Remember when Cryne said

rip PC

 

If the books balance at the end of the season, and we become a yo-yo team, then they have achieved what they said in some ways.

Cryne wanted someone to take the club forward but also be prudent and protect the club.

It’s hard to take clubs forward in the Champ without loads of money (The Luton Chairman said exactly this last month). So our owners are trying in a different way to take it forward. It worked last season, not this.

I’m just as frustrated as anyone, but I also remember the administration days and all the old loanees earning their last pay day off us.

The very least I expect of BFC is to break-even each year, and have a team who try and play good stuff whilst working hard for the club and not take the p!ss. I accept that we’ll be a yo-yo team in the main - with thy e odd season we might do well in the Champ.

I blame the FA, PL and the EFL. I do not want us to become a debt laden vehicle like Weds, Derby or most other Champ clubs.

 

L. Ron Hubbard

 

Here's one for you. Why does the money received from selling one player have to be split up to buy 3 or 4 replacements? Everything about that says that the squad gets weaker in quality each time not better

 

Gerald Ratner
Fred Goodwin
Nick Leeson

 

Gerald Rather had more respect for his customers than this shower does

 

True. I get that. The club’s not perfect and can improve a lot. This season HAS gone wrong.

But, back to what Cryne wanted - try and improve and balance the books. We’ll achieve part of that this season probably.

 

But what about next season in L1 7 million down in income before a ball is kicked and a squad much worse than last time we went down

 

Clauses in contracts kick in so less wages, and we’ll sell to balance the books (like we sold Potts to last season).

Again - they have stuck to what Cryne said and wished for.

We are in better shape too off the pitch - Oakwell has had money spent on it, the academy and facilities have had money spent on it. And they have supported the fan zone fully.

They have spent money in the pitch too, with varied success (Moore, Woodrow and Chaplin just 3 examples of successes).

No perfect, but they could be a lot worse.

 

Let’s just rewrite history to get more pathetic digs in to the owners . This Consortium walked away from those deals because the asking price and debt of those clubs was too much for them . Cryne went looking for them , not the other way round . Cryne knew exactly who he was selling to and the idea he was conned is an insult to master businessman

 

Bang right.

Cryne looked for someone who would not go crazy with money and saddle the club with debt.

Someone who would try and do well within constraints and slowly over time improve the club.

That’s what we’ve got right now. And that’s what Conway etc said when they took over.

It’s a long term plan - there’s always going to bumps along the way. It’s just how our model works.

Frustrating yes, unexpected no.

 

They have strayed from the plan with the purchase of foreign players.
They won’t make the profits this plan of theirs demands by doing this.
All previous profits have come from English players stepping up who have been cherry picked from the lower leagues.
They have seriously fooked this up and I for one, want them gone.

 

Gibson is on record saying he was not interested in selling to anyone, when they offered to buy into Middlesbrough.

 

It’s fair to say every time we sell a player and then buy to replace nearly always it will weaken the team by default.
The secret to overcome this is to only sell one player at a time, so the impact is manageable. For a variety of reasons that’s where we failed this Summer, by letting so many go at once.
Hopefully with the longer contracts it gives them more scope for when moving players on to stop a repeat.

 

At least we’re not Bury......

 

Unless the replacements are further along their development journies than currently, we have a competitive edge over other clubs in identifying them (and securing them). And they are fewer!
I actually think the theory is sound but we've got the execution horribly wrong lately. Unfortunately, high returns usually come with higher risk. There should be a business plan behind this which gets adjusted as lessons are learned. My suspicion is that it becomes less viable as it's recognised that there is a need for consistent additional top-up funding to succeed. Of course, without knowing the plan in detail, which deliverables are flexible (time, cost, quality etc) and the success criteria, it's difficult to comment.

 

People should also understand that when PC decided to start using this, not many clubs were, which meant we had more players to pick from. A few years on most clubs now use the stats approach, just with different parameters. Meaning we now have less players to pick from and have to compete harder. This is probably what has led them to overseas markets, hoping to steal a march on the competition again.

 

Think you're likely right - we'll always be having to look for emerging markets.

 

The plan for me only works when you replace one for one otherwise it has to be two step forwards one step back.

Sign a player from tier 7, develope him into a tier 3 player. Reinvest that money signing a player from tier 4/5/6/7 is always a step backwards if he is to play in the first team immediately.

The only way it can work is if you hold onto your players for a while as the plan first develops and our greedy owners refused to do t

The only way to actually improve is to a. Only sell enough players so that there is enough remaining to still do the job. This means not selling your only target man and both centre backs. And b. To refuse to sell until your next wave of players have been at the club developing for a year.

For example
Stage one: sign Lindsay and pinnock
Stage two: develop them whilst simultaneously signing young replacements.
Stage three: sell one and bring in one of the previously signed replacements who has been developing in the under 23s for at least a year.

Instead we went down the route of sign, sell, replace with cheaper. It doesn't work. It can't work and it will never work consistently.

The only benefit to this technique is profit

 

Alleluia.