"I don't want to just manage the team, I want to manage the club." - David Flitcroft. Bit of a clue there. In my humble opinion, people are still blaming the club/board when the one in control as of the day he put pen to paper is David Flitcroft. He chooses who he wants to retain. He chooses the length of contract, terms offered etc within the budget he's been allocated. I have read so many posts since I've got home, some from very clever posters, and yet even they are still blaming the same people. Which is their prerogative. But I find that unfair when I look at the evidence available to us. David Flitcroft has been a revelation as manager of this club so far. Not many of us wanted him in charge initially (I wanted 'sidekick' out), but he has rammed our doubts down our throats. I enjoyed that final few months of football more than a fair few seasons combined. It felt like my club again, and in the main, we have Flitcroft, his coaching staff and the players to thank for that. Come the end of the season, everybody wanted him to remain as manager, and I don't recall many disagreeing with his 'new era' policy of managing the whole club when it was announced to us. He's already renamed the gym in honour of John Stones. There seemed a rather split reaction on here to that decision. Myself, I found it bizarre. But he's in charge now, everything goes through him, and considering what he's achieved since taking over I am inclined to trust him and back him. Which I am doing. 100%. I probably won't always agree with his every decision (see the Stones thing) but I'll trust him. If it was up to me I'd have offered Luke Steele at least a 2 year deal. But I'm not the manager of the club. David is, and David has earned the right to make the big decisions and if that article in The Star is accurate, then it appears David only feels a 1 year deal is appropriate. I thought Stephen Foster was worth a 1 year deal. David felt differently. He gave his explanation for not retaining him and whilst I disagreed with it I'm putting my trust/faith in him as our manager. But there's another clue - David decided against retaining Foster. He then explained his reasons for giving Jason Scotland a 1 year deal. Therefore, it is David Flitcroft who has offered Luke Steele a 1 year deal (if the article is accurate). Simple, really. I'm totally aware of the boards shortcomings and mistakes over the years, but I'm sorry they aren't the ones choosing which player gets what and for how long. Flicker obviously has a budget to work within, and has offered deals accordingly. So if people really want to have a whine and a moan, then aim them at the man that most of us regard as our saviour... Me? I'll let him get on with his job, whilst hoping the adventure for us continues. He made me look a tit, to be fair, saving us from relegation. So if I look a tit this time by backing him then feel free to blame me if it helps. You Reds and all that.
Sums up my thoughts too whitey, I also think he's managing his budget with more than one season in mind.
Just baffled me reading folk apportioning blame at the board as per. It's quite obvious - to me anyway - that Flicker is choosing who gets what and how long for. Like, proper obvious.
Do you really think he's controlling the budget Whitey? I think from reading the chronicle it's not that he wanted control over. I like what he's done so far. apparently they have invested 10,000's of pound in the training ground surface. he wants to make the club feel for professional and he's doing that by changing things in the car park and the entrance along with other things.
Foster - right decision for sure. Steele - one of the worse kickers of all the keepers I've seen at 'well this season, too small to command his area when under pressure from large Centre-halves/strikers, but he is generally a great shot stopper. On the other side, if his leaving means we're left with Alnwick, then God help us.
He will have been allocated a budget for his players. Current players, and potential recruits. That is standard. And that's what I said. It is then up to him as manager to work within that budget.
i honestly don't think that's how clubs work Whitey and i think Barnsley will be know different to others bigger and smaller. From what the likes of the Doncaster rover owners said they get given a short list and John Ryan will do the business. you will say this is different but the QPR owner said only the other day that Harry said who he would like Remy and then he did the deal including visiting Remy at his house and playing Fifa i think he said. think back to the Essian deal Roman did the running after Jose said he wanted him including getting him on to his Private boat
I would imagine there is a budget for the team and a budget for the running of the club. He will have control of the team budget, but my guess is that he wants a bigger say in how the club budget is spent, in order to generate more money for the team budget.
I've started to get little niggling doubts these last few days. I was overjoyed when he signed his contract and was buzzing at the end of the season, expecting great things. Now, it's more like hoping for new things. There's been decisions I haven't agreed with, such as those you mentioned above, which have been mainly met with 'It's Flicker, we can 100% trust him' comments. I've no reason not to trust him, but then again I won't blindly love every decision he makes and worship the ground he walks on without question either. I'm worried that people are seeing everything with rose-coloured specs due to the end of the season and are accepting anything and everything he says as perfect. That being said I'm super super happy we have him and feeling much more confident this season than any other I remember, but let's not not question anything ey? (and no, I'm not saying let's be negative either).
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get across with that post, mate. Sorry. I am pretty sure that Flitcroft is given a budget for players, and he has to work within that. For example - the currently contracted players combined annual wage comes to (just an example) £2m. And the board allocates him a further £2m to spend on wages/transfers. So he then has to recruit and retain within that budget. Reminder - these are examples. I have no idea what his budget is. You seem to be bringing up the methods some managers employ in order to attract a player...? And if so then I agree, they do. And I've no doubt Flicker will have his own ways of tempting the right individuals to join the adventure.
Definitely. As I said in my post, I've already disagreed with his decisions, questioned them. But I am willing to put my faith in him and trust him. I think he deserves that.
Sorry, but I don't see it that way If David Flitcroft wanted to move Luke Steele on this Summer, he would not have been offered a new contract. The release of both Steve Foster & Marlon Harewood showed the manager not to be afraid of having to make tough decisions by letting go two of the fans' favourites. He has been honest and straight forward with the players & fans since his appointment. There is no evidence whatsoever, looking at his obvious man management style, approach and technique, that Flitcroft would employ such an unprofessional, underhand & insidious manner to move out the club captain by offering a contract knowing it would be turned down. This may well be the impression and interpretation of others of the situation, but it certainly isn't mine. This is still assuming the Star was accurate in it's reporting in the first place.
Re: Sorry, but I don't see it that way and its a fairly big assumption - they have managed to get a few other big Barnsley stories spectacularly wrong in recent times. and I do hope they are wrong for all the reasons Kev states above - If Flicker wants to move steele on fair enough, or wants to keep him but not on his current salary - again fair enough - its the one year deal bit that doesnt add up of course, and this is pure speculation, one scenario that could happen is Steeles agent might have leaked some disinformation to stir up the pot and see if any other clubs come sniffing as a way to pressure the club to increase the deal on the table - or get a better deal elsewhere anyway
Re: Sorry, but I don't see it that way Decent post whitey and certainly adds to the debate of whats going on. No-one really knows whos having the most influence but all i can say is i moan at the board for all the ***** due to the constant balls ups theyve made over a prolonged period. Does this lead to undue abuse? Yes. Have they brought it on themselves over time with a poor professionalism? Yes.
Re: Sorry, but I don't see it that way Suppose so. But I'm still bemused at the amount of folk yesterday who attacked the board over a decision clearly (if the article was factual) made by the manager.
Re: Sorry, but I don't see it that way i'm afraid it will take more than a bit of a speach from flicker wanting to manage the whole club to convince me that the board will let him. Hopefully he gets his wish. I just don't see from how the club has been run in the past, that the power that be (yes singular) will just say, "aye alright, goo on then"... I really can't
