A Dose Of Reality

Many posters on the BBS and all of the anti-Wilson mob seem to be under the impression that our transfer activities since last season have been aimed principally at replacing under-performing players with better players that will see us back in the Championship immediately. The publication of the Accounts to 31 May 2014 showing a loss of £3m before Mr Cryne’s donation and the knowledge that this season our revenue will be down by £4m have done nothing to change their view. Much stock is being placed upon Ben Mansford’s statement that our budget will be competitive, but there is a difference between having a competitive budget with an already assembled team requiring only the odd player, and a competitive budget requiring the replacement of almost the whole team. Indeed there is a difference between being able to start building in June, and being unable to start the rebuilding process until July because we needed to sell Chris O’Grady before the process could get under way.

In view of the evidence of my first paragraph, might I suggest that the board’s main strategy this year was to reduce the wages budget and seek stability in the lower division. Cutting the wages budget meant that we were unable to offer the players who we felt would thrive in the lower division a wage that they were willing to accept. It means that, unless another club was willing to take them off our hands, the club was forced to pay the players who were still under Championship contracts at the end of last season into this season. This in turn means that there is less money to finance the wages contracts of incoming players meaning that we can only afford to employ players who will cost us comparatively little. It also means that we are forced sign these players on short term contracts because they are unlikely to prove successful in the longer term. In short, it means that the majority of our players must be promising young players, or players on short term loan. This policy is not only dictated by our delicate financial position, it is also dictated by the FFP rules that we must abide by in this division.

Please note that I used the phrase, “the board’s main strategy”, rather than “the manager’s strategy”. I did this because every member of the board, the owner, the chief executive and the team manager will have discussed the proposed strategy and will have agreed to it before it was adopted. They will all know that they needed a lot of luck to see the policy through and they will all know that a bad run of injuries to key players would be the last thing they needed. They will know that the team manager will be the first place that the supporters will turn if the policy goes wrong, and if they have any sense, they will know that turning their backs on the manager when the crisis comes has failed in the past, and is bound to fail again. The Annual accounts included a statement from Mr Watkins that, “The cost of changing the football management staff was considerable”. On Friday, The Barnsley Chronicle put a figure of £500k on this cost. Does the club really have no better use for £500k per year than to keep sacking its football management staffs?

We should be grateful that Mr Cryne’s money is providing the club with a buffer against some of the harsh realities of our situation and be prepared to show an equal amount of backbone by having patience and by continuing to provide the club with both verbal and financial support through this difficult period. I do not attend away games, but based upon the evidence of recent home games, I have no reason to doubt the reports of those who have attended. Frankly, I would much rather fans stopped going to away grounds than threaten to take away their financial support at home games. Fewer fans at home games inevitably means that the current situation is bound to get worse.

 

Getting more and more convinced every day that you are Ben Mansford.

 

Excellent post

 

Of course things will get far worse financially if we are relegated for a second time and crowds fall to the hardcore 4-5 thousand... Right now that seems a very real possibility and the strategy will have gone badly wrong.

 

Strategies do indeed fail, but it is a strategy and the club must go forward with a strategy. I cannot do any other than support it as I am currently short of an alternative strategy that fits our current difficulties better than the one that we are currently employing. And bear in mind that this strategy has been agreed by all parties, most with considerably more information and experience than me.

 

Whatever the financial strategy is, a manager should be able to field a team that has fire and belief in their mindset. The tactics are mind-boggling and not working. These are the fundamental basics of playing a game of football at any level. We have a very experienced manager who seems to doing the same unsuccessful things over and over again.

 

Excellent.

Your posts over the last few weeks have been top notch.

Fast becoming my favourite poster

 

As I have said, I did not attend on Saturday and I cannot really comment on that game. However, I will note the following conclusions from the last game that I saw, which was Yeovil at home.

I noted that we had a lot of injuries, mainly affecting older, more experienced players. I noted that we had too many young players playing as a result. I noted that we had made too many changes to the team, cause by the injuries and the sudden influx of new players. I noted a lack of understanding between the players, which only comes with time on the field in match situations. I also noted a number of cup upsets this weekend caused by the more highly placed team making too many changes to their team line-up with the effect that the players did not perform well under the stresses of a match situation. I can only assume that the manager took these factors into consideration when he chose his team and system, and that the apparent lack of commitment of the players is no more than their reaction to the list of factors listed above.

 

Yep good post. I do believe Danny is desperately trying to stop what has / is happening. The pay master of our club have been VERY supportive but as posters have announced we have a fairly experienced coach at this level, who, like the players on the pitch for most of this season have proven so far disappointing.
Lets hope things start to get better, sure they will but said players need to dig deep and fight for the right to play. I do believe our budget at this level is competitive and should be producing better results. Over to you coaching staff............COYR

 

Regardless of what strategy is agreed upon by the members of the board, Wilson is culpable for his teams lack of desire and heart on a weekly basis. Too many times this season he's persisted with wrong formations and his tactics have been woeful. Should never have got the job back in the first place, what had he done to warrant it in the past 10 years? As for having to pay championship wages unless we offloaded, I'd have thought there will have been clauses in contracts about reductions in wages in the case of relegation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Whilst there seems to be an informed logic to a well structured post, and whilst most of us cannot provide any greater insight into the board's strategy, I think you are being slightly desparaging of the types who post on here if you think the vast majority expected us to end up back in the Championship immediately.

Although the majority no doubt rightly do expect last season's players to be replaced by better performing ones.

A discernible team structure and playing strategy combined with maximum effort helps too.

 

An interesting view .

Lose games and we end up where we are.

Win games and people sit up, take note, and think yes I,m having some of that.

It's what the games all about.
Winning = success= Possible promotion Play offs etc
Losing = Failure= Possible relegation.

A mixture of both and = Mid Table ish

The latter will do me for this season but will it happen?

I will give you a better answer after the next 2 games

 

So Danny brings in a midfielder from Wycombe who has played regularly this season and puts him on the bench in his first 2 games.
My point about a ream having the basics irrespective of anything else still stands here.

 

Earlier in the season, when Williams was with us and there appeared to be a hope of better things, I wrote several posts questioning the tactic that we were using and wondering why. I have stopped doing so because with so many changes and so many young faces in the team other more pressing problems take precedence over tactics. As I say, my analysis of the Yeovil game caused me to conclude that there had been too many changes and there were too many young faces. I will no doubt revert to consideration of tactics, but not until the structure of the team has changed and we have more older heads in it.

I personally doubt that there is a relegation clause in players contracts. First of all there is the issue that O'Grady had to be sold before the rebuilding could begin. The second reason is more subtle. We had struggled for the previous 7 years with relegation an almost continual threat. Why would any player want to sign a long term contract which potentially left him on a lower pay deal for the rest of his contract than the contract that he was already on. Thirdly, any contract imposing such an onerous contract term would have to balance it with the right of the player to terminate the contract, that is to seek another club offering better terms. There is no evidence that the likes of Cranie has such a term in his contract, just as there is no evidence that player dropping down from the Premiership to the Championship have these terms built into their contract. This is why relegated clubs are compensated for 4 years by the Premier League.

 

Do you think that Danny believes that he has made too many changes in too short a time and wants to give Scowen more time with the others in training before introducing him, or could it be that he thinks that Scowen is a longer term investment because he has come from a lower division. I do not know the answer to your question, but equally, I am sure that Danny does and has a perfectly good reason.

 

He had no qualms about giving the loan players their football league debuts a couple of weeks ago so it's confusing to say the least why he won't play a new signing who has played regularly this season.

 

I still think we have a competitive budget and think should be doing better. I never hide behind injuries as an excuse, as you need a half decent squad in any division to compete and nearly all clubs miss key players at key points, its how you deal with adversity.
Now we have an experienced coach at this level and he seems to have been supported well in the recruitment department.
My observations (and I don't get to as many as I would like) is that our neat and tidy mid field does not work as a defensive unit. Now the "yung uns" are in and we are struggling to make chances, confidence as slipped as a result and we are becoming a little disjointed.
I still think we will be ok to be fair but we need the patience to go with our loyality.

 

He was more desperate for players a couple of weeks ago. In fact he is still desperate as evidenced from the fact that those players are still in the team.

It is a question of trust. Do I still trust Danny to pick the best or most appropriate team from the players at his disposal in spite of what is unarguably a poor sequence of performances. Well the answer is "Yes" in my case, but even if the answer was "No", what are the alternatives. That is what my original post was all about. Given the circumstances of pruning of budgets, huge losses and uncertainty whether anyone could do a better job under the circumstances, isn't the best policy for the fans to acquire a stiff upper lip from somewhere and be patient and allow the strategy to play through to its ultimate conclusion. We have got to break this cycle of sackings, and because with his past reputation at Oakwell, Danny Wilson represents our best chance, because a larger proportion of fans are prepared to stay with him through the bad times than would be the case with any other manager. The constant hope is that the next manager will be the one to save us, but in reality, he never is.

 

Excellent post. A voice of reason amongst the shrill voices demanding yet another managers head with no concept of the realities of our club. In terms of budget we are clearly struggling to compete due to the complete overhaul of the team which means quality more experienced players like Baker sign for rival clubs who can afford them. A long term strategy is just that if people want short term success I'd suggest a change if clubs.

 

Mark Robins returning is the alternative. Look at the improvement at S****horpe since he took over on what I would imagine is a much worse budget than we've got? Should never have gone in the first place.... I would point out our situation at the moment reminds me very much of the squad rebuild of Paul Hart and it wasnt until we replaced him that things began to improve so I'd have to disagree with your assessment that the next manager is never the one to save us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk