Official Site : Be Proud. Be Barnsley.

But ST why would any manager be happy for us to lose? They have the largest vested interest of anyone for the team to be successful. We might disagree with how they try to bring success but I can't see the logic in believing they aren't trying to be successful. And those managers clearly didn't feel the young players were ready and the best way for us to win.

 

He'd signed 7 players on loan before Vaz Te left, 7 in 6 months of the season and that was before he went nuts and loaned everything with two legs

 

I didn't mean literally happy. I mean they were more accepting of the fact that we were going to lose without ever giving the alternative a try.

 

Apologies if that's the case, I genuinely could only remember Drinkwater prior to Butterfield got injured. Were they short terms to cover injuries?

 

Some were such as Button in goal (again, we had a young lad ignored) and people like Addison and Cameron Park who were brought in while we ignored our own players and played them instead.

 

I can definitely understand the argument that they are more interested in short term success than the long term development of young players, but surely if they thought we were more likely to win with young players they'd play them? I don't get why you think they'd leave them out if they thought they would improve the team.

 

I don't think it's so much that they deliberately leave them out (though in some managers case I'm sure they deliberately do that just so they can play their own players) but I think a lot simply ignore certain players' abilities because they are too blind to see it. Too busy being over friendly with certain players or concentrating on them to see what others are capable of and when they find that their favourites aren't up to it they panic and bring someone else in because they've never bothered to actually look at the others who they ignore. And I put a lot of that down to not having a proper reserve league. I remember back when we had Geronimo I went to reserve games (before we scrapped them) and the manager wasn't even there. How can he see if a player is good enough without bothering to put the effort in to see the fringe players?

 

I'd forgotten all about big Miles! You can't blame me for forgetting Park though

But I'm not sure which young players we had that were better than any of those? Also I don't think you can blame a new manager for having a look at senior players we already had and deciding they weren't good enough. Particularly given the fans booed the team off after only the second home league game.

 

Some interesting points about the reserve team. I can't remember the rationale for scrapping it to be honest. Overall though I can't get away from the fact that the only way you will get a manager to commit to youth development and no loans is by giving them long term reassurance over their position. Like Crewe did for so many years. Relegation didn't mean sacking.

 

It is, and well reasoned, with no abuse or personal digs. It's refreshing.

But if you think the big earners have left, and the budget is no bigger (league one level you reckon) then without trying to come over as some sort of know-it all, I'll just beg to differ. Massively.

It'll all come out in the wash. And we'll get a good days worth of BBS debate out of it.

 

The reserve team was dropped by Simon Davey and then Mark Robbins i believe after bringing it back for a season before Keith Hill came in and then the u21's was formed following several countrys in Europe.

One reason was Cost, Especially under Simon Davey. The team was played on the main pitch and it was costing a bit from what i've read, heard and can put together.

Second it wasn't what people think. The teams were some good but some VERY bad teams. The likes of Rotherham coming down to play Barnsley reserves with a load of there Centre of excellence guys though. It was nonsense. Barnsley beat them in one game 8 or 9 nil. Beat Grimsby by a similar score. Battered Sheffield United but the latter wasn't to do with them been poor it was when Stones Clark Rose .... were first years and played in that team.

Now we are meant to play clubs at a similar level with similar facilities and the rest. It works in someway but theres still a gap between that and first team football which the managers spoken about.

 

That's the problem with accounts, we'll have had another 3 managers by the time they're released

 

Back to the issue of rebranding - I'd like to see us go down the route of St Pauli. We should become a cult, boutique club - I wouldn't mind paying more money for a truly unique experience. E.g. I'd be willing to travel to Dortmund to stand on their kop, it looks amazing.

http://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/when-punk-and-football-collide

 

If we are to rebrand I would like to see us take a holistic approach on and off the pitch.

Making one of the manager's main priorities the promotion and development of youth players. I thought this had been agreed with the current manager but we and our talented younger players have taken massive steps backwards over the last few months. The only way for a club like ours to be successful with the measure of success being mid table in the championship is to develop and play internally developed players. This helps financially as you sell a percentage on helping the club to reinvest over the medium term and on the pitch as some become integrated first team players. Given our limited clout in the transfer market we will only ever be able to attract a minority of players good enough for mid table or above.

If we were in the position we are in with RNL, Digby, and Rose getting regular game timei think people would be much more forgiving than fielding a team full of loanees again. Short termism is crippling development on the pitch and affecting us financially. How does loaning average players help develop the club or brand in any way?

Onwards and upwards

 

We can carry on saying we are a football club like we have been for over a century and a quarter. We aren't a brand we are a football club that's got a football team that plays at a football ground.

 

You taken the above post very literally. My point is, we could continue saying "we're **** and we know we are...we've got no money, we sell our best players and we refuse to turn the TVs on because it costs money"...OR we could say something else...e.g. "we've got Premier League aspirations" until we know what the hell we want to be.

 

Any club wants to play in the premiership so a club saying they have premier league aspirations is stating the obvious. Accrington Stanley will have premier league aspirations. It doesn't mean it will ever happen though.

 

Seems odd to use a Leeds company that pays our local and league rivals Huddersfield Town alot of money to sponsor a stand, the chance to 'brand' us. Would have prefered a local company.