Stop insulting our intelligence, please

I've never previously bought in to the allegations of "spin' and such like which have been directed at the BFC stewardship over recent months, but if (and I wasn't at the meeting myself admittedly) we are now being told that our transfer policy was dependent upon Stones being sold then the club really are insulting our collective intelligence, and personally I've had enough.

I can only liken it to a 'bad trip'. It's as confusing as hearing colours and seeing sounds whenever BFC go public these days. My brain is being fed information but reality is telling me a whole different story.

It's ******* mental. Stop it, please.

Let's be reight. We have the stink of relegation to Division 4 all over us. We are ******* ***** at football. I mean really *****. Then on top of that we are being fed misinformation on a regular basis.

I know the football has been worse than this at times in our dim and distant Division 4 pre-history, but in the 25+ years that I've been following the Reds it's never been this ******* depressing.

If we're incapable of producing a decent 3rd Division football team, then can we at least ask the club to treat the fan base with a level of respect deserving of the numbers that have followed the club home (until recent weeks) and away through season after season of ultimately utter *****.

Stop telling porkies BFC.

 

Post of the year.

 

Mike, I was at the meeting.

Lee Johnson said we had two shopping lists, one without money from a Stones sale and one with money from a Stones sale.

He went on to explain that players in their late 20's, sometimes early 30's, who are proven at this level, very often have little or no sell on value and they don't come cheap in terms of wages. I took it to be the likes of Leon Clarke and Tom Pope who he was referring to.

He said this type of player was on the shopping list if money became available from the Stones sale, but that type of player would not be recruited without money from the Stones deal because we simply did not have money to spend on that sort of player who had no re-sale value.

The players on the other shopping list (without money from a Stones sale) were players who were young and could be sold eventually at a profit, in the same mould as Davies, Roberts, Mawson, Scowen and Hourihane.

So in a nutshell, we weren't told that the transfer policy was dependent on Stones being sold, we were 100% told what I have just described.

 

That is not quite true. We were told that we had a top six budget and taking into account the reasons why Danny was sacked the statement made by Ben is even more under the microscope. Not once we were told that we would have six loan players in our squad in July. The Holgate money was a bonus on top of the top six budget we already had, the Stones money was not even a consideration because Chelsea hadn't even made an approach. We are not being told the truth IMO.

 

Cheers Keith. I wasn't able to summarise that in 140 Twitter characters and was probably only thing I didn't cover in a clear detail as you.

 

That's fair - the only issue I have, speaking as someone who takes info from the clubs website & social media feed - the policy has always seemed to be presented that we were going down the young player with resale value route. We'd tried old heads/journeymen and it hadn't worked.

Now all of a sudden we can have experience but not until Stones gets sold.

In that context I can see how fans get confused. Not excusing personal abuse at all, but I think they're in a right tangle at Oakwell.

 

Cheers, mate. Much appreciated. You've always been one of the top posters on here and one of the most trustworthy.

 

Sorry Mario, what I meant was LAST NIGHT we weren't told that, I agree that we were told the other bit that you mention earlier in the season

 

Thanks for that.

 

From last nights meeting, I picked up that LJ/BM/PC have now started to realise that we can't go solely down the route of 'young players/re-saleable assets' because results are showing everybody that such a young and inexperienced team can't hack it in this league, particularly when we get injuries to our more experienced players.

The approach now seems to be changing to (and rightly so in my view) to one where we have to throw a couple of older, more experienced heads into the team to help the young lads, even though that type of player does come at a higher cost, probably with no 'sell-on' value.

The problem now is finding that type of player (quickly) at a cost that we can afford for somebody who is match fit, willing to sign for us and can hit the ground running straightaway

 

So at what point did the club become aware that Stones might be sold and therefore produce a second budget?

Was it before or after the intimation that we had a top 6 budget?

But in fact can't outspend Bury?

 

We all knew this in July/August

 

Cheers. Fair enough, perhaps they need a more football experienced chap on the board to try and foresee these things and offer an alternate ?

 

This is genuinely scary.

Scary that they're starting to realise this now.

How 3 people in such positions didn't realise this up front I'll never know

 

Hugo Colace it is then.

 

Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!

 

Two words

TERRY BUTCHER

 

Chortle

Don't joke, we have been told he and PC have stayed in touch

Must have rated him.

 

It's worth going back and looking at those posts because the majority of people were predicting the play-offs.

 

When this strategy was talked about it was a clear issue that we'd need experience

Well, not that clear.