Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 21:36:34 GMT
Would have made more sense right at the start of january,seems a bit strange now with hardly any time for the 6 players to get fixed up elsewhere. Will be interesting to see if any of them do get a club before the end of the month. Somethings not quite right at rovers it seems but not sure what it is.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jan 19, 2017 21:50:34 GMT
Would have made more sense right at the start of january,seems a bit strange now with hardly any time for the 6 players to get fixed up elsewhere. Will be interesting to see if any of them do get a club before the end of the month. Somethings not quite right at rovers it seems but not sure what it is. It probably makes perfect sense. Get the panic buy period over, let things settle a bit (plus a run of condensed fixtures), assess injury/suspension issues, quietly tell them in advance, choose to announce it midweek with no fixtures pending. Transfer deadline day is a distraction, because club would terminate by mutual consent. It does give any player planning a move a fighting chance of finding a club. If not, the player won't lose out as they know they got a pay packet til May which is just rewards for helping the club get to where it is and their service.
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Jan 20, 2017 2:18:34 GMT
Timing is a little odd but this is simply DC paring back the fringes of the L2 squad now he is able to isn't it? He was previously hamstrung by his promise to retain the squad for this season if we got promotion last year. We are essentially retaining the quality core of the squad and paring away the fringe players to allow us to improve the squad in the summer. Which would make perfect sense if we still had cover for all of those positions for the remainder of the season... Interesting times.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jan 20, 2017 10:04:57 GMT
Shame about mcrystal and Easter sometimes heart and desire and playing for the club are more important than ability Easter has played his best football for us this season get tom Parkes back why not who might replace Easter probably some young kid just passing through. Why on earth would we get Tom Parkes back? He was struggling to get into our team when we were in league 2, he's part of a Leyton Orient team that has conceded the second-most goals outside of the bottom 2 and have lost 7 of their last 10 games, he's had off-field problems, oh and we've just signed a defender!
Apart from that he sounds perfect...
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Jan 20, 2017 10:39:57 GMT
Parkes back? Surely a joke. As for the other six. Not sure what the point is in DC putting this blunt statement in the public domain. Having a quiet word with all 6 and just saying "you are not going to be part of this squad after this season, but you may be needed on the bench as cover in the meantime. By all means look for another club if you can find one". Sounds a bit more rational. Unless we're getting more people in - feels a bit unnecessary and possibly counter-productive should we need cover. Especially Macca as centre-back.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Jan 20, 2017 11:33:58 GMT
A barmy announcement in my opinion. You can make players available for transfer without barring them from selection! We've needed McChrystal recently and he's done well. We've been using Puddy and Easter regularly too. Making them unavailable for no real reason is putting undue stress on the squad. This feels like when DC declared Mildenhall obsolete two years ago and then had to backtrack. That was barmy too. It must mean new players are coming in, surely? Maybe yesterday's signing was just back up after all. McChrystal, Easter and Puddy will all be remembered fondly for being part of two promotions and I wish them all the best. The others all played a small part in the squad's success so good luck to them as well! Pretty much my thoughts exactly mate. If we were towards the bottom of the league and it was felt the squad needed a kick up the arse and the fans were demanding some action, this announcement might make some sense but in the current circumstances it seems strange. The only thing I can think is that DC is under pressure to reduce the wage bill before we can strengthen and with the end of January fast approaching he nended to make it public knowledge that these players are available. Rather than holding on to them until end of season and not playing them; Isn't this just giving them a fair crack at finding first team football elsewhere?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 11:36:39 GMT
Not sure this will be great for squad morale either.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 12:23:36 GMT
Not sure this will be great for squad morale either. They are professional sportsmen working in the opposite of a paternalistic environment. If they were working elsewhere they would just be made redundant. This way they are given Six months notice, sounds very fair to me. The manager is paid to make these decisions, so given what he has achieved, who are we to second guess him??
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 20, 2017 12:33:31 GMT
Not sure this will be great for squad morale either. They are professional sportsmen working in the opposite of a paternalistic environment. If they were working elsewhere they would just be made redundant. This way they are given Six months notice, sounds very fair to me. The manager is paid to make these decisions, so given what he has achieved, who are we to second guess him?? It's not the fact he's letting them go that's the issue though - it's the way it has been done. It's difficult to understand why they have just been frozen out like this in this way. I've nothing against these players being eased out or let go - I just don't see what the benefit is of doing it like this particularly when several of these players have been used in the last few weeks.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 12:35:40 GMT
Not sure this will be great for squad morale either. They are professional sportsmen working in the opposite of a paternalistic environment. If they were working elsewhere they would just be made redundant. This way they are given Six months notice, sounds very fair to me. The manager is paid to make these decisions, so given what he has achieved, who are we to second guess him?? Time will tell. But taking 3 long standing members out in one hit in January, and going public with it looks, on the face of it, like pretty clumsy man management. But hey, what do I know?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 12:36:01 GMT
They are professional sportsmen working in the opposite of a paternalistic environment. If they were working elsewhere they would just be made redundant. This way they are given Six months notice, sounds very fair to me. The manager is paid to make these decisions, so given what he has achieved, who are we to second guess him?? It's not the fact he's letting them go that's the issue though - it's the way it has been done. It's difficult to understand why they have just been frozen out like this in this way. I've nothing against these players being eased out or let go - I just don't see what the benefit is of doing it like this particularly when several of these players have been used in the last few weeks. Because its fair and gives them six months notice?? Sounds very fair to me
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 12:38:30 GMT
They are professional sportsmen working in the opposite of a paternalistic environment. If they were working elsewhere they would just be made redundant. This way they are given Six months notice, sounds very fair to me. The manager is paid to make these decisions, so given what he has achieved, who are we to second guess him?? Time will tell. But taking 3 long standing members out in one hit in January, and going public with it looks, on the face of it, like pretty clumsy man management. But hey, what do I know? I think its spot on. If that was the decision made, then better to lead the agenda and not wait for speculation?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 12:43:14 GMT
Time will tell. But taking 3 long standing members out in one hit in January, and going public with it looks, on the face of it, like pretty clumsy man management. But hey, what do I know? I think its spot on. If that was the decision made, then better to lead the agenda and not wait for speculation? Is this how these things are normally done in the industry?
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 20, 2017 12:45:33 GMT
It's not the fact he's letting them go that's the issue though - it's the way it has been done. It's difficult to understand why they have just been frozen out like this in this way. I've nothing against these players being eased out or let go - I just don't see what the benefit is of doing it like this particularly when several of these players have been used in the last few weeks. Because its fair and gives them six months notice?? Sounds very fair to me Yes - but you don't have to do this publically, nor do you have to make it a zero sum game. He has announced that they will not be considered for 1st team selection any more - essentially saying that they are frozen out. I don't understand what he has to gain by doing that in this instance. They're probably already well aware that they'll most likely have to find a new club but that doesn't mean they can't be useful in the meantime especially when we're entering the clogging period of the season where injuries pile up. It also feels a bit like a statement is being made. Players who are clearly not going to be retained/renewed shift clubs all the time (I'm sure their agents have already been trying to fix them up clubs) but I don't understand why they need to be frozen out in the meantime - that seem unusual to me. I'm quite happy to trust in DC's judgement and I have no issue with these players being allowed to move on if they have no future with us, but the way this has been done feels a bit strange to me and I don't understand what we gain from it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 12:48:02 GMT
Can see Macca going back to Derry City, their season starts at the end of February.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 13:06:41 GMT
I really don't see the issue. The manager is making a decision, told the players and to avoid speculation made it public. All good to me. None of us on here are experienced enough to be critical of footballing decisions. On the HRM front this seems spot on, and on the fan communication side, all good.
Problem? None Just wish these guys well wherever their future takes them
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 13:10:14 GMT
I really don't see the issue. The manager is making a decision, told the players and to avoid speculation made it public. All good to me. None of us on here are experienced enough to be critical of footballing decisions. On the HRM front this seems spot on, and on the fan communication side, all good. Problem? None Just wish these guys well wherever their future takes them The issue is, if you have a squad where the sum is greater than the total of the parts, and that's achieved by getting them to both bond and play for their manager, you then chuck 3 key members out and burn your bridges doing it, it isn't going to inspire the remaining players on to greater efforts. Summer was the time to do this.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 20, 2017 13:31:39 GMT
I really don't see the issue. The manager is making a decision, told the players and to avoid speculation made it public. All good to me. None of us on here are experienced enough to be critical of footballing decisions. On the HRM front this seems spot on, and on the fan communication side, all good. Problem? None Just wish these guys well wherever their future takes them The issue is, if you have a squad where the sum is greater than the total of the parts, and that's achieved by getting them to both bond and play for their manager, you then chuck 3 key members out and burn your bridges doing it, it isn't going to inspire the remaining players on to greater efforts. Summer was the time to do this. Yes - that's definitely part of it. But, to me, the bigger issue is why you would optionally chose to weaken your squad. Tons of players are being shopped at this time of year - tons are being told they are not going to be re-signed. What I think is unusual is that, as well as telling them that, we have in effect also placed them on gardening leave. That strikes me as entirely unnecessary and I don't understand why a manager would chose to give himself less options when he doesn't need to. They're under contract with us for 6 months and they may move on in that time if it has been made generally aware that we want them off our books or they may not. But in the meantime, why exclude them from selection? I just don't see the need for the grandstanding - all of this can happen anyway because this isn't a zero-sum game (ie. there's no reason why these players can't continue in the squad while fully aware they need to find a new club - that's what normally happens after all), so why not give yourself the flexibility.
I just think we're missing something is all - and I wonder if it is something along the lines of these players having clauses in their contracts that say they get a contract extension if they play 'x number of games'.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 14:00:17 GMT
The issue is, if you have a squad where the sum is greater than the total of the parts, and that's achieved by getting them to both bond and play for their manager, you then chuck 3 key members out and burn your bridges doing it, it isn't going to inspire the remaining players on to greater efforts. Summer was the time to do this. Yes - that's definitely part of it. But, to me, the bigger issue is why you would optionally chose to weaken your squad. Tons of players are being shopped at this time of year - tons are being told they are not going to be re-signed. What I think is unusual is that, as well as telling them that, we have in effect also placed them on gardening leave. That strikes me as entirely unnecessary and I don't understand why a manager would chose to give himself less options when he doesn't need to. They're under contract with us for 6 months and they may move on in that time if it has been made generally aware that we want them off our books or they may not. But in the meantime, why exclude them from selection? I just don't see the need for the grandstanding - all of this can happen anyway because this isn't a zero-sum game (ie. there's no reason why these players can't continue in the squad while fully aware they need to find a new club - that's what normally happens after all), so why not give yourself the flexibility.
I just think we're missing something is all - and I wonder if it is something along the lines of these players having clauses in their contracts that say they get a contract extension if they play 'x number of games'.
As you say, there's information missing here. With what's been written on here, which is all I know, it looks like odd behaviour by the manager. We'll know more by the time this transfer window closes, or an ITK poster spills the beans.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 20, 2017 14:08:10 GMT
Sad to see anyone move on esp MMC and JE. Also perplexed at the timing. Why now and not a month ago before the window is open? So we could now be 'paying' wages for players that have no chance of playing, how will that effect the changing room? I am struggling for any logic at all to this decision? DC can have a very arrogant side and has had to backtrack before with Mildenhall. I think most of us are wondering wtf is going on here and especially as the window is ticking by. I would like to think he already has replacements in mind and close to signing. Ive had to eat humble pie a couple of times where questioning DC has backfired on me and I certainly hope this will be another. The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. I pray the golden touch hasn't gone to our managers head.
|
|