The cycle of decline

Its a Travesty Mr matthewWAB .

The pitch fork brigade have much to answer for according to some on here.

 

As a betting man, you know that you cannot pick your horses after the race. And yet you think that you can judge right manager based only on hindsight. If it was that easy, wouldn't every team be picking the right man. The problem is that it is easy after the outcome is known to say that you picked the wrong horse/manager, but far less easy before the outcome is known.

Even with the benefit of hindsight, it could be argued that your judgement of managers is flawed. You argued for the sacking of Hill, Flitcroft and Mellon, but all three have been relatively successful in their next appointment. Horses for courses, you may well argue. I would argue that none were given long enough to put things right at Oakwell. We will never know who is right, but equally, basing your opinion on selective hindsight is equally flawed.

 

Mellon has never been our permanent manager!

 

I offer you logic and reasoning. You offer one line with no rebuttal of the points that I have made. Convince me that my point is not valid.

 

tl;dr

Get rid.

 

Hill, Flitcroft and Mellon don't have the experience of accomplishing our main goals. They were cheap options, and therein lies the problem. You can have stability, and a long term manager and plan - IF the manager is good enough. Lee might become a good manager in time, but he hasn't the experience for our present situation. To argue that we stick with him because we want stability - at any cost - is akin to being a member of the Flat Earth Society. We need to push the boat out in order to get someone who is actually worth sticking with.

 

Well Said Mr O !

 

Who had more experience than Danny Wilson. Who had a better record at Barnsley than Danny Wilson. Did it save him from criticism, did it save him from the same fate as so many before him. No.

You cannot expect any manager to take on a three year plan, young, old, good, or bad and face judgement after just 1 year. When Johnson was appointed, his terms differed from those who came and went before him. They were all appointed on 12 month contracts. Johnson was appointed on a three year contract. This indicates to me at least that the board were prepared to wait for three years before they judged him. One year into the 3 year plan, the fans want shut of him. After just one transfer window out of a possible six the fans are saying enough is enough. Does it not strike you that it is madness to keep changing managers one year into a three year plan. Does it make sense to you to spend £250k per year that could be used to fund player acquisitions on paying off the manager, because if it does one of us must be going crazy.

The cheap option argument is totally fine as long as the is finance there to fund the dear option, and also fund the wages budget and the transfer budget that the dear option wants as part of the deal for signing on. Dear options are dear both in the cost of employing them, and in the costs that they insist is spent on players in order to ensure that the dear option's reputation remains in tact. I am afraid that Cryne's pockets are not that deep, and I'm afraid that the sort of player that the dear option would want is outside our budget according to SCMP. For goodness sake, you just cannot spend your way out of this division. SCMP simply does not allow it.

 

I think that this is a misunderstanding that often crops up in these debates. Do we want instant success? No. Do we understand that long term success needs a longer term vision and a building process? Yes, of course. Are we prepared to put up with any old crap in the meantime? Ah - now there's the question! Mr Cryne is a far wealthier man than me. My entertainment dollar is scarce, and hard-earned. I can work towards a long term vision if I can see promise, and some entertainment along the way. But if what I watch is substandard while someone learns their trade, then there are many more things I can spend my entertainment dollar on. I've seen your comments about after-timing, but Ben and Maurice are paid to be more far-sighted and to use their experience in determining who will succeed in terms of managerial appointments. Lee Johnson's appointment demonstrates a naivety in terms of what is likely to succeed in the short term (bar set lower) and the longer term (bar set higher). What I can't have is that the short term goal of entertaining the fans has to be made totally subservient to the long term goal of building sound foundations and achieving promotion in the longer scheme of things. There has to be a balance - otherwise the footfall (and revenue) disappears. That would leave Mr Cryne underwriting the project before an audience of a few dozen. All of this is not easy - but then I'm not the multi-millionaire.

 

Ah, well. We'll be the biggest club in League 2, especially when Portsmouth and Plymouth are promoted. We'll storm that league ;-)

 

No, and most people didn't want Danny Wilson sacked either. A clear and comprehensive majority didn't. Yes, there was critisism because we were having a rough time but most people could actually see a vision and progress towards it, but that did not stop the board from sacking him. That was not the fans fault. You cannot have a situation where the board are free to screw up in as many ways as possible and it then be the fans fault if we don't then give unconditional support.

 

I generally agree with you & I'm not one calling for a sacking, but every paragraph (after your first 2) of your argument has more holes than our defence.

The fans are not to blame. The team is to blame. The manager is to blame. "The head of recruitment" is to blame. The board are to blame.

The only people not to blame are the people who keep the club going. They are:

1. The fans
2. Patrick Cryne

The thing is it is a free country & both can walk away.

From my point of view the club has been very badly run commercially since PC has taken over.
Has anyone tried buying anything off the clubs's website, or tried buying a drink / food / etc ... a chimpanzee could run the club better I'm afraid.

This is not an attack on Mr Cryne, but the idiots he has employed.

 

The problem is that it is very difficult to play entertaining football if the circumstances are not conducive.

What we do not disagree on is that the team is young and inexperienced. It is here to learn on the job, but it has not gone well, and the team has suffered a loss of confidence. On top of that, we have not been able to recruit the players that we wanted in the last transfer window, which leaves gaps in the way the manager would like to play. Even before the current injury crisis I was saying that we were 4 players short for every system that I could think of. I am sure that the manager would love it if he had the team to play open and entertaining football, but he hasn't, and he has to cut his cloth accordingly. If a new manager takes over, he can do nothing other than scour the market for loanees until the next transfer window opens. In this respect, he is no different to our current manager.

The plans for this season were set when we failed in the transfer market even before the season began. Whose fault is that? Well, we have a restricted budget, particularly the wages budget, which is controlled by SCMP. We were looking for players for too many positions, and perhaps LJ should have retained some players that he really did not fancy. Nevertheless, with LJs title being head coach, there is some doubt about who exactly makes the decisions about which players we sign. One of our biggest problems is the lack of pace in the team, and in my view this is a primary reason for our poor on the field performance. The one player that we signed with pace has played only 25 minutes and we missed out on another when Blackburn refused to let us have O'Sullivan. With these two in the team, the fans, including yourself would be much happier. The above example shows just how close we came to reading a completely different story on here. It show me just how small the margins are between success and failure in this sport.

 

You seem to be obsessed with SCMP. All other clubs at our level have the same restrictions placed upon them, 21 of which are doing better than we are. Of these 21 at least eighteen will have a smaller gross income.

 

Jesus.

I get the nickname of Tolstoy at work for my emails.

Every post of yours whilst interesting at times is certainly Tolstoy esq

 

I thought that Ben Mansford was particularly unconvincing in explaining away the reasons that Danny was sacked, and Patrick Cryne was no better in his later meeting with the BBS at the No7.

However, having said that I have not agreed with the sacking of every manager since Spackman, which I did agree with. In my experience, it is better to just put it behind you and support the next guy as well as you are able.

The king is dead, long live the king.

 

SCMP is the biggest factor for teams playing in our league. If you do not know what it says, then you really need to find out.

 

The point still stands that 24 clubs in L1 all have to work to those rules, most of them with less revenue than we have.

 

It's one of the biggest factors for ALL clubs. You seem to think it affects Barnsley FC more than any other club.