I remember simon davey

We got to january and started trying to draw every game nil nil to squeeze our way slowly to 50 points. I remember us lining up with one up front and three defensive midfielders. We did this every season he was here.

I remember Robins got us to within touching distance of the play-offs yet by January we had resorted to attempting to squeeze out nil nil draws and put little effort in to winning games.

Now under Keith Hill we were comfortable yet by January we changed completely to a side that ADMITS to trying to get nil nil draws.

Different managers, different players, same scenario EVERY year. The one constant? The board of directors and owner. Coincidence? I think not.

I firmly believe that our board have made it clear to the managers what is expected of them and that it is our only ambition because to finish higher up would mean more money required for the following season.

Plausible or am i being an idiot again?

 

Being an idiot I believe.

The facts are we tend to lose our best players in January. Plus we often have one of the smallest squads in the league, so as soon as injuries and suspensions really kick in around the christmas period, we have a lack of replacements unlike many other squads in the league. We played 4-5-1 before christmas, and we've played it after so I don't get your point at all.

 

Hmmm, I seem to remember hearing something very similar every week in the late 80s and early 90s.

I for the life of me can't believe that we would be trying not to get promoted, bearing in mind that even one season in the Premier League will secure the club financially for the next ten years (if we are sensible and don't go dishing out long contracts to average players)

 

Also, loaning in players like Marlon Harewood doesn't seem to me like a board content with 4th bottom.

 

Slating your manager for bringing him in after they sanctioned it seems a little odd to me though.

 

I don't think we'll ever know what truly happened behind the scenes there. Way I saw it was that the board realised their mistakes in bringing too many loans in and informed Robins of their plans for the future, to which he couldn't agree to so he left. Probably more to it than that but it's highly unlikely we're ever going to find out so there's little use in speculating.

 

If that was the case then the board are hypocrites as they've allowed Keith Hill to bring in loads of loan players too. Just one less than Robins at the moment and Hill has publically stated that he is trying to bring a defender in on loan making the numbers identical.

 

Aye all well and good but we've nearly had the same amount this season. Probably less cost though.

 

I think it's more the cost of the loans rather than the quantity. Guessing the ones we've had this year havve been cheaper but I wouldn't have a clue how much loan players cost in all honesty. Must say I'm not a fan of the short-term loan market at all. Don't mind season long loans like Drinkwater but Ranger, Park, Nouble are just a waste of money in my opinion, would much rather play our own young uns.

 

surely the academy is the key to the solution, either get a manager who is not afraid to take a chance on the youngsters and i mean 4 or 5, not 1 at a time, or shut the fecking place and use the money 4 other things

 

Its definitely the cost of the loans rather than the number. The ones we've loaned this season will barely have cost us anything. Harewood probably cost more than the lot combined, excluding maybe Tonge but Stoke apparently did us a v.cheap deal.

 

It's a fallacy that Harewood would have cost that much. Blackpool had stated their top wage was around £10k a week.

 

TBF we never had the amount of injurys last season.
this season we've been forced by loans.
they lost vazte very late, and couldnt bring in a replacement even though they've tried. the club never thought drinkwater would leave after rejoining , thr club never thought Butterfield would be taken out in the he was.
Perkins got injured becuase there was that many injurys and they couldnt give him a rest in december when they wanted to.

 

Don't think it should ever be closed, but it needs to be utilised better than it is being done currently.

 

Barnsley has got a fantastic owner............except

..........he aint got that much money compared to other owners

I thought Davey and Robins were excellent choices for manager.........Keeflicker are even better.......so whoever is appointing these managers either understands football or is getting some sound advice from somewhere.
The problem we have got is that we cannot compete with other clubs when it comes to paying wages.

The paradox is that we have a chairman that loves the club and makes good decisions - but on the other hand there aint that much money
But we are better off than a chairman who has got a load of money but makes huge mistakes (see Sheffield United)

 

So we have never had injuries to players before then?
No other team ever get injuries?
VazTe was angling for a move all through the window, not just the last day!
Butterfield was going to be sold anyway!
Perkins got injured, but it was not because of any other reason than , it happens.

We have always had to sell players and had injuries, in that respect we are no different than the vast majority of clubs, but to use it as a reason for playing ***** is rubbish.

 

Butterfield would have been sold and we would have got 3 players in.

 

pissing myself laughing

 

Yeah OK.
Inhillcroftyoutrust!!!!!

 

For once Hemsworth I see where your coming from. You've tried to contribute to this thread properly and people are still mocking you.