Tin hat on, head down!

The reason he didn't stop covid is because he doesn't like Mondays and it's a well known fact that 99.99% of people develop covid on Mondays. And where is Geldof on a Monday, in feckin bed all day 'cos he doesn't like them, instead of stopping covid like he did famine.

 

I’m not into the whole board bashing thing particularly, but I have to say that my take on it, or at least,others takes which I find myself agreeing with and believing…. is that when they got next to no offers for their players at the end of last season, this went against their business model…. this they blamed on the “unattractive” playing style and this pressed (npi) them to force a change of style, which Val saw coming and encouraged him to jump ship before an enforced poorer season. This of course has led to an awful season, but there’s a little bit of me which thinks the owners are ok with this as they see themselves now more able to take on young bargains from the 3rd & 4th flight in the hope of developing then into future saleable assets for relatively less cost….I really can’t find myself blaming Val at all, he knew his best player was leaving and that the shelf life of a BFC manager is incredibly short nowadays, even with success…. so he understandably took his chance for my money.

 

A whole pre season and transfer windows to strengthen and get it right, knowing what we were left with. Failure to replace with quality, failure to see abject lack of pace in squad. Conway, board’s lack of investment, terrible recruitment and shameful effort and lack of balls shown by too many players. Just a general fail.

 

" force a change of style, which Val saw coming and encouraged him to jump ship before an enforced poorer season."

Surely that is just you speculating?

 

This is the business model which the owners claim is not reliant on any individual, incorporates layering where there is always someone to step in as they have identified the replacements.

Probably sounds familiar but again not something that has been put in practice.

Spectemur Agendo

 

And if Frank Black hadn't written the prophetic song Valouria, and cursed the future, maybe Val could have held Paul's head and they could have trampolined. Right on Grove Street to the promised land. But instead Pixies followed it up with the line about travelling career and off Val went, first to the boing boing West Midlands and then to mighty Besiktas. And still we went Down To The Well, and Betty (Beth?) always knows what's going on. I agree, it's all on the Pixies!

 

Very much so I’m afraid…. …but then there’s been so much of it about of late that I thought I’d join in!

 

I have to disagree , he did not leave us in the **** , he was sold in the close season for £2 million , he left a team which had just got to the play offs & needed a bit more investment to push on but no our wonderful owners decided to cash in on him & take a different route , Val did not leave us in the **** the owners have put us well & truly in the **** , blame no one else

 

I agree with you. I just mean **** as in we had our best player, manager & coaches to replace but yes the majority of the damage was done by the owners

 

Lad at work who knows him reckoned he'd made his mind up about leaving 18 months before he did.

 

The board had all summer replace the coaching staff all of them and recruit like for like replacements for the players that left. The board had all summer to recruit a new CEO. The board chose the wholly inadequate replacements that came in. The board and or the new CEO decided to change a playing style that suited the players we have for one that quite obviously doesn't and refused to change it back even when the whole world could see it wasn't working.
The fault for the club's ills are the boards in general and Mr Paul Conway's in particular.

 

I blame us lot. We have fans in the stadium in 19-20 and we were in the relegation spots, after the Covid break we restart without crowds and escape relegation. Carry this on into last season and we get to the play-offs. Only losing in the play-off in front of a crowd. Then this season we had a crowd in every week and we are bottom of the league...

 

Of course that's true, but it's also about how you use that to your advantage.

With our game plan last season, big Val had our front 3 running their blood to water for an hour, and when they could run no more, replace them with 3 more. He made the 5 subs work to our advantage. I read the message board of another team in our division (I think it was Blackburn but I could be mistaken), and their fans had said that 5 subs worked against them, because it was too many bodies being changed in such a short space of time.

Similarly, having no fans would be more detrimental to a side who thrive off the backing of the home crowd. Coventry City for example may have seen no fans as a help, as they were playing in Birmingham at the time.

I've never truly understood the old adage, 'it's the same for both sides', because it all depends on how you deal with a situation. Both Bournemouth and Fulham have said they have struggled at Oakwell this year due to the length of the turf. It's the same for both sides, but obviously it suited them less if they prefer, and are used to, a quicker surface.

 

He did jump ship, no one had a gun to his head & made him leave.

 

We have been told that the club offered Mowatt the most lucrative contract Barnsley has ever offered a player to stay at Oakwell. I am prepared to believe this. However, if it was, say, £15000 per week, I am sure West Brom offered more than that and also offered a better opportunity to progress to the Premier League.

 

I have to disagree Archie, it is simply down to tactics & how a coach/manager employs them , if Val executes his tactics better than his opposition it is not because he has any advantage it is because his game plan has worked & the players have executed his plans better , there was simply no reason why any other side in the division could not do exactly the same as us , the only difference is choice . I think both Bournemouth & Fulham expected to roll us over & were looking for excuses when it did not happen , especially the Fulham coach who was whinging in the 4th official"s ear form the first minute , technically both those teams should have adapted to any conditions better than us because they both have superior players with more technical ability, but I know you do not agree which is fair enough but I strongly agree with old adage that it is exactly the same for both sides .

 

Did he not have a 2 million buy out clause? could the board have stopped him?
BTW, I am in no way sticking up for the this shower in charge.

 

The way I understood it was they put the fee on his head in the contract meaning that if any club met the price then they were allowed to approach him, but if they did not then he could not be approached , a bit like a price agreed for compensation however I will always stand corrected if I am wrong .

 

Fair enough but he still didn't have to go.