FAO Dane Murphy, Paul Conway.

No player wants to play for Barnsley. All would leave if they believed they could get more money or a better club That’s just a romantic fans notion. Our model actively encourages disloyalty.

It’s not unreasonable to expect an employee to honour a contract they have signed.

Our owners bought the club to make money not as an altruistic endeavour. I’m happy they are here and people can go overboard with the criticism but let’s not romanticise their involvement

 

you are on a roll. you're talking so much sense it's making me feel dizzy. however, I fear that those that you wish to see sense will see no sense at all. your logic is sound but a football fan refuses to see logic until their club ceases to exist....and sometimes not even then.
it's a thin tightrope we walk.

 

Again, unsubstantiated as neither you nor I know that. They just sold a future that the late PC and his family bought into for the right price.
So how would you describe the abortion of the summers comings and goings then?
Because if we weren’t set up to fail then it was surely naivety in the extreme.

Of course they’d play, they are professional footballers under contract, if they didn’t they wouldn’t get a transfer otherwise we may as well offer just short term deals which goes against the ‘plan’. This isn’t a disgruntled ball bearing Technician from koyo who’s not churning out the required number of roller bearings a week, these are professional footballers under contract to play for Barnsley fc playing for their future career moves.

If we keep on this tack of not trying to be even the slightest bit competitive when we reach the championship and want to improve then what’s the point in it all really eh?

 

However, over many years, Red Rain has proven a very consistent poster and has stated the same kind of opinion regardless of ownership.

 

Meh!

 

I disagree.
the players we have want to play for Barnsley. whether it's to further their careers or because they love the club(Brown, Williams, Mowatt, Woodrow etc?) is academic....they need the club to succeed as it will help with their careers.
I agree that it's not unreasonable to expect an employee to honour a contract but what's the point if they don't want to work for you? there is no point. if they don't want to stay then let them go.
I'm glad we have these owners and I am pleased they stepped in and saved the club.
I'm not romanticising their involvement either. they want a ROI and for that reason I believe they are here for the long haul.....unless of course the "fans" drive them out.....and if that happens we really are in the ****.

 

Maybe but his opinions and responses to my posts are clouded with his POV only and partially untrue in respect of sound-biting stuff I’ve not said.

 

those players don’t want to play for Barnsley. If another club came in for them or their agent told them that they could get interest they’d be off in a heartbeat. We have a symbiotic relationship with them. They need us to showcase their talents to further their careers we need them to improve so we can sell them for profit. Whether the club ‘succeeds’ or not is academic. It helps of course but relegation didn’t stop say Chris o’Grady or Bradshaw using us a springboard

it’s quite possible they are happy in their work. That they enjoy the environment that doesn’t mean they want to be here or want to play for us.

There is little loyalty in football. It churns people up and spits them out when they are no longer of use.

 

Loyalty works two ways though. Would you be willing to build a career at a club who you know will flog you at the first attempt regardless of your wishes?

 

Of course I have a point of view. I am trying to convince you to think again about what you have said. I have tried to deal with your views accurately and if I have misinterpreted anything that you have said, I apologise. Nevertheless, we disagree fundamentally about our owners and I am trying to show you why I hold the views that I do.

The keystone to any discussion about our owners is motive, and the question that you should ask is why they would have a different motive to that of the fans. That is, why would they want the club to fail when the fans desperately want the club to succeed. If you can tell me why they would have a different motive, then I might see your point of view. But I cannot see why they would have a different motive, so your insistence that they deliberately sabotaged our summer transfer dealings is hard to understand. I have showed you why I hold the views I do. I have pointed you towards the work that I did comparing the accounts of all the clubs in the Championship, work that I believe shows how hard it is to compete in this league, especially when it is allied to the change in governance from SCMP to FFP. I have tried to show you that any alternative plan would require large injections of cash, for which you would need an alternative source. I have done my best to lead your thinking to a different conclusion, but if you are determined not to read the evidence I have submitted, or think about the alternative view that I have put forward, then I can do no more. Sorry to waste your time.

 

I’m beginning to think we should just buy season tickets every other year. That way all we’ll ever experience is success. We can stay at home and not witness the team floundering in the Championship.

 

Spot on.

 

Again twisting and misinterpreting my words to try and reinforce your reply. Where I have said ‘deliberately sabotaged’?
Set us up to fail yes, by being that naive to think reassembling the squad with over half a dozen new players, at least 4 of which were direct replacements for key first team members, who’ve never played together ever is going to be a good idea just before a ball is kicked this season in the championship.
Adding a few experienced players would not I’m sure have needed the massive cash injection you so vehemently persist with as your main argument, to loosely infer or dismiss this idea is simply your POV . You just don’t like that idea but that doesn’t make it wrong, and going off the first quarter of this season probably may have made it the opposite.
The club could have held out for better sums for those sold instead of the championship average sums allegedly received as for want of not repeating myself over and over, were under contract at the club, the whole ideology of the new board I thought, longer contracts mean bigger transfers if sold, no? Is that not the key business plan here for the owners or am I missing something? another avenue that was never taken to generate revenue, instead key players from last seasons success were sold to the first bidders for bang average championship fees, that’s the key here as after all, we’re in the championship regardless of what we bought them for originally, that is now of no relevance to where we are now, again a typical Barnsley trait. This just reinforces other clubs views that if we have a decent player we’ll take the first average bid for them which has now happened and sadly has set us back massively I’d say.

Yes and the owners motives? What were they at Nice exactly? Surely they were the same as here no? Same business model etc? If that doesn’t make you question them then I’m a little puzzled tbh.

I have read all your evidence and I get and somewhat agree that we’ve not got the money to compete equally in this league, nowhere near, we haven’t for decades though as we are all aware but we’ve upset those odds season on season by the correct blend of players. However the average championship sums taken for key players which I believe wasn’t part of the ‘plan’ as I’ve already discussed has ensured that extreme disparity will continue for the foreseeable sadly.
I am saying the owners have been naive in the extreme with their approach to this championship season and now that naivety is becoming clearer every week as the ‘plan’ is falling apart.
Feeling like a stuck record for having another view that has equal merit to yours as far as I’m concerned. We had no money in 96-97 either and were tipped for relegation but that season didn’t turn out too badly mixing experience with youth now did it.

 

As usual some well thought out statements, I do like to read your appraisal of various subjects, including match reports and your detailed analysis of the championship finances.
One thing i would like to raise and discuss though, is your comment on "recruitment is not an exact science"......no it isnt, however the recruitment and squad clearly lacks the "experience" as highlighted by the many including our coach. To expect the playing staff to take on the championship teams over a season, is at best arrogant.
To give daniel and this team any chance of gaining decent results, surely the coach should have been backed slightly, with a minimum of two experienced players.
We now have kids, just running around, we look rudderless and this league is very unforgiving.
For what its worth I actually believe/accept "the plan" but it needs re visiting and tweaking, what successful business plan doesnt?
I think the sale of Potts last season, started my thinking, of these owners. We took good money but failed to replace properly (green was it?), I even get letting Moncur go, to get him off the wage list but i was disappointed to see him go to another rival.
We did not take good money for Pinnock and so we now add the thought we will take vertually any first offer that comes along.
We also sell our leading goalscorer (ok fine) but with no clear or evidence of a replacement.
I get we have to be financially prudent but at the moment, our actions are grab the money and deal with the playing consiquences much later, so not really much of a plan, other than hope everyone else goes bust (again not much of a plan!).
Im sure mist of the players we have signed this summer will come good but not now and not all together, ill bet the spreadsheet doesnt have a space for "how they can knit together".
We need so.e experience and leadership in there, im just scared that come jan, Woody will be allowed to leave, for the USUAL (he wanted a move) excuse.
The recruitment of players is a science, you have to sell (of course) but you also have replace with adequet recruits, not every player needs a "sell on" not if the more experienced players can make the younger ones even better.

 

a mate of mine played for us. Turned up at Oakwell one day and was told we are selling you to a London club. He says I don’t want to go. They said to him well you won’t play for us again and you’ll be training with the kids so make your choice. He ended up leaving never settled and split up from his missis

 

I'll just pick up on this line.

I think it's more accurate to say the owners say they have a plan. They don't say what the objective is, or even loosely how they are going to enact it. After 2 years there are no signs of what this plan is and how it will benefit us.

The only signs are that if a player has increased his value from what he was acquired for, there is a very high likelihood he will be sold. There is no guarantee he will be replaced, let alone adequately and it is likely the player brought in won't be ready and wont have the requisite skills to be able to hit the ground running.

I do believe though that they have a plan. I don't think its primary objective however is what fans would prefer, even if the ambition of solvency is shared.

 

Sounds about right. .

 

I have said elsewhere that some experience would have been an advantage. I have even written that I would have liked to see 1 experienced player in central defense, 1 in midfield and 1 up front. I do not dispute that we did not replace Moore adequately. That is why I wrote, 'recruitment is not an exact science'. Nevertheless, when we missed our targets, I think that we were wise to not take just anyone to fill the gap. I like you, have concluded that we are likely to be relegated this season. You and I both know that relegation will cost the club £6 in turnover, and that only some of that sum will be recovered through lower wages, so let us look at the alternatives. We could have taken say 3 more experienced players for whom we had not done adequate research. Because they had not been researched, it is more likely than not that they would have proved to be a mistake. Let us assume that they were signed on 3 year contracts, that they cost £1m in transfer fee each and that their contracts were worth £500k per year each. The total costs for each player is £1m transfer fee and £1.5m in pay, a cost of £2.5m per player or £7.5m in total. My guess is that that sum is £2.5m more than the net sum we will lose through being relegated, and we still could have been relegated anyway. Panic decisions are rarely the right decisions. The fans are fans and they react as fans. The owners must react as business people. They must try to make the right decisions in spite of the pressure.

The example above is just that. It is in no way factual. I have used it simply to illustrate a point about the difference between how persons in positions of responsibility must react, and how that reaction must be different to the reaction of those simply trying to exorcise their frustrations. A lot of money can be lost very quickly in the business of football, and it is important that decisions are taken with proper regard for risk, financial prudence and possible reward. The fans must expect their analysis of any situation to be different from that of a decision-maker.

 

Doesn't that appear to be more or less what we've done with Patrick Schmidt, though?

 

No idea. I have read lots of opinion about Schmidt, some saying he had been on our radar for 6 month and some that he was a last minute decision. However, he is in no way experienced. He is a kid and he is here to learn and develop. He was never advertised at a finished product.