Mark left BFC because he was told of a change of transfer policy. No more expensive loan signings but signings who he could potentially improve where the club could benefit if said players moved on. Mark didn't fancy or agree to the new policy. All the above is fact if the director who told me was telling the truth and I had no reason to doubt him.The previous year we spent around 3 million pounds on loan players (wages and loan fees ) and it was no longer sustainable to the club.
At the time of Mark Robbins departure BFC only had three directors, one of whom is no longer with us. Do you think the reasons for his departure are correct?
I will always be eternally grateful for Patrick rescuing us from Doyle. But the biggest mistake Patrick made (God rest his soul) was selling the club to Conman et al. I know people will say that he didn't have a queue of people waiting to buy the club and I appreciate that. But to sell to the consortium, and to use a buy em cheap (lower league gambles), sell for a profit. Or unearth a gem in the academy and sell for millions (John Stones), as selling points only succeeded in attracting the charlatans that almost destroyed our club.
Robins was left in may 2011, in the 2011/2012 season (ie straight after he left) we brought in on loan Danny Drinkwater, Miles Addison, Nile Ranger, Michael Tongue, Frank Nouble, Cameron Park, David Button, Korey Smith and Kallum Higginbotham. I'd say that director was either talking rubbish or their words didn't match their actions. The question is was it Rowing or Taylor?
If we had been promoted under Val, do we think we would have seen a different approach from Lee/Conway? We would in fact then be a flagship for the PMG model and they would be reaping massive investment rewards. I get that other than employing Val they had not exactly helped the cause, but I do wonder what their plan was if we had reached the promised land.
If we'd been promoted to the PL under Val PMG etc al would have been looking to sell on I'm sure. Who knows whom our owners would now be. Another Venky situation like at Blackburn perhaps? Alternatively like Bornmuff? We'll never know.
I would expect so, but would they make more money out of selling the model across the world… I’m happier now building from League One than I would be knowing we were being pillaged of Premier League Money by PMG
I think in the short term we would’ve done well might have even flirted with the play offs for a season or two but ultimately Robins would’ve left for a better offer & our best players like Trippier (I’m assuming he would’ve signed. Apparently the deal was done) would’ve been sold & unless we did incredible transfer business in all likelihood we would’ve ended up in a similar position either bottom end championship or top end league one. One thing I do know is that if Robins stayed Hill & Flitcroft’s agent would’ve been a lot worse off!
I spoke to Mark Robbins on his last day at the club. In fact he spoke with virtually every employee that day. I know he only spoke to one director that day and to my recollection it was the same and only director he spoke with in the previous week. I do not doubt what you have been told. I just raised an eyebrow when reading your post.
I talked with the director behind the Eaststand,It was a non match day.I asked why Mark had gone and he told me that he wouldn't work with the policy the board had decided to use which was no more expensive loan deals because it was basically dead money,a lot of outlay and no return.If I remember correctly I think we signed the Scottish striker Gary ? twice which cost the club alot of money.Patrick was keen to sign players who could be developed and would have some value if they ever left.His aim was sustainability.
O'Connor. Signed him 3 times in the same season I think. Two different loan spells then a permanent signing