Official Site : Be Proud. Be Barnsley.

"And supporters patient enough to recognise it"

They won't recognise it because as you & Whitey alluded to, no board is going to come out and say that is the plan because they'll **** their pants at falling attendances in the short term if it doesn't bring instant 'success'

We're stuck as we are until :

1. Demented billionaire buys us and funds us to the Prem.

2. Football enters a time warp back to the mid 80's.

3. Flitcroft stops with the ******* **** awful midfield selections.

 

Then thats the balance isn't it. Our Core support and business support.
I haven't a clue whats really needed in the short or medium term but we need to grow.
I would love to listen to what Mr Watkins says about this and what he realistically thinks can happen.

you say attract the core support back but how do you do that?

 

I was willing to be that supporter. My apathy began when in August/September when the manager was allowed to yet again add more bodies to an already bulging squad. And despite some folk suggesting we've improved, I'd suggest only slightly, and at a cost, and using the same old short termist attitude I take issue with.

 

"you say attract the core support back but how do you do that?"

Win games. Which will take more money than we have.

 

Sorry whitey but its unrealistic.

That would mean a massive chance from the fans and i would love to see the younger players brought through but 90% of the fans don't care i feel.

 

We need a time machine.

Take me back to 1981/82 season both on and off the field at Oakwell.
Life was so simpler back then.
Back to basics.

 

Last time we gave a couple of kids a prolonged run in the team - Stones, Butterfield - I don't remember the fans being against it. I think the fans got behind both of them. Ok, Jacob got a bit of stick at the end but there were reasons for that.

Before that, in the mid noughties, we introduced Kay, Austin, Tonge, Williams etc. Not world beaters or owt, but again, the fans weren't against it and to be fair we got promoted playing them quite often.

And before you were born (?) we gave regular games to the likes of Watson, Eaden, Moses, Morgan, Bullock, Liddell etc etc. We got promoted to, and played in the top flight with those lads. Fans again weren't against it.

Before that, we sold other young youth products - Hirst, Tiler, Beresford, Tommy Taylor, Mick McCarthy etc etc. Fans weren't against it.


So I think it's a myth in your head, son. Most BFC lads I know would rather see the likes of RNL, Digby, Rose, Abbott or whoever getting games than the likes of Dawson, Perkins, Kennedy or the loanee crew, who let's be honest (Butland and maybe Pedersen apart) are all average and never going to take us forwards.

 

I really really can't see how the manager can be blamed for that. As soon as a we lose a few games the fans start hollering for a change and the (previous) board start scapegoating the manager. I do find it ironic that many of those so quick to lose patience when we lose a game are the ones that complain most about us abandoning youth and bringing loan players in. If we want manager's to show faith in a strategy then we have to show faith in them when we go through a bad spell, otherwise they will look for a quick fix to save their job. And the board certainly should show faith. Maybe the new one will. Unlike the previous one.

 

I've not lost patience in Flicker, but I've always complained about us ignoring youth talent and instead recruiting myriad loanees.

It's what, 15 games in now this season? It's only now that I'm fed up of the manager. Still not called for his head, mind. Just wouldn't be averse to a change.

I know Flicker has only been in charge since January, but he first arrived and has been key to a lot that's happened since June 1st 2011. If things don't improve in terms of results before Xmas, I think it's only fair we look for a new approach/manager.

We can't afford to be relegated. It's that simple. And as much as some of you like to blame the board/owner etc etc, they've made a change when they've had to, and it's always resulted in us staying up/improving.

 

To be honest it's more a moan about how Hill was treated, and by extension (given that he's seen it first hand) I can completely understand Flicker not taking any risks. The only way I can see it ever working is if theboard say this is our strategy, it will benefit us in the long term and the manager has got a two/three year period to implement it and his position will be reviewed at that point.

Not board members trying to get the manager sacked after the first season, then starting to undermine him during a bad run in the autumn to deflect from the fact that he is trying to implement the strategy necessitated by the budget he's been given by the board.

But we all know giving a manager the security to action a plan isn't going to happen because the fans won't stomach it and the board won't accept playing in league one despite providing a league one budget

So we'll fire manager after manager to cling on to championship survival whilst the next manager in will be even more short termist than the last to try and avoid the sack.

 

I feel the opposite. I feel it is managers who are happy for us to lose whilst playing loads of loanee's without ever trying to give OUR youth players a chance who get stick. I don't recall any getting slated for giving our youth an extended run in the side, it's always when they don't do this.

Take flitcroft for example. I heard him on radio sheffield this morning talking about how the same 8 or 9 players have played almost every game this season and that the others haven't been given a chance. I might be imagining it but isn't he the one who chooses the team? If he has persisted with perkins, kennedy and co then he only has himself to blame. He can't say our youth players aren't good enough because he has refused to play them even when we have lost game after game.

We have had too many managers who have failed miserably without ever trying to uitilise the players already at the club and they get no sympathy at all from me for that.

Play Reuben and if he doesn't perform then at least the manager can say he tried but to just ignore all these players whilst we play so badly is crazy and the manager deserves all he gets. Our defence has been **** all season yet his stubbornness means he refuses to give Hassell a chance and instead brings in 7 squadrons of players to use instead of him. That isn't because of fans demanding success, that's because of him being an arse.

 

Good points, mate. But if you believe we're working with a League One budget I can assure you we're not. Have you seen the size of our squad this season?

League One budgets do not recruit the likes of Jennings, O'Grady, M'Voto, McCourt, Butland, Fox, Ramage, Pedersen etc. As well as retaining a plethora of players that don't see first team football very often. And wait til you see the amount we've spent on agents fees when it's released next year. That should make quality reading, especially if we're in the third tier when reading it..

 

Stones and Butterfield got a lot of stick.
Even when Butterfield was playing at is best pre Christmas. He was greedy and pre that when Davey and Robins were manager it was Butterfield who wasn't good enough. I spent many a hour telling people he WAS good enough and needed the chance.

 

Your memory is failing you hemsy. Youve repeated this statement that everybody disagreed with you and said that Butterfield was **** many many times yet despite several people asking you for examples and me searching the archives of the BBS on more than one occasion we've never come up with any examples of this happening.

Also when did Stones get slated?

 

And Stones?

 

It happened. I can remember me and Redstar used to discuss it for one.

Stones mentioned this to Keith Hill (the stick) and he came out and said it in the press.

 

When did Stones get the stick though? I don't really care if he himself said that he had stick (wiseman claimed that loads of people were abusing him on twitter when it was actually only 3 tweets from I believe 2 people). I'm asking you when it happened, not when he says it happened, when did you or I or anyone else witness this large amount of stick that Stones got?

And to be fair I don't think that 1 fan not rating Butterfield is a big enough study to say that the whole of barnsley was against him. I didn't rate Muller but I hardly think that me thinking that means that he was regularly slated by Barnsley fans.

 

Again it was a comment on the previous board. But I'm still be convinced that the wage bill has increased significantly. None of the players who signed big contracts are still here or on the same terms which will have freed up resources which I agree is wasted on such a large number of players. Lean squad of quality is the way forward, loans sparingly when needed.

But look at your list of high earners. Most of them are loan signings who we ordinarily wouldn't be able to afford due to the risk of offering them long contracts and the contributions of their parent clubs. And that's the attraction for a manager who was part of a management team who tried to do it differently and were sacked.

And as for agents can you blame Flitcroft if they have gone up when these were rock bottom under Hill and he just got slated for bringing in lower league players and players who were under his agent who didn't ask for large fees. I'd love it if we never paid an agent again but it will result in players who will be hounded before kicking a ball.

Good debate though mate

 

Eh? Keith Hill signed LOTS of loan players

 

After the board sold Vaz Te and he had no money to replace him or the injured Butterfield, and towards the end when he cracked