A few comments by Daniel 2018

I've just been reading a few old news snippets from when Daniel took over at Oakwell.I'm not posting to put petrol on the fire but it does give an insight to his views when he first arrived.
"The responsible people at the club have the same vision as me.We all think in the same direction.
The way I want success is mirrored by the people in charge.
If you don't have a plan it won't work.At Barnsley there is a plan that is very clear and becomes a pathway to success."
From CEO."Daniel has a philosophy of using and developing younger players which fits in to our model".
So that says to me he came here with his eyes wide open.
Another thing I'd like some opinion on is our policy of bringing players in under 25.Is it possible when the identified players were chosen he thought the ones at 21 were better than some of the 24/25 year olds.?
Just a thought.

 

Of course he knew but like a lot of fans he thought we'd build on the team we had in the championship. I'm sure he didnt think he'd have an ever younger, less experienced team each year.

 

No disrespect but you don't know what Daniel thought.Plans are plans and if he bought into it like he said you have to respect him.Like he said the plan "is a pathway to success."

 

What is your opinion on this?
"we end up with 3. Do 15mn clips of good things and bad things and what the player needs to be improved to take player from a to b. Asses their potential. Then show Daniel"

 

He also said after the sheffield United freindly we needed experience to be competitive in the championship.
I don't think he imagined getting promoted losing his top scorer days before the window ended, his 2 centre backs sold 3 centre backs brought in who haven't played in the championship before.

 

You're ignoring the bit where it's stated that Daniel was involved right at the start - 'Start the process with identifying the way we want to play so worked with Daniel to do that. Daniel works with the recruitment team to come up with profiles for each position based on the way he wants us to play.'

 

It's a fair point you make. I am still against the sacking of Stendel but in fairness the board were quite clear on the plan before he joined.

However, when it's clear the plan isn't working then surely common sense dictates that changes need to be to made. You could argue that one such change would be to sack the manager, however, it seems clear to me that the manager wasn't the problem. He was employed to play pressing football and improve younger players. That's exactly what he has done throughout his time in charge.

I could understand the sacking if the board thought that Stendel's unwillingness to deviate from his style of football was costing us games. However, the board are demonstrating a similar rigid approach in their transfer policy.

 

And after saying he wants an experienced nippy winger who can cut into the box his involvement ends until James, Paul and friends narrow that list of all the footballers in the world down to just three who are nippy but also young, cheap and with a high potential resale value but lacking in experience because that conflicts with the cheap part.

Don't you think the manager should get a bit more say than that?

 

I don't think the board have a transfer policy, they have an investment policy of buying when a player's stocks are low and trading when they are high. I don't think the impact on the football team comes into it one bit

 

You could well be right. However, I still hope that's not the case and the board also recognise that greater income could also be gained from improving the team and the club. Can't say recent events have convinced me of this though.

 

That wasn't my argument. My point was that he was involved right at the start in terms of creating profiles for each position. It's not a new thing, it's very common. Not many clubs out there now who let their manager sign who he likes ala Keith Hill.

I have stated a hundred times my issues with the recruitment policy. But it's not correct to say Daniel wasn't involved or that he disagreed with it when he arrived. He's basically realised - like Heckingbottom eventually did too - that it's very hard to achieve much at this level when using such a strict and bizarre policy.

 

The fact they cancelled the purchase of a larger scoreboard, removed supporter facilities from half of the west stand rendering it useless, went back on any plans to purchase the ground, went back on their promises of improved perimeter advertising, settled for a local business as sponsor, sold all saleable player assets and have had people running matchday activities free of charge suggest very much to me that improving the team and club is not in their mindset. Everything points to trading in player stocks rather than improving a football club.

 

The case of Pizza Express bought by venture capitalists should serve as a warning to us

 

Thought it was commonly accepted that at least two players were at his request in Radlinger and Bahre, if true it does suggest he gets a bit more say

 

I cant say I'm aware of many of these issues. But if true, you raise some very good points. I think the next year will be very telling.