Phil Parkinson eager to solve Bradford City goalkeeper issue

French defender Christopher Routis challenges Blackburn opponent Luke Varney

French defender Christopher Routis challenges Blackburn opponent Luke Varney

First published in Sport
Last updated
Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , Bradford City Reporter

PHIL Parkinson will today plead with the City board to let him recruit another keeper – and fast.

With less than a fortnight before the new campaign kicks off, Jordan Pickford is the only senior stopper at Valley Parade following Jon McLaughlin's exit.

Sunderland loanee Pickford has been blocked from playing in cup competitions by his parent club – and City's second game of the season is the Capital One opener at Morecambe.

Parkinson cast another eye on trialist Matt Urwin in the second half of Saturday's goalless draw with Blackburn. But as it stands, youth-team keeper Elliott Barker is the back-up.

Having lost McLaughlin to Burton, the City chief is anxious that the clock is ticking and intends to put his case forcibly to the club's joint- chairmen.

Parkinson said: "I'm not happy with the numbers. We need more players in that squad.

"The goalkeeping situation needs rectifying because Jordan can't play in the cups – and we've got the Capital One Cup straight away.

"We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in.

"We lost Jonny and we know the whys and wherefores of that. But it's disappointing to lose him because I think that would have been a very strong department if we had had those two.

"Now we've got to find another one and it's difficult to find a keeper with the experience that Jon had.

"We're trying to do something and Matt has done himself no harm. He looks a cool customer and I thought he did well when he came on.

"That needs resolving because what we don't want to do is have to go in the cups and throw a 16-year-old in the goal.

"No disrespect but we don't want to throw in one of our youngsters if they are not ready. It wouldn't be fair on anyone to do that.

"And it's all right saying that we'll put our two young keepers on the bench. But they need to play for their own development as goalkeepers in the youth team.

"It's all right trailing a youngster round the country when he's not ready to go in the first team. But they've got to be playing themselves.

"I will be speaking to the board again to get that rectified. We're also looking to strengthen in other areas, like out wide, and we're working on that as well."

City fans caught their first sight of England under-19 international Pickford in the weekend friendly but he came off at the break with a tight groin.

Parkinson is still sifting through the trialists but French defender Christopher Routis is pushing his claims to replace Matt Taylor, who made his Cheltenham debut against Bath City.

The Bantams boss said: "We're just piecing things together. Matt Taylor's gone so that takes one off the wage bill.

"We'll go through where we think we are. I know what we need to add.

"With Matty going, we do need another defender. Obviously Lidds (Gary Liddle) and (Alan) Sheehan can both play centre back.

"We've got a lot of trialists and some didn't get on, so we may have a game this week or the following week.

"We'll certainly get one or the other. We've got a group with different requirements for the week."

Comments (90)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:08am Mon 28 Jul 14

Johsay says...

Put simply.

Where has all the money gone?
Put simply. Where has all the money gone? Johsay
  • Score: 19

8:26am Mon 28 Jul 14

Cityman23 says...

What I noticed about Jordan Pickford on Saturday is ..

A) ... He's not tall for a keeper.

B) ... The ball spilled from his grasp a few times during the match but he moved swiftly to gather it at the second attempt.

Hard to make further judgement apart from the fact, he actually kept a clean sheet.

We might have cause to regret Jonny's departure though, if JP is cup-tied.
What I noticed about Jordan Pickford on Saturday is .. A) ... He's not tall for a keeper. B) ... The ball spilled from his grasp a few times during the match but he moved swiftly to gather it at the second attempt. Hard to make further judgement apart from the fact, he actually kept a clean sheet. We might have cause to regret Jonny's departure though, if JP is cup-tied. Cityman23
  • Score: 7

8:30am Mon 28 Jul 14

Plastic Bantam says...

Johsay wrote:
Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
[quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke... Plastic Bantam
  • Score: -2

8:50am Mon 28 Jul 14

yorkiewyke says...

Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote:
Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It would be nice to HAVE a 10 - 15 goal a season man
[quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It would be nice to HAVE a 10 - 15 goal a season man yorkiewyke
  • Score: 17

9:00am Mon 28 Jul 14

Pablo says...

Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote:
Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It's more like £5k a week!

I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie.

On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.
[quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act. Pablo
  • Score: 9

9:05am Mon 28 Jul 14

Papa Smurfs Wig says...

It sounds like Parky is getting a bit miffed and l'm with him on this one. If it's hard to get money for a goalie then where would the brass come from for an ever so needed winger?
It sounds like Parky is getting a bit miffed and l'm with him on this one. If it's hard to get money for a goalie then where would the brass come from for an ever so needed winger? Papa Smurfs Wig
  • Score: 12

9:16am Mon 28 Jul 14

BigFigure says...

yorkiewyke wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote:
Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It would be nice to HAVE a 10 - 15 goal a season man
James Hanson....12 goals last season :)
[quote][p][bold]yorkiewyke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It would be nice to HAVE a 10 - 15 goal a season man[/p][/quote]James Hanson....12 goals last season :) BigFigure
  • Score: 7

9:16am Mon 28 Jul 14

OLD BANTAM says...

Is it the board who are picking the team now or the manager. No we don't know the whys and wherefores that jonny left .it sounds like pp wanted to keep him. And he wanted to stay. So it sounds like it was taken out of pps hands. Wot did mark lawn say two or three weeks ago players will be arriving shortly.Matt urwin has not got the experience that jonny had only playing in the under21 side at Blackburn . And where are the lone players ? dose it sound like a bit of a rift between pp and the board.hope not.
Is it the board who are picking the team now or the manager. No we don't know the whys and wherefores that jonny left .it sounds like pp wanted to keep him. And he wanted to stay. So it sounds like it was taken out of pps hands. Wot did mark lawn say two or three weeks ago players will be arriving shortly.Matt urwin has not got the experience that jonny had only playing in the under21 side at Blackburn . And where are the lone players ? dose it sound like a bit of a rift between pp and the board.hope not. OLD BANTAM
  • Score: 6

9:21am Mon 28 Jul 14

ageofreason says...

Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him.
Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper??????
With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury.
The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly.
Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him. Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper?????? With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury. The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly. ageofreason
  • Score: 15

9:22am Mon 28 Jul 14

Plastic Bantam says...

yorkiewyke wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It would be nice to HAVE a 10 - 15 goal a season man
We do.. Hanson
[quote][p][bold]yorkiewyke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It would be nice to HAVE a 10 - 15 goal a season man[/p][/quote]We do.. Hanson Plastic Bantam
  • Score: 1

9:23am Mon 28 Jul 14

gordon ramsay says...

Parkys frustration definitely coming out now and it's not looking great in terms of recruitment.

You will always get idiots on here who think everything is always wonderful and that promotion is on the cards.

Sadly that looks a long way off with just 12 days to kick on.

For me we are weaker than 12 months ago and once NW went we know that was relegation form.

No GK of our own. No width. No pace. Not many goals in the squad.

I hope and expect to see 3/4 new faces . However they need to be better signings than last summer or this could be a very long season. The bookies have us as one of the favourites for relegation and the honest/intelligent observer can see why.
Parkys frustration definitely coming out now and it's not looking great in terms of recruitment. You will always get idiots on here who think everything is always wonderful and that promotion is on the cards. Sadly that looks a long way off with just 12 days to kick on. For me we are weaker than 12 months ago and once NW went we know that was relegation form. No GK of our own. No width. No pace. Not many goals in the squad. I hope and expect to see 3/4 new faces . However they need to be better signings than last summer or this could be a very long season. The bookies have us as one of the favourites for relegation and the honest/intelligent observer can see why. gordon ramsay
  • Score: 11

9:49am Mon 28 Jul 14

yorkiewyke says...

Plastic Bantam wrote:
yorkiewyke wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It would be nice to HAVE a 10 - 15 goal a season man
We do.. Hanson
Who else ? James`s goals alone aren`t going to get us anywhere near the top
[quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkiewyke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It would be nice to HAVE a 10 - 15 goal a season man[/p][/quote]We do.. Hanson[/p][/quote]Who else ? James`s goals alone aren`t going to get us anywhere near the top yorkiewyke
  • Score: 0

10:06am Mon 28 Jul 14

bcfc mad85 says...

Looks like the club needs some sort of investment no money and pp still needs to bring players in its been back and forth being told one thing by the club that we have a competitive budget to sign players yet pp don't seem to know what he as on a positive the players brought in look really good
Looks like the club needs some sort of investment no money and pp still needs to bring players in its been back and forth being told one thing by the club that we have a competitive budget to sign players yet pp don't seem to know what he as on a positive the players brought in look really good bcfc mad85
  • Score: 1

10:16am Mon 28 Jul 14

Peter300 says...

Cityman23 wrote:
What I noticed about Jordan Pickford on Saturday is ..

A) ... He's not tall for a keeper.

B) ... The ball spilled from his grasp a few times during the match but he moved swiftly to gather it at the second attempt.

Hard to make further judgement apart from the fact, he actually kept a clean sheet.

We might have cause to regret Jonny's departure though, if JP is cup-tied.
Yes, well you should have told those on here who constantly criticised Jon.
[quote][p][bold]Cityman23[/bold] wrote: What I noticed about Jordan Pickford on Saturday is .. A) ... He's not tall for a keeper. B) ... The ball spilled from his grasp a few times during the match but he moved swiftly to gather it at the second attempt. Hard to make further judgement apart from the fact, he actually kept a clean sheet. We might have cause to regret Jonny's departure though, if JP is cup-tied.[/p][/quote]Yes, well you should have told those on here who constantly criticised Jon. Peter300
  • Score: 6

10:21am Mon 28 Jul 14

Peter300 says...

Pablo wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote:
Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It's more like £5k a week!

I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie.

On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.
The Jonny Mac situation was not directly down to Phil. He has to make tough choices. The money went to Darby and McArdle. They signed-up no problem. It was mighty frustrating for the manager. Me too because I believe Jon is a fine keeper. 46 games last season and he's shown the door - in effect. Still, many people on here will be delighted Jon has left as they did not rate him.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.[/p][/quote]The Jonny Mac situation was not directly down to Phil. He has to make tough choices. The money went to Darby and McArdle. They signed-up no problem. It was mighty frustrating for the manager. Me too because I believe Jon is a fine keeper. 46 games last season and he's shown the door - in effect. Still, many people on here will be delighted Jon has left as they did not rate him. Peter300
  • Score: 5

10:24am Mon 28 Jul 14

Peter300 says...

Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
It sounds like Parky is getting a bit miffed and l'm with him on this one. If it's hard to get money for a goalie then where would the brass come from for an ever so needed winger?
It's choices. Do you spend what's left of the 'budget' on a keeper or save some for another player or two? This is a problem most managers have to handle. Phil did not want Jonny Mac to leave. That is obvious.
[quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: It sounds like Parky is getting a bit miffed and l'm with him on this one. If it's hard to get money for a goalie then where would the brass come from for an ever so needed winger?[/p][/quote]It's choices. Do you spend what's left of the 'budget' on a keeper or save some for another player or two? This is a problem most managers have to handle. Phil did not want Jonny Mac to leave. That is obvious. Peter300
  • Score: 1

10:26am Mon 28 Jul 14

BD16 says...

Pablo wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote:
Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It's more like £5k a week!

I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie.

On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.
Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise?

Too many eggs in just two baskets.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.[/p][/quote]Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise? Too many eggs in just two baskets. BD16
  • Score: 6

10:26am Mon 28 Jul 14

Peter300 says...

OLD BANTAM wrote:
Is it the board who are picking the team now or the manager. No we don't know the whys and wherefores that jonny left .it sounds like pp wanted to keep him. And he wanted to stay. So it sounds like it was taken out of pps hands. Wot did mark lawn say two or three weeks ago players will be arriving shortly.Matt urwin has not got the experience that jonny had only playing in the under21 side at Blackburn . And where are the lone players ? dose it sound like a bit of a rift between pp and the board.hope not.
Quite possibly. However look on the bright side. Lots of people on this message board wanted shut of Jonny Mac. Now they have their wish, so they will be dancing in the streets.
[quote][p][bold]OLD BANTAM[/bold] wrote: Is it the board who are picking the team now or the manager. No we don't know the whys and wherefores that jonny left .it sounds like pp wanted to keep him. And he wanted to stay. So it sounds like it was taken out of pps hands. Wot did mark lawn say two or three weeks ago players will be arriving shortly.Matt urwin has not got the experience that jonny had only playing in the under21 side at Blackburn . And where are the lone players ? dose it sound like a bit of a rift between pp and the board.hope not.[/p][/quote]Quite possibly. However look on the bright side. Lots of people on this message board wanted shut of Jonny Mac. Now they have their wish, so they will be dancing in the streets. Peter300
  • Score: 5

10:27am Mon 28 Jul 14

Michael Clayton says...

This is the first time I have seen signs of strain between the manager and the board. As I have repeatedly said, the second season is going to be tough and I fear a downturn in results added to the general feeling of discontent will rock the boat.

The biggest single footballing 'disaster' would be to lose Parky but I am concerned that this is the way things are going. I hope I am wrong.
This is the first time I have seen signs of strain between the manager and the board. As I have repeatedly said, the second season is going to be tough and I fear a downturn in results added to the general feeling of discontent will rock the boat. The biggest single footballing 'disaster' would be to lose Parky but I am concerned that this is the way things are going. I hope I am wrong. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 3

10:29am Mon 28 Jul 14

Peter300 says...

ageofreason wrote:
Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him.
Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper??????
With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury.
The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly.
Try telling that to the Jonny Mac critics on here. Did you ever read what they said about him last season? They said he cost City loads of goals and made mistakes.
[quote][p][bold]ageofreason[/bold] wrote: Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him. Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper?????? With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury. The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly.[/p][/quote]Try telling that to the Jonny Mac critics on here. Did you ever read what they said about him last season? They said he cost City loads of goals and made mistakes. Peter300
  • Score: 0

10:40am Mon 28 Jul 14

Peter300 says...

ageofreason wrote:
Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him.
Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper??????
With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury.
The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly.
Well at least some people are happy Jonny Mac had desparted. Check out CityGent7, Tyker 2, Nickloza, NorthYorkshireBantam
, Toerag43479 as a small sample of the many on here who said Jonny was no good. No doubt these individuals and their associates will keep me informed of any goalkeeping mistakes this coming season.
[quote][p][bold]ageofreason[/bold] wrote: Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him. Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper?????? With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury. The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly.[/p][/quote]Well at least some people are happy Jonny Mac had desparted. Check out CityGent7, Tyker 2, Nickloza, NorthYorkshireBantam , Toerag43479 as a small sample of the many on here who said Jonny was no good. No doubt these individuals and their associates will keep me informed of any goalkeeping mistakes this coming season. Peter300
  • Score: -1

10:58am Mon 28 Jul 14

Plastic Bantam says...

BD16 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.
Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise? Too many eggs in just two baskets.
First I've heard of this. How do you know this?!
[quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.[/p][/quote]Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise? Too many eggs in just two baskets.[/p][/quote]First I've heard of this. How do you know this?! Plastic Bantam
  • Score: 2

11:23am Mon 28 Jul 14

tyker2 says...

Peter300 wrote:
ageofreason wrote:
Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him.
Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper??????
With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury.
The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly.
Well at least some people are happy Jonny Mac had desparted. Check out CityGent7, Tyker 2, Nickloza, NorthYorkshireBantam

, Toerag43479 as a small sample of the many on here who said Jonny was no good. No doubt these individuals and their associates will keep me informed of any goalkeeping mistakes this coming season.
lie:I never said anything about Johhnny Mc ina negative way
[quote][p][bold]Peter300[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ageofreason[/bold] wrote: Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him. Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper?????? With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury. The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly.[/p][/quote]Well at least some people are happy Jonny Mac had desparted. Check out CityGent7, Tyker 2, Nickloza, NorthYorkshireBantam , Toerag43479 as a small sample of the many on here who said Jonny was no good. No doubt these individuals and their associates will keep me informed of any goalkeeping mistakes this coming season.[/p][/quote]lie:I never said anything about Johhnny Mc ina negative way tyker2
  • Score: -1

11:24am Mon 28 Jul 14

lawsonio123 says...

Jonnie Mac has gone and already the Chickens are coming home to roost a goalkepper with a lot of clean sheets last season given away someone and its NOT Parky has made a right **** up Parky is trying to work on a shoe string what do they expect of him I have always defended the Directors but enough is enough once again I say to them issue shares we will buy them but if not stop crying the poor tale
Jonnie Mac has gone and already the Chickens are coming home to roost a goalkepper with a lot of clean sheets last season given away someone and its NOT Parky has made a right **** up Parky is trying to work on a shoe string what do they expect of him I have always defended the Directors but enough is enough once again I say to them issue shares we will buy them but if not stop crying the poor tale lawsonio123
  • Score: 8

11:28am Mon 28 Jul 14

Hove edge bantam says...

As well as a keeper We need a striker to partner James Hanson
Signs are not looking good with our highest paid player Has anything changed from last season when he needed a FULL pre season to prove his worth or is it just an early excuse for any poor form Parky needs to look very closely at his striking options Dont think Andy Gray 2 will be as bigger hit as he thinks
As well as a keeper We need a striker to partner James Hanson Signs are not looking good with our highest paid player Has anything changed from last season when he needed a FULL pre season to prove his worth or is it just an early excuse for any poor form Parky needs to look very closely at his striking options Dont think Andy Gray 2 will be as bigger hit as he thinks Hove edge bantam
  • Score: 3

11:53am Mon 28 Jul 14

BD16 says...

Plastic Bantam wrote:
BD16 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.
Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise? Too many eggs in just two baskets.
First I've heard of this. How do you know this?!
I don't know it as gospel, I read it somewhere on here. That's why I used the word apparently.

True or not, I feel we still have too much of our budget tied up in the contracts of three or four players. I'm not knocking Mclean but when we signed him surely somebody at the club had an inkling that we would have a reduced budget this year.
[quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.[/p][/quote]Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise? Too many eggs in just two baskets.[/p][/quote]First I've heard of this. How do you know this?![/p][/quote]I don't know it as gospel, I read it somewhere on here. That's why I used the word apparently. True or not, I feel we still have too much of our budget tied up in the contracts of three or four players. I'm not knocking Mclean but when we signed him surely somebody at the club had an inkling that we would have a reduced budget this year. BD16
  • Score: 1

12:12pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Michael Clayton says...

BD16 wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
BD16 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.
Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise? Too many eggs in just two baskets.
First I've heard of this. How do you know this?!
I don't know it as gospel, I read it somewhere on here. That's why I used the word apparently.

True or not, I feel we still have too much of our budget tied up in the contracts of three or four players. I'm not knocking Mclean but when we signed him surely somebody at the club had an inkling that we would have a reduced budget this year.
My opinion is not qualified but I think you are on the right lines.

On a more positive note, and despite the departures of so many players, I feel there is genuine quality in the squad: Darby, Meredith, Davies, Hanson, Yeates, McLean, Sheehan - to name but few.

Also, the level of expectation is much lower and this can also help in a perverse way.
[quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.[/p][/quote]Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise? Too many eggs in just two baskets.[/p][/quote]First I've heard of this. How do you know this?![/p][/quote]I don't know it as gospel, I read it somewhere on here. That's why I used the word apparently. True or not, I feel we still have too much of our budget tied up in the contracts of three or four players. I'm not knocking Mclean but when we signed him surely somebody at the club had an inkling that we would have a reduced budget this year.[/p][/quote]My opinion is not qualified but I think you are on the right lines. On a more positive note, and despite the departures of so many players, I feel there is genuine quality in the squad: Darby, Meredith, Davies, Hanson, Yeates, McLean, Sheehan - to name but few. Also, the level of expectation is much lower and this can also help in a perverse way. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 4

12:42pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Pablo says...

BD16 wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
BD16 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.
Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise? Too many eggs in just two baskets.
First I've heard of this. How do you know this?!
I don't know it as gospel, I read it somewhere on here. That's why I used the word apparently.

True or not, I feel we still have too much of our budget tied up in the contracts of three or four players. I'm not knocking Mclean but when we signed him surely somebody at the club had an inkling that we would have a reduced budget this year.
I'm 95% sure I read an article from a club source that Davies had a clause in his contract stating he had to be the highest earner and, as McLean came in on more pay, this automatically triggered an increase for Davies.
[quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.[/p][/quote]Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise? Too many eggs in just two baskets.[/p][/quote]First I've heard of this. How do you know this?![/p][/quote]I don't know it as gospel, I read it somewhere on here. That's why I used the word apparently. True or not, I feel we still have too much of our budget tied up in the contracts of three or four players. I'm not knocking Mclean but when we signed him surely somebody at the club had an inkling that we would have a reduced budget this year.[/p][/quote]I'm 95% sure I read an article from a club source that Davies had a clause in his contract stating he had to be the highest earner and, as McLean came in on more pay, this automatically triggered an increase for Davies. Pablo
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Mon 28 Jul 14

BD16 says...

Pablo wrote:
BD16 wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
BD16 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.
Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise? Too many eggs in just two baskets.
First I've heard of this. How do you know this?!
I don't know it as gospel, I read it somewhere on here. That's why I used the word apparently.

True or not, I feel we still have too much of our budget tied up in the contracts of three or four players. I'm not knocking Mclean but when we signed him surely somebody at the club had an inkling that we would have a reduced budget this year.
I'm 95% sure I read an article from a club source that Davies had a clause in his contract stating he had to be the highest earner and, as McLean came in on more pay, this automatically triggered an increase for Davies.
Thanks Pablo. I couldn't remember where I had read it but I was pretty sure it was a good authority.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.[/p][/quote]Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise? Too many eggs in just two baskets.[/p][/quote]First I've heard of this. How do you know this?![/p][/quote]I don't know it as gospel, I read it somewhere on here. That's why I used the word apparently. True or not, I feel we still have too much of our budget tied up in the contracts of three or four players. I'm not knocking Mclean but when we signed him surely somebody at the club had an inkling that we would have a reduced budget this year.[/p][/quote]I'm 95% sure I read an article from a club source that Davies had a clause in his contract stating he had to be the highest earner and, as McLean came in on more pay, this automatically triggered an increase for Davies.[/p][/quote]Thanks Pablo. I couldn't remember where I had read it but I was pretty sure it was a good authority. BD16
  • Score: 0

1:06pm Mon 28 Jul 14

tyker2 says...

Have not the bard said they want Championship football within a very short period o time. If so why have they virtually made it impossible for Parky to get a decent squad together?

We may well struggle this season and if we do so, the Board will be held responsible.

Heaven help us if we ever get promoted as wags in he championship are significantly higher across the board.
Have not the bard said they want Championship football within a very short period o time. If so why have they virtually made it impossible for Parky to get a decent squad together? We may well struggle this season and if we do so, the Board will be held responsible. Heaven help us if we ever get promoted as wags in he championship are significantly higher across the board. tyker2
  • Score: 2

1:34pm Mon 28 Jul 14

macca1969 says...

BD16 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
BD16 wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
BD16 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.
Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise? Too many eggs in just two baskets.
First I've heard of this. How do you know this?!
I don't know it as gospel, I read it somewhere on here. That's why I used the word apparently.

True or not, I feel we still have too much of our budget tied up in the contracts of three or four players. I'm not knocking Mclean but when we signed him surely somebody at the club had an inkling that we would have a reduced budget this year.
I'm 95% sure I read an article from a club source that Davies had a clause in his contract stating he had to be the highest earner and, as McLean came in on more pay, this automatically triggered an increase for Davies.
Thanks Pablo. I couldn't remember where I had read it but I was pretty sure it was a good authority.
It was dave Baldwin who mentioned the clause. Stating it went up when James Hanson penned a new deal and then again when McLean signed.

On a different note hopefully the fans will have more realistic expectations this season and we may then surprise a few people. We do as someone pointed out have genuine quality in the team. We just need a bit of luck getting the right players to complement what we have and of course what all teams are after a big slice of lady luck. :-)
[quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.[/p][/quote]Given that we have cash constraints, why did we sign a very expensive forward which, apparently, triggered a clause in the contract of Davies, giving him an automatic pay rise? Too many eggs in just two baskets.[/p][/quote]First I've heard of this. How do you know this?![/p][/quote]I don't know it as gospel, I read it somewhere on here. That's why I used the word apparently. True or not, I feel we still have too much of our budget tied up in the contracts of three or four players. I'm not knocking Mclean but when we signed him surely somebody at the club had an inkling that we would have a reduced budget this year.[/p][/quote]I'm 95% sure I read an article from a club source that Davies had a clause in his contract stating he had to be the highest earner and, as McLean came in on more pay, this automatically triggered an increase for Davies.[/p][/quote]Thanks Pablo. I couldn't remember where I had read it but I was pretty sure it was a good authority.[/p][/quote]It was dave Baldwin who mentioned the clause. Stating it went up when James Hanson penned a new deal and then again when McLean signed. On a different note hopefully the fans will have more realistic expectations this season and we may then surprise a few people. We do as someone pointed out have genuine quality in the team. We just need a bit of luck getting the right players to complement what we have and of course what all teams are after a big slice of lady luck. :-) macca1969
  • Score: 4

1:46pm Mon 28 Jul 14

northyorksbantam says...

tyker2 wrote:
Have not the bard said they want Championship football within a very short period o time. If so why have they virtually made it impossible for Parky to get a decent squad together?

We may well struggle this season and if we do so, the Board will be held responsible.

Heaven help us if we ever get promoted as wags in he championship are significantly higher across the board.
There's a decent article with Baldwin on width of a post today. It is more from the boards perspective talking of contracts, outgoings, further incomings etc.

Baldwin indicates there will be minimum 3 more players coming in, maybe up to 5 but a bit of patience is required to get these things over the line. He confirms that we are still on the look out for a pacy winger.

On Jon Mac, Baldwin indicates that Parky brought in Pickford as his new no.1. The problem then becomes when Jon Mac is wanting No.1 wages, but will be sat on the bench, and with the budget restraints this season that was not seen as feasible. I think this is a continuation of something ML said recently about not wanting highly paid players sat on the bench or not even in the team as we have seen in the last couple of seasons. Of slight concern is the fact Baldwin doesn't rule out player sales..namely James Hanson "if the right offer comes in for player and club"

The tone of Parkys quotes today sounds like he is pretty disgruntled with the board, particularly with the Jon Mac situation where it sounds like Parky wanted both keepers in, I cant imagine his quote of "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in" will go down to well. He is also not happy with the size of the current squad, and maybe feeling the pressure of trying to put a squad together on a budget reduced by a significant amount. Lets hope they can sort it out.
[quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: Have not the bard said they want Championship football within a very short period o time. If so why have they virtually made it impossible for Parky to get a decent squad together? We may well struggle this season and if we do so, the Board will be held responsible. Heaven help us if we ever get promoted as wags in he championship are significantly higher across the board.[/p][/quote]There's a decent article with Baldwin on width of a post today. It is more from the boards perspective talking of contracts, outgoings, further incomings etc. Baldwin indicates there will be minimum 3 more players coming in, maybe up to 5 but a bit of patience is required to get these things over the line. He confirms that we are still on the look out for a pacy winger. On Jon Mac, Baldwin indicates that Parky brought in Pickford as his new no.1. The problem then becomes when Jon Mac is wanting No.1 wages, but will be sat on the bench, and with the budget restraints this season that was not seen as feasible. I think this is a continuation of something ML said recently about not wanting highly paid players sat on the bench or not even in the team as we have seen in the last couple of seasons. Of slight concern is the fact Baldwin doesn't rule out player sales..namely James Hanson "if the right offer comes in for player and club" The tone of Parkys quotes today sounds like he is pretty disgruntled with the board, particularly with the Jon Mac situation where it sounds like Parky wanted both keepers in, I cant imagine his quote of "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in" will go down to well. He is also not happy with the size of the current squad, and maybe feeling the pressure of trying to put a squad together on a budget reduced by a significant amount. Lets hope they can sort it out. northyorksbantam
  • Score: 6

1:58pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Michael Clayton says...

northyorksbantam wrote:
tyker2 wrote:
Have not the bard said they want Championship football within a very short period o time. If so why have they virtually made it impossible for Parky to get a decent squad together?

We may well struggle this season and if we do so, the Board will be held responsible.

Heaven help us if we ever get promoted as wags in he championship are significantly higher across the board.
There's a decent article with Baldwin on width of a post today. It is more from the boards perspective talking of contracts, outgoings, further incomings etc.

Baldwin indicates there will be minimum 3 more players coming in, maybe up to 5 but a bit of patience is required to get these things over the line. He confirms that we are still on the look out for a pacy winger.

On Jon Mac, Baldwin indicates that Parky brought in Pickford as his new no.1. The problem then becomes when Jon Mac is wanting No.1 wages, but will be sat on the bench, and with the budget restraints this season that was not seen as feasible. I think this is a continuation of something ML said recently about not wanting highly paid players sat on the bench or not even in the team as we have seen in the last couple of seasons. Of slight concern is the fact Baldwin doesn't rule out player sales..namely James Hanson "if the right offer comes in for player and club"

The tone of Parkys quotes today sounds like he is pretty disgruntled with the board, particularly with the Jon Mac situation where it sounds like Parky wanted both keepers in, I cant imagine his quote of "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in" will go down to well. He is also not happy with the size of the current squad, and maybe feeling the pressure of trying to put a squad together on a budget reduced by a significant amount. Lets hope they can sort it out.
Very good points made. It is nice that you have bothered to do some fact finding.
[quote][p][bold]northyorksbantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: Have not the bard said they want Championship football within a very short period o time. If so why have they virtually made it impossible for Parky to get a decent squad together? We may well struggle this season and if we do so, the Board will be held responsible. Heaven help us if we ever get promoted as wags in he championship are significantly higher across the board.[/p][/quote]There's a decent article with Baldwin on width of a post today. It is more from the boards perspective talking of contracts, outgoings, further incomings etc. Baldwin indicates there will be minimum 3 more players coming in, maybe up to 5 but a bit of patience is required to get these things over the line. He confirms that we are still on the look out for a pacy winger. On Jon Mac, Baldwin indicates that Parky brought in Pickford as his new no.1. The problem then becomes when Jon Mac is wanting No.1 wages, but will be sat on the bench, and with the budget restraints this season that was not seen as feasible. I think this is a continuation of something ML said recently about not wanting highly paid players sat on the bench or not even in the team as we have seen in the last couple of seasons. Of slight concern is the fact Baldwin doesn't rule out player sales..namely James Hanson "if the right offer comes in for player and club" The tone of Parkys quotes today sounds like he is pretty disgruntled with the board, particularly with the Jon Mac situation where it sounds like Parky wanted both keepers in, I cant imagine his quote of "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in" will go down to well. He is also not happy with the size of the current squad, and maybe feeling the pressure of trying to put a squad together on a budget reduced by a significant amount. Lets hope they can sort it out.[/p][/quote]Very good points made. It is nice that you have bothered to do some fact finding. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 1

2:02pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Halifax Bantam says...

Why is it that during every recent pre season we are always in a mess with transfers??
We are constantly told what a well run club we have but the reality is very different. Im not PP's biggest fan but how can any manager be expected to have any sort of success with no expirienced keeper?? Recent history shows how important a good cup run can be so why are we in the current position of having to field a youth against Morcombe, how has this been allowed to happen and is very short sighted by the board.
The signing of Mclean is not looking to hot at the moment and i do wonder if he was a Lawn signing rather than the managers as a way softening Wells departure with a supposedly big name signing.
Why is it that during every recent pre season we are always in a mess with transfers?? We are constantly told what a well run club we have but the reality is very different. Im not PP's biggest fan but how can any manager be expected to have any sort of success with no expirienced keeper?? Recent history shows how important a good cup run can be so why are we in the current position of having to field a youth against Morcombe, how has this been allowed to happen and is very short sighted by the board. The signing of Mclean is not looking to hot at the moment and i do wonder if he was a Lawn signing rather than the managers as a way softening Wells departure with a supposedly big name signing. Halifax Bantam
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Mon 28 Jul 14

OLD BANTAM says...

At the end of last season I'm sure it was stated that we would have more quality than quantity in the squad i do think this will happen in time. Just look at the money we wasted last year on players that didn't play. I just think this goalkeeper fiasco has upset a lot of supporter .not because he was a good keeper or not but the way it has been handled by the club and the press.
At the end of last season I'm sure it was stated that we would have more quality than quantity in the squad i do think this will happen in time. Just look at the money we wasted last year on players that didn't play. I just think this goalkeeper fiasco has upset a lot of supporter .not because he was a good keeper or not but the way it has been handled by the club and the press. OLD BANTAM
  • Score: 6

3:27pm Mon 28 Jul 14

OLD BANTAM says...

OLD BANTAM wrote:
At the end of last season I'm sure it was stated that we would have more quality than quantity in the squad i do think this will happen in time. Just look at the money we wasted last year on players that didn't play. I just think this goalkeeper fiasco has upset a lot of supporter .not because he was a good keeper or not but the way it has been handled by the club and the press.
Read the interview with Mr Baldwin on the width of a post web that will clear a few things up. Pity the T&A didn't get the interview first .
[quote][p][bold]OLD BANTAM[/bold] wrote: At the end of last season I'm sure it was stated that we would have more quality than quantity in the squad i do think this will happen in time. Just look at the money we wasted last year on players that didn't play. I just think this goalkeeper fiasco has upset a lot of supporter .not because he was a good keeper or not but the way it has been handled by the club and the press.[/p][/quote]Read the interview with Mr Baldwin on the width of a post web that will clear a few things up. Pity the T&A didn't get the interview first . OLD BANTAM
  • Score: 5

3:33pm Mon 28 Jul 14

whisky1 says...

Plenty for the doomongers and naysayers to get their teeth into and to pick through PPs comments. I doubt there is a club in the league where Board and Manager agree on everything. There have to be compromises within the budget...to keepers on high salaries is probably not sensible. Folk will gripe and complain come whatever happens. Sad really.
Plenty for the doomongers and naysayers to get their teeth into and to pick through PPs comments. I doubt there is a club in the league where Board and Manager agree on everything. There have to be compromises within the budget...to keepers on high salaries is probably not sensible. Folk will gripe and complain come whatever happens. Sad really. whisky1
  • Score: 4

3:36pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Michael Clayton says...

OLD BANTAM wrote:
At the end of last season I'm sure it was stated that we would have more quality than quantity in the squad i do think this will happen in time. Just look at the money we wasted last year on players that didn't play. I just think this goalkeeper fiasco has upset a lot of supporter .not because he was a good keeper or not but the way it has been handled by the club and the press.
It would be interesting to know what you mean as far as the press is concerned. If you have a spare few minutes, please be kind enough to explain.
[quote][p][bold]OLD BANTAM[/bold] wrote: At the end of last season I'm sure it was stated that we would have more quality than quantity in the squad i do think this will happen in time. Just look at the money we wasted last year on players that didn't play. I just think this goalkeeper fiasco has upset a lot of supporter .not because he was a good keeper or not but the way it has been handled by the club and the press.[/p][/quote]It would be interesting to know what you mean as far as the press is concerned. If you have a spare few minutes, please be kind enough to explain. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Taxi4Lennie says...

Peter300 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
Johsay wrote:
Put simply. Where has all the money gone?
This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...
It's more like £5k a week!

I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie.

On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.
The Jonny Mac situation was not directly down to Phil. He has to make tough choices. The money went to Darby and McArdle. They signed-up no problem. It was mighty frustrating for the manager. Me too because I believe Jon is a fine keeper. 46 games last season and he's shown the door - in effect. Still, many people on here will be delighted Jon has left as they did not rate him.
Is that the Jon McLaughlin that every other League 1 club tried to sign when he hesitated in signing his contract or the Jon McLaughlin that will be playing in League 2 next season? Seems it's not just people on here that don't rate him.
[quote][p][bold]Peter300[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johsay[/bold] wrote: Put simply. Where has all the money gone?[/p][/quote]This has been explained numerous time... After paying out Bonuses & Pay increases, Ther Loan of ML, clearing the million pound overspend & subsidising the cheap season tickets... There's not much left... Plus players are demanding silly amounts for 3rd division football... No way should a 3rd division striker, who only scores 10-15 goals a season, be paid £3-4k a week. It's a joke...[/p][/quote]It's more like £5k a week! I sense PP is getting mighty frustrated at the cash constraints. As I stated last week, I'm not sure the Jon McLaughlin situation was down to PP. It's a massive risk having to depend on a 20 years old goalie. On a positive note, I've watched Sheehan in training and he's a class act.[/p][/quote]The Jonny Mac situation was not directly down to Phil. He has to make tough choices. The money went to Darby and McArdle. They signed-up no problem. It was mighty frustrating for the manager. Me too because I believe Jon is a fine keeper. 46 games last season and he's shown the door - in effect. Still, many people on here will be delighted Jon has left as they did not rate him.[/p][/quote]Is that the Jon McLaughlin that every other League 1 club tried to sign when he hesitated in signing his contract or the Jon McLaughlin that will be playing in League 2 next season? Seems it's not just people on here that don't rate him. Taxi4Lennie
  • Score: 3

3:56pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Michael Clayton says...

whisky1 wrote:
Plenty for the doomongers and naysayers to get their teeth into and to pick through PPs comments. I doubt there is a club in the league where Board and Manager agree on everything. There have to be compromises within the budget...to keepers on high salaries is probably not sensible. Folk will gripe and complain come whatever happens. Sad really.
In the case of McLaughlin, I do not think that there was a compromise and that is why the issue was forced in the end. A rather unfortunate chapter in my opinion.
[quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: Plenty for the doomongers and naysayers to get their teeth into and to pick through PPs comments. I doubt there is a club in the league where Board and Manager agree on everything. There have to be compromises within the budget...to keepers on high salaries is probably not sensible. Folk will gripe and complain come whatever happens. Sad really.[/p][/quote]In the case of McLaughlin, I do not think that there was a compromise and that is why the issue was forced in the end. A rather unfortunate chapter in my opinion. Michael Clayton
  • Score: -1

4:06pm Mon 28 Jul 14

nigel007 says...

Jon was a known entity. To find someone else of his calibre with such little time left to season start is amateur planning. Phil should have had the backong of the board to settle the keeper issue long ago. there is a disconnect somewhere......very troubling.
Jon was a known entity. To find someone else of his calibre with such little time left to season start is amateur planning. Phil should have had the backong of the board to settle the keeper issue long ago. there is a disconnect somewhere......very troubling. nigel007
  • Score: 1

4:12pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Nickloza says...

OLD BANTAM wrote:
Is it the board who are picking the team now or the manager. No we don't know the whys and wherefores that jonny left .it sounds like pp wanted to keep him. And he wanted to stay. So it sounds like it was taken out of pps hands. Wot did mark lawn say two or three weeks ago players will be arriving shortly.Matt urwin has not got the experience that jonny had only playing in the under21 side at Blackburn . And where are the lone players ? dose it sound like a bit of a rift between pp and the board.hope not.
I suggest you read this explains everything http://widthofapost.
com/2014/07/28/20141
5-previewed-a-busy-s
ummer-for-david-bald
win/
[quote][p][bold]OLD BANTAM[/bold] wrote: Is it the board who are picking the team now or the manager. No we don't know the whys and wherefores that jonny left .it sounds like pp wanted to keep him. And he wanted to stay. So it sounds like it was taken out of pps hands. Wot did mark lawn say two or three weeks ago players will be arriving shortly.Matt urwin has not got the experience that jonny had only playing in the under21 side at Blackburn . And where are the lone players ? dose it sound like a bit of a rift between pp and the board.hope not.[/p][/quote]I suggest you read this explains everything http://widthofapost. com/2014/07/28/20141 5-previewed-a-busy-s ummer-for-david-bald win/ Nickloza
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Nickloza says...

I suggest quite a few of you read this article, then you have all the facts,
http://widthofapost.
com/2014/07/28/20141
5-previewed-a-busy-s
ummer-for-david-bald
win/ PP chose Pickford over JMc. Right choice IMO too.
I suggest quite a few of you read this article, then you have all the facts, http://widthofapost. com/2014/07/28/20141 5-previewed-a-busy-s ummer-for-david-bald win/ PP chose Pickford over JMc. Right choice IMO too. Nickloza
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Nickloza says...

lawsonio123 wrote:
Jonnie Mac has gone and already the Chickens are coming home to roost a goalkepper with a lot of clean sheets last season given away someone and its NOT Parky has made a right **** up Parky is trying to work on a shoe string what do they expect of him I have always defended the Directors but enough is enough once again I say to them issue shares we will buy them but if not stop crying the poor tale
Wrong, PP chose Pickford over JMc
[quote][p][bold]lawsonio123[/bold] wrote: Jonnie Mac has gone and already the Chickens are coming home to roost a goalkepper with a lot of clean sheets last season given away someone and its NOT Parky has made a right **** up Parky is trying to work on a shoe string what do they expect of him I have always defended the Directors but enough is enough once again I say to them issue shares we will buy them but if not stop crying the poor tale[/p][/quote]Wrong, PP chose Pickford over JMc Nickloza
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Nickloza says...

Peter300 wrote:
ageofreason wrote:
Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him.
Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper??????
With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury.
The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly.
Well at least some people are happy Jonny Mac had desparted. Check out CityGent7, Tyker 2, Nickloza, NorthYorkshireBantam

, Toerag43479 as a small sample of the many on here who said Jonny was no good. No doubt these individuals and their associates will keep me informed of any goalkeeping mistakes this coming season.
I stand by it too, if you read the article I have posted PP didn't want him as number one either.
[quote][p][bold]Peter300[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ageofreason[/bold] wrote: Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him. Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper?????? With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury. The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly.[/p][/quote]Well at least some people are happy Jonny Mac had desparted. Check out CityGent7, Tyker 2, Nickloza, NorthYorkshireBantam , Toerag43479 as a small sample of the many on here who said Jonny was no good. No doubt these individuals and their associates will keep me informed of any goalkeeping mistakes this coming season.[/p][/quote]I stand by it too, if you read the article I have posted PP didn't want him as number one either. Nickloza
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Mon 28 Jul 14

whisky1 says...

For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.
For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers. whisky1
  • Score: 7

4:34pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Nickloza says...

whisky1 wrote:
For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.
Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.
[quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.[/p][/quote]Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis. Nickloza
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Michael Clayton says...

Nickloza wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.
Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.
Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators.

But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern.

Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in".

Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time.

However, there are clearly underlying problems.

My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone.
[quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.[/p][/quote]Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.[/p][/quote]Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators. But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern. Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in". Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time. However, there are clearly underlying problems. My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Nickloza says...

Michael Clayton wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.
Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.
Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators.

But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern.

Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in".

Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time.

However, there are clearly underlying problems.

My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone.
As DB states they are aware of what needs to be done. End of the day the budget is the budget, don't see the point looking for something that isn't there.
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.[/p][/quote]Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.[/p][/quote]Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators. But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern. Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in". Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time. However, there are clearly underlying problems. My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone.[/p][/quote]As DB states they are aware of what needs to be done. End of the day the budget is the budget, don't see the point looking for something that isn't there. Nickloza
  • Score: 1

6:12pm Mon 28 Jul 14

northyorksbantam says...

Nickloza wrote:
Peter300 wrote:
ageofreason wrote:
Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him.
Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper??????
With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury.
The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly.
Well at least some people are happy Jonny Mac had desparted. Check out CityGent7, Tyker 2, Nickloza, NorthYorkshireBantam


, Toerag43479 as a small sample of the many on here who said Jonny was no good. No doubt these individuals and their associates will keep me informed of any goalkeeping mistakes this coming season.
I stand by it too, if you read the article I have posted PP didn't want him as number one either.
I wouldn't even bother trying to reason with Peter300. He just puts all his sniping comments on and then does one until the next days new headlines. One thing he never does is enter into debate, mainly because he isn't able to back up the majority of the things he says, so he has no credibility. I've never said Jon Mac was no good, just the fact the situation needed resolving.
[quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter300[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ageofreason[/bold] wrote: Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him. Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper?????? With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury. The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly.[/p][/quote]Well at least some people are happy Jonny Mac had desparted. Check out CityGent7, Tyker 2, Nickloza, NorthYorkshireBantam , Toerag43479 as a small sample of the many on here who said Jonny was no good. No doubt these individuals and their associates will keep me informed of any goalkeeping mistakes this coming season.[/p][/quote]I stand by it too, if you read the article I have posted PP didn't want him as number one either.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't even bother trying to reason with Peter300. He just puts all his sniping comments on and then does one until the next days new headlines. One thing he never does is enter into debate, mainly because he isn't able to back up the majority of the things he says, so he has no credibility. I've never said Jon Mac was no good, just the fact the situation needed resolving. northyorksbantam
  • Score: 3

6:30pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Michael Clayton says...

Nickloza wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.
Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.
Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators.

But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern.

Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in".

Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time.

However, there are clearly underlying problems.

My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone.
As DB states they are aware of what needs to be done. End of the day the budget is the budget, don't see the point looking for something that isn't there.
I certainly would not want to look for something that is not there. That is completely against my way of thinking. As I said, the team will take the field in twelve days time; and suitably re-inforced.

However, my point is that there is clear evidence of disharmony. That is almost telegraphed (pardon the pun).
[quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.[/p][/quote]Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.[/p][/quote]Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators. But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern. Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in". Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time. However, there are clearly underlying problems. My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone.[/p][/quote]As DB states they are aware of what needs to be done. End of the day the budget is the budget, don't see the point looking for something that isn't there.[/p][/quote]I certainly would not want to look for something that is not there. That is completely against my way of thinking. As I said, the team will take the field in twelve days time; and suitably re-inforced. However, my point is that there is clear evidence of disharmony. That is almost telegraphed (pardon the pun). Michael Clayton
  • Score: -2

6:48pm Mon 28 Jul 14

#toerag43479 says...

Peter300 wrote:
ageofreason wrote:
Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him.
Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper??????
With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury.
The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly.
Well at least some people are happy Jonny Mac had desparted. Check out CityGent7, Tyker 2, Nickloza, NorthYorkshireBantam

, Toerag43479 as a small sample of the many on here who said Jonny was no good. No doubt these individuals and their associates will keep me informed of any goalkeeping mistakes this coming season.
Dude, thumbs down,know what I mean; sorry but FYI habitually quoting or misquoting as you do is proper creepy and lacking originality.
I'm sorry to see JM leave, but the lad had the whole of last season to make the no1 shirt his own and wasn't rated highly enough to be offered acceptable terms to the player and board. I seem to remember last years squad was put together season before last with the objective of getting us out of L2 and players like Doyley, Sir G Jones et al signed up because of PP saying we're a great club and they could be legends. Well, he was right- and then some; as far as I'm concerned all the lads including JM are legends.
I think the board are on the right lines, ideally I would have liked a proper no1 who can play all games, but we're not a mega rich club that can sign any player. I'm very proud the club is financially prudent and looking forward to a successful season playing good football which I'm sure will happen as we've got some good players, an excellent manager and coaching staff and the best fans. COME ON CITY
[quote][p][bold]Peter300[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ageofreason[/bold] wrote: Why would you sign a keeper for a year and accept that he is cup tied. Does that mean that he c an be recalled at any time if his home club require him. Having let J. Mac go we are now looking for an experienced keeper?????? With regards the new keeper on Saturday he came for two balls and managed to drop both of them - not encouraging - now we find he went off with a tight groin injury. The whole issue surrounding the Keeper has been dealt with terribly.[/p][/quote]Well at least some people are happy Jonny Mac had desparted. Check out CityGent7, Tyker 2, Nickloza, NorthYorkshireBantam , Toerag43479 as a small sample of the many on here who said Jonny was no good. No doubt these individuals and their associates will keep me informed of any goalkeeping mistakes this coming season.[/p][/quote]Dude, thumbs down,know what I mean; sorry but FYI habitually quoting or misquoting as you do is proper creepy and lacking originality. I'm sorry to see JM leave, but the lad had the whole of last season to make the no1 shirt his own and wasn't rated highly enough to be offered acceptable terms to the player and board. I seem to remember last years squad was put together season before last with the objective of getting us out of L2 and players like Doyley, Sir G Jones et al signed up because of PP saying we're a great club and they could be legends. Well, he was right- and then some; as far as I'm concerned all the lads including JM are legends. I think the board are on the right lines, ideally I would have liked a proper no1 who can play all games, but we're not a mega rich club that can sign any player. I'm very proud the club is financially prudent and looking forward to a successful season playing good football which I'm sure will happen as we've got some good players, an excellent manager and coaching staff and the best fans. COME ON CITY #toerag43479
  • Score: 7

7:22pm Mon 28 Jul 14

bcfcincheshire says...

Yes let's judge things properly in 1 month blocks...and we've 9 of them coming up...as yet all completely untouched. Eleventh last season. ..sixth is the aim and objective this time. ..nobody knows how things will transpire for certain. ..so let's sit back, wait and see.
Yes let's judge things properly in 1 month blocks...and we've 9 of them coming up...as yet all completely untouched. Eleventh last season. ..sixth is the aim and objective this time. ..nobody knows how things will transpire for certain. ..so let's sit back, wait and see. bcfcincheshire
  • Score: 3

7:29pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Nickloza says...

Michael Clayton wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.
Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.
Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators.

But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern.

Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in".

Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time.

However, there are clearly underlying problems.

My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone.
As DB states they are aware of what needs to be done. End of the day the budget is the budget, don't see the point looking for something that isn't there.
I certainly would not want to look for something that is not there. That is completely against my way of thinking. As I said, the team will take the field in twelve days time; and suitably re-inforced.

However, my point is that there is clear evidence of disharmony. That is almost telegraphed (pardon the pun).
Disagree, there is no evidence.
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.[/p][/quote]Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.[/p][/quote]Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators. But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern. Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in". Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time. However, there are clearly underlying problems. My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone.[/p][/quote]As DB states they are aware of what needs to be done. End of the day the budget is the budget, don't see the point looking for something that isn't there.[/p][/quote]I certainly would not want to look for something that is not there. That is completely against my way of thinking. As I said, the team will take the field in twelve days time; and suitably re-inforced. However, my point is that there is clear evidence of disharmony. That is almost telegraphed (pardon the pun).[/p][/quote]Disagree, there is no evidence. Nickloza
  • Score: 2

10:00pm Mon 28 Jul 14

lawsonio123 says...

I am given to understand that Calverly is leaving Manchester Utd and going to Everton This will give City some cash from the sell on agreement hope it can be spent on a player
I am given to understand that Calverly is leaving Manchester Utd and going to Everton This will give City some cash from the sell on agreement hope it can be spent on a player lawsonio123
  • Score: 2

10:03pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Victor Clayton says...

We are obviously a bit short in some departments but it seems to be easy enough to get in good loan players if we don't manage permanent ones. Personally I am happy with the direction we are moving. On the subject of available cash, it is simple. Our prices are too low.
We are obviously a bit short in some departments but it seems to be easy enough to get in good loan players if we don't manage permanent ones. Personally I am happy with the direction we are moving. On the subject of available cash, it is simple. Our prices are too low. Victor Clayton
  • Score: 6

10:06pm Mon 28 Jul 14

lawsonio123 says...

lawsonio123 wrote:
I am given to understand that Calverly is leaving Manchester Utd and going to Everton This will give City some cash from the sell on agreement hope it can be spent on a player
Sorry should read Cleverley not Calverly
[quote][p][bold]lawsonio123[/bold] wrote: I am given to understand that Calverly is leaving Manchester Utd and going to Everton This will give City some cash from the sell on agreement hope it can be spent on a player[/p][/quote]Sorry should read Cleverley not Calverly lawsonio123
  • Score: 1

10:09pm Mon 28 Jul 14

lawsonio123 says...

Nickloza wrote:
lawsonio123 wrote:
Jonnie Mac has gone and already the Chickens are coming home to roost a goalkepper with a lot of clean sheets last season given away someone and its NOT Parky has made a right **** up Parky is trying to work on a shoe string what do they expect of him I have always defended the Directors but enough is enough once again I say to them issue shares we will buy them but if not stop crying the poor tale
Wrong, PP chose Pickford over JMc
No Parky wanted to keep Jonnie Mac he signed another keeper thats all
[quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lawsonio123[/bold] wrote: Jonnie Mac has gone and already the Chickens are coming home to roost a goalkepper with a lot of clean sheets last season given away someone and its NOT Parky has made a right **** up Parky is trying to work on a shoe string what do they expect of him I have always defended the Directors but enough is enough once again I say to them issue shares we will buy them but if not stop crying the poor tale[/p][/quote]Wrong, PP chose Pickford over JMc[/p][/quote]No Parky wanted to keep Jonnie Mac he signed another keeper thats all lawsonio123
  • Score: 0

11:35pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Papa Smurfs Wig says...

Yes the season tickets should be more but that is just my opinion.

Parky did say a few weeks ago thst the loan players he wants are going to be away on tour to see if they are keeping them or not.

I'm sure he'll get a few more players in and l hope they are the ones he wants.

I don't thomk JMc was in a position with the demands and now he's gone shows it.
Yes the season tickets should be more but that is just my opinion. Parky did say a few weeks ago thst the loan players he wants are going to be away on tour to see if they are keeping them or not. I'm sure he'll get a few more players in and l hope they are the ones he wants. I don't thomk JMc was in a position with the demands and now he's gone shows it. Papa Smurfs Wig
  • Score: 1

1:03am Tue 29 Jul 14

Bradford1903 says...

I would in general class myself as a Parky fan, but there have been a number of times in the last couple of seasons, where he has made similar comments, that I thought were trying to put pressure on the Board to release more funds.

Basically I don't think he has much cause for complaint, as we will still be going £500,000 over budget. He will have also known the budget would be reduced this season, when he sanctioned the signing of Mclean on significant wages, which in turn triggered a rise for Davies. If the likes of Darby and McArdle signed new contracts, he would've also anticipated that they would be on higher wages having now proved themselves at this level.

Personally I think we need 4 players; a keeper, two pacey wide players, and a centre back; I certainly wouldn't be taking the gamble of signing someone with no experience of the English game.

Then I feel we will have a pretty decent squad, and I think we will experience a similar mid table finish, which I will be reasonably satisfied with.
I would in general class myself as a Parky fan, but there have been a number of times in the last couple of seasons, where he has made similar comments, that I thought were trying to put pressure on the Board to release more funds. Basically I don't think he has much cause for complaint, as we will still be going £500,000 over budget. He will have also known the budget would be reduced this season, when he sanctioned the signing of Mclean on significant wages, which in turn triggered a rise for Davies. If the likes of Darby and McArdle signed new contracts, he would've also anticipated that they would be on higher wages having now proved themselves at this level. Personally I think we need 4 players; a keeper, two pacey wide players, and a centre back; I certainly wouldn't be taking the gamble of signing someone with no experience of the English game. Then I feel we will have a pretty decent squad, and I think we will experience a similar mid table finish, which I will be reasonably satisfied with. Bradford1903
  • Score: 3

7:51am Tue 29 Jul 14

dcbantam says...

In the article on width of a post Baldwin talks of yet again budgeting in money from a potential cup run. It therefore seems backwards, by being unwilling to pay Jonny Mc's wages and leave ourselves in a situation where we will have to field a youth team keeper that 'isn't ready' which limits the chances of us being able to put a cup run together.

Whether we are trying to cut the budget or not spending that little amount of wages speculatively would surely make us more likely to make our budgets work due to a potential cup run?
In the article on width of a post Baldwin talks of yet again budgeting in money from a potential cup run. It therefore seems backwards, by being unwilling to pay Jonny Mc's wages and leave ourselves in a situation where we will have to field a youth team keeper that 'isn't ready' which limits the chances of us being able to put a cup run together. Whether we are trying to cut the budget or not spending that little amount of wages speculatively would surely make us more likely to make our budgets work due to a potential cup run? dcbantam
  • Score: -3

8:03am Tue 29 Jul 14

Waynus1971 says...

PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....! Waynus1971
  • Score: 2

8:27am Tue 29 Jul 14

whisky1 says...

Its a non story..there is alus going to be some conflict between those who hold the purse strings and those who want to spend it. PP was ill advised to let his frustration out in the T and A.
Its a non story..there is alus going to be some conflict between those who hold the purse strings and those who want to spend it. PP was ill advised to let his frustration out in the T and A. whisky1
  • Score: 1

8:52am Tue 29 Jul 14

Freddy says...

*
I feel there is a Keeper warning---when Pickford suddenly had a 'Groin Strain'--Not Fit !. If he fails fitness again--who will SUB him. Where will the Emergency LOAN Keeper come from??.
*
* I feel there is a Keeper warning---when Pickford suddenly had a 'Groin Strain'--Not Fit !. If he fails fitness again--who will SUB him. Where will the Emergency LOAN Keeper come from??. * Freddy
  • Score: 2

8:53am Tue 29 Jul 14

i miss stallard & murray says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
Totally agree. PP has done well for city and has always been backed. The squad he assembled two year ago was an increased budget, the budget he used to save us from relegation was more than the previous manager had. However he has wasted wages as well and the club are right in being more robust in assessing transfer activity and not taking any un calculated risks. If you think of the ten years decline this is music to my ears. PP is still paying Kennedy who I no he is trying to ship out and Yates won't come cheap but I feel he will av a more active role this year, but again I think he may struggle to be in the starting 11 but I think he is a luxury. From the start of pre season I have not been impressed with PP comments but he is not managing man city the cloth needs to be cut accordingly. I am sure that if the new tactics and signings pay off he wud be supported further down the line for a promotion push or backed next season to challenge for promotion. So three seasons PP has been in post he has been financially backed he needs to create a competitive squad from a reduced budget for the first time. And don't forget we still have room in the budget for another 3 -5 players.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]Totally agree. PP has done well for city and has always been backed. The squad he assembled two year ago was an increased budget, the budget he used to save us from relegation was more than the previous manager had. However he has wasted wages as well and the club are right in being more robust in assessing transfer activity and not taking any un calculated risks. If you think of the ten years decline this is music to my ears. PP is still paying Kennedy who I no he is trying to ship out and Yates won't come cheap but I feel he will av a more active role this year, but again I think he may struggle to be in the starting 11 but I think he is a luxury. From the start of pre season I have not been impressed with PP comments but he is not managing man city the cloth needs to be cut accordingly. I am sure that if the new tactics and signings pay off he wud be supported further down the line for a promotion push or backed next season to challenge for promotion. So three seasons PP has been in post he has been financially backed he needs to create a competitive squad from a reduced budget for the first time. And don't forget we still have room in the budget for another 3 -5 players. i miss stallard & murray
  • Score: -1

9:20am Tue 29 Jul 14

Michael Clayton says...

Nickloza wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.
Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.
Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators.

But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern.

Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in".

Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time.

However, there are clearly underlying problems.

My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone.
As DB states they are aware of what needs to be done. End of the day the budget is the budget, don't see the point looking for something that isn't there.
I certainly would not want to look for something that is not there. That is completely against my way of thinking. As I said, the team will take the field in twelve days time; and suitably re-inforced.

However, my point is that there is clear evidence of disharmony. That is almost telegraphed (pardon the pun).
Disagree, there is no evidence.
Parkinson said. "I'm not happy with the numbers. We need more players in that squad. The goalkeeping situation needs rectifying because Jordan can't play in the cups – and we've got the Capital One Cup straight away. We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in. We lost Jonny and we know the whys and wherefores of that. But it's disappointing to lose him because I think that would have been a very strong department if we had had those two. Now we've got to find another one and it's difficult to find a keeper with the experience that Jon had. We're trying to do something and Matt has done himself no harm. He looks a cool customer and I thought he did well when he came on. That needs resolving because what we don't want to do is have to go in the cups and throw a 16-year-old in the goal. No disrespect but we don't want to throw in one of our youngsters if they are not ready. It wouldn't be fair on anyone to do that. And it's all right saying that we'll put our two young keepers on the bench. But they need to play for their own development as goalkeepers in the youth team. It's all right trailing a youngster round the country when he's not ready to go in the first team. But they've got to be playing themselves. I will be speaking to the board again to get that rectified. We're also looking to strengthen in other areas, like out wide, and we're working on that as well".

No evidence you say? Clearly, I am interpreting in a different way to you.

I have no reason to discredit David Baldwin, but I am mindful that he is an employee. Historically, I have always but up an argument in defence of the club but it is not feasible to maintain there is not some element of tension.

Whisky has cited Parky's outburst to the T&A. Waynus has made similar (if somewhat stronger) references. Clearly, I am not alone in thinking that something is wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.[/p][/quote]Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.[/p][/quote]Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators. But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern. Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in". Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time. However, there are clearly underlying problems. My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone.[/p][/quote]As DB states they are aware of what needs to be done. End of the day the budget is the budget, don't see the point looking for something that isn't there.[/p][/quote]I certainly would not want to look for something that is not there. That is completely against my way of thinking. As I said, the team will take the field in twelve days time; and suitably re-inforced. However, my point is that there is clear evidence of disharmony. That is almost telegraphed (pardon the pun).[/p][/quote]Disagree, there is no evidence.[/p][/quote]Parkinson said. "I'm not happy with the numbers. We need more players in that squad. The goalkeeping situation needs rectifying because Jordan can't play in the cups – and we've got the Capital One Cup straight away. We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in. We lost Jonny and we know the whys and wherefores of that. But it's disappointing to lose him because I think that would have been a very strong department if we had had those two. Now we've got to find another one and it's difficult to find a keeper with the experience that Jon had. We're trying to do something and Matt has done himself no harm. He looks a cool customer and I thought he did well when he came on. That needs resolving because what we don't want to do is have to go in the cups and throw a 16-year-old in the goal. No disrespect but we don't want to throw in one of our youngsters if they are not ready. It wouldn't be fair on anyone to do that. And it's all right saying that we'll put our two young keepers on the bench. But they need to play for their own development as goalkeepers in the youth team. It's all right trailing a youngster round the country when he's not ready to go in the first team. But they've got to be playing themselves. I will be speaking to the board again to get that rectified. We're also looking to strengthen in other areas, like out wide, and we're working on that as well". No evidence you say? Clearly, I am interpreting in a different way to you. I have no reason to discredit David Baldwin, but I am mindful that he is an employee. Historically, I have always but up an argument in defence of the club but it is not feasible to maintain there is not some element of tension. Whisky has cited Parky's outburst to the T&A. Waynus has made similar (if somewhat stronger) references. Clearly, I am not alone in thinking that something is wrong. Michael Clayton
  • Score: -2

9:48am Tue 29 Jul 14

whisky1 says...

MC I am guessing you are or have been a working man. I am sure you have not worked anywhere where there has been no dispute/tension . The difference is that the Club is constantly under the microscope and fans want to pick over the news and the temptation is to fear the worst. PP should have thought before he spoke bearing in mind the support he has had thus far and the good relationship he has with the Board. Otherwise you end up with fall out like this.
MC I am guessing you are or have been a working man. I am sure you have not worked anywhere where there has been no dispute/tension . The difference is that the Club is constantly under the microscope and fans want to pick over the news and the temptation is to fear the worst. PP should have thought before he spoke bearing in mind the support he has had thus far and the good relationship he has with the Board. Otherwise you end up with fall out like this. whisky1
  • Score: 3

11:52am Tue 29 Jul 14

Pablo says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages.

Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages. Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup. Pablo
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Pablo says...

Michael Clayton wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.
Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.
Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators.

But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern.

Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in".

Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time.

However, there are clearly underlying problems.

My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone.
As DB states they are aware of what needs to be done. End of the day the budget is the budget, don't see the point looking for something that isn't there.
I certainly would not want to look for something that is not there. That is completely against my way of thinking. As I said, the team will take the field in twelve days time; and suitably re-inforced.

However, my point is that there is clear evidence of disharmony. That is almost telegraphed (pardon the pun).
Disagree, there is no evidence.
Parkinson said. "I'm not happy with the numbers. We need more players in that squad. The goalkeeping situation needs rectifying because Jordan can't play in the cups – and we've got the Capital One Cup straight away. We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in. We lost Jonny and we know the whys and wherefores of that. But it's disappointing to lose him because I think that would have been a very strong department if we had had those two. Now we've got to find another one and it's difficult to find a keeper with the experience that Jon had. We're trying to do something and Matt has done himself no harm. He looks a cool customer and I thought he did well when he came on. That needs resolving because what we don't want to do is have to go in the cups and throw a 16-year-old in the goal. No disrespect but we don't want to throw in one of our youngsters if they are not ready. It wouldn't be fair on anyone to do that. And it's all right saying that we'll put our two young keepers on the bench. But they need to play for their own development as goalkeepers in the youth team. It's all right trailing a youngster round the country when he's not ready to go in the first team. But they've got to be playing themselves. I will be speaking to the board again to get that rectified. We're also looking to strengthen in other areas, like out wide, and we're working on that as well".

No evidence you say? Clearly, I am interpreting in a different way to you.

I have no reason to discredit David Baldwin, but I am mindful that he is an employee. Historically, I have always but up an argument in defence of the club but it is not feasible to maintain there is not some element of tension.

Whisky has cited Parky's outburst to the T&A. Waynus has made similar (if somewhat stronger) references. Clearly, I am not alone in thinking that something is wrong.
I watch the squad training and last week posted on here that there was not the same buzz about the place.

You and I don't always agree, but we do on this.

I just wonder whether the signing of one player ( guess who?!), has caused a rift. Was he a "chairman's" signing or "PP's" signing?

Do you recall the signing of John McGinlay that allegedly caused a rift between Richmond and Chris Kamara? It finally was the undoing of Kamara.
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.[/p][/quote]Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.[/p][/quote]Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators. But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern. Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in". Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time. However, there are clearly underlying problems. My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone.[/p][/quote]As DB states they are aware of what needs to be done. End of the day the budget is the budget, don't see the point looking for something that isn't there.[/p][/quote]I certainly would not want to look for something that is not there. That is completely against my way of thinking. As I said, the team will take the field in twelve days time; and suitably re-inforced. However, my point is that there is clear evidence of disharmony. That is almost telegraphed (pardon the pun).[/p][/quote]Disagree, there is no evidence.[/p][/quote]Parkinson said. "I'm not happy with the numbers. We need more players in that squad. The goalkeeping situation needs rectifying because Jordan can't play in the cups – and we've got the Capital One Cup straight away. We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in. We lost Jonny and we know the whys and wherefores of that. But it's disappointing to lose him because I think that would have been a very strong department if we had had those two. Now we've got to find another one and it's difficult to find a keeper with the experience that Jon had. We're trying to do something and Matt has done himself no harm. He looks a cool customer and I thought he did well when he came on. That needs resolving because what we don't want to do is have to go in the cups and throw a 16-year-old in the goal. No disrespect but we don't want to throw in one of our youngsters if they are not ready. It wouldn't be fair on anyone to do that. And it's all right saying that we'll put our two young keepers on the bench. But they need to play for their own development as goalkeepers in the youth team. It's all right trailing a youngster round the country when he's not ready to go in the first team. But they've got to be playing themselves. I will be speaking to the board again to get that rectified. We're also looking to strengthen in other areas, like out wide, and we're working on that as well". No evidence you say? Clearly, I am interpreting in a different way to you. I have no reason to discredit David Baldwin, but I am mindful that he is an employee. Historically, I have always but up an argument in defence of the club but it is not feasible to maintain there is not some element of tension. Whisky has cited Parky's outburst to the T&A. Waynus has made similar (if somewhat stronger) references. Clearly, I am not alone in thinking that something is wrong.[/p][/quote]I watch the squad training and last week posted on here that there was not the same buzz about the place. You and I don't always agree, but we do on this. I just wonder whether the signing of one player ( guess who?!), has caused a rift. Was he a "chairman's" signing or "PP's" signing? Do you recall the signing of John McGinlay that allegedly caused a rift between Richmond and Chris Kamara? It finally was the undoing of Kamara. Pablo
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Tue 29 Jul 14

whisky1 says...

You are reading an awful lot into one comment from PP and watching one training session
You are reading an awful lot into one comment from PP and watching one training session whisky1
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Waynus1971 says...

Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages.

Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.
And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages. Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.[/p][/quote]And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined. Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Waynus1971 says...

Michael Clayton wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.
Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.
Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators.

But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern.

Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in".

Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time.

However, there are clearly underlying problems.

My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone.
As DB states they are aware of what needs to be done. End of the day the budget is the budget, don't see the point looking for something that isn't there.
I certainly would not want to look for something that is not there. That is completely against my way of thinking. As I said, the team will take the field in twelve days time; and suitably re-inforced.

However, my point is that there is clear evidence of disharmony. That is almost telegraphed (pardon the pun).
Disagree, there is no evidence.
Parkinson said. "I'm not happy with the numbers. We need more players in that squad. The goalkeeping situation needs rectifying because Jordan can't play in the cups – and we've got the Capital One Cup straight away. We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in. We lost Jonny and we know the whys and wherefores of that. But it's disappointing to lose him because I think that would have been a very strong department if we had had those two. Now we've got to find another one and it's difficult to find a keeper with the experience that Jon had. We're trying to do something and Matt has done himself no harm. He looks a cool customer and I thought he did well when he came on. That needs resolving because what we don't want to do is have to go in the cups and throw a 16-year-old in the goal. No disrespect but we don't want to throw in one of our youngsters if they are not ready. It wouldn't be fair on anyone to do that. And it's all right saying that we'll put our two young keepers on the bench. But they need to play for their own development as goalkeepers in the youth team. It's all right trailing a youngster round the country when he's not ready to go in the first team. But they've got to be playing themselves. I will be speaking to the board again to get that rectified. We're also looking to strengthen in other areas, like out wide, and we're working on that as well".

No evidence you say? Clearly, I am interpreting in a different way to you.

I have no reason to discredit David Baldwin, but I am mindful that he is an employee. Historically, I have always but up an argument in defence of the club but it is not feasible to maintain there is not some element of tension.

Whisky has cited Parky's outburst to the T&A. Waynus has made similar (if somewhat stronger) references. Clearly, I am not alone in thinking that something is wrong.
"We lost Jonny and we know the whys and wherefores of that"!!

Do we? So why did he go, what influence did PP have? If this was solely the board's decision (which I still doubt), why would PP allow it to happen? What's the difference between a cheap option last season (the 2 loanees) and Jonny Mc and having a similar cheap option this season???

If PP is going to make references and imply he isn't happy, he should make his grievances known instead of talking to the press about them!!
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: For all those who want to believe there is a problem just read DBs interview. He cannot put it more plainly and honestly for those who like to assume crisis and conspiracy. He is about as open as you can get and you still get a moronic commentary on here about how the club isn't run transparently and sensibly. He must wonder why he bothers.[/p][/quote]Totally agree whiskey' a paper uses a few strong words like pleading and such and all of a sudden there's a crisis.[/p][/quote]Anyone who reads and understands my comments will know that I try to deal in facts and reject the conspirators. But whatever your take on the current situation, there are enough direct quotes with which to give cause for concern. Take one example: - "We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in". Moronic remarks don't really matter. Other epithets don't cut it either. The team will take the field in twelve days time. However, there are clearly underlying problems. My hope is that those involved are mature enough so as to avoid a messy fall out that will be of no benefit to anyone.[/p][/quote]As DB states they are aware of what needs to be done. End of the day the budget is the budget, don't see the point looking for something that isn't there.[/p][/quote]I certainly would not want to look for something that is not there. That is completely against my way of thinking. As I said, the team will take the field in twelve days time; and suitably re-inforced. However, my point is that there is clear evidence of disharmony. That is almost telegraphed (pardon the pun).[/p][/quote]Disagree, there is no evidence.[/p][/quote]Parkinson said. "I'm not happy with the numbers. We need more players in that squad. The goalkeeping situation needs rectifying because Jordan can't play in the cups – and we've got the Capital One Cup straight away. We've been trying to explain that to the board from day one when we were bringing him in. We lost Jonny and we know the whys and wherefores of that. But it's disappointing to lose him because I think that would have been a very strong department if we had had those two. Now we've got to find another one and it's difficult to find a keeper with the experience that Jon had. We're trying to do something and Matt has done himself no harm. He looks a cool customer and I thought he did well when he came on. That needs resolving because what we don't want to do is have to go in the cups and throw a 16-year-old in the goal. No disrespect but we don't want to throw in one of our youngsters if they are not ready. It wouldn't be fair on anyone to do that. And it's all right saying that we'll put our two young keepers on the bench. But they need to play for their own development as goalkeepers in the youth team. It's all right trailing a youngster round the country when he's not ready to go in the first team. But they've got to be playing themselves. I will be speaking to the board again to get that rectified. We're also looking to strengthen in other areas, like out wide, and we're working on that as well". No evidence you say? Clearly, I am interpreting in a different way to you. I have no reason to discredit David Baldwin, but I am mindful that he is an employee. Historically, I have always but up an argument in defence of the club but it is not feasible to maintain there is not some element of tension. Whisky has cited Parky's outburst to the T&A. Waynus has made similar (if somewhat stronger) references. Clearly, I am not alone in thinking that something is wrong.[/p][/quote]"We lost Jonny and we know the whys and wherefores of that"!! Do we? So why did he go, what influence did PP have? If this was solely the board's decision (which I still doubt), why would PP allow it to happen? What's the difference between a cheap option last season (the 2 loanees) and Jonny Mc and having a similar cheap option this season??? If PP is going to make references and imply he isn't happy, he should make his grievances known instead of talking to the press about them!! Waynus1971
  • Score: 1

2:23pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Pablo says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages.

Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.
And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.
I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus.

The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages.

So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages. Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.[/p][/quote]And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.[/p][/quote]I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus. The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages. So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers. Pablo
  • Score: 1

5:43pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Waynus1971 says...

Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages.

Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.
And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.
I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus.

The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages.

So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.
You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....!

Now stop guessing!
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages. Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.[/p][/quote]And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.[/p][/quote]I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus. The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages. So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.[/p][/quote]You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....! Now stop guessing! Waynus1971
  • Score: 2

6:02pm Tue 29 Jul 14

macca1969 says...

Wish people would get off the managers back. Parky has every right to moan about lack of funds when the board are telling all we will be competitive. How will we be competing at the top end when Lawn himself has said we have at least 12 teams that have a lesser budget than we have, leaving roughly the same amount with a bigger more competitive budget. As for those saying he has wasted the budget, name a manager who hasn't made some bad decisions. He has made Bradford City more money than he has cost us and that is a fact!!!
The team has far more quality than the team he inherited and he has taken us to Wembley twice. He has also made enough money to pay jabba de hut back his loan. On top of this he developed Wells from a nobody into a saleable asset and made the club more money again. I know he didn't sign him but he was the manager that developed him. At the end of the day he has earned the right to receive the boards backing and he should be backed regardless of what some on here think are dud signings.
Wish people would get off the managers back. Parky has every right to moan about lack of funds when the board are telling all we will be competitive. How will we be competing at the top end when Lawn himself has said we have at least 12 teams that have a lesser budget than we have, leaving roughly the same amount with a bigger more competitive budget. As for those saying he has wasted the budget, name a manager who hasn't made some bad decisions. He has made Bradford City more money than he has cost us and that is a fact!!! The team has far more quality than the team he inherited and he has taken us to Wembley twice. He has also made enough money to pay jabba de hut back his loan. On top of this he developed Wells from a nobody into a saleable asset and made the club more money again. I know he didn't sign him but he was the manager that developed him. At the end of the day he has earned the right to receive the boards backing and he should be backed regardless of what some on here think are dud signings. macca1969
  • Score: 0

6:04pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Michael Clayton says...

whisky1 wrote:
MC I am guessing you are or have been a working man. I am sure you have not worked anywhere where there has been no dispute/tension . The difference is that the Club is constantly under the microscope and fans want to pick over the news and the temptation is to fear the worst. PP should have thought before he spoke bearing in mind the support he has had thus far and the good relationship he has with the Board. Otherwise you end up with fall out like this.
Firstly, given the nature of my work, I am used to rolling my sleeves up at any number of locations. I am very familiar of politics within organisations and can spot a Pratt quickly and/or from distance. Luckily, as a fly on the wall, I am well placed to observe the fall-out and do not have to get involved. However, what is remarkable is how many situations share characteristics.

On this occasion, I sense that you are slightly at odds with my remarks. What I have said is that there was no compromise in the McLaughlin affair and what played out was ultimately a sad exit; and that there is an element of tension in the camp. I don't see these comments as contentious; they are nothing other than observations.

You are correct in that 'doomongers' and 'naysayers' will have their say; particularly under a microscopic environment. It is also true that certain commentators will assume some form of crisis or conspiracy. But these are given elements that we are familiar with. I accept that things happen in a workplace and have tried to make a judgment based on what I have seen.
[quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: MC I am guessing you are or have been a working man. I am sure you have not worked anywhere where there has been no dispute/tension . The difference is that the Club is constantly under the microscope and fans want to pick over the news and the temptation is to fear the worst. PP should have thought before he spoke bearing in mind the support he has had thus far and the good relationship he has with the Board. Otherwise you end up with fall out like this.[/p][/quote]Firstly, given the nature of my work, I am used to rolling my sleeves up at any number of locations. I am very familiar of politics within organisations and can spot a Pratt quickly and/or from distance. Luckily, as a fly on the wall, I am well placed to observe the fall-out and do not have to get involved. However, what is remarkable is how many situations share characteristics. On this occasion, I sense that you are slightly at odds with my remarks. What I have said is that there was no compromise in the McLaughlin affair and what played out was ultimately a sad exit; and that there is an element of tension in the camp. I don't see these comments as contentious; they are nothing other than observations. You are correct in that 'doomongers' and 'naysayers' will have their say; particularly under a microscopic environment. It is also true that certain commentators will assume some form of crisis or conspiracy. But these are given elements that we are familiar with. I accept that things happen in a workplace and have tried to make a judgment based on what I have seen. Michael Clayton
  • Score: -1

6:09pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Pablo says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages.

Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.
And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.
I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus.

The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages.

So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.
You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....!

Now stop guessing!
You're digging a big hole for yourself!

Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster?

Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that!

The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages. Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.[/p][/quote]And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.[/p][/quote]I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus. The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages. So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.[/p][/quote]You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....! Now stop guessing![/p][/quote]You're digging a big hole for yourself! Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster? Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that! The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure. Pablo
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Pablo says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages.

Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.
And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.
I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus.

The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages.

So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.
You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....!

Now stop guessing!
You're digging a big hole for yourself!

Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster?

Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that!

The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages. Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.[/p][/quote]And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.[/p][/quote]I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus. The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages. So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.[/p][/quote]You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....! Now stop guessing![/p][/quote]You're digging a big hole for yourself! Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster? Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that! The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure. Pablo
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Michael Clayton says...

macca1969 wrote:
Wish people would get off the managers back. Parky has every right to moan about lack of funds when the board are telling all we will be competitive. How will we be competing at the top end when Lawn himself has said we have at least 12 teams that have a lesser budget than we have, leaving roughly the same amount with a bigger more competitive budget. As for those saying he has wasted the budget, name a manager who hasn't made some bad decisions. He has made Bradford City more money than he has cost us and that is a fact!!!
The team has far more quality than the team he inherited and he has taken us to Wembley twice. He has also made enough money to pay jabba de hut back his loan. On top of this he developed Wells from a nobody into a saleable asset and made the club more money again. I know he didn't sign him but he was the manager that developed him. At the end of the day he has earned the right to receive the boards backing and he should be backed regardless of what some on here think are dud signings.
I think it also needs to be mentioned that he is working flat out and under pressure. If tensions are surfacing, then is this a bad thing?
[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: Wish people would get off the managers back. Parky has every right to moan about lack of funds when the board are telling all we will be competitive. How will we be competing at the top end when Lawn himself has said we have at least 12 teams that have a lesser budget than we have, leaving roughly the same amount with a bigger more competitive budget. As for those saying he has wasted the budget, name a manager who hasn't made some bad decisions. He has made Bradford City more money than he has cost us and that is a fact!!! The team has far more quality than the team he inherited and he has taken us to Wembley twice. He has also made enough money to pay jabba de hut back his loan. On top of this he developed Wells from a nobody into a saleable asset and made the club more money again. I know he didn't sign him but he was the manager that developed him. At the end of the day he has earned the right to receive the boards backing and he should be backed regardless of what some on here think are dud signings.[/p][/quote]I think it also needs to be mentioned that he is working flat out and under pressure. If tensions are surfacing, then is this a bad thing? Michael Clayton
  • Score: -1

8:04pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Waynus1971 says...

macca1969 wrote:
Wish people would get off the managers back. Parky has every right to moan about lack of funds when the board are telling all we will be competitive. How will we be competing at the top end when Lawn himself has said we have at least 12 teams that have a lesser budget than we have, leaving roughly the same amount with a bigger more competitive budget. As for those saying he has wasted the budget, name a manager who hasn't made some bad decisions. He has made Bradford City more money than he has cost us and that is a fact!!!
The team has far more quality than the team he inherited and he has taken us to Wembley twice. He has also made enough money to pay jabba de hut back his loan. On top of this he developed Wells from a nobody into a saleable asset and made the club more money again. I know he didn't sign him but he was the manager that developed him. At the end of the day he has earned the right to receive the boards backing and he should be backed regardless of what some on here think are dud signings.
Since when has budget equalled competitiveness? Did Yeovil get promoted on a high budget? What about Colchester (in the not so distant past)? There are MANY examples of competitive squads being built without having a top budget!!

The fact is, PP cleared the decks this summer and has been able to build his squad almost from scratch. If he can't build a 21/22 man squad with a budget of over £2m, something is wrong!! That means an average wage of around £1800 a week. Bearing in mind the likes of Heaton, McBurnie, Clarkson, will be on far less than that, PP should be able to offset the bigger earners such as Mclean, Davies, Darby & Hanson!!
[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: Wish people would get off the managers back. Parky has every right to moan about lack of funds when the board are telling all we will be competitive. How will we be competing at the top end when Lawn himself has said we have at least 12 teams that have a lesser budget than we have, leaving roughly the same amount with a bigger more competitive budget. As for those saying he has wasted the budget, name a manager who hasn't made some bad decisions. He has made Bradford City more money than he has cost us and that is a fact!!! The team has far more quality than the team he inherited and he has taken us to Wembley twice. He has also made enough money to pay jabba de hut back his loan. On top of this he developed Wells from a nobody into a saleable asset and made the club more money again. I know he didn't sign him but he was the manager that developed him. At the end of the day he has earned the right to receive the boards backing and he should be backed regardless of what some on here think are dud signings.[/p][/quote]Since when has budget equalled competitiveness? Did Yeovil get promoted on a high budget? What about Colchester (in the not so distant past)? There are MANY examples of competitive squads being built without having a top budget!! The fact is, PP cleared the decks this summer and has been able to build his squad almost from scratch. If he can't build a 21/22 man squad with a budget of over £2m, something is wrong!! That means an average wage of around £1800 a week. Bearing in mind the likes of Heaton, McBurnie, Clarkson, will be on far less than that, PP should be able to offset the bigger earners such as Mclean, Davies, Darby & Hanson!! Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Waynus1971 says...

Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages.

Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.
And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.
I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus.

The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages.

So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.
You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....!

Now stop guessing!
You're digging a big hole for yourself!

Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster?

Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that!

The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.
There you go again, GUESSING!! Just give me facts (if you can and stop this constant speculation). How do you know he was brought in as a cost-saving measure? I read quotes from PP recently that suggested he had done his homework on the boy- so he has obviously been tracking him for a while. I'll say it again because you seem slow on the uptake; PP could have seen Pickford as a BETTER alternative to Jonny Mc on SIMILAR pay!!!!

Now, if you are going to tell me (again) that I'm wrong, please back up your claim with facts (and no need to duplicate it ;) )
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages. Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.[/p][/quote]And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.[/p][/quote]I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus. The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages. So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.[/p][/quote]You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....! Now stop guessing![/p][/quote]You're digging a big hole for yourself! Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster? Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that! The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.[/p][/quote]There you go again, GUESSING!! Just give me facts (if you can and stop this constant speculation). How do you know he was brought in as a cost-saving measure? I read quotes from PP recently that suggested he had done his homework on the boy- so he has obviously been tracking him for a while. I'll say it again because you seem slow on the uptake; PP could have seen Pickford as a BETTER alternative to Jonny Mc on SIMILAR pay!!!! Now, if you are going to tell me (again) that I'm wrong, please back up your claim with facts (and no need to duplicate it ;) ) Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

8:25pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Waynus1971 says...

Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages.

Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.
And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.
I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus.

The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages.

So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.
You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....!

Now stop guessing!
You're digging a big hole for yourself!

Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster?

Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that!

The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.
"Relatively untried"???? He has played 56 games already in a range of leagues!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages. Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.[/p][/quote]And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.[/p][/quote]I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus. The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages. So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.[/p][/quote]You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....! Now stop guessing![/p][/quote]You're digging a big hole for yourself! Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster? Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that! The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.[/p][/quote]"Relatively untried"???? He has played 56 games already in a range of leagues!!!! Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

9:17pm Tue 29 Jul 14

macca1969 says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages.

Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.
And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.
I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus.

The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages.

So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.
You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....!

Now stop guessing!
You're digging a big hole for yourself!

Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster?

Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that!

The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.
There you go again, GUESSING!! Just give me facts (if you can and stop this constant speculation). How do you know he was brought in as a cost-saving measure? I read quotes from PP recently that suggested he had done his homework on the boy- so he has obviously been tracking him for a while. I'll say it again because you seem slow on the uptake; PP could have seen Pickford as a BETTER alternative to Jonny Mc on SIMILAR pay!!!!

Now, if you are going to tell me (again) that I'm wrong, please back up your claim with facts (and no need to duplicate it ;) )
There you go again hypocrite, telling others not to guess whilst you guess we have a 2 million budget to sort a squad out for 22-24 players. Can see you already itching to put the boot in on the best city manager we have had in years
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages. Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.[/p][/quote]And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.[/p][/quote]I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus. The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages. So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.[/p][/quote]You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....! Now stop guessing![/p][/quote]You're digging a big hole for yourself! Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster? Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that! The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.[/p][/quote]There you go again, GUESSING!! Just give me facts (if you can and stop this constant speculation). How do you know he was brought in as a cost-saving measure? I read quotes from PP recently that suggested he had done his homework on the boy- so he has obviously been tracking him for a while. I'll say it again because you seem slow on the uptake; PP could have seen Pickford as a BETTER alternative to Jonny Mc on SIMILAR pay!!!! Now, if you are going to tell me (again) that I'm wrong, please back up your claim with facts (and no need to duplicate it ;) )[/p][/quote]There you go again hypocrite, telling others not to guess whilst you guess we have a 2 million budget to sort a squad out for 22-24 players. Can see you already itching to put the boot in on the best city manager we have had in years macca1969
  • Score: 1

9:51pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Pablo says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages.

Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.
And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.
I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus.

The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages.

So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.
You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....!

Now stop guessing!
You're digging a big hole for yourself!

Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster?

Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that!

The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.
There you go again, GUESSING!! Just give me facts (if you can and stop this constant speculation). How do you know he was brought in as a cost-saving measure? I read quotes from PP recently that suggested he had done his homework on the boy- so he has obviously been tracking him for a while. I'll say it again because you seem slow on the uptake; PP could have seen Pickford as a BETTER alternative to Jonny Mc on SIMILAR pay!!!!

Now, if you are going to tell me (again) that I'm wrong, please back up your claim with facts (and no need to duplicate it ;) )
You've disappeared down the hole.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages. Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.[/p][/quote]And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.[/p][/quote]I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus. The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages. So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.[/p][/quote]You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....! Now stop guessing![/p][/quote]You're digging a big hole for yourself! Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster? Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that! The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.[/p][/quote]There you go again, GUESSING!! Just give me facts (if you can and stop this constant speculation). How do you know he was brought in as a cost-saving measure? I read quotes from PP recently that suggested he had done his homework on the boy- so he has obviously been tracking him for a while. I'll say it again because you seem slow on the uptake; PP could have seen Pickford as a BETTER alternative to Jonny Mc on SIMILAR pay!!!! Now, if you are going to tell me (again) that I'm wrong, please back up your claim with facts (and no need to duplicate it ;) )[/p][/quote]You've disappeared down the hole. Pablo
  • Score: 1

10:04pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Pablo says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
macca1969 wrote:
Wish people would get off the managers back. Parky has every right to moan about lack of funds when the board are telling all we will be competitive. How will we be competing at the top end when Lawn himself has said we have at least 12 teams that have a lesser budget than we have, leaving roughly the same amount with a bigger more competitive budget. As for those saying he has wasted the budget, name a manager who hasn't made some bad decisions. He has made Bradford City more money than he has cost us and that is a fact!!!
The team has far more quality than the team he inherited and he has taken us to Wembley twice. He has also made enough money to pay jabba de hut back his loan. On top of this he developed Wells from a nobody into a saleable asset and made the club more money again. I know he didn't sign him but he was the manager that developed him. At the end of the day he has earned the right to receive the boards backing and he should be backed regardless of what some on here think are dud signings.
Since when has budget equalled competitiveness? Did Yeovil get promoted on a high budget? What about Colchester (in the not so distant past)? There are MANY examples of competitive squads being built without having a top budget!!

The fact is, PP cleared the decks this summer and has been able to build his squad almost from scratch. If he can't build a 21/22 man squad with a budget of over £2m, something is wrong!! That means an average wage of around £1800 a week. Bearing in mind the likes of Heaton, McBurnie, Clarkson, will be on far less than that, PP should be able to offset the bigger earners such as Mclean, Davies, Darby & Hanson!!
McLean, Davies, Hanson, Darby,McArdle and Yeates ( just six players) will account for at least £1.4M, incl NIC .

So you think another sixteen players can be signed for combined wages of £600,000?

Waynus, what planet are you on?
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: Wish people would get off the managers back. Parky has every right to moan about lack of funds when the board are telling all we will be competitive. How will we be competing at the top end when Lawn himself has said we have at least 12 teams that have a lesser budget than we have, leaving roughly the same amount with a bigger more competitive budget. As for those saying he has wasted the budget, name a manager who hasn't made some bad decisions. He has made Bradford City more money than he has cost us and that is a fact!!! The team has far more quality than the team he inherited and he has taken us to Wembley twice. He has also made enough money to pay jabba de hut back his loan. On top of this he developed Wells from a nobody into a saleable asset and made the club more money again. I know he didn't sign him but he was the manager that developed him. At the end of the day he has earned the right to receive the boards backing and he should be backed regardless of what some on here think are dud signings.[/p][/quote]Since when has budget equalled competitiveness? Did Yeovil get promoted on a high budget? What about Colchester (in the not so distant past)? There are MANY examples of competitive squads being built without having a top budget!! The fact is, PP cleared the decks this summer and has been able to build his squad almost from scratch. If he can't build a 21/22 man squad with a budget of over £2m, something is wrong!! That means an average wage of around £1800 a week. Bearing in mind the likes of Heaton, McBurnie, Clarkson, will be on far less than that, PP should be able to offset the bigger earners such as Mclean, Davies, Darby & Hanson!![/p][/quote]McLean, Davies, Hanson, Darby,McArdle and Yeates ( just six players) will account for at least £1.4M, incl NIC . So you think another sixteen players can be signed for combined wages of £600,000? Waynus, what planet are you on? Pablo
  • Score: 2

1:22am Wed 30 Jul 14

macca1969 says...

Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
macca1969 wrote:
Wish people would get off the managers back. Parky has every right to moan about lack of funds when the board are telling all we will be competitive. How will we be competing at the top end when Lawn himself has said we have at least 12 teams that have a lesser budget than we have, leaving roughly the same amount with a bigger more competitive budget. As for those saying he has wasted the budget, name a manager who hasn't made some bad decisions. He has made Bradford City more money than he has cost us and that is a fact!!!
The team has far more quality than the team he inherited and he has taken us to Wembley twice. He has also made enough money to pay jabba de hut back his loan. On top of this he developed Wells from a nobody into a saleable asset and made the club more money again. I know he didn't sign him but he was the manager that developed him. At the end of the day he has earned the right to receive the boards backing and he should be backed regardless of what some on here think are dud signings.
Since when has budget equalled competitiveness? Did Yeovil get promoted on a high budget? What about Colchester (in the not so distant past)? There are MANY examples of competitive squads being built without having a top budget!!

The fact is, PP cleared the decks this summer and has been able to build his squad almost from scratch. If he can't build a 21/22 man squad with a budget of over £2m, something is wrong!! That means an average wage of around £1800 a week. Bearing in mind the likes of Heaton, McBurnie, Clarkson, will be on far less than that, PP should be able to offset the bigger earners such as Mclean, Davies, Darby & Hanson!!
McLean, Davies, Hanson, Darby,McArdle and Yeates ( just six players) will account for at least £1.4M, incl NIC .

So you think another sixteen players can be signed for combined wages of £600,000?

Waynus, what planet are you on?
He always knows more than anyone else, you should know that by now.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: Wish people would get off the managers back. Parky has every right to moan about lack of funds when the board are telling all we will be competitive. How will we be competing at the top end when Lawn himself has said we have at least 12 teams that have a lesser budget than we have, leaving roughly the same amount with a bigger more competitive budget. As for those saying he has wasted the budget, name a manager who hasn't made some bad decisions. He has made Bradford City more money than he has cost us and that is a fact!!! The team has far more quality than the team he inherited and he has taken us to Wembley twice. He has also made enough money to pay jabba de hut back his loan. On top of this he developed Wells from a nobody into a saleable asset and made the club more money again. I know he didn't sign him but he was the manager that developed him. At the end of the day he has earned the right to receive the boards backing and he should be backed regardless of what some on here think are dud signings.[/p][/quote]Since when has budget equalled competitiveness? Did Yeovil get promoted on a high budget? What about Colchester (in the not so distant past)? There are MANY examples of competitive squads being built without having a top budget!! The fact is, PP cleared the decks this summer and has been able to build his squad almost from scratch. If he can't build a 21/22 man squad with a budget of over £2m, something is wrong!! That means an average wage of around £1800 a week. Bearing in mind the likes of Heaton, McBurnie, Clarkson, will be on far less than that, PP should be able to offset the bigger earners such as Mclean, Davies, Darby & Hanson!![/p][/quote]McLean, Davies, Hanson, Darby,McArdle and Yeates ( just six players) will account for at least £1.4M, incl NIC . So you think another sixteen players can be signed for combined wages of £600,000? Waynus, what planet are you on?[/p][/quote]He always knows more than anyone else, you should know that by now. macca1969
  • Score: 0

11:42pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Waynus1971 says...

macca1969 wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages.

Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.
And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.
I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus.

The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages.

So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.
You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....!

Now stop guessing!
You're digging a big hole for yourself!

Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster?

Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that!

The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.
There you go again, GUESSING!! Just give me facts (if you can and stop this constant speculation). How do you know he was brought in as a cost-saving measure? I read quotes from PP recently that suggested he had done his homework on the boy- so he has obviously been tracking him for a while. I'll say it again because you seem slow on the uptake; PP could have seen Pickford as a BETTER alternative to Jonny Mc on SIMILAR pay!!!!

Now, if you are going to tell me (again) that I'm wrong, please back up your claim with facts (and no need to duplicate it ;) )
There you go again hypocrite, telling others not to guess whilst you guess we have a 2 million budget to sort a squad out for 22-24 players. Can see you already itching to put the boot in on the best city manager we have had in years
David Baldwin has previously said we spent over £2.7m on wages last season. Every time we hear from the board, they mention a cut of £0.5m for this season.

Now I know brains aren't your strong point, but EVEN YOU can work out that sum!!!!!

I "don't know it all", but I can feckin read!!!
[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages. Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.[/p][/quote]And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.[/p][/quote]I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus. The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages. So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.[/p][/quote]You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....! Now stop guessing![/p][/quote]You're digging a big hole for yourself! Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster? Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that! The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.[/p][/quote]There you go again, GUESSING!! Just give me facts (if you can and stop this constant speculation). How do you know he was brought in as a cost-saving measure? I read quotes from PP recently that suggested he had done his homework on the boy- so he has obviously been tracking him for a while. I'll say it again because you seem slow on the uptake; PP could have seen Pickford as a BETTER alternative to Jonny Mc on SIMILAR pay!!!! Now, if you are going to tell me (again) that I'm wrong, please back up your claim with facts (and no need to duplicate it ;) )[/p][/quote]There you go again hypocrite, telling others not to guess whilst you guess we have a 2 million budget to sort a squad out for 22-24 players. Can see you already itching to put the boot in on the best city manager we have had in years[/p][/quote]David Baldwin has previously said we spent over £2.7m on wages last season. Every time we hear from the board, they mention a cut of £0.5m for this season. Now I know brains aren't your strong point, but EVEN YOU can work out that sum!!!!! I "don't know it all", but I can feckin read!!! Waynus1971
  • Score: 1

11:47pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Waynus1971 says...

macca1969 wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages.

Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.
And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.
I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus.

The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages.

So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.
You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....!

Now stop guessing!
You're digging a big hole for yourself!

Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster?

Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that!

The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.
There you go again, GUESSING!! Just give me facts (if you can and stop this constant speculation). How do you know he was brought in as a cost-saving measure? I read quotes from PP recently that suggested he had done his homework on the boy- so he has obviously been tracking him for a while. I'll say it again because you seem slow on the uptake; PP could have seen Pickford as a BETTER alternative to Jonny Mc on SIMILAR pay!!!!

Now, if you are going to tell me (again) that I'm wrong, please back up your claim with facts (and no need to duplicate it ;) )
There you go again hypocrite, telling others not to guess whilst you guess we have a 2 million budget to sort a squad out for 22-24 players. Can see you already itching to put the boot in on the best city manager we have had in years
As for "itching to put the boot into the best City manager we have had in years", when was that??? Just because I don't agree he should have shown his frustration to fans and that I believe he DOES have a budget capable of allowing him to build a competitive squad, doesn't mean I have the knives out!!!!
[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages. Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.[/p][/quote]And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.[/p][/quote]I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus. The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages. So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.[/p][/quote]You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....! Now stop guessing![/p][/quote]You're digging a big hole for yourself! Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster? Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that! The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.[/p][/quote]There you go again, GUESSING!! Just give me facts (if you can and stop this constant speculation). How do you know he was brought in as a cost-saving measure? I read quotes from PP recently that suggested he had done his homework on the boy- so he has obviously been tracking him for a while. I'll say it again because you seem slow on the uptake; PP could have seen Pickford as a BETTER alternative to Jonny Mc on SIMILAR pay!!!! Now, if you are going to tell me (again) that I'm wrong, please back up your claim with facts (and no need to duplicate it ;) )[/p][/quote]There you go again hypocrite, telling others not to guess whilst you guess we have a 2 million budget to sort a squad out for 22-24 players. Can see you already itching to put the boot in on the best city manager we have had in years[/p][/quote]As for "itching to put the boot into the best City manager we have had in years", when was that??? Just because I don't agree he should have shown his frustration to fans and that I believe he DOES have a budget capable of allowing him to build a competitive squad, doesn't mean I have the knives out!!!! Waynus1971
  • Score: 1

11:54pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Waynus1971 says...

Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
macca1969 wrote:
Wish people would get off the managers back. Parky has every right to moan about lack of funds when the board are telling all we will be competitive. How will we be competing at the top end when Lawn himself has said we have at least 12 teams that have a lesser budget than we have, leaving roughly the same amount with a bigger more competitive budget. As for those saying he has wasted the budget, name a manager who hasn't made some bad decisions. He has made Bradford City more money than he has cost us and that is a fact!!!
The team has far more quality than the team he inherited and he has taken us to Wembley twice. He has also made enough money to pay jabba de hut back his loan. On top of this he developed Wells from a nobody into a saleable asset and made the club more money again. I know he didn't sign him but he was the manager that developed him. At the end of the day he has earned the right to receive the boards backing and he should be backed regardless of what some on here think are dud signings.
Since when has budget equalled competitiveness? Did Yeovil get promoted on a high budget? What about Colchester (in the not so distant past)? There are MANY examples of competitive squads being built without having a top budget!!

The fact is, PP cleared the decks this summer and has been able to build his squad almost from scratch. If he can't build a 21/22 man squad with a budget of over £2m, something is wrong!! That means an average wage of around £1800 a week. Bearing in mind the likes of Heaton, McBurnie, Clarkson, will be on far less than that, PP should be able to offset the bigger earners such as Mclean, Davies, Darby & Hanson!!
McLean, Davies, Hanson, Darby,McArdle and Yeates ( just six players) will account for at least £1.4M, incl NIC .

So you think another sixteen players can be signed for combined wages of £600,000?

Waynus, what planet are you on?
You have just stated that six league 1 players average a wage of £4,500 each and have the audicity to ask me what planet I liver on.... PMSL

Do you EVER provide facts or does your life revolve around your fictitious rumblings and constant guess work. My guess would be that those 6 named would total less then £900k for the year. Can you back up your claim that they are likely to earn over £0.5m more?????
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: Wish people would get off the managers back. Parky has every right to moan about lack of funds when the board are telling all we will be competitive. How will we be competing at the top end when Lawn himself has said we have at least 12 teams that have a lesser budget than we have, leaving roughly the same amount with a bigger more competitive budget. As for those saying he has wasted the budget, name a manager who hasn't made some bad decisions. He has made Bradford City more money than he has cost us and that is a fact!!! The team has far more quality than the team he inherited and he has taken us to Wembley twice. He has also made enough money to pay jabba de hut back his loan. On top of this he developed Wells from a nobody into a saleable asset and made the club more money again. I know he didn't sign him but he was the manager that developed him. At the end of the day he has earned the right to receive the boards backing and he should be backed regardless of what some on here think are dud signings.[/p][/quote]Since when has budget equalled competitiveness? Did Yeovil get promoted on a high budget? What about Colchester (in the not so distant past)? There are MANY examples of competitive squads being built without having a top budget!! The fact is, PP cleared the decks this summer and has been able to build his squad almost from scratch. If he can't build a 21/22 man squad with a budget of over £2m, something is wrong!! That means an average wage of around £1800 a week. Bearing in mind the likes of Heaton, McBurnie, Clarkson, will be on far less than that, PP should be able to offset the bigger earners such as Mclean, Davies, Darby & Hanson!![/p][/quote]McLean, Davies, Hanson, Darby,McArdle and Yeates ( just six players) will account for at least £1.4M, incl NIC . So you think another sixteen players can be signed for combined wages of £600,000? Waynus, what planet are you on?[/p][/quote]You have just stated that six league 1 players average a wage of £4,500 each and have the audicity to ask me what planet I liver on.... PMSL Do you EVER provide facts or does your life revolve around your fictitious rumblings and constant guess work. My guess would be that those 6 named would total less then £900k for the year. Can you back up your claim that they are likely to earn over £0.5m more????? Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

12:00am Thu 31 Jul 14

Waynus1971 says...

macca1969 wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up?

I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up.

Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's!

And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign.

Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....!
I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages.

Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.
And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.
I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus.

The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages.

So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.
You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....!

Now stop guessing!
You're digging a big hole for yourself!

Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster?

Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that!

The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.
There you go again, GUESSING!! Just give me facts (if you can and stop this constant speculation). How do you know he was brought in as a cost-saving measure? I read quotes from PP recently that suggested he had done his homework on the boy- so he has obviously been tracking him for a while. I'll say it again because you seem slow on the uptake; PP could have seen Pickford as a BETTER alternative to Jonny Mc on SIMILAR pay!!!!

Now, if you are going to tell me (again) that I'm wrong, please back up your claim with facts (and no need to duplicate it ;) )
There you go again hypocrite, telling others not to guess whilst you guess we have a 2 million budget to sort a squad out for 22-24 players. Can see you already itching to put the boot in on the best city manager we have had in years
The difference being, silly boll0x, I haven't tried to cast off my guesswork as a friggin fact. I have made it clear in all my posts on this subject that I don't know the facts and that I'm guessing. Pablo continues to write his ridiculous claims without having anything to back them up....!
[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: PP needs to take his thumb from up his ar5e. He knew the budget for this season and how he plans to spend it, is up to him. He has just released another CB and is already talking about replacing him with one of the trialists. Why sign a player that would become 4th or 5th choice? Why not use that saving to put towards a decent back-up? I can see the board's stand on putting back-ups on top earnings. It's a drain on limited finances and that money can be better spent elsewhere. PP has made it clear he saw Pickford (and not McLaughlin) as his no1. I don't know what Pickfordwould demand, but surely we can all see the illogical decision to have 2 keepers on high wages, when one would be just a back up. Why didn't PP sign an experienced stopper (or re-sign Jonny) and bring in a young keeper as back-up?? These decisions are PPs not the board's! And I'm sick of reading about how hard a job this is for PP, on a reduced budget. Bearing in mind this squad is no longer paying for the likes of Gray, Folan, Ravenhill, Connell, Bates and now Taylor to sit on the bench, their combined wages won't be far away from making up that deficit. So PP has effectively replaced the likes of Jobes, Doyle, Thommo, Reid & McLaughlin with his 5 new signings. Whatever we paid the loanees last season can be spent on 2/3 loanees for this campaign. Some of our players from last season were on top wages and I'd seriously doubt that any of the new recruits earn as much. PP had his blank canvas and has chosen how to spend it. Stop this feeling sorry for him bull....![/p][/quote]I would guess Sunderland are paying the bulk of Pickford's wages on the stipulation that he's first choice, so it wouldn't have been a case of two goalkeepers on high wages. Davies has only played half a season since he joined us, due to suspensions and injuries, so we need a quality ( probably well paid!) backup.[/p][/quote]And the key here are the words, "I would guess"......! Just because the kid is likely to be installed as the no1, doesn't mean he won't cost much. The fact is, he was probably highly sought after and Sunderland could choose which club he joined.[/p][/quote]I'm nearer the facts than you, Waynus. The club has made it known they are targeting young loan players from Premiership clubs on one year loan deals because of the savings, as those clubs will subsidise the wages in return for them getting first team experience. In some instances the parent club will pay all the wages. So, we wouldn't have had the expense of two highly paid goalkeepers.[/p][/quote]You STILL don't know for a fact what the deal is for this kid. For all you know, he is on £9k a week (not beyond the realms of possibility for a highly rated Premier League player) and we have agreed to pay 20% of his wages. On those calculations, it would still cost us £1800 a week for him and a similar amount for Jonny Mc....! Now stop guessing![/p][/quote]You're digging a big hole for yourself! Are you trying to kid yourself that, already having a more than adequate experienced goalkeeper on our books, on a modest contract, that we would contribute £1800 per week for a relatively untried youngster? Come on Waynus, your're more intelligent than that! The signing has been made as a COST SAVING measure.[/p][/quote]There you go again, GUESSING!! Just give me facts (if you can and stop this constant speculation). How do you know he was brought in as a cost-saving measure? I read quotes from PP recently that suggested he had done his homework on the boy- so he has obviously been tracking him for a while. I'll say it again because you seem slow on the uptake; PP could have seen Pickford as a BETTER alternative to Jonny Mc on SIMILAR pay!!!! Now, if you are going to tell me (again) that I'm wrong, please back up your claim with facts (and no need to duplicate it ;) )[/p][/quote]There you go again hypocrite, telling others not to guess whilst you guess we have a 2 million budget to sort a squad out for 22-24 players. Can see you already itching to put the boot in on the best city manager we have had in years[/p][/quote]The difference being, silly boll0x, I haven't tried to cast off my guesswork as a friggin fact. I have made it clear in all my posts on this subject that I don't know the facts and that I'm guessing. Pablo continues to write his ridiculous claims without having anything to back them up....! Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree