Supporters Forum 22nd Sept - Sainsbury Pulling Out?

A positive view would be that we are getting good quality loans as it is recognised that those players that come to us get both good game time and can enhance there careers.
If PB did not play Loanees what would be the point for the loanee's club or us?

And generally I am not in favour of the current loan system but I do see its merits.

Yorkshire Blue said:

Each to their own. Personally, I believe people are being naive if they don't think that a manager won't be under any pressure to play a loanee. That pressure may be subtle and it won't be the only pressure the manager is under, but the manager will know that he's expected to play the loanee and will face questions if he doesn't.

I don't know how many of you have budgets at work that you manage. This is no different. The manager has a budget and he knows that if he does one course of action it will eat into his budget and if he does a different course of action it will increase his budget.

Click to expand...

Nope- not naive in the slightest-frankly that is an insulting statement . I just see things differently. Let me put it another way . Lets say that Phil decides to play Shaq or whoever for 1,2,3,4,5,6 games when deep down he really doesn't want to. What exactly does he achieve financially by doing this? None of us know if we 'budget' assuming the player will play 100% of the time -50% or any other figure , so he may be under/over budget. At best he has freed up a few weeks money so he can get in a (very ) short term loan . HOWEVER what has he really achieved, he has got in one player , but has done so by playing someone he doesn't want to play --- it doesn't make sense. Added to this the Coker injury has proven that we ahve the budget to get in a short term loanee. So I come back to the same question, what exactly does Phil have to gain by playing a player he doesn't want to play.

tottenham541 said:

Standing is a thing of the past, all new stadiums will always be all seater to attract the all round supporters, family and so on and makes it a lot safer all round, look ahead and not backwards:smile:

Click to expand...

not sure if you have read much on railseats - the safety point you mention is totally unsubstantiated, railseats are a modern concept and therefore should be seen as a looking forward, not backwards IMO

http://www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk/the-case-for-safe-standing/case-for-1

united we stand said:

Nope- not naive in the slightest-frankly that is an insulting statement . I just see things differently. Let me put it another way . Lets say that Phil decides to play Shaq or whoever for 1,2,3,4,5,6 games when deep down he really doesn't want to. What exactly does he achieve financially by doing this? None of us know if we 'budget' assuming the player will play 100% of the time -50% or any other figure , so he may be under/over budget. At best he has freed up a few weeks money so he can get in a (very ) short term loan . HOWEVER what has he really achieved, he has got in one player , but has done so by playing someone he doesn't want to play --- it doesn't make sense. Added to this the Coker injury has proven that we ahve the budget to get in a short term loanee. So I come back to the same question, what exactly does Phil have to gain by playing a player he doesn't want to play.

Click to expand...

Not only have we been able to get in JBW in on loan since we agreed the Shaq contract, but we've also signed Deegan as well. And since these two addtional wages have been added to the bill, we since dropped Shaq to the bench twice, it clearly shows we are under no financial pressure to play him, and backs the manager and chief exec's statement that they categorically do not pick players to ease the financial burden, but actually on merit.

I'm not sure what more proof is required to be honest.

If we were that cash strapped that Phill Brown was co-erced into playing a player he didnt want then

a) why dont we send him back and save ourselves a fortune
b) why were we able to pay 25k for Bolger.
c) Why did we sign Deegan when we have so many midfielders?

If we dont play him yes it will cost us more and he will no doubt be recalled if he never played, but Phill Brown isn't going to damage his chances of promotion because of this, that results in him losing his job.

They clearly answered the question in the Q&A that his salary is within our budget and there is no obligation to play him. I can't see how it can be any clearer.

Blue_Wes said:

Not only have we been able to get in JBW in on loan since we agreed the Shaq contract, but we've also signed Deegan as well. And since these two addtional wages have been added to the bill, we since dropped Shaq to the bench twice, it clearly shows we are under no financial pressure to play him, and backs the manager and chief exec's statement that they categorically do not pick players to ease the financial burden, but actually on merit.

I'm not sure what more proof is required to be honest.

Click to expand...

yep correct:thumbsup:

united we stand said:

if there was ridicule perhaps you should ask yourself why that is so? Put simply, in your post you changed the facts to meet your agenda, this tends to annoy people. This should be obvious by now as this is hardly the first time you have done this.

Click to expand...

Here are the facts,

Our 3 recognised forwards

Shaq has had 11 appearances playing 711 minutes at an average of 65 minutes per game.
Corr has had 8 appearances playing 477 minutes at an average of 59 minutes per game.
Barnard has had 7 appearances playing 182 minutes at an average of 27 minutes per game.

Either Phil rates Shaq as a super striker orsomething else is forcing Phil's hand.

mrsblue said:

Here are the facts,

Our 3 recognised forwards

Shaq has had 11 appearances playing 711 minutes at an average of 65 minutes per game.
Corr has had 8 appearances playing 477 minutes at an average of 59 minutes per game.
Barnard has had 7 appearances playing 182 minutes at an average of 27 minutes per game.

Either Phil rates Shaq as a super striker orsomething else is forcing Phil's hand.

Click to expand...

He isn't playing up front most of the time though. So why are you constantly talking about his goal return?

There's no more logic to the claim that PB is playing Shaq to save money than there would if I claimed that we were dropping points earlier in the season because the club didn't want to pay out any win bonuses.

mrsblue said:

Here are the facts,

Our 3 recognised forwards

Shaq has had 11 appearances playing 711 minutes at an average of 65 minutes per game.
Corr has had 8 appearances playing 477 minutes at an average of 59 minutes per game.
Barnard has had 7 appearances playing 182 minutes at an average of 27 minutes per game.

Either Phil rates Shaq as a super striker orsomething else is forcing Phil's hand.

Click to expand...

Yes maybe Phill actually likes him and thinks he can do a job for us ?

Although he dropped him against Portsmouth and he only played 5 minutes then has only picked him the last two games because Corr has been injured as already stated, but no point in considering those facts.

mrsblue said:

Here are the facts,

Our 3 recognised forwards

Shaq has had 11 appearances playing 711 minutes at an average of 65 minutes per game.
Corr has had 8 appearances playing 477 minutes at an average of 59 minutes per game.
Barnard has had 7 appearances playing 182 minutes at an average of 27 minutes per game.

Either Phil rates Shaq as a super striker orsomething else is forcing Phil's hand.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing Corrs playing time is partly down to managing his back problems.
I'm guessing Barneys is simply down to 'not impressing'.
And my third guess ( no facts from me ! ) is that Brown sees something in Shaqs abilities that enhance the team better than other options , so being where we are in the League , that is good enough for me.

mrsblue said:

Here are the facts,

Our 3 recognised forwards

Shaq has had 11 appearances playing 711 minutes at an average of 65 minutes per game.
Corr has had 8 appearances playing 477 minutes at an average of 59 minutes per game.
Barnard has had 7 appearances playing 182 minutes at an average of 27 minutes per game.

Either Phil rates Shaq as a super striker orsomething else is forcing Phil's hand.

Click to expand...

Here we go again, PB has already stated he rates him highly after seeing him in pre-season and in behind closed doors games. Whatever happened to giving someone a chance and developing them. From what I have seen of Shaq he is a huge talent and will only get better under Brown's guidance.

Were you at the Portsmouth game to see his goal and what it meant to him or was that another game you couldn't be arsed to go to because your hero Williams wasn't going to play ?

mrsblue said:

Here are the facts,

Our 3 recognised forwards

Shaq has had 11 appearances playing 711 minutes at an average of 65 minutes per game.
Corr has had 8 appearances playing 477 minutes at an average of 59 minutes per game.
Barnard has had 7 appearances playing 182 minutes at an average of 27 minutes per game.

Either Phil rates Shaq as a super striker orsomething else is forcing Phil's hand.

Click to expand...

mr brown said last night he now knows what his best line up is and would be.......if it was me I would play the whole team around Payne, a match winner if I ever see one, always takes two players with him when he has ball to feet taking on players, he could be the key to us getting out of this league and could notch around 15-20 goals if he keeps going, we won't be able to keep him here then tho eh but it's league one football is what we want and need.

tottenham541 said:

mr brown said last night he now knows what his best line up is and would be.......if it was me I would play the whole team around Payne, a match winner if I ever see one, always takes two players with him when he has ball to feet taking on players, he could be the key to us getting out of this league and could notch around 15-20 goals if he keeps going, we won't be able to keep him here then tho eh but it's league one football is what we want and need.

Click to expand...

Why did you have to spoil a great story with a crap bit at the end !

dannypav said:

Why did you have to spoil a great story with a crap bit at the end !

Click to expand...

yeaaahhhh:blush:

tottenham541 said:

mr brown said last night he now knows what his best line up is and would be.......if it was me I would play the whole team around Payne, a match winner if I ever see one, always takes two players with him when he has ball to feet taking on players, he could be the key to us getting out of this league and could notch around 15-20 goals if he keeps going, we won't be able to keep him here then tho eh but it's league one football is what we want and need.

Click to expand...

Didn't we say the same about Bentley last season?

Either way we will need to get him on a decent contract or we could lose him for a small fee in the summer.

tottenham541 said:

Standing is a thing of the past, all new stadiums will always be all seater to attract the all round supporters, family and so on and makes it a lot safer all round, look ahead and not backwards:smile:

Click to expand...

Standing is not a thing of the past. Do you go to away games?

Terraces enable choice.

londonblue said:

The manager is under even more pressure to get results, and will face even more questions if he doesn't.

Yes, I have managed budgets at work. I don't see how that is relevant. The loan player's wages (whatever part we have to pay) would already be accounted for in the budget, it's an accounting term called prudence (i.e. you work on a worst case scenario) so playing him or not makes no difference. You've already paid for him, it is now (here comes another accounting term - sorry if I'm sending you to sleep) a sunk cost, i.e. you have already spent it, therefore it should make no difference to your decision making.

Click to expand...

Except if you play him you don't spend it!

united we stand said:

Nope- not naive in the slightest-frankly that is an insulting statement . I just see things differently. Let me put it another way . Lets say that Phil decides to play Shaq or whoever for 1,2,3,4,5,6 games when deep down he really doesn't want to. What exactly does he achieve financially by doing this? None of us know if we 'budget' assuming the player will play 100% of the time -50% or any other figure , so he may be under/over budget. At best he has freed up a few weeks money so he can get in a (very ) short term loan . HOWEVER what has he really achieved, he has got in one player , but has done so by playing someone he doesn't want to play --- it doesn't make sense. Added to this the Coker injury has proven that we ahve the budget to get in a short term loanee. So I come back to the same question, what exactly does Phil have to gain by playing a player he doesn't want to play.

Click to expand...

The difference between picking two players can be fairly minimal, particularly when most of the other options (Williams, Layne, Brown) are unproven, but maybe the manager thinks there's more benefit in, say, staying overnight for an away trip (something he's talked about in the past) than in giving Jason Williams (who he's again talked about in the past) a sub appearance over Coulthirst.

You'll see a similar thing also with signings who sign for big money - be it for a big transfer fee or big wages - they will get more chances than home grown youths because a manager will be judged on how he's spent his money. A manager who is trying to plead with the chairman for the money for one more signing is going to have a harder time convincing the chairman if his last two signings are sat on the bench collecting splinters.

Players aren't selected entirely on merit. Whilst they will be selected predominantly on merit there are always outside influences. I think the current loan system isn't a helpful trend and exacerbates this. We know how tight finances have been at Roots Hall on occasions.

Yorkshire Blue said:

. We know how tight finances have been at Roots Hall on occasions.

Click to expand...

As I said above though, those finances havent been as tight recently, if they were we could send him back and wouldnt have signed Deegan or paid a fee for Bolger so it seriously undermines that argument.

Generally the simplest answers are the true ones, and that is simply Brown just thinks he is the best option with Corr injured.

They have answered aspecific question in the Q&A, if people wish to believe after that and all the other facts that they are lying and we are still being forced to play him then that's down to them, but it seems to be blindingly obvious that at the moment Brown thinks he is the best option. Yes there would be some influence in playing him, but that would be far outweighed by wanting to get the right result and keep his job surely.

There would have been lots of influence to play Eastwood who would have been our biggest earner, yet he didn't. Nor is he playing Barnard who we had the same kind of comments about early in the season.

If people think he isnt good enough thats fair enough, I dont see why there is a need to wrap it in a conspiracy theory.

As mentioned earlier, we had a development game and lost 2-1 with Jack Bridge scoring again. Paul Smith, Mads Ibenfelt and Lee Barnard started.

Quote from Coughlan: "Jack Bridge did really well, as did Jason Williams. They’re both showing signs of good development."


Also had a trialist playing in the team.

http://www.southendunited.co.uk/news/article/220914-development-squad-vs.-oxford-1937008.aspx

Yorkshire Blue said:

Standing is not a thing of the past. Do you go to away games?

Terraces enable choice.



Except if you play him you don't spend it!



The difference between picking two players can be fairly minimal, particularly when most of the other options (Williams, Layne, Brown) are unproven, but maybe the manager thinks there's more benefit in, say, staying overnight for an away trip (something he's talked about in the past) than in giving Jason Williams (who he's again talked about in the past) a sub appearance over Coulthirst.

You'll see a similar thing also with signings who sign for big money - be it for a big transfer fee or big wages - they will get more chances than home grown youths because a manager will be judged on how he's spent his money. A manager who is trying to plead with the chairman for the money for one more signing is going to have a harder time convincing the chairman if his last two signings are sat on the bench collecting splinters.

Players aren't selected entirely on merit. Whilst they will be selected predominantly on merit there are always outside influences. I think the current loan system isn't a helpful trend and exacerbates this. We know how tight finances have been at Roots Hall on occasions.

Click to expand...

Alternatively, he doesn't see Williams as up to the standard as Coulthirst, hence looking to loan him out to Bury City - hardly league two, which he is expected to set alight based on nothing more than he's a youth team player - not by you I appreciate.

Coulthirst is able to play in more than one position. Which actually reminds me of another point Brown raised on him last night. Shaq's preferred position is out wide, as he feels this benefits the runs he makes more, and is where he is strongest. He was played central for a while at Spurs, but asked to be moved out wider as this is his preferred and most effective position, so that's where Brown plays him.

So in terms of selection;

• The versatility in position he has over Barnard, Corr and Williams would give him an advantage
• His pace would give him an advantage over Barnard and Corr
• His fitness and lack of injury issues would give him an advanatage over Barnard and Corr
• His ability in the eyes of Brown gives him the advantage especially over Williams, and possibly Barnard - he's too different a striker to Corr to be compared

The point around not being able to convince a chairman to sign another player when you have new signings sat on the bench doesn't work either. He signed a new midfielder in Deegan at a point that Coulthirst had been dropped, when Worrall has spent the season on the bench, when Mads had spent the season on the bench. And to a lesser extent, where Brown and Layne have been no-where near the first team.

They (finances) have been, but this season we seem to be operating well, and the fact we have got in two additional players since the Shaq contract has been agreed would suggest there's no financial pressure to play a player that doesn't belong in the team. As SK said, the biggest financial pressure is bums on seats, and this is directly related to results.

chapperzUK said:

As mentioned earlier, we had a development game and lost 2-1 with Jack Bridge scoring again. Paul Smith, Mads Ibenfelt and Lee Barnard started.

Quote from Coughlan: "Jack Bridge did really well, as did Jason Williams. They’re both showing signs of good development."


Also had a trialist playing in the team.

http://www.southendunited.co.uk/news/article/220914-development-squad-vs.-oxford-1937008.aspx

Click to expand...

The fact Jason Williams played in another friendly and despite getting praise again didn't score hardly adds much weight to him being a clear alternate to Coulthirst to solve our goalscoring issues when Brown makes that choice.