Being competitive in the Championship

I have not posted today in order to be popular, or to attract likes. I have posted because I wanted people to be more realistic about what we are, and what our situation is. I do not mind that you do not share my views. I did not expect anything else. I am trying to get people to rethink things through, and I am giving them genuine information that I have extracted from club accounts at Companies House that will help them to do that. Of course, there will always be those who want to shoot the messenger. Who refuse to use that new information in order to reassess their position. That is something that I am powerless to affect. Some people will always chose to believe what they want to believe, and that is life. That does not change anything though. The facts that I have presented today will still be facts, whether anyone believes them or not

 

Two points RR:
1. You have taken this out of context. Read it. I clearly state: "The argument remains about whether he would've accepted that or chosen to be disruptive". My comment was in response to a suggestion that people suggested that BFC match the wages Pinnock could command at Brentford. I do not believe anyone advocated that.
2. I could counter every one of your what if's. What if his commitment wasn't lessened? What if his performances were such that he was our defensive king-pin, saving us goals, earning more points and accelerating the development of our new young players? What if his value increased as a result of his outstanding performances and more clubs wanted his signature (he's definitely now rated very highly and his value has appreciated considerably)? What if his agents accepted that now wasn't the right time for Barnsley FC and that the timing had to suit both parties, but that we would agree to a move in January? What if other young players saw another high profile transfer that reinforced their view that Barnsley was a great club to play for to develop and progress?

Our trading strategy should not be so far in favour of the player that they can dictate whenever they want to move on. There has to be a tacit understanding that we will allow players to move when we cannot match the wage available elsewhere AND when the timing is right for us. You state exactly this in your reply but then contradict yourself by saying we had to let him go then. We didn't, it was our choice.

Your replies are increasingly Trump like in that you appear to believe that if you state things with enough conviction they will automatically be accepted and you become 'right'. You might believe them but they are not right, it is not black and white.

 

Thanks

 

To clear things up, my opinions are my opinions, and they are not necessarily right. My figures are taken from annual accounts, and they are right.

The club has a clear trading policy. It was developed by Patrick Cryne. It has been adopted by our new owners who have owned a football club previously. I am simply agreeing with the trading policy that has been adopted, and yet I am the one who is Trump-like.

 

Unfortunately you do not state your opinions as such RR. You state them as fact, read previous posters comments (and our previous discussions) suggesting that you are condescending. You say that you want people to reflect and think and yet you appear unwilling to do the same in response to others' posts. That's what makes you Trump like. And it's what provokes such a reaction on here. If you make it clearer that a) you are expressing your view and b) others' views are allowed I suspect the ire you experience might reduce and actually others might be more willing to consider your opinion more fully.

 

I pay to watch my football team play. I don't pay ~£300 a year to see a return on an investment.

 

Why? He was under contract to us. But why say it again when it’s been said a million times?

 

Excellent post.

 

Actually, whilst I disagree with some of your financial analysis, I do see where you are coming from. However, your post suggesting that if we didn’t sell Pinnock we risked destroying our trading basis by undermining trust, in addition to him simply not trying was, with respect, ridiculous. He was sold because the club decided to do so for financial reasons. To suggest otherwise and, to be fair, you are not the only one to do so, is preposterous.

 

Another excellent post.

 

Just as an aside Red Rain.... I'm sure many people appreciate your information on financial affairs. Thanks for providing it. However, seeing as it's in the mix, I must concur with some other posters and say that your posts do come over as patronizing at times. That may not be your intention of course but if you genuinely want to explain your views as opinions then a little bit more thought on your semantics would be in order. I'm not perfect myself (well... almost) and sometimes do think when I post on here as written posts can sometimes be misconstrued. You DO sound condescending at times. Regards.

 

The thing is, since Wolves Tyke accused me of being condescending, and not making clear that certain things are my opinion, I have looked through his posts and many others. I failed to find the phrase, "in my opinion" used in most of them. Does that mean that they are asserting things as fact, or does it simply mean that they can't be bothered to keep using the phrase. For clarification, almost everything that I type on here is my opinion. How about the rest of you.

 

It's the 'way' things are expressed. Points can be made in a certain way to show that they are indeed opinions. We don't need to say 'in my opinion' all the time. We just need to be a bit more thoughtful about how our posts seem to others.

 

An alternative point of view.

The idea that if you want an extended period in the championship then you HAVE to find huge losses is just wrong imo and the figures provided don't back it up as I don't believe the losses shown for all clubs are being spent trying to achieve championship security, I believe they are spent trying to achieve a quick path to the premier league which is a totally different thing.

Instead of it being a black and white. Lose money or play in league one I believe there is a third option, an option which is actually closer to barnsley but which isn't being used correctly at all.

That option is that when in the lower league you buy cheaper young players, those players gel and improve in the much easier league 1. They then get promoted to the championship still on long term contracts and you keep the core of that squad together and supplement it with a small number of better players if needed. Over time you improve the squad with small changes and you use your additional money to bring in better young players who were slightly out of your budget in the interior league one. This way you aren't spending hundreds of millions trying to finish top of the league but you you are using your revenue correctly to make the small tweaks needed to hold your own in the manner of the likes of Preston and QPR.

Instead we appear to have started off on this plan and then seen the pound signs. We bought cheap young kids who gelled and excelled in league one. The problem is when we got promoted we had offers for quite a few key members of the squad and we chose profit over the good of the squad. We sold the players and instead of investing the revenue correctly on a small number of good players who would enhance the squad we went for a complete scattergun approach of signing over a dozen cheap cheap players who were nowhere near up to the job.
The net spend was the same as in my proposal but instead of having a squad that was better placed to fight for championship survival we chose to to instead have a squad of players who the owners could hope to make a profit on when we would certainly be back shining in league one the following year.

By electing to sell the players as soon as offers come in and replace them with players at the beginning of their careers again the owners have ensured that we are stuck in a vicious circle.


We sign players rated 1 out of 5 at the moment they're signed. We get promoted with them as they improve to a 3 out of 5 rating. At this point we sell them and replace them with more players rated 1 out of 5 but in an harder league. It's a recipe for disaster.

We should be signing 1 rated players, improving them to 3 as they gain promotion, selling a few of them and replacing them - using the higher transfer fee that we receive compared to what we spent, and the £6m increase in revenue from being in the championship - with a mixture of players rated 3 again and backed up with a few youngsters who are 2's. These twos are much better placed to be used in small doses in the championship or loaned out and improve to 3s and even 4s much quicker.

That is how there is a way to achieve championship security without blowing the budget and how to not blow the budget without making a conscious decision to relegate your club which Paul Conway certainly did last summer.

 

I agree, it is noteworthy that the first person to take exception to your "condescension" immediately resorts to using personal abuse, calling you a lovely person**.

There has been, of course, no criticism of such a disgraceful outburst.

That's the way it is on here.

In my opinion, you need not lose sleep over others' perception of your interaction and communication on this board.

 

Well, Kevin Long immediately springs to mind,

 

Did people call on us to pay Kevin long £20k a week?

 

Its more your style of writing. I assume that posts are opinions tbh.

 

Well, how much do you think we would need to pay him? This is the issue when names a bandied about without any knowledge of the wage demands.

 

I don't know I didn't ask to sign him