|
Post by inee on Aug 8, 2014 20:48:32 GMT
"JW being blamed for everything" not sure that's not an unreasonable suggestion given he signed the players & picked the team etc? depends on how you view his initial employment with the club, the bod knew his heart wasn't 100% in it due to outside issues etc, he also we are told asked to move upstair but dint until the last possible moment, and as i've said before was a member of the board encouraged to employ jw by others(give em enough rope etc , of course these are my personal views) but there are way to many coincidences to believe any sane person would have employed jw given his personal circumstances
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 21:04:21 GMT
It will do both probably. The two things i most want to hear are 1. We will start making the budget what we realistically will receive in turnover over the year rather then £500000 higher. (For our long term survival) 2. Something very thorough about improving our player recruitment (scouting at first team and youth level) The constant debt increase year on year puts not only our future at risk but reduces the likelihood of a takeover. Also the relative success of my era has been as a result of excellent scouting. We ballsed that up and need to put it back on track. Id be happy with that If the BoD are prepared to keep ploughing £500K of their own money into the club every year umtil the UWE is built why should they be discouraged? What they do need to do is ensure the budget is spent on players like Smith & not wasted on the likes of Kenneth & Gill. Scouting wise DC seems to be doing a reasonable job so far, but what we need to do his target young players, like Smith, not journey men. in fairness some journeyman professionals are the heart and soul of the game like craig disley or mark mcchrystal its just getting the right value for money ones that were hoping monkhouse and mansell are not your gary kenneth type overweight lazy idiots
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 21:06:09 GMT
There's nothing wrong with overweight lazy idiots....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 21:11:57 GMT
There's nothing wrong with overweight lazy idiots.... i agree as long as there not pros at my club!
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 8, 2014 22:19:22 GMT
The way I see it is there ain't going to be a published report into what went wrong or anything like that. Even if there was we've all got our own opinion on what went wrong so what's the good in Higgs going " I failed at this I failed at that " ? In my opinion the main problem was Higgs getting a piece of paper with names on that the manager wanted every summer and then going off and negotiating the deals himself. He admitted that's how he worked on radio Bristol. What that left us with was a massively unbalanced squad of players who were over the hill, disinterested or injury prone. Quite often a combination of all three. We'll all see if that's changed over the first few games. I've got absolutely no faith in his ability to run the football side of our football club and very little faith in his ability to run the other things either, but if he's been clear with Darrel Clarke about our playing budget and Clarkes been allowed to do things his way then that will be the biggest problem solved. I'm not actually interested in a report to the fans into what went wrong what I want is to see Rovers win football matches and I want Higgs to stay out of football matters. No report will come I'm sure if it but we will see whether the football is being controlled by football people or not with our own eyes not some make believe report.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 8, 2014 22:30:03 GMT
I also think that this 3-5-2 formation is a massive risk. Footballs full of risks and nothing ventured nothing gained I know but it's not a formation you see very often in English football particularly in the lower divisions. It's one of the reasons that I feel we could lose all of our first few matches or win them all. Combine the formation with the new division and we're really going into the unknown tomorrow aren't we. I've got to be honest every time I think about it I think of the Mansfield game. It was suicide to play that way that game and I just hope that our new team are more adaptable to the formation than our team was that day or we could find ourselves in real trouble early on and without the neccissary players to switch to a more standard set up.
|
|
|
Post by Big Dave on Aug 8, 2014 22:41:23 GMT
I also think that this 3-5-2 formation is a massive risk. Footballs full of risks and nothing ventured nothing gained I know but it's not a formation you see very often in English football particularly in the lower divisions. It's one of the reasons that I feel we could lose all of our first few matches or win them all. Combine the formation with the new division and we're really going into the unknown tomorrow aren't we. I've got to be honest every time I think about it I think of the Mansfield game. It was suicide to play that way that game and I just hope that our new team are more adaptable to the formation than our team was that day or we could find ourselves in real trouble early on and without the neccissary players to switch to a more standard set up. The way I look at it is this: The Chairman/BoD have picked Darrell, and the players/fans have to back this decision Darrell has picked his players (and trained them) this summer, and the Bod/fans have to assume he's done a good job. The players have been signed, and they have to perform. As we all do at work...daily... 4-4-2, 3-5-2, 5-3-1-1, 3-2-2-2-1....who cares? Not us as fans....as long as the Chairman/BoD/Darrell/management team/players both do (and have done enough) to score more goals than our opposition in any given 90-minute period, I will be happy...so bring on the first 90 mnutes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 23:25:22 GMT
I also think that this 3-5-2 formation is a massive risk. Footballs full of risks and nothing ventured nothing gained I know but it's not a formation you see very often in English football particularly in the lower divisions. It's one of the reasons that I feel we could lose all of our first few matches or win them all. Combine the formation with the new division and we're really going into the unknown tomorrow aren't we. I've got to be honest every time I think about it I think of the Mansfield game. It was suicide to play that way that game and I just hope that our new team are more adaptable to the formation than our team was that day or we could find ourselves in real trouble early on and without the neccissary players to switch to a more standard set up. The way I look at it is this: The Chairman/BoD have picked Darrell, and the players/fans have to back this decision Darrell has picked his players (and trained them) this summer, and the Bod/fans have to assume he's done a good job. The players have been signed, and they have to perform. As we all do at work...daily... 4-4-2, 3-5-2, 5-3-1-1, 3-2-2-2-1....who cares? Not us as fans....as long as the Chairman/BoD/Darrell/management team/players both do (and have done enough) to score more goals than our opposition in any given 90-minute period, I will be happy...so bring on the first 90 mnutes! i agree with this,formations are something you try to impose on your opponents but there not set in stone,sometimes when things go wrong you can mirror your opponents formation and still get a result,if we play 3 at the back tomorrow and grimsby play 3 up front one of the teams will adjust there system but if your opponents force you to compromise your formation it dosnt mean you will automatically lose. good players at there respective level will find solutions to win games with help from the manager and irrespective of formations
|
|