FBC Podcast : Forest [A] ... it's a thumbs down from us

[headhunter]

Ian, Mark & DaveP review the matchday action & more in our latest episode:

https://foreverbristolcity.podbean.com/e/city-felled-by-the-trees/  [also on Spotify, Google & Apple Podcasts]

2 points from the past 33 available on the road - it isn't great is it?

City were back to their sad, bad old ways against Steve Cooper's side.

Goal's either side of half-time secured victory for Forest who would have had a hatful were it not for Dan Bentley's heroics between the sticks.

Do we have ANY right to expect more? we discuss this including trying to fathom Nigel's abhorrence for the loan system - Spence, Davies & Garner are all loanees and were highly influential in Forest's win.

Assume we sell HNM & Scott for a combined £20M in the summer - we debate our confidence in Nigel to spend wisely say half that sum in the transfer window to fashion a side in his playing style image [whatever that is?!]

We remain supportive of Nigel but more performances like that and it will wear a bit thin despite the "excuses" which seem to be accepted by the majority of the supporter base.

Ian continues his more mellow style and if you disagree with him shout out on this thread!!

Btw, who are the Trees? - a Derby County friend informed me long ago that this is the affectionate name they've given their near neighbours hence the title of this episode; also who's that on the trumpet in the opening music?!!!

[And Its Smith]

Pearson’s lack of loans is easy to understand in my opinion. He is trying to build a long term side and squad. There is no point in doing that with loan players who won’t be here next season.  If we had a better squad and were pushing for play offs then I think he would get a loan or two to make us stronger and hopefully get us over the line.  There was no point this season in getting a loan or two and finish 12th instead of 16th.  What’s the point ?  Waste of money and resources.  The only benefit would be to make the fans feel a bit better. It’s a long term strategy and loans by definition are short term 

[Curr Avon]

5 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Pearson’s lack of loans is easy to understand in my opinion. He is trying to build a long term side and squad. There is no point in doing that with loan players who won’t be here next season.  If we had a better squad and were pushing for play offs then I think he would get a loan or two to make us stronger and hopefully get us over the line.  There was no point this season in getting a loan or two and finish 12th instead of 16th.  What’s the point ?  Waste of money and resources.  The only benefit would be to make the fans feel a bit better. It’s a long term strategy and loans by definition are short term 

'Its a long term strategy' doesn't stand up to scrutiny if you consider the signings of Simpson and King. Please explain.

[And Its Smith]

3 minutes ago, Curr Avon said:

'Its a long term strategy' doesn't stand up to scrutiny if you consider the signings of Simpson and King. Please explain.

It does if you care to think about what they are bringing and why they were signed.  They are experienced guys that Pearson knows who he clearly thinks will aid the dressing room and help install a long term culture.  Loans are usually young players and more than likely wouldn’t be players that Pearson knows and trusts.  
 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by And Its Smith

[Curr Avon]

5 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

It does if you care to think about what they are bringing and why they were signed.  They are experienced guys that Pearson knows who he clearly thinks will aid the dressing room and help install a long term culture.  Loans are usually young players and more than likely wouldn’t be players that Pearson knows and trusts.  
 

 

Buying Alexa for aiding the dressing room would have been a lot cheaper. 

[REDOXO]

5 minutes ago, Curr Avon said:

'Its a long term strategy' doesn't stand up to scrutiny if you consider the signings of Simpson and King. Please explain.

You need to have senior pros to bring on the kids, this was mentioned when both of these guys got signed. Simpson has not come off and King is injured again. Either way it is very clear Several of our u21 group are coming along well along side the likes of Martin/Weimann etc  

The medium/long term strategy is obviously clear, unfortunately those two will almost certainly not feature for us again

 

[headhunter]

14 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Pearson’s lack of loans is easy to understand in my opinion. He is trying to build a long term side and squad. There is no point in doing that with loan players who won’t be here next season.  If we had a better squad and were pushing for play offs then I think he would get a loan or two to make us stronger and hopefully get us over the line.  There was no point this season in getting a loan or two and finish 12th instead of 16th.  What’s the point ?  Waste of money and resources.  The only benefit would be to make the fans feel a bit better. It’s a long term strategy and loans by definition are short term 

With his insistence in playing a big man up front and flogging said player to death, i.e. Martin would it not have made sense to get someone like Davies to ease the burden. The alternative is to have a plan B that utilises the players you do have in  different formation - we've never tried Weimann, Wells and a resurgent Semenyo.

What's so wrong with that - make the fans feel a bit better; we were never going to keep Abraham but we all enjoyed his time here and his goals kept us up when in different circumstances they might have put us in the play offs

[And Its Smith]

28 minutes ago, headhunter said:

With his insistence in playing a big man up front and flogging said player to death, i.e. Martin would it not have made sense to get someone like Davies to ease the burden. The alternative is to have a plan B that utilises the players you do have in  different formation - we've never tried Weimann, Wells and a resurgent Semenyo.

What's so wrong with that - make the fans feel a bit better; we were never going to keep Abraham but we all enjoyed his time here and his goals kept us up when in different circumstances they might have put us in the play offs

We don’t have much money. I suggest we don’t spend what little we have on loans to make you feel good 

[headhunter]

Just now, And Its Smith said:

We don’t have much money. I suggest we don’t spend what little we have on loans to make you feel good 

OK, same applies for hiring has beens who are good for the dressing room

[And Its Smith]

1 hour ago, headhunter said:

OK, same applies for hiring has beens who are good for the dressing room

No it doesn’t. Obviously.  Pearson thinks there is value to that. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by And Its Smith

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, And Its Smith said:

It does if you care to think about what they are bringing and why they were signed.  They are experienced guys that Pearson knows who he clearly thinks will aid the dressing room and help install a long term culture.  Loans are usually young players and more than likely wouldn’t be players that Pearson knows and trusts.  
 

 

So, is the dressing room where Simpson spends all his time. Cos there’s precious little evidence of him anywhere else…….

[And Its Smith]

13 minutes ago, italian dave said:

So, is the dressing room where Simpson spends all his time. Cos there’s precious little evidence of him anywhere else…….

I answered the question. Didn’t say I agreed with it 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, headhunter said:

Do we have ANY right to expect more? we discuss this including trying to fathom Nigel's abhorrence for the loan system - Spence, Davies & Garner are all loanees and were highly influential in Forest's win.

2 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

What’s the point ?  Waste of money and resources.  The only benefit would be to make the fans feel a bit better. It’s a long term strategy and loans by definition are short term 

Thanks…Which is pretty much what Nige has said.

There is no “abhorrence” to loans, just him / RG trying to run to a budget, not break FFP and build something that is “ours”.

Go back a few years, we loaned 3 Chelsea players at high cost, then had to buy them to “stand still”.

Why isn’t the rhetoric - “haven’t we done well to be safe without having to resort to loans which would constrain next season’s budget”.

But we want it all and we want it now….sod the financial repercussions of choosing that option!

[Kid in the Riot]

3 hours ago, headhunter said:

Ian, Mark & DaveP review the matchday action & more in our latest episode:

https://foreverbristolcity.podbean.com/e/city-felled-by-the-trees/  [also on Spotify, Google & Apple Podcasts]

2 points from the past 33 available on the road - it isn't great is it?

City were back to their sad, bad old ways against Steve Cooper's side.

Goal's either side of half-time secured victory for Forest who would have had a hatful were it not for Dan Bentley's heroics between the sticks.

Do we have ANY right to expect more? we discuss this including trying to fathom Nigel's abhorrence for the loan system - Spence, Davies & Garner are all loanees and were highly influential in Forest's win.

Assume we sell HNM & Scott for a combined £20M in the summer - we debate our confidence in Nigel to spend wisely say half that sum in the transfer window to fashion a side in his playing style image [whatever that is?!]

We remain supportive of Nigel but more performances like that and it will wear a bit thin despite the "excuses" which seem to be accepted by the majority of the supporter base.

Ian continues his more mellow style and if you disagree with him shout out on this thread!!

Btw, who are the Trees? - a Derby County friend informed me long ago that this is the affectionate name they've given their near neighbours hence the title of this episode; also who's that on the trumpet in the opening music?!!!

Just to help you guys out, Forest signed a player in January for £2.2m. We can't afford £2.20 for a player at the moment. 

That player was probably a minimum £4m investment inc wages.

This will go someway to explaining why we lost to Nottingham Forest today. 

[tin]

3 hours ago, headhunter said:

Ian, Mark & DaveP review the matchday action & more in our latest episode:

https://foreverbristolcity.podbean.com/e/city-felled-by-the-trees/  [also on Spotify, Google & Apple Podcasts]

2 points from the past 33 available on the road - it isn't great is it?

City were back to their sad, bad old ways against Steve Cooper's side.

Goal's either side of half-time secured victory for Forest who would have had a hatful were it not for Dan Bentley's heroics between the sticks.

Do we have ANY right to expect more? we discuss this including trying to fathom Nigel's abhorrence for the loan system - Spence, Davies & Garner are all loanees and were highly influential in Forest's win.

Assume we sell HNM & Scott for a combined £20M in the summer - we debate our confidence in Nigel to spend wisely say half that sum in the transfer window to fashion a side in his playing style image [whatever that is?!]

We remain supportive of Nigel but more performances like that and it will wear a bit thin despite the "excuses" which seem to be accepted by the majority of the supporter base.

Ian continues his more mellow style and if you disagree with him shout out on this thread!!

Btw, who are the Trees? - a Derby County friend informed me long ago that this is the affectionate name they've given their near neighbours hence the title of this episode; also who's that on the trumpet in the opening music?!!!

We’ve published our accounts and SL won’t spend; Forest haven’t published their accounts (guess why) and have pushed the boat out in January (join the dots). If SL won’t sanction loans, how’s that on a manager who’s loaned Kane and Lingard in the past? 

In no way are the positions of the respective clubs comparable or do we have a divine right to beat any team let alone Forest. 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

Sadly it doesn't work if the defence is leakier than a sieve

When were poor, were abysmal, we dont have consistency and teams have sussed us. 

Difficult week I think

For who?  Nige?  Why?  Because we lost a game?

[Davefevs]

22 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Just to help you guys out, Forest signed a player in January for £2.2m. We can't afford £2.20 for a player at the moment. 

That player was probably a minimum £4m investment inc wages.

This will go someway to explaining why we lost to Nottingham Forest today. 

And sold a player to their owner’s club who had he gone anywhere else would’ve been a big financial loss!

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, Curr Avon said:

'Its a long term strategy' doesn't stand up to scrutiny if you consider the signings of Simpson and King. Please explain.

I’m sure in your world, you’ve worked on strategic IT projects. Some of those strategies incur technical debt, stuff you have to spend to transition to the end-game.  Sometimes you have “waste money” to fix an obsolete system short term, because the longer-term system isn’t ready / available yet.  In our world that was Simpson and Tanner.

In an ideal world it would be a nice straight line.  But it doesn’t work like that in the real world (football or not).

I find it staggering at times how quick we jump on a defeat and ignore rational thought….or the explanation of why things are being done a certain way.

Imagine working in construction on a 3 year build, you demolish the existing site, start laying the foundations and 6 months in the prospective owner asks for the keys and says he wants to move in NOW.  What would you say?

Edited February 27, 2022 by Davefevs

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, headhunter said:

What's so wrong with that - make the fans feel a bit better; we were never going to keep Abraham but we all enjoyed his time here and his goals kept us up when in different circumstances they might have put us in the play offs

Because for every Tammy Abraham, there’s an Ike Ugbo - go and and ask Barnsley, or closer to home, a Ryan Kent, or a Cauley Woodrow, or a Luis Diony, or a Kasey Palmer, or a Steven Sessegnon or a Alfie Mawson.

We are trying to be prudent.  Yes, we stuffed up with Danny Simpson, but we also didn’t lumber ourselves long-term either.

[Son of Fred]

8 hours ago, headhunter said:

Do we have ANY right to expect more? we discuss this including trying to fathom Nigel's abhorrence for the loan system - Spence, Davies & Garner are all loanees and were highly influential in Forest's win.

Assume we sell HNM & Scott for a combined £20M in the summer - we debate our confidence in Nigel to spend wisely say half that sum in the transfer window to fashion a side in his playing style image [whatever that is?!

Nothing wrong with a loan so long as its considered & steadies the ship - blinkered stubbornness is a flaw.

Should one of our young un's be sold in the summer,,which is very likely,,I'd be looking at the lad from Newcastle - Eliot Anderson,,currently on loan with the Horfield Nomads.

Attacking Midfielder,,playing extremely well,,real potential & whom Newcastle will likely be looking for a Championship loan next season.

Horses for courses.

And as a side note,,boy,wouldn't our friends at the tented village love it..natural progression??

Edited February 27, 2022 by Son of Fred

[City oz]

5 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

In terms of back to drawing board. 

Confidence looked shot, and trying hard to follow plans and dropping goals lots isnt going to be helpful 

Though we beat Middlesbrough, we've been absolutely battered defensively recently. 

Ao a tactical rethink at the back is likely required as well as looking at whay we do with balls coming in and then cleared out. 

Difficult werk then. 

Just watched some short highlights. OMG we are so inconsistent. We will stay up this season however not sure what next season will bring us. We can not keep going on like this. I feel for the young lads and girls wearing their purple City away shirts yesterday and how dissapointed they must feel now. It is always a great following to away matches and yet we see more dissapointment on to many occasions.

There has to be something deep down that NP yet can not still manage at the club. It could be his financial restraints or simply some players still not performing. I reckon Nige will not be with us by end of this season either from his own decision or a decision by the board.

Defensively always comes up as a point of concern but at the end of the day it all depends on the 11 players on the pitch. Sadly I do not think we will reach the Prem in my life time. Turning sixty this year I do not think their will be any happy endings for me 

[Son of Fred]

1 hour ago, City oz said:

. I reckon Nige will not be with us by end of this season either from his own decision or a decision by the board.

Defensively always comes up as a point of concern but at the end of the day it all depends on the 11 players on the pitch. Sadly I do not think we will reach the Prem in my life time. Turning sixty this year I do not think their will be any happy endings for me 

Nige leaving of his own volition is one thing...

For him to be fired by the clowns that run this club is another entirely...

As regards our respective ages Oz,,as I myself am 58 I do hope your wrong!!!

[City oz]

4 minutes ago, Son of Fred said:

Nige leaving of his own volition is one thing...

For him to be fired by the clowns that run this club is another entirely...

As regards our respective ages Oz,,as I myself am 58 I do hope your wrong!!!

Your first sentence unfortunately maybe the correct one. 

[headhunter]

8 hours ago, billywedlock said:

Just when I thought you cannot create an even worse podcast than your previous junk.  By far the biggest waste of listening time . Awful drivel . Listen to the other podcasts this lot is just amateur ill informed  nonsense. Never will I waste another minute of my life with such dross . Terrible in extreme .

Thank you for your support!!!

[Shuffle]

The biggest issue I have with this podcast is the extremity in reactions. Play well and get a result then the world is good. Lose or play badly then the knives come out. Not sure how you can acknowledge progress one week and whilst it was shocking yesterday, this forum needs consistency (just like the team).  It’s a better listen if Neil or Fevs are on as both more balanced.

[City oz]

48 minutes ago, TomF said:

Maybe you could support the forum too.  OTIB supporter is a fiver a year. 

Gees mate, I looked at this and it was ten quid not five. Point me in the right direction please 

[johnbytheriver]

Great podcast guys! Keep up the good work!

[frenchred]

1 hour ago, TomF said:

Maybe you could support the forum too.  OTIB supporter is a fiver a year. 

Can you remind us how today mate please? When I clicknon manage contributions I just get a statement and no way to.pay?

[Curr Avon]

1 hour ago, Shuffle said:

The biggest issue I have with this podcast is the extremity in reactions. Play well and get a result then the world is good. Lose or play badly then the knives come out. Not sure how you can acknowledge progress one week and whilst it was shocking yesterday, this forum needs consistency (just like the team).  It’s a better listen if Neil or Fevs are on as both more balanced.

I highlighted Bentley's great performance and Cundy's efforts to snuff out Davis in the second half, as well as the emergence of Scott this season and his excellent last ditch defending.

Our main problem yesterday was a lack of sharpness throughout the team, with Williams' fitness exposed. We can only account for the evidence of our own eyes.

[frenchred]

1 hour ago, TomF said:

It maybe there is a expired invoice in the way - if you nudge me tomorrow morning I’ll resend the invoice 

Will do mate

[daored]

16 hours ago, headhunter said:

Ian, Mark & DaveP review the matchday action & more in our latest episode:

https://foreverbristolcity.podbean.com/e/city-felled-by-the-trees/  [also on Spotify, Google & Apple Podcasts]

2 points from the past 33 available on the road - it isn't great is it?

City were back to their sad, bad old ways against Steve Cooper's side.

Goal's either side of half-time secured victory for Forest who would have had a hatful were it not for Dan Bentley's heroics between the sticks.

Do we have ANY right to expect more? we discuss this including trying to fathom Nigel's abhorrence for the loan system - Spence, Davies & Garner are all loanees and were highly influential in Forest's win.

Assume we sell HNM & Scott for a combined £20M in the summer - we debate our confidence in Nigel to spend wisely say half that sum in the transfer window to fashion a side in his playing style image [whatever that is?!]

We remain supportive of Nigel but more performances like that and it will wear a bit thin despite the "excuses" which seem to be accepted by the majority of the supporter base.

Ian continues his more mellow style and if you disagree with him shout out on this thread!!

Btw, who are the Trees? - a Derby County friend informed me long ago that this is the affectionate name they've given their near neighbours hence the title of this episode; also who's that on the trumpet in the opening music?!!!

The loan issue is difficult to gage without understanding what loan fee / percentage of wages clubs are paying for their loan players, and as we know our finances are limited. There are also likely to be clauses that players have to play a set number of games which I’d imagine would be frustrating if said player isn’t performing. On the basis we’re not going up or down this season I’d rather we give opportunities to our own players then develop premier league youngesters, as a podcast you’ve continued to promote Cundy - what we’d be your thoughts if we loaned a premier league CB and played him and then let Cundy leave who then goes on to have a good career - your contributors would implode !!

As for given Pearson money in the summer from proceeds of sale of Scott, HMM or Semenyo, it’s clear Pearson was shopping in Poundland and went for players he knew. 
 

Simpson: should never have signed, personally don’t want someone with his conviction at my club. 
King: player Pearson knows and trusts and probably his eyes and ears in the dressing room, can’t believe he’d be on a high wage due to lack of activity in past seasons. In hindsight it hasn’t worked but can understand reasons for bringing him in 

Tanner: to early to judge

Atkinson: potential is there, hopefully can come back from injury strongly. Could be a decent player

Klose: great signing - hope here next season 

James: good start to season, poor injury record but hopefully can finish season off strongly and be fit for next season. Good player at Coventry

I’ve said it before with Pearson and Fleming at the club we should be better defending and that simply has to improve. We have to find a way to move on our higher earners who aren’t in Pearson’s plans however hard that’s going to be 

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, daored said:

The loan issue is difficult to gage without understanding what loan fee / percentage of wages clubs are paying for their loan players, and as we know our finances are limited. There are also likely to be clauses that players have to play a set number of games which I’d imagine would be frustrating if said player isn’t performing. On the basis we’re not going up or down this season I’d rather we give opportunities to our own players then develop premier league youngesters, as a podcast you’ve continued to promote Cundy - what we’d be your thoughts if we loaned a premier league CB and played him and then let Cundy leave who then goes on to have a good career - your contributors would implode !!

As for given Pearson money in the summer from proceeds of sale of Scott, HMM or Semenyo, it’s clear Pearson was shopping in Poundland and went for players he knew. 
 

Simpson: should never have signed, personally don’t want someone with his conviction at my club. 
King: player Pearson knows and trusts and probably his eyes and ears in the dressing room, can’t believe he’d be on a high wage due to lack of activity in past seasons. In hindsight it hasn’t worked but can understand reasons for bringing him in 

Tanner: to early to judge

Atkinson: potential is there, hopefully can come back from injury strongly. Could be a decent player

Klose: great signing - hope here next season 

James: good start to season, poor injury record but hopefully can finish season off strongly and be fit for next season. Good player at Coventry

I’ve said it before with Pearson and Fleming at the club we should be better defending and that simply has to improve. We have to find a way to move on our higher earners who aren’t in Pearson’s plans however hard that’s going to be 

Agree.

If we take Balogun to Boro, the alleged cost was £1m loan fee and 15% of his £43k p.w wages.  Total cost £1.13m based on 20 weeks til end of May.  We’d expect a bigger impact than he’s made for Boro for that kind of money wouldn’t we?

Archer (who looks lively) to PNE was allegedly £0.5m loan fee plus wages (no idea how much).

Neither player is gonna sign on a perm, e.g. loan with option to buy, so best we keep our powder dry for the summer, when we are able to evaluate the contract positions of several players key to defining what budget there will be.

[NcnsBcfc]

4 hours ago, Shuffle said:

The biggest issue I have with this podcast is the extremity in reactions. Play well and get a result then the world is good. Lose or play badly then the knives come out. Not sure how you can acknowledge progress one week and whilst it was shocking yesterday, this forum needs consistency (just like the team).  It’s a better listen if Neil or Fevs are on as both more balanced.

I was away yesterday (half term, and watching the eldest son playing senior football again); so i haven't seen the "highlights" of the game; or listened to the podcast.

I think it's easy to get caught up in the emotion of another evidently poor away performance.

However, for me; we've done well to be where we are, with what we have; and what we can afford at the moment.

This summer brings huge challenges around players contracts, and whether to sell one of the 3 main prospects to potentially eliminate the risk of us breaching FFP summer 23.

This is our longest stay in the division since 66-76. Yes we were fortunate last season finished when it did, and this season's points deductions for Reading and Derby. But there are still a number of other teams in a worse points position than us.

Defensively we've been poor for two seasons now. The new defensive signings have either been injured, or poor; that's football. We need a change in that area in the summer. Let's see what happens with decisions around Kalas, JD & Bentley.

At present the team, and club as a whole are going through something like a Debt management plan, or IVA that an individual goes through. Having to make really difficult financial decisions for a few years because of mistakes/circumstances on the past.

We will recover, and move forward again. But unlike teams like Sheff Wed, Ipswich, Charlton, Portsmouth and others; we've managed to stay in what is possibly the hardest league in football.

I'm fairly stoical about it all at the moment. Although in some regards another difficult season, it's been wonderful to see the development of Scott, Semenyeo; and to a lesser degree HNM.

2 more wins needed i think, and roll on the summer.

[054123]

I havent listened yet, but do enjoy the pod.

I don’t know if there were similar calls for Pearson to resign like the other week, but thats the only bit that irks me. Even though then it’s not so much the Pearson out vibe, but be prepared to stand by it even when we win 4 on the bounce at home.

[Sir Geoff]

Blimey I found myself agreeing with both Ian and Dave at different points.

Ian agree that the fees being talked about on OTIB are ridiculous and no where near the amounts we would get for our 3 youngsters. Semenyo is 22 (so no youngster) and has had 6 weeks of exceptional football at this level. Ian also mentioned how poor his first touch was at times yesterday, it was equally as bad in the first hour v Coventry but was glossed over on the forum as he had a good last half hour.

Agree with Dave that Kalas could be a large part of the problem at the back. With a year left on his contract (I think) then I would listen to reasonable offers in the summer.

 

[GrahamC]

13 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Just to help you guys out, Forest signed a player in January for £2.2m. We can't afford £2.20 for a player at the moment. 

That player was probably a minimum £4m investment inc wages.

This will go someway to explaining why we lost to Nottingham Forest today. 

Plus of course the curious case of their sale of Joao Carvalho in January to a Greek club also owned by.. 

Forest’s owner, he cost Forest £12m but was shit for them (imagine the outcry on here if that was us), I’m convinced this was a massive FFP dodge.

[GrahamC]

16 hours ago, Curr Avon said:

'Its a long term strategy' doesn't stand up to scrutiny if you consider the signings of Simpson and King. Please explain.

This lazy conflation of King & Simpson is pretty boring, Simpson has been a mistake, though probably a very low cost one & who has actually been in the match day squad 19 times & is nailed on to go this summer.

 I have heard a lot of positive things about King, especially with regards to his involvement with coaching the U18s. His signing still makes sense to me.

15 hours ago, headhunter said:

OK, same applies for hiring has beens who are good for the dressing room

See above, as @Shuffle said, bit boring when everyone on the podcast gives the same view.

[And Its Smith]

20 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Blimey I found myself agreeing with both Ian and Dave at different points.

Ian agree that the fees being talked about on OTIB are ridiculous and no where near the amounts we would get for our 3 youngsters. Semenyo is 22 (so no youngster) and has had 6 weeks of exceptional football at this level. Ian also mentioned how poor his first touch was at times yesterday, it was equally as bad in the first hour v Coventry but was glossed over on the forum as he had a good last half hour.

Agree with Dave that Kalas could be a large part of the problem at the back. With a year left on his contract (I think) then I would listen to reasonable offers in the summer.

 

Massengo with one year left on his contract - £3-4m

Semenyo - £5-6m 

Scott - £7-8m. 
 

If they all have another good season next season with Semenyo doing it over a whole season (and Massengo signs a new contract) then you can double all of them I reckon. 

[Davefevs]

55 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

At present the team, and club as a whole are going through something like a Debt management plan, or IVA that an individual goes through. Having to make really difficult financial decisions for a few years because of mistakes/circumstances on the past.

We will recover, and move forward again. But unlike teams like Sheff Wed, Ipswich, Charlton, Portsmouth and others; we've managed to stay in what is possibly the hardest league in football.

In our current state, the transition to norming is gonna take longer than Nige hoped. Not being able to move players on is hamstringing him considerably.  Forming didn’t start until the summer, and with many players leaving there was likely to be a downturn.  We have seen that.  Would be good to see Atkinson and Tanner back for say the last 8-9 games to see how we are positioned for the summer.

35 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Plus of course the curious case of their sale of Joao Carvalho in January to a Greek club also owned by.. 

Forest’s owner, he cost Forest £12m but was shit for them (imagine the outcry on here if that was us), I’m convinced this was a massive FFP dodge.

Yes, mentioned in pg1 by me.

10 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Massengo with one year left on his contract - £3-4m

Semenyo - £5-6m 

Scott - £7-8m. 
 

If they all have another good season next season with Semenyo doing it over a whole season (and Massengo signs a new contract) then you can double all of them I reckon. 

Probably not as far off as many would lead you to believe, but I also think at those fees you turn them down.  Massengo decision will of course be driven by contract extension or not.  I don’t believe Semenyo or Scott will be angling for moves.  I don’t think Massengo will be, come to that either.  He’s a sensible lad and must know he’s got work to do on his own game first.  He has a supportive manager who keeps picking him.

 

[Waconda]

14 hours ago, Davefevs said:

For who?  Nige?  Why?  Because we lost a game?

Not for the Manager, there are no expectations for results. He has a free hand for 3 years.

[And Its Smith]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

In our current state, the transition to norming is gonna take longer than Nige hoped. Not being able to move players on is hamstringing him considerably.  Forming didn’t start until the summer, and with many players leaving there was likely to be a downturn.  We have seen that.  Would be good to see Atkinson and Tanner back for say the last 8-9 games to see how we are positioned for the summer.

Yes, mentioned in pg1 by me.

Probably not as far off as many would lead you to believe, but I also think at those fees you turn them down.  Massengo decision will of course be driven by contract extension or not.  I don’t believe Semenyo or Scott will be angling for moves.  I don’t think Massengo will be, come to that either.  He’s a sensible lad and must know he’s got work to do on his own game first.  He has a supportive manager who keeps picking him.

 

Yes absolutely. I’m saying those are the offers we’d get. We wouldn’t sell any for that unless Massengo doesn’t sign.  @Gillies Downs Leeds maybe didn’t get that! Nobody is going to offer £15-20m for any of them.  Burnley just signed Weighorst a proven top flight scorer for £15m

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Yes absolutely. I’m saying those are the offers we’d get. We wouldn’t sell any for that unless Massengo doesn’t sign.  @Gillies Downs Leeds maybe didn’t get that! Nobody is going to offer £15-20m for any of them.  Burnley just signed Weighorst a proven top flight scorer for £15m

Yep, big differences between a true market valuation, a price tag slapped on a player you don’t want to sell, and a bid from a club taking advantage of your financial situation.

[ray savino]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Agree.

If we take Balogun to Boro, the alleged cost was £1m loan fee and 15% of his £43k p.w wages.  Total cost £1.13m based on 20 weeks til end of May.  We’d expect a bigger impact than he’s made for Boro for that kind of money wouldn’t we?

Archer (who looks lively) to PNE was allegedly £0.5m loan fee plus wages (no idea how much).

Neither player is gonna sign on a perm, e.g. loan with option to buy, so best we keep our powder dry for the summer, when we are able to evaluate the contract positions of several players key to defining what budget there will be.

This is absolutely the point. I am also frustrated in particular the likes of Davis signing foe Forest. He would have been great in the position up front with AS and AW, with Martin back up and in as suited. But that is what frustrated me with the presumptions on loans/no loans that the FBC Podcasters were making.

How do we know that City didn’t cast an eye on Davis or other players? Is NP really ”anti-loans” for City as they kept saying? Pearson has loaned in the past at clubs. I interpret much of what NP says as tied to what is going on at owner/board level. I saw it that he wasn’t going to waste funds on a player in a pretty much dead rubber season during a three year minimum rebuild plan when we are struggling with finances. If we were fighting to stay up or go up, I’m pretty sure the purse strings would have been loosened slightly and damn sure NP would have loaned the right character to get us better success. Do they not realise that we probably spent a lot on loans over the last few years which have contributed to our financial problems now, and have often contributed to blocking a pathway for a young academy player? Do they not realise it costs to loan GOOD players like Davis, Garner, Tammy, Tomlin, etc?

I do think that a lot of the contributing factors behind NP’s decisions at times is what is going on with contracts, finance, potential plans to change ownership, etc.

Look, if Pearson stays or goes is neither here nor there as far as my influence over ultimately SL decision making, but I do think there is no magic wand, we have been wastefully managed at least since we came back up to the Championship. Squandering money raised through good transfer fees to keep us treading water at this level. My expectations of this club are not low, they’ve become even more realistic over the last few years. My dreams for City are always high however, and I always think well maybe next season...

The reality for me supporting City since season 1966-67 season is that we have been decidedly average apart from one second tier promotion, 4 seasons in the top flight, a few yoyo promos/relegations mainly between 2nd tier and 3rd tier, 3 league cup semi-finals and a couple of notable FA cup wins against Leeds and Liverpool. That’s not to dismiss those individual achievements, we all loved them, but lets be honest, collectively over 55 seasons or so, that’s hardly setting the world alight from the 6th(?) largest City in the UK. That also doesn’t mean to say that I don’t have aspirations for City and we get to the top flight or win a trophy soon. Ha, well, maybe next season...

What I would find interesting from the FBC podcast @headhunter is what would they say would be their ideal model and maybe person to lead us into more success? Would be a good debate. Would also be interested to see how you @Davefevs evaluate the situation as I do think you try taking a fairly measured view of our progress (or lack of) as a club. I would also like to add that I myself feel just as knee jerk, angry, frustrated, whingeing, etc after a game like yesterdays, as much as the next fan. But I’ve got to the stage where I enjoy a range of views which might offer some more insights, possible ideas and offering solutions (and hope!) for debate.

Again, despite some criticism for the FBC podcast, it gets me listening, and fair play to the time you guys (particularly @headhunter) put into this. The Rob Newman interview was excellent, so thanks so much for that.

 

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, ray savino said:

How do we know that City didn’t cast an eye on Davis or other players? Is NP really ”anti-loans” for City as they kept saying? Pearson has loaned in the past at clubs. I interpret much of what NP says as tied to what is going on at owner/board level. I saw it that he wasn’t going to waste funds on a player in a pretty much dead rubber season during a three year minimum rebuild plan when we are struggling with finances. If we were fighting to stay up or go up, I’m pretty sure the purse strings would have been loosened slightly and damn sure NP would have loaned the right character to get us better success. Do they not realise that we probably spent a lot on loans over the last few years which have contributed to our financial problems now, and have often contributed to blocking a pathway for a young academy player? Do they not realise it costs to loan GOOD players like Davis, Garner, Tammy, Tomlin, etc?

I do think that a lot of the contributing factors behind NP’s decisions at times is what is going on with contracts, finance, potential plans to change ownership, etc.

 

That’s the bit that frustrates me. NP has articulated the reasons why (within the boundary of commercial sensitivity), but because people don’t agree with them, they use it as a continual stick to beat him with, regurgitating the same argument on the Pod, or on 20Man, what seems like every week.  It’s been done to death.

I agree that had relegation looked a distinct possibility then a bit of loosening of the purse strings would’ve happened, but would knock on to the summer Recruitment too.  Cake and eat it I guess.

For info, from looking at the accounts, I believe Mawson and Sessegnon cost us £750k in loan fees last season. That doesn’t include their wages either.

[Waconda]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

That’s the bit that frustrates me. NP has articulated the reasons why (within the boundary of commercial sensitivity), but because people don’t agree with them, they use it as a continual stick to beat him with, regurgitating the same argument on the Pod, or on 20Man, what seems like every week.  It’s been done to death.

I agree that had relegation looked a distinct possibility then a bit of loosening of the purse strings would’ve happened, but would knock on to the summer Recruitment too.  Cake and eat it I guess.

For info, from looking at the accounts, I believe Mawson and Sessegnon cost us £750k in loan fees last season. That doesn’t include their wages either.

No loans for the next 2 years, barring GK implosion etc.

As you say expensive and often ineffective. We have a tremendous Academy, keep using those guys until NP has the squad he wants - IMO.

[NcnsBcfc]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, big differences between a true market valuation, a price tag slapped on a player you don’t want to sell, and a bid from a club taking advantage of your financial situation.

I don't think Pearson does himself any favours either with this "If they're not on the bus, they I will get rid of them" mantra.

Times have changed in the transfer market, and clubs will be looking at some players (Wells, Palmer, JD with Birmingham), coupled with NP's words; and try to have us over the barrel.

We can't afford to do a Nagy with them all at present, so this needless "They will be gone" statement is empty in my opinion.

 

[Sir Geoff]

2 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

Massengo with one year left on his contract - £3-4m

Semenyo - £5-6m 

Scott - £7-8m. 
 

If they all have another good season next season with Semenyo doing it over a whole season (and Massengo signs a new contract) then you can double all of them I reckon. 

Don't think those figures are far off. Scott has a much longer contract so another year or two in the championship will increase his value the more experience and improvement he gains.

[Davefevs]

22 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I don't think Pearson does himself any favours either with this "If they're not on the bus, they I will get rid of them" mantra.

Times have changed in the transfer market, and clubs will be looking at some players (Wells, Palmer, JD with Birmingham), coupled with NP's words; and try to have us over the barrel.

We can't afford to do a Nagy with them all at present, so this needless "They will be gone" statement is empty in my opinion.

 

I don’t disagree…although in Bakinson’s case I thought it was needed.  Even if it means he’s made life more difficult trying to move him on in the summer.  I just wanted (needed?) to hear it once that we might have some players taking the piss

[daored]

4 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Agree.

If we take Balogun to Boro, the alleged cost was £1m loan fee and 15% of his £43k p.w wages.  Total cost £1.13m based on 20 weeks til end of May.  We’d expect a bigger impact than he’s made for Boro for that kind of money wouldn’t we?

Archer (who looks lively) to PNE was allegedly £0.5m loan fee plus wages (no idea how much).

Neither player is gonna sign on a perm, e.g. loan with option to buy, so best we keep our powder dry for the summer, when we are able to evaluate the contract positions of several players key to defining what budget there will be.

Think this for me was the issue with the podcast, everyone agreed we don’t have any money but then stated we should be bringing in loans as if there’s no cost involved. Interestingly when the Villa player we were linked with was mentioned nobody knew the details of his loan , what forest were paying, paid or the terms of the loan. It defeated the argument of loans if you don’t know the costs involved!!

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, daored said:

Think this for me was the issue with the podcast, everyone agreed we don’t have any money but then stated we should be bringing in loans as if there’s no cost involved. Interestingly when the Villa player we were linked with was mentioned nobody knew the details of his loan , what forest were paying, paid or the terms of the loan. It defeated the argument of loans if you don’t know the costs involved!!

Are you saying there were no facts?

[daored]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Are you saying there were no facts?

I’m saying if players are discussed or taking loans on, then an awareness of what the deal actually is , otherwise there is no context to it.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, daored said:

I’m saying if players are discussed or taking loans on, then an awareness of what the deal actually is , otherwise there is no context to it.

I know, was being facetious re a certain contributor!!!

[daored]

11 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I know, was being facetious re a certain contributor!!!

No worries , out of interest does anybody know what our financial contribution was to get Tammy on loan and if other conditions were required? Know supposedly there was a set number of games Kent had to play 

[GrahamC]

15 hours ago, daored said:

Think this for me was the issue with the podcast, everyone agreed we don’t have any money but then stated we should be bringing in loans as if there’s no cost involved. Interestingly when the Villa player we were linked with was mentioned nobody knew the details of his loan , what forest were paying, paid or the terms of the loan. It defeated the argument of loans if you don’t know the costs involved!!

This does happen a lot on this podcast, Ian simply appears to make “facts” up, saying a while ago for instance that at Wigan Williams only played 30 games & was booked 16 times, whereas the true figures were 40 & 14.

Dave P seems to have a real issue with ages, we have had the 30 year old Afobe (he’s 28), Klose is nearly 35 (he’s 33), if you can’t be bothered to find out, then don’t quote it.

Names as well, we have had the debate about Michael Smith at Rotherham when they couldn’t even remember his name.

[exAtyeoMax]

24 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

This does happen a lot on this podcast, Ian simply appears to make “facts” up, saying a while ago for instance that at Wigan Williams only played 30 games & was booked 16 times, whereas the true figures were 40 & 14.

Dave P seems to have a real issue with ages, we have had the 30 year old Afobe (he’s 28), Klose is nearly 35 (he’s 33), if you can’t be bothered to find out, then don’t quote it.

Names as well, we have had the debate about Michael Smith at Rotherham when they couldn’t even remember his name.

That is something I find a bit annoying, a lack of research. I know OSIB sometimes does the same but they then Google the information to find out for definite.

I do enjoy the pod overall though. I don't mind the ranting but it has been better with Neil, Les and DaveFevs on there as they mostly provide a more rounded view on the situation. 

[headhunter]

On 26/02/2022 at 23:47, billywedlock said:

Just when I thought you cannot create an even worse podcast than your previous junk.  By far the biggest waste of listening time . Awful drivel . Listen to the other podcasts this lot is just amateur ill informed  nonsense. Never will I waste another minute of my life with such dross . Terrible in extreme .

 

On 27/02/2022 at 09:33, johnbytheriver said:

Great podcast guys! Keep up the good work!

 

18 hours ago, ray savino said:

 

Again, despite some criticism for the FBC podcast, it gets me listening, and fair play to the time you guys (particularly @headhunter) put into this. The Rob Newman interview was excellent, so thanks so much for that.

 

I just love it that we provoke so much debate!

Ages & other facts - sorry listeners, can't get it right all the time!

As I have written before, i always welcome new contributors and as @NcnsBcfc has shown since his introduction to our panel its not just about Ian's views and for those that say we are hypercritical I'd refer to @Curr Avon comments earlier in this thread.

It's not compulsory listening but I guess for some it is becoming a guilty pleasure.

PS - sound better quality now? 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, daored said:

No worries , out of interest does anybody know what our financial contribution was to get Tammy on loan and if other conditions were required? Know supposedly there was a set number of games Kent had to play 

Sorry, no idea.  Allegedly Swansea paid a £5m loan fee for him the following season.

[Major Isewater]

31 minutes ago, headhunter said:

Ages & other facts - sorry listeners, can't get it right all the time!

I am sorry but you should.When is a ‘fact’ not a ‘fact’ ? 

[headhunter]

21 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

I am sorry but you should. When is a ‘fact’ not a ‘fact’ ? 

Perhaps I should say, using the Afobe example, "I think he's 30 but I may be wrong"!!! or for the forgotten name of the Rotherham striker, "do you know for the life of me I can't remember the name of that striker we're supposed to be after but I do know for a fact that he plays for Rotherham"

[Davefevs]

Listened to first half last night.

re-writing history? In fairness, what he said on the pod was correct.  But pre-match he was claiming it was the team he’d picked too, quickly bailed on that notion when we lost.

Mark - Swansea - were we inept or just poor / inept second half?  Do we forget the first half because we lost the game?

Dave - Why the need to “name and shame” players?

Ian - in fairness hasn’t gone knee-jerk, he has actually been pretty fair with his evaluation of performances.  I give him stick a lot of the time, but I agree with him here and on other things too.  Less “shock-jock” in this pod, and he comes across much better as a result.  A bit of praise where it’s due.

Overall, nobody saying we weren’t poor, but just like we should go too OTT after a win in isolation we shouldn’t go OTT after a defeat either.  We are a bottom half team, therefore we are gonna lose more than we win.  I’m not saying we should accept that, but it’s probably the reality of “where we are”!

Dave - good rotating of the contributors, to keep them in the conversation.

Loans

Mark - “won’t cost the earth”, based on what, how do you know?  In our financial situation, there isn’t really any spare money.  I gave an example of Balogun on pg1….£1m loan fee!!!

Ian when asked about loans - “I’ve got no idea?”, is a cop out.  He does know, Nige has told us all several times why.  It’s two things (summarised):

1. Cost of loan vs ability of player vs our financial state

2. Doesn’t want to develop other club’s players (in a time where he wants to develop our own / not block pathway)

He has stated that if we needed to fill a gap temporarily and a loan would be the way of achieving that he would.

So, we really need to listen and not put our hands over our ears and go la-la-la-la, and pretend we’ve no idea just because we don’t agree with it.  Nige has been clear…several times.  We need to get the **** over it!

Ian - the loan system has changed since the days of Blackmore, etc, for the worse imho.  “For a good one we might get two bad ones”….arghhhh, we can’t afford two out of three to be bad.  If your logic is that that’s ok, then why you criticising the summer Recruitment?  Came an eat it!

Dave - it was Reading’s accounts (Coventry’s out too).

 

 

[Davefevs]

Ian’s view of Nige’s eleven:

433

Bentley | Tanner Kalas Baker Pring | Scott James Massengo | Weimann Martin Semenyo

Ian’s eleven (differences bold):

352

Bentley | Kalas Baker Klose | Tanner Scott James Massengo Pring | Weimann Semenyo

Mark’s view of Nige’s eleven:

3412 (when he realised he could only pick eleven)

Bentley | Kalas Baker Klose | Tanner Scott James Williams Pring | we never heard the full team, assume he quickly left Massengo out after naming him

Mark’s eleven (differences bold):

we didn’t get to hear it.

What was it Mark?

Surprised Williams doesn’t get in, but each to their own.

[exAtyeoMax]

37 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Ian’s view of Nige’s eleven:

433

Bentley | Tanner Kalas Baker Pring | Scott James Massengo | Weimann Martin Semenyo

Ian’s eleven (differences bold):

352

Bentley | Kalas Baker Klose | Tanner Scott James Massengo Pring | Weimann Semenyo

Mark’s view of Nige’s eleven:

3412 (when he realised he could only pick eleven)

Bentley | Kalas Baker Klose | Tanner Scott James Williams Pring | we never heard the full team, assume he quickly left Massengo out after naming him

Mark’s eleven (differences bold):

we didn’t get to hear it.

What was it Mark?

Surprised Williams doesn’t get in, but each to their own.

Do you think you are being a bit hyper critical? Perhaps it's me (as I don't know anything about formations and have never played the game?) but I see it as like a pub chat type podcast/fan based. I don't expect Sky type punditry…

[Davefevs]

Back to loans again…Ian would go and 3 / 4 signings and from the loan market.

Why?

“So we don’t have lots of cash going out”.

Cashflow isn’t the problem, P&L (FFP) is the problem.  Two different beasts.

Signing Balogun (or whoever) on loan for £1m loan fee and say £10k p.w wage contribution, is no different in FFP terms to signing a striker permanently for £4m on a 4 year deal on £10k p.w.  You might even be able to arrange staged payments across the term.  That player is also ours, we might have resale value too.  It’s an example where the loan transfer concept isn’t quite as “good” as it seems.  There are pros and cons of both to be fair.

But the thinking that loans are free (cheaper) is absolutely bonkers and naive.

I suspect we will be looking very closely at the free transfer market too…unless we get a windfall

Mark - re Barnsley, that was a club who’d developed a strategy over 2-3 seasons and last season they executed it really well both on and off the pitch.  But look how quickly it’s changed. Huddersfield a year ahead of us, but Corberan doing well.  For info he was already at Leeds, not a Bielsa man.  Will look forward to seeing their accounts for last season.  They potentially will be a good benchmark for us, struggle in year one, grow quickly on year 2.

4 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Do you think you are being a bit hyper critical? Perhaps it's me (as I don't know anything about formations and have never played the game?) but I see it as like a pub chat type podcast/fan based. I don't expect Sky type punditry…

I wasn’t commenting on the teams / formations per se, just made me laugh that Mark wanted to pick 12, and didn’t even get around to completing his Nige line-up or his own preference.  Had no issues with Ian’s choices…apart from formation and Martin, he picked the same player# he thought Nige would.

[Curr Avon]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Back to loans again…Ian would go and 3 / 4 signings and from the loan market.

Why?

“So we don’t have lots of cash going out”.

Cashflow isn’t the problem, P&L (FFP) is the problem.  Two different beasts.

Signing Balogun (or whoever) on loan for £1m loan fee and say £10k p.w wage contribution, is no different in FFP terms to signing a striker permanently for £4m on a 4 year deal on £10k p.w.  You might even be able to arrange staged payments across the term.  That player is also ours, we might have resale value too.  It’s an example where the loan transfer concept isn’t quite as “good” as it seems.  There are pros and cons of both to be fair.

But the thinking that loans are free (cheaper) is absolutely bonkers and naive.

I suspect we will be looking very closely at the free transfer market too…unless we get a windfall

Mark - re Barnsley, that was a club who’d developed a strategy over 2-3 seasons and last season they executed it really well both on and off the pitch.  But look how quickly it’s changed. Huddersfield a year ahead of us, but Corberan doing well.  For info he was already at Leeds, not a Bielsa man.  Will look forward to seeing their accounts for last season.  They potentially will be a good benchmark for us, struggle in year one, grow quickly on year 2.

I wasn’t commenting on the teams / formations per se, just made me laugh that Mark wanted to pick 12, and didn’t even get around to completing his Nige line-up or his own preference.  Had no issues with Ian’s choices…apart from formation and Martin, he picked the same player# he thought Nige would.

Yes, my 3-5-3 formation. I tried to laugh it off, but felt there was no coming back and stayed on the canvas. 

[Davefevs]

Mark - So, if you won’t trust him with any slice of the money generated from transfers to recruit the players he needs, you’re basically saying “Pearson Out”, despite saying you don’t wanna get rid of him, you want him to succeed.

I don’t think you can have both.  You either trust him with the budget given or you get rid.  For once there is no grey, it’s black or white (Did I just write that?)!

You’re both saying “get rid”.  That’s fine btw, everyone entitled to an opinion.

@headhuntergood pod btw, certainly created debate.

[Curr Avon]

37 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Mark - So, if you won’t trust him with any slice of the money generated from transfers to recruit the players he needs, you’re basically saying “Pearson Out”, despite saying you don’t wanna get rid of him, you want him to succeed.

I don’t think you can have both.  You either trust him with the budget given or you get rid.  For once there is no grey, it’s black or white (Did I just write that?)!

You’re both saying “get rid”.  That’s fine btw, everyone entitled to an opinion.

@headhuntergood pod btw, certainly created debate.

I said that I hoped our new Head of Recruitment, Ian Pearce could help Pearson, without realising that he's yet to be appointed.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Curr Avon said:

I said that I hoped our new Head of Recruitment, Ian Pearce could help Pearson, without realising that he's yet to be appointed.

So assuming he’s not appointed as there’s been no news since the rumour, does that make your “Pearson Out”, then?

[Curr Avon]

43 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

So assuming he’s not appointed as there’s been no news since the rumour, does that make your “Pearson Out”, then?

No. I'd like Nigel to stay and be a success at City.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Curr Avon said:

No. I'd like Nigel to stay and be a success at City.

But you’ve said you don’t trust him with any money to recruit.  The two are in conflict.…unless you expect him to improve us with the players we currently have, minus any we lose in the summer?

Maybe I’m missing something?  Sorry, if I’m being thick.

 

[exAtyeoMax]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But you’ve said you don’t trust him with any money to recruit.  The two are in conflict.…unless you expect him to improve us with the players we currently have, minus any we lose in the summer?

Maybe I’m missing something?  Sorry, if I’m being thick.

 

didn't Nige say he doesn't get involved in recruitment?