[SpireiteFitzy]

Sell your best players or let them leave, replace a successful manager with one that has three successive relegations to his name, wait till the very last minute to start signing players and when you do make sure they are just back from long term injuries or spells on the sidelines as a sub, then let said unsuccessful manager go about his business.

[sophocles]

djs, on 29 September 2015 - 08:48 PM, said:

How can this go so bad in such a short space of time!??

I'm really amazed that you, or anybody else, needs to ask that question because the answer is so obvious. The reason it has so predictably gone so bad is because the Chairman cashed in by selling most of our best players, leaving a new manager with a mixture of inexperienced youngsters and unfit older players and no chance to blend them into a TEAM of any description before the season started. Any blame is 100% Mr Allen's, and calling for the manager to go is not going to solve anything.

[SpireiteFitzy]

sophocles, on 29 September 2015 - 08:57 PM, said:

I'm really amazed that you, or anybody else, needs to ask that question because the answer is so obvious. The reason it has so predictably gone so bad is because the Chairman cashed in by selling most of our best players, leaving a new manager with a mixture of inexperienced youngsters and unfit older players and no chance to blend them into a TEAM of any description before the season started. Any blame is 100% Mr Allen's, and calling for the manager to go is not going to solve anything.

Ryan and Roberts left straight away, Saunders had all summer to replace them and neither adequately has been. If he'd have done that properly he would have only had 2 players to replace. And I don't buy for one second that the board a) forced him to wait to buy players and b) pick out the players for him. Saunders has struggled to get good players to come to this club and thats why we've ended up with long term crocks and unfit players who wernt playing before. The board are to blame for some of this but certainly not all of it.

[Walton Spireite]

sophocles, on 29 September 2015 - 08:57 PM, said:

I'm really amazed that you, or anybody else, needs to ask that question because the answer is so obvious. The reason it has so predictably gone so bad is because the Chairman cashed in by selling most of our best players, leaving a new manager with a mixture of inexperienced youngsters and unfit older players and no chance to blend them into a TEAM of any description before the season started. Any blame is 100% Mr Allen's, and calling for the manager to go is not going to solve anything.

That combined with the fact that Saunders is a **** manager

[Spireite-Karl]

SpireiteFitzy, on 29 September 2015 - 09:04 PM, said:

Ryan and Roberts left straight away, Saunders had all summer to replace them and neither adequately has been. If he'd have done that properly he would have only had 2 players to replace. And I don't buy for one second that the board a) forced him to wait to buy players and b) pick out the players for him. Saunders has struggled to get good players to come to this club and thats why we've ended up with long term crocks and unfit players who wernt playing before. The board are to blame for some of this but certainly not all of it.

And who was it who gave Saunders the job (without interviewing anybody else)?

[SpireiteFitzy]

Spireite-Karl, on 29 September 2015 - 09:07 PM, said:

And who was it who gave Saunders the job (without interviewing anybody else)?

Hence why I said the board are partly to blame. Saunders can't be absolved just because someone else picked him for the job, he still accepted it. All this he hasn't had time to prepare stuff is just a smokescreen for the fact he's been a bust pre season. All this talk of getting top end championship quality players to arrive, by the time we set our sights to realistic goals there was nothing left.

[sophocles]

Walton Spireite, on 29 September 2015 - 09:07 PM, said:

That combined with the fact that Saunders is a **** manager

A combination of Fergie, Jock Stein and Bill Shankly would struggle to get results in the situation DA has created.

[jonnythespireite]

Walton Spireite, on 29 September 2015 - 09:07 PM, said:

That combined with the fact that Saunders is a **** manager

Is that word good Tim?

[Walton Spireite]

jonnythespireite, on 29 September 2015 - 09:26 PM, said:

Is that word good Tim?

No mate. In fact I'm getting quite angry about all of this.

[sophocles]

djs, on 30 September 2015 - 03:26 PM, said:

You need some Valium mate!

Do they do it in magnums?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

sophocles, on 29 September 2015 - 09:21 PM, said:

A combination of Fergie, Jock Stein and Bill Shankly would struggle to get results in the situation DA has created.

I've gotta challenge your idea that everything's Allen's fault, 'Soph'.

It's absolutely correct to say that the Chairman has ripped apart a successful squad in his almost obsessive quest to recoup his money. I have no problem whatsoever with him receiving what's due but that had to be reconciled against the team's best interests.

However was it him that spent the budget on new deals for Gardner, Gnanduillet and Banks (which I'm told Banks initially declined only to be offered more!)? Was it his choice to sign players with dubious fitness records or so little first team football? Was it his choice to pay money for O'Neil and field a seventeen year old so clearly out his depth (surely we had lads who deserved a chance before him)? Has he told Saunders to sit-off teams allowing them to dominate and dictate play? To lob long balls towards a relatively diminutive and pedestrian front-man? To play such disjointed and directionless football?

I'd say the answer to all those questions is a resounding 'no'.

I take a balanced view of the current shambles, my friend: fifty percent Allen for selling off assets and appointing an obviously failed manager, and fifty percent Saunders for his signings and tactics.

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 30 September 2015 - 06:41 PM

[sophocles]

MDCCCLXVI, on 30 September 2015 - 06:38 PM, said:

I've gotta challenge your idea that everything's Allen's fault, 'Soph'.

It's absolutely correct to say that the Chairman has ripped apart a successful squad in his almost obsessive quest to recoup his money. I have no problem whatsoever with him receiving what's due but that had to be reconciled against the team's best interests.

However was it him that spent the budget on new deals for Gardner, Gnanduillet and Banks (which I'm told Banks initially declined only to be offered more!)? Was it his choice to sign players with dubious fitness records or so little first team football? Was it his choice to pay money for O'Neil and field a seventeen year old so clearly out his depth (surely we had lads who deserved a chance before him)? Has he told Saunders to sit-off teams allowing them to dominate and dictate play? To lob long balls towards a relatively diminutive and pedestrian front-man? To play such disjointed and directionless football?

I'd say the answer to all those questions is a resounding 'no'.

I take a balanced view of the current shambles, my friend: fifty percent Allen for selling off assets and appointing an obviously failed manager, and fifty percent Saunders for his signings and tactics.

Reasonable post mate; I confess I just don't know how much control DS has had over expenditure, but you're right to say the deployment of resources is now his responsibility. Maybe I'm being a bit soft, but I'm prepared to give him more time. Anyway, I'm pretty sure DA will stick with him for financial reasons, so I really do hope he can sort it out on the pitch.

This post has been edited by sophocles: 30 September 2015 - 06:55 PM

[jack bauer]

MDCCCLXVI, on 30 September 2015 - 06:38 PM, said:

I've gotta challenge your idea that everything's Allen's fault, 'Soph'.

It's absolutely correct to say that the Chairman has ripped apart a successful squad in his almost obsessive quest to recoup his money. I have no problem whatsoever with him receiving what's due but that had to be reconciled against the team's best interests.

However was it him that spent the budget on new deals for Gardner, Gnanduillet and Banks (which I'm told Banks initially declined only to be offered more!)? Was it his choice to sign players with dubious fitness records or so little first team football? Was it his choice to pay money for O'Neil and field a seventeen year old so clearly out his depth (surely we had lads who deserved a chance before him)? Has he told Saunders to sit-off teams allowing them to dominate and dictate play? To lob long balls towards a relatively diminutive and pedestrian front-man? To play such disjointed and directionless football?

I'd say the answer to all those questions is a resounding 'no'.

I take a balanced view of the current shambles, my friend: fifty percent Allen for selling off assets and appointing an obviously failed manager, and fifty percent Saunders for his signings and tactics.

I think perhaps the most baffling thing in this appointment of Saunders by Dave Allen is this, if DA wanted to sell players for big fees and see CFC as a club to develop young talent to then sell on, why did we appoint a manager with no real track record of doing this? surely a proper good bit of research by the board and CEO could have plucked someone who has a track record of developing young players, take Crewe during the Dario Gradi years, he did it endlessly whilst also maintaining a good and successful team. Instead we appoint someone who lets be fair has a history of taking clubs down. But then further he is not told right recruit and develop young players, he is allowed to sign unfit players from higher leagues. am I wrong?

[calvin plummers socks]

jack bauer, on 30 September 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:

I think perhaps the most baffling thing in this appointment of Saunders by Dave Allen is this, if DA wanted to sell players for big fees and see CFC as a club to develop young talent to then sell on, why did we appoint a manager with no real track record of doing this? surely a proper good bit of research by the board and CEO could have plucked someone who has a track record of developing young players, take Crewe during the Dario Gradi years, he did it endlessly whilst also maintaining a good and successful team. Instead we appoint someone who lets be fair has a history of taking clubs down. But then further he is not told right recruit and develop young players, he is allowed to sign unfit players from higher leagues. am I wrong?

Were Crewe ever successful?

[jack bauer]

calvin plummers socks, on 30 September 2015 - 07:10 PM, said:

Were Crewe ever successful?

to a degree yes, when I first started watching football they were always down the bottom of Div 4, Gradi managed to get them into the championship (Div 2) whatever you want to call it, forgive me for not being a font of all footballing knowledge but i'm not sure they had vast crowds or spent their way there

[h again]

MDCCCLXVI, on 30 September 2015 - 06:38 PM, said:

I've gotta challenge your idea that everything's Allen's fault, 'Soph'.

It's absolutely correct to say that the Chairman has ripped apart a successful squad in his almost obsessive quest to recoup his money. I have no problem whatsoever with him receiving what's due but that had to be reconciled against the team's best interests.

However was it him that spent the budget on new deals for Gardner, Gnanduillet and Banks (which I'm told Banks initially declined only to be offered more!)? Was it his choice to sign players with dubious fitness records or so little first team football? Was it his choice to pay money for O'Neil and field a seventeen year old so clearly out his depth (surely we had lads who deserved a chance before him)? Has he told Saunders to sit-off teams allowing them to dominate and dictate play? To lob long balls towards a relatively diminutive and pedestrian front-man? To play such disjointed and directionless football?

I'd say the answer to all those questions is a resounding 'no'.

I take a balanced view of the current shambles, my friend: fifty percent Allen for selling off assets and appointing an obviously failed manager, and fifty percent Saunders for his signings and tactics.

Absolutely correct? It's completely the opposite, as you must realise. I don't suppose for one moment that DA was sorry to see the money rolling in, but there was no way on this earth that he could have kept players offered multiples of their earnings in higher divisions - they were going without a backward glance, and fair play to them.
And if, by some bit of good fortune, a few of the current crop of youngsters come good, then exactly the same will happen - to be followed immediately by you denouncing DA for selling them.
Back in the real world it's players and agents who decide what's going to happen. We don't like it, but most people are too sensible to use it as a stick to beat the Chairman with.

[newboldsteve]

Dema Reborn, on 30 September 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

Dave Allen has been in charge long enough now remember the 5 year plan, i will still say we will not get anywhere near the Championship....i think i am winning on our position already...

we have already got near the championship by getting in the playoffs three games away is pretty near in my book