Flicker v Robins .. similar situation ?

Discussion in 'Bulletin Board ARCHIVE' started by Mr Badger, May 7, 2013.

  1. Mr Badger

    Mr Badger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    10,117
    Likes Received:
    8,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Fillingham
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    We all know how much Flickster is loved right now but the way things are heading (I hope not) is that Flick is now asking for priorities and promises ahead of him accepting the job. Fair enough. No probs with that.

    But wasn't it a similar situation with Robins and the board a few years ago. He wanted assurances, they wouldn't give them, and he left.

    Am I barking up the wrong dog here?
     
    Mr Badger, May 7, 2013
    #1
  2. Dragon Tyke

    Dragon Tyke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    18,566
    Likes Received:
    5,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Saint Athan
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    nope you are totally up the right dog

    and I predict the same outcome now with Flitcroft.
     
    Dragon Tyke, May 7, 2013
    #2
  3. Pao

    Paolo Tykeio New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The slight difference with Robins was at the time the board decided to use a new approach which Robins didn't want to work under whereas now their's evidence that the approach isn't working and we are standing still/going backwards so Flicker is right in saying that we need to move on and start acting like a Championship club. I would imagine he is seeking assurances that the board are on the same page and I hope to God they are!
     
    Paolo Tykeio, May 7, 2013
    #3
  4. Bri

    Brian Mahoneys Waist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    8,225
    Likes Received:
    7,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Re: nope you are totally up the right dog

    No manager should hold a club to ransom.I'm sure as always the board will back him with what we've got not what we haven't got.Don't forget the board sanctioned deals for Dawson from West Brom.and Butterfield from Norwich last season.
     
    Brian Mahoneys Waist, May 7, 2013
    #4
  5. Mr C

    Mr C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    24,964
    Likes Received:
    15,739
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Saving the world.
    Location:
    Wentworth
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Re: nope you are totally up the right dog

    No, despite what the hysterical lot will say. To view it as anything like is very naive and impetuous. When Robins was reigned in, it was because the owner had to change what had gone before, that is underwriting the deficit annually including Robins' over-dependence on the loan market and neglect of the academy.

    Last year the club made a small profit, this year it will be substantial with the sale of Stones and the cup run. The profits are about to be announced, it's not quite as much as some might think but not far off. Some has been spent.

    Flicker will expect the availability of finance that has been generated by the team, not the bottomless pocket of owner subsidies, there is a massive difference. That isn't to say they will agree, just that the situations are not the same.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2013
    Mr C, May 7, 2013
    #5
  6. Farnham_Red

    Farnham_Red Administrator Staff Member Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    34,499
    Likes Received:
    23,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Farnham
    Style:
    Barnsley
    There are some similarities but I think in reality its quite a bit different

    Robins had had a budget to work with and probably kept to it but then the club moved the goalposts and asked him to work on a much reduced budget - outcome when Robins asked for time he was put on notice - the cynic might even think we didnt want to keep Robins anyway as it didnt appear the club were open to any discussion on the topic

    Flicker is operating under the reduced budget - but worse than that the last 3 players who have stood out have been sold at the first oppertunity Vas Te, Butterfield (ok not technically true but he would have gone in Jan but for the injury) and Stones. I dont think Flicker wants a vastly increased budget - he was talking about additional expenses for a weeks training type of things. I dont even think he is talking about money particularly for players though it would make sense to re-invest a bit of the cash from Stones and Davies and Butterfield. I think his real problem is that he wants some continuity - so that players arent sold in January to the first club that comes sniffing and with no time for a replacement , and that contracts arent left until end of season to be sorted.

    Now is the only time FLicker has to try and negotiate that - if he just signs the contract Don presumably has ready its under the same conditions as Hill and he signed originally and they probably didnt consider the impact of selling the best players in January - so I guess he is desperate to change that - maybe to the extent of not signing if the board wont move. In any negotiation you have to be prepared to walk away if you dont think the conditions are right

    He is in a tricky situation - he hasnt really done enough yet to have sides queueing up for his signature though I am sure he could get a job if he drops a league or two so its much better if he stays at Barnsley and carries on and gets us up the table next year. But if we struggle again it wont really help his career either and also probably wont be so enjoyable


    Of course I may have misread it and Flicker could be asking for a 50% budget increase this year - but I doubt it he will know the state of the clubs finances
     
    Farnham_Red, May 7, 2013
    #6

Share This Page