only intended playing one striker, so three strikers including Nicholson was enough, that does sound plausible. Don't forget the squad was so full we had to put Ogogo etc in the stands so there was no room for another striker, there were plenty of LB's for Ben to choose from though. Signing Liddle and Kioki were some of the strangest signings we've ever made. 3 strikers was always a nonsense decision. What happens if he wanted to mix things up and go with 2 upfront for whatever reason and we had one striker injured? Who is their to come on and make an impact off the bench if needed? I don’t disagree with this Pirate but if the manager is says we’re fine with 3 plus Nicholson and then highly rated development players (Walker, Warwick etc) then what does the CEO do? He either sacks the manager (but what the rationale? Incompetence? That will always be difficult to prove as it’s subjective before a season has really started and it’s also not only his decision or force a player/sign one behind the managers back and that then is interfering and undermining the manager). For January, similar rationale applies and it’s not like we didn’t try to sign a striker - we missed out despite deals being agreed due to players decisions. We also were after a specific type of striker and there weren’t many of those types available. No one disputes we needed an experienced striker but I think pointing the blame at Starnes is wrong
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 18,620
|
Post by pirate on May 8, 2021 17:58:50 GMT
Why didn't you go for someone else after we missed the boat on Piggott? You not think it’s strange that Garner was pushing for a striker and the deal didn’t get done and Tisdale was pushing for a striker and the deal didn’t get done... I think it is strange that we didn't sign another striker after Piggott and I think it's strange that we didn't have attacking options lined up early in the January window, even if that was to increase our threat in other areas like Gillingham, Mk Dons, Doncaster and Shrewsbury did with their recruitment.
|
|
|
Post by yetigas on May 8, 2021 18:02:06 GMT
I don't agree with your pro Garner agenda, but I can't disagree with this post. I'm no sports scientist but I'm tempted to call BS that pre season could still have a severely damaging effect on the team even at the end of the season. Fully prepared to be corrected on that though by people more knowledgeable than me. I do think that only bringing the players back in for training on the Thursday, considering we've got the summer break after Saturday, is highly questionable. What have the players done to deserve a 4 day break after the last game!? What's the point in one(?) additional training session, do you really think that's going to change the outcome tomorrow? Barton's making his bed by seemingly moving on most of this season's under performing players, I wonder if the posters criticising him, are prepared to do the same if he does turn things around and make us into a top 7 challenging side next season. I seriously think some posters will be gutted if he does. I can't imagine anyone being gutted if we are a top 7 challenging side. However, I think there will be some (me included) who will be gutted if we are NOT a top 7 challenging side. Having blamed everyone he could think of for the relegation, next season he will need to take responsibility and show us how good a manager he really is. His performance so far doesn't fill me with confidence, but I will happily give him the benefit of the doubt for now, and hopefully next season we will be happily reflecting on winning football as we all travel home from Barrow, Hartlepool, Carlisle and all the other places we haven't had the pleasure to have visited for a while.
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on May 8, 2021 18:03:06 GMT
You not think it’s strange that Garner was pushing for a striker and the deal didn’t get done and Tisdale was pushing for a striker and the deal didn’t get done... I think it is strange that we didn't sign another striker after Piggott and I think it's strange that we didn't have attacking options lined up early in the January window, even if that was to increase our threat in other areas like Gillingham, Mk Dons, Doncaster and Shrewsbury did with their recruitment. I think it quite clearly shows that both Garner and Tisdale wanted strikers...I also think it’s clear that Starnes (by his own admission) negotiated the contracts. If our managers and recruitment team requested a striker and gave player names but the CEO couldn’t get the deals done it sits with him. Imagine if we had signed Pigott or Stockley? The season could have been so different. Also, if Garner clearly wanted a striker why did we sign Liddle and Koiki after he asked for Piggot? My guess is they were cheap!
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 18,620
|
Post by pirate on May 8, 2021 18:07:58 GMT
3 strikers was always a nonsense decision. What happens if he wanted to mix things up and go with 2 upfront for whatever reason and we had one striker injured? Who is their to come on and make an impact off the bench if needed? I don’t disagree with this Pirate but if the manager is says we’re fine with 3 plus Nicholson and then highly rated development players (Walker, Warwick etc) then what does the CEO do? He either sacks the manager (but what the rationale? Incompetence? That will always be difficult to prove as it’s subjective before a season has really started and it’s also not only his decision or force a player/sign one behind the managers back and that then is interfering and undermining the manager). For January, similar rationale applies and it’s not like we didn’t try to sign a striker - we missed out despite deals being agreed due to players decisions. We also were after a specific type of striker and there weren’t many of those types available. No one disputes we needed an experienced striker but I think pointing the blame at Starnes is wrong Starnes and Widdrington should have explained in no uncertain terms to the managers that what we had was not enough. Walker isn't a striker and no offence to Warwick he hasn't even scored goals in his loan spells in the Southern League and didn't manage a goal in 9 games this season in the Welsh league. Im sorry, but there was enough time in January to improve a club record tally of games without scoring and as I said before, if we weren't able to secure the type of player Tisdsle wanted then he should have been looking to strengthen in other areas and increase our goalscoring options that way.
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 18,620
|
Post by pirate on May 8, 2021 18:09:19 GMT
I think it is strange that we didn't sign another striker after Piggott and I think it's strange that we didn't have attacking options lined up early in the January window, even if that was to increase our threat in other areas like Gillingham, Mk Dons, Doncaster and Shrewsbury did with their recruitment. I think it quite clearly shows that both Garner and Tisdale wanted strikers...I also think it’s clear that Starnes (by his own admission) negotiated the contracts. If our managers and recruitment team requested a striker and gave player names but the CEO couldn’t get the deals done it sits with him. Imagine if we had signed Pigott or Stockley? The season could have been so different. Also, if Garner clearly wanted a striker why did we sign Liddle and Koiki after he asked for Piggot? My guess is they were cheap! I'd clear out both Starnes and Widdrington. Both have failed and I'm amazed they are still in the job.
|
|
|
Post by alanrg on May 8, 2021 18:11:54 GMT
Well said Pirate
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 8, 2021 18:18:40 GMT
Why didn't you go for someone else after we missed the boat on Piggott? You not think it’s strange that Garner was pushing for a striker and the deal didn’t get done and Tisdale was pushing for a striker and the deal didn’t get done... If we offered Preston more than Charlton then what more could the club do, other than force Stockley to sign for us? Let's be honest who thinks Stockley made the wrong decision?
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on May 8, 2021 18:20:16 GMT
You not think it’s strange that Garner was pushing for a striker and the deal didn’t get done and Tisdale was pushing for a striker and the deal didn’t get done... If we offered Preston more than Charlton then what more could the club do, other than force Stockley to sign for us? Let's be honest who thinks Stockley made the wrong decision? What did we offer the player? Maybe Charlton offered a better / longer contract.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2021 18:32:55 GMT
If we offered Preston more than Charlton then what more could the club do, other than force Stockley to sign for us? Let's be honest who thinks Stockley made the wrong decision? What did we offer the player? Maybe Charlton offered a better / longer contract. It's a loan deal!!!!
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on May 8, 2021 18:42:25 GMT
What did we offer the player? Maybe Charlton offered a better / longer contract. It's a loan deal!!!! So how did Starnes offer 50% more then?
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on May 8, 2021 18:45:05 GMT
So how did Starnes offer 50% more then? “Starnes claims an agreement was struck with Preston and Rovers' offer to Stockley was significantly larger than what Charlton had on the table.”
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 8, 2021 18:46:44 GMT
So how did Starnes offer 50% more then? Come on Ben keep up, Starnes claims we offered to contribute 50%(?) more towards his wages at Preston wages than Charton were prepared to offer, so in simple terms we offered, say, £3K a week whereas Charton were only prepared to offer £2K a week
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on May 8, 2021 19:00:12 GMT
So how did Starnes offer 50% more then? Come on Ben keep up, Starnes claims we offered to contribute 50%(?) more towards his wages at Preston wages than Charton were prepared to offer, so in simple terms we offered, say, £3K a week whereas Charton were only prepared to offer £2K a week So Stockley gets the same whichever club he went to? But Starnes clearly said we made a better offer to the player after the deal was done with the club.
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on May 8, 2021 19:01:39 GMT
Where do people get the notion that Starnes should have signed More strikers? He should have advised Garner that we were underweight in strikers and that Garner should address it. Either way about it he should have signed them or he should have shoved a rocket up both their asses and got them to sign a striker regardless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2021 19:03:22 GMT
So how did Starnes offer 50% more then? With a loan deal the two clubs come to an agreement on how much of the players salary they will pay. It would appear our offer was 50% more than Charlton agreed to pay. The player however chose the easier option, a club near the top of the table rather than a relegation fight. He was still getting his full salary though and Preston obviously were happy with what Charlton agreed to pay.
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on May 8, 2021 19:05:25 GMT
So how did Starnes offer 50% more then? With a loan deal the two clubs come to an agreement on how much of the players salary they will pay. It would appear our offer was 50% more than Charlton agreed to pay. The player however chose the easier option, a club near the top of the table rather than a relegation fight. He was still getting his full salary though and Preston obviously were happy with what Charlton agreed to pay. So if the player was always getting the same Salary the absolutely no way was he ever coming to us so why did Starnes even make a phone call? What was the point of any of it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2021 19:11:07 GMT
I don’t disagree with this Pirate but if the manager is says we’re fine with 3 plus Nicholson and then highly rated development players (Walker, Warwick etc) then what does the CEO do? He either sacks the manager (but what the rationale? Incompetence? That will always be difficult to prove as it’s subjective before a season has really started and it’s also not only his decision or force a player/sign one behind the managers back and that then is interfering and undermining the manager). For January, similar rationale applies and it’s not like we didn’t try to sign a striker - we missed out despite deals being agreed due to players decisions. We also were after a specific type of striker and there weren’t many of those types available. No one disputes we needed an experienced striker but I think pointing the blame at Starnes is wrong Starnes and Widdrington should have explained in no uncertain terms to the managers that what we had was not enough. Walker isn't a striker and no offence to Warwick he hasn't even scored goals in his loan spells in the Southern League and didn't manage a goal in 9 games this season in the Welsh league. Im sorry, but there was enough time in January to improve a club record tally of games without scoring and as I said before, if we weren't able to secure the type of player Tisdsle wanted then he should have been looking to strengthen in other areas and increase our goalscoring options that way. I completely agree with you on what we should have done and also that Walker isn’t an out and out striker and Warwick (and others) weren’t ready for League 1... I guess my issue is that there is only so much the CEO can do as it’s the remit of the manager to decide what they want and what areas of the squad to strengthen... so my blame is still at Garners and Tisdales door rather than Starnes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2021 19:12:01 GMT
Come on Ben keep up, Starnes claims we offered to contribute 50%(?) more towards his wages at Preston wages than Charton were prepared to offer, so in simple terms we offered, say, £3K a week whereas Charton were only prepared to offer £2K a week So Stockley gets the same whichever club he went to? But Starnes clearly said we made a better offer to the player after the deal was done with the club. Stockley would have been on a wage at Preston (for example £8000 per week). Charlton could have offered to contribute £3000 per week towards his wages, Rovers offer to contribute £4500 per week. Rovers offer is 50% more than Charlton’s. Stockley stays on the same £8k per week regardless of what happens and decides he wants to go to Charlton not Rovers for footballing reasons. Preston can’t do much about it, they could reject Charlton’s offer but Stockley could then have just stayed put leaving Preston stuck paying his full wages and restricting their budget for any signings of their own in that window.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2021 19:17:16 GMT
With a loan deal the two clubs come to an agreement on how much of the players salary they will pay. It would appear our offer was 50% more than Charlton agreed to pay. The player however chose the easier option, a club near the top of the table rather than a relegation fight. He was still getting his full salary though and Preston obviously were happy with what Charlton agreed to pay. So if the player was always getting the same Salary the absolutely no way was he ever coming to us so why did Starnes even make a phone call? What was the point of any of it? From what I’ve heard it was quite close to being done. Charlton came in late and, despite their offer being less attractive to Preston than ours, Stockley wanted to play in a team at the top end of the table. If I was in his shoes I would have done exactly the same. Perhaps we should never aspire to make decent signings and not make those “phone calls” in case some other team comes in at a later stage with a better offer?
|
|