Davey's position not even discussed. 11 goals for Stan!

You mean like the 25 players that Davey turned down a couple of weeks ago

before saying that he wasnt going to sign any players?

 

RE: They are just as competitive as any other game and just as important

Doesn't make any difference.

Compared now over a 20 game period:

Ritchie 18 pts - 0.9 ppg (counting his penalty shoot out win against Blackpool as 3 pts)

Davey 19pts - 0.95 ppg (counting the win against Chelsea as 3 pts)

 

RE: You mean like the 25 players that Davey turned down a couple of weeks ago

Go on then. Name them!

 

What about their last 8 games in charge?

Davey's is less than 0.4ppg

 

Davey didn't name names

He just said 25 agents.

 

I'm not defending or criticsing anyone

Just stating that my recollection of the reason given for Richie's sacking (which was wrong IMO) was that he wouldn't sign new players when the board wanted him to

 

I remember the chairman quoting his ppg ove his last 18 games though as well as not signing players. Davey over the alst 18 competitive games has the same ppg and has also stated he turned down players and doesnt want anymore

 

RE: What about their last 8 games in charge?

Why 8? Just because it suits your interpretation of the figures? Shep's ppg statement was judging Ritchie from the start of a season, a credible sample of games, not a manufactured one to prove his point (can't remember whether he was including the cup games or not).

 

Just remember the fall out being over Richie saying the squad was good enough and the board not

Maybe the board don't want us to sign anyone else now and that what we have is sufficient? I think to say Richie was sacked on PPG is very simplistic. Plus I do think you can only judge Davey in those terms after 18 games of this season as he's already fulfilled last seasons remit

 

No he doesn't have the same ppg. You either compare both on the last 18 league games or include the cup games and compare both over 20. You can't compare one using one criteria and one using another.

 

I repeat...

Last 18 League games:

Ritchie 15 pts (0.83 ppg)

Davey 17 pts (0.94 ppg)

Last 20 League & Cup games :

Ritchie 18 pts - 0.9 ppg (counting his penalty shoot out win against Blackpool as 3 pts)

Davey 19pts - 0.95 ppg (counting the win against Chelsea as 3 pts)

 

Whatever way you look at it, Davey has spent £2-3m

on players while Ritchie had nothing, McPhail, Flindersand Shuker were allowed to leave from the side thatgot promoted and we actually got in more than we spent!

 

RE: Whatever way you look at it, Davey has spent £2-3m

That absolute rubbish to say Ritchie had no money. In the promotion season both PC and GS said there was money for him.</p>

Ritchie's idea of a good signing was Cadamateri. Don't forget the player who was on his way to sign and was sent packing by AR. A Turkish internation if my memory serve me.
</p>

 

Not true JC

Ritchie was told that if he signed the Turkish International, he wa not at the time tho`, he would have spent all his transfer budget in one go.
That is a fact too, from both within the club and Ritchie himself.
Signing Cadermateri would not have been as big a gamble as signing the foriegn strikers Davey did, at least he had played at this level and above. I do agree that he was not the player we needed tho`.

 

RE: Well said

No creativity, no fire power, bottom of the league, can't beat Crewe, can't score against Yeovil.... How extreme do you want it like ????

There's nothing our Simon can do in 3 weeks to cure to rot, be realistic !

 

We received £250K up front for Flinders and spent £125K

on McIndoe. He was then going to spend &pound;125K on the 'Turkish International' who was actually languishing in Brighton reserves and wasn't an internationalat the time! That would have been the whole of his budget, all generated from the Flinders transfer.

 

Wrong. Ritchie just didn't think the players the board wanted

were better than he had. And they weren't! Knight, McCann, Richie Jones etc.

 

Thats basically a rewording of what i said

And anyway I was making the point that Richie wasn't sacked on the sole basis of points per game. And no i don't think Richie should have been sacked and was very angry at the time

 

Soz, when I re-read your post I wondered why I'd put mine there! nt