FTAO Pat and Don...

We can never know how the team would have performed under Robins - had he stayed. It's more or less impossible to have a debate about it.

 

Re: Almost bankrupt the club with the loan signings

You keep saying this about the loan signings but who exactly were the signings that bankrupted us? Nouble?? Harewood?? Mellis?

I wonder how much we were paying towards the wages of Smith, Drinkwater and Tonge (who I imagine would have been on a very good wage at Stoke).

 

Most of his loan signings were from the Premiership

Arismendi, Hill, McShane, Mellis, Trippier all came from Prem clubs at the time, but it was his obsession with strikers that cost the most money:

"Liam Dickinson is the kind of player we want to bring to this club"
But we needed Jeronimo, Boulding, Wood, O Connor, Nouble, Hayes (?) on top of Haynes, Gray, Hume (admittedly Robins didnt rate him so forced him out). Oh, and we'll give Stephen Bennett a run out, ffs, we had 11 strikers to choose from at one point.

I seem to recall Robins tried to bring a player in on loan from Everton I remember and PC vetoed it, we shouldve known from that he was writing cheques without consulting the person bankrolling it.

Rolling 12 month gardening leave contract aka Ive just seen what you've been up to on the balance sheet and you're fired.

 

Re: Most of his loan signings were from the Premiership

Didn't we get the O'Connor money back?

The thing is we don't know how much we were contributing towards the wages of these players.

All managers freeze players out if they don't fit into their plans and Keith is just as guilty when it comes to sign midfielders - how many do we have at the club now??

I'm still reeling from Whitey's stat that Hill has used almost 70 players - and still not managed to bring in a decent centre half.

 

Re: Most of his loan signings were from the Premiership

The accounts have been released for the time Robins was our manager. I've seen them. Put simply, they do not show the overspend that you claim. It didn't happen.

 

Re: Most of his loan signings were from the Premiership

"I seem to remember" does that equal hold on while I pull out my dossier on Robins and clarify the situation. He he God loves a trier.

 

Re: Most of his loan signings were from the Premiership

You are trying to say that PC didn't know anything about the signings and the costs? If so you are more barking that I thought possible. PC personally sanctioned the loans, just like he did for your man. Just like he will have been doing for Hill

He know the full picture and therefore did not sack Robins for over-spending. IAlthough thats not the reason bandid about for MR getting the boot....

 

But when you'ev built a team around loan signings

at the end of the season they go back and you've nothing to show for the spend. Was the period you looked at include the sale of Shackell? Not that it can be taken for gospel these days but didnt Don state Shackell had to be sold to balance the books? Not sure what we paid for him, assume we made some profit. The rest of what was left behind wasnt much.

 

17th

does not equate to a trip to the FA Cup Semi Final at Wembley.

 

Re: But when you'ev built a team around loan signings

Just like the squad Hill will leave us with then....

Done, Wiseman, McNulty, Dagnall, Harewood, Alnwick etc etc

 

Re: But when you'ev built a team around loan signings

It didn't include the sale of Shackell, no. It did, however, include the purchase of Shackell.

Shackell was sold a couple of months after the period for the accounts. If his sale had been included in the accounts we would have made a significant profit.

Robins relied too heavily on loan signings. No argument from me on that. But making those loan signings did not nearly bankrupt us. And let's not pretend that we didn't go down the same route with Keith Hill last season. Keith had more players in on loan than he was allowed to use in the match day squad. More at one time than Robins ever had. If you're going to criticise Robins for relying on the loan market then Hill should suffer the same.

 

Re: But when you'ev built a team around loan signings

Bravo Jay. The silence is deafening....

 

Completely wrong

what Hill has tried to do is use the money generated from player sales to bring in players he can develop into saleable assets again. Its not going to be a like for like thing, and it wont work with every player, but for example, at the start of the season Mellis was looking like a decent replacement for Butterfield and people were starting to suggest giving him a longer contract. Stones has been brought on, Davies has improved, we havent seen Silva yet, suspect he's one for the future, etc.

The strategy seemed to be sound until Davies got injured then the wheels came off and I suspect the recent loan signings are a pragmatic reaction to the league position and the need for immediate results.

Hill is a good manager, he was linked with bigger clubs and for a reason. Dont get dragged into this short term panic reactionist ****** about changing the manager, its not the right thing to do, hold your nerve.

 

Re: Completely wrong

Linked? Linked by who?

It is not about the short term, the long term record don't look too pretty either and it is getting worse.

Fine strategy. But in order for it to be worthwhile we need to stay up AND then not have the manager bairn when players ARE sold!

 

The numerous loan signings were a largely unnecessary expense but to use the the word 'bankrupt' is plain daft. It simply meant more cash to be accounted for or underwritten by Patrick Cryne and quite clearly a waste of money to a great extent. As good as Trippier was for us, there half a dozen duds who were not worth the disruption they caused let alone the money.

The heading of the thread is do the board regret letting Robins go based on our current poor form. I would suggest no, they don't.

 

When you lose your best players at the end of January

there's not a lot you can do but loan players. Loaning/signing players from League 1/2, Collins, Dagnall and Dawson is not the same as shopping at Harrods, which Robins mostly did.

Ive not seen the books so Im speculating as to why a manager who had achieved 17th (wow) was suddenly ousted in the summer and then we brought a manager in who immediately pointed out that he had to shop in lower leagues as he was paying the price for profligacy of previous years.

 

I can remember the rumours of the people at the ground about that Hull defender.

I was told that Cryne himself had to put a lot in just for a few weeks wages.

 

Next time you see them ask them how much cos we would all like to know.

 

Re: When you lose your best players at the end of January

He did not shop at Harrods, lets be reight.

Hill was happy at the budget he had. It was only when his faith in his own ability was outweighed by reality that he started bleating about money.

 

Re: When you lose your best players at the end of January

I think everyone knows Robins didn't shop at Harrods.