|
|
Post by swissgas on Feb 5, 2021 17:01:19 GMT
Things have moved on since 2019 but the principle behind that proposal still remains. So the question is, if a credible plan is put forward which could provide Rovers with the chance of a new stadium and future prosperity would Wael even consider it if it meant he had to relinquish control and make a huge financial sacrifice ? If he isn't willing to consider any plans which may contain this proviso then Gasheads should be aware of it.
Many will say "it's his business, he can do what he likes" and carry on encouraging his way of managing Rovers till we reach the end of the road. Others may say "we need to attempt to persuade Wael that it's in Rovers best interests and his best interests for him to try a new approach and be willing to make sacrifices" What if they don’t have to contain this proviso though? Wael could sell part of the club to investors but retain overall control to raise funds, he could strike a deal like UWE where the club leases land or shares ownership of the land with other parties, he could even fund it out of his or his families funds, I know they aren’t fabulously wealthy but its not a complete stretch of the imagination if Wael possessed total commitment to delivering a new stadium. I think the majority of supporters would understand if Wael didn’t want to lose control the club and make a considerable investment just to get a stadium, as long as he could reassure them that he had a plan to deliver the stadium to the football club by other means. I don’t necessarily see it a bad thing if Wael wouldn’t want to give up control of the club even if did mean the club doesn’t get a stadium either, does the club in the long term want to be owned 76% by venture capitalists who have been sold a vision of the club being profitable at a stadium that hasn’t been built yet as per your suggestion? In my experience in business, you draw up firm plans for expansion then ask for investment to see it through not the other way round. It doesn’t matter how good of a business plan you’ve drawn up, it’s not going to attract significant amounts of investment unless the premise it’s built on, in your case the lease of the FM, is likely to become a reality as well. Wael mustn’t get drawn into the trap of selling our soul for a new stadium, we’ve seen it happen with Coventry and it could easily happen to us if either our relationship was to sour with future lessor or if the 76% that invest run us into the ground. We need a new stadium by all means but not at all costs. These experienced people who Wael associated with 5 years ago that you refer to, I’m assuming this is people like Michael Cunnah, Lee Atkins, Mike Turner. Is the assumption that they are all somehow more trustworthy and that Karim/Starnes/Gorringe/Widdrington are just yes men based on age and experience or something? There’s no tangible evidence out there that backs this up, neither me or you has ever been present at a board meeting before, Gorringe could dig his heels in at every suggestion Wael makes whilst Turner could have been agreeable to his suggestions for all we know. In fact it’s quite natural after there’s a transfer in ownership, in this case from the family to Wael, that the new regime should change the composition of the board room to reflect this. If your logic is that the new guys are yes men for Wael because he knows them better, then who’s to say the old board members with their association to the Al Qadi family weren’t just yes men for them? In that case if they are so much better than the new board members, are you saying that you trusted the Al Qadi family’s direction for the the club back then more than you trust Wael’s now? From the noises coming out of the club it sounds like Wael is far more committed to building a new stadium than Hani ever was, though I could of course be wrong. Finally I don’t like this implied notion that just because people heaped praise on Wael in the summer for funding the training ground and capitalising the loans (rightly so), they aren’t critical about any other aspect of his ownership and will just blindly follow him no matter what he does. I think most have woken up to the fact that Wael’s gamble on Garner and his vision was on reflection a poor move and have questioned Widdrington’s appointment to the board. With his five year track record of financial failure no sensible investor would put money into Rovers and leave Wael in control. As for the ability to offer sound advice then, yes, I would put Michael Cunnah, Lee Atkins, Mike Turner and Steve Hamer streets ahead of Karim, Martyn, Tom and Tommy when it comes to experience and wisdom. If we are going to have people with no longstanding connection to Rovers running the club then to me it makes sense to select the best we can. Hani has been painted as the bad guy but surely, after making the initial mistake of backing Wael in his Rovers adventure, he was simply trying to protect his family by mitigating losses. He saw the UWE Stadium Mk II as too big of a risk because of the financial guarantees required by the University. He considered the Evans Jones plans for a proper training ground development to be not financially viable for the club. And when he saw an opportunity with the Fruit Market scheme to extract the family from their financial millstone and at the same time give Rovers the chance of a new start at a new stadium he instructed Steve Hamer to go for it. When you say fans are critical of Wael's appointment of Ben Garner and of bringing Tommy Widdrington onto the Board of Directors I think you illustrate my point. They will criticise the symptoms of the problem but not the root cause. Most fans still think Wael has been unlucky, that he's been let down by those around him and that events have conspired against him. But I take a different view and believe that many of our problems are self inflicted. |
|
|
|
Post by gasandproud on Feb 5, 2021 20:57:23 GMT
Hi John, My name is David Townsend and I have nothing to do with anything you mention above. Regards David, are you one of the "two local Gasheads" who were due to join the board at whatever point that rumour was floating about? I assume that tallies with what you are involved in here. Your scheme is proceeding but Rovers are not involved? Surely based on a property/stadium deal then you would need a local club and there are slim pickings not in Lansdowns empire - Bath peanut hugging division? I'm digging I know... There are plenty of businesses who are interested in a mixed used development and it doesn’t need to be a sports club. A sports club would be ideal but there are plenty of sports clubs / sports based organisations who are easier to deal with than Bristol Rovers (unfortunately). Myself and my colleague have gone out of our way to try and include Rovers (through our passion for the club rather than ease of inclusion) but the basic facts are that other organisations can see the potential and have the commercial acumen to engage properly where Rovers can’t. That’s the long and short of it! That’s not to say all will be a breeze as a large mixed use development like this is not easy to get over the line but having sensible, well managed, respected stake holders involved is the biggest challenge. With regards to board appointments.... I will say this....“no comment” which is exactly what should have been said when that question was raised via the local media. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2021 21:22:06 GMT
There are plenty of businesses who are interested in a mixed used development and it doesn’t need to be a sports club. A sports club would be ideal but there are plenty of sports clubs / sports based organisations who are easier to deal with than Bristol Rovers (unfortunately). Myself and my colleague have gone out of our way to try and include Rovers (through our passion for the club rather than ease of inclusion) but the basic facts are that other organisations can see the potential and have the commercial acumen to engage properly where Rovers can’t. That’s the long and short of it! So why are you telling us? I am presuming Al Qadi won't talk to you? Why is this? And what do hope to achieve? My questions are genuine. Now that we know you're not one of the usual pompous Presidents' Club cocks, it has been very interesting to read your notes, but it seems a little odd to read them publicly. If you do have a workable plan, then great. |
|
|
|
Post by gasandproud on Feb 5, 2021 21:40:33 GMT
There are plenty of businesses who are interested in a mixed used development and it doesn’t need to be a sports club. A sports club would be ideal but there are plenty of sports clubs / sports based organisations who are easier to deal with than Bristol Rovers (unfortunately). Myself and my colleague have gone out of our way to try and include Rovers (through our passion for the club rather than ease of inclusion) but the basic facts are that other organisations can see the potential and have the commercial acumen to engage properly where Rovers can’t. That’s the long and short of it! So why are you telling us? I am presuming Al Qadi won't talk to you? Why is this? And what do hope to achieve? My questions are genuine. Now that we know you're not one of the usual pompous Presidents' Club cocks, it has been very interesting to read your notes, but it seems a little odd to read them publicly. If you do have a workable plan, then great. No worries. I’m glad you found it interesting. Not looking to achieve anything in particular other than commenting on an area of the club I have had some recent experience of which I believe is the usual on a forum like this. Glad you don’t consider me in the ‘cock’ category. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2021 22:03:55 GMT
Glad you don’t consider me in the ‘cock’ category. Absolutely not. We've had some, mind. My impression, however induced, is this. Al Qadi won't deal, and won't cede ground. He won't let go of Rovers, even for Rovers. You're not the only one to imply so. Indeed this is perfectly plausible to me. But what is to be done, in our interests? What is the proposal he should consider? |
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Feb 5, 2021 22:22:09 GMT
There are plenty of businesses who are interested in a mixed used development and it doesn’t need to be a sports club. A sports club would be ideal but there are plenty of sports clubs / sports based organisations who are easier to deal with than Bristol Rovers (unfortunately). Myself and my colleague have gone out of our way to try and include Rovers (through our passion for the club rather than ease of inclusion) but the basic facts are that other organisations can see the potential and have the commercial acumen to engage properly where Rovers can’t. That’s the long and short of it! So why are you telling us? I am presuming Al Qadi won't talk to you? Why is this? And what do hope to achieve? My questions are genuine. Now that we know you're not one of the usual pompous Presidents' Club cocks, it has been very interesting to read your notes, but it seems a little odd to read them publicly. If you do have a workable plan, then great.c Pompous Presidents Club cocks ?People who have at least 4 £40,000 preference shares that helped to by the Mem Suggest you pass these comments onto the Dunford family for their view.there is only one cock on here |
|
|
|
Post by gasandproud on Feb 5, 2021 22:33:56 GMT
Glad you don’t consider me in the ‘cock’ category. Absolutely not. We've had some, mind. My impression, however induced, is this. Al Qadi won't deal, and won't cede ground. He won't let go of Rovers, even for Rovers. You're not the only one to imply so. Indeed this is perfectly plausible to me. But what is to be done, in our interests? What is the proposal he should consider? Nothing more can be done, I’ve simply given some credibility to the fact that there are options to consider. I’m sure there maybe other options too. I just find it sad and frustrating that they aren’t being considered. As I said previously, our scheme may or may not progress (I think there is a very good chance it will). All I have tried to do is include the club in discussions around that. The bottom line is it’s Wael’s ball and he decides who plays and that’s absolutely fair enough. There is no particular reason for me ‘telling’ anyone other than it’s a rovers forum. I’m simply commenting in the same way anyone would about the teams performance or indeed any other aspect of the club. There is no agenda on my part. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2021 22:42:11 GMT
So why are you telling us? I am presuming Al Qadi won't talk to you? Why is this? And what do hope to achieve? My questions are genuine. Now that we know you're not one of the usual pompous Presidents' Club cocks, it has been very interesting to read your notes, but it seems a little odd to read them publicly. If you do have a workable plan, then great.c Pompous Presidents Club cocks ?People who have at least 4 £40,000 preference shares that helped to by the Mem Suggest you pass these comments onto the Dunford family for their view.there is only one cock on here Not sure why the comments should be passed to the Dunford family, they got their money back and rightly so. Are there still preference shares outstanding and has the Presidents Club tried to reestablish their Associate Director seat on the board for which they paid for? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2021 22:47:31 GMT
Absolutely not. We've had some, mind. My impression, however induced, is this. Al Qadi won't deal, and won't cede ground. He won't let go of Rovers, even for Rovers. You're not the only one to imply so. Indeed this is perfectly plausible to me. But what is to be done, in our interests? What is the proposal he should consider? Nothing more can be done, I’ve simply given some credibility to the fact that there are options to consider. I’m sure there maybe other options too. I just find it sad and frustrating that they aren’t being considered. As I said previously, our scheme may or may not progress (I think there is a very good chance it will). All I have tried to do is include the club in discussions around that. The bottom line is it’s Wael’s ball and he decides who plays and that’s absolutely fair enough. There is no particular reason for me ‘telling’ anyone other than it’s a rovers forum. I’m simply commenting in the same way anyone would about the teams performance or indeed any other aspect of the club. There is no agenda on my part. Thanks for coming on here and sharing that the Fruit Market wasn't the only plan being considered at the time. Now that the alternative deal is dead, what future do you think that BRFC has other than to continue playing at The Mem with year on year losses? |
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Feb 5, 2021 23:05:58 GMT
Pompous Presidents Club cocks ?People who have at least 4 £40,000 preference shares that helped to by the Mem Suggest you pass these comments onto the Dunford family for their view.there is only one cock on here Not sure why the comments should be passed to the Dunford family, they got their money back and rightly so. Are there still preference shares outstanding and has the Presidents Club tried to reestablish their Associate Director seat on the board for which they paid for? The Dunford family cast the net far and wide to raise funds to buy the Mem.they were grateful to all that made the purchase possible The Presidents club were part of that effort and their efforts were appreciated by them unlike the poster on here that consistently wants to belittle Yes there are preference shares outstanding and only one of the four has been called in as far as I know.The repayment claim has been rejected at this time as they do not have the funds to forward I have no information as to the Associate Directors position |
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 5, 2021 23:11:22 GMT
So why are you telling us? I am presuming Al Qadi won't talk to you? Why is this? And what do hope to achieve? My questions are genuine. Now that we know you're not one of the usual pompous Presidents' Club cocks, it has been very interesting to read your notes, but it seems a little odd to read them publicly. If you do have a workable plan, then great.c Pompous Presidents Club cocks ?People who have at least 4 £40,000 preference shares that helped to by the Mem Suggest you pass these comments onto the Dunford family for their view.there is only one cock on here I can't see how putting money in excuses poor manners and a condescending manner towards other supporters when contributing on here |
|
Smithy Gas
Craig Hinton
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271 
|
Post by Smithy Gas on Feb 5, 2021 23:11:40 GMT
David, are you one of the "two local Gasheads" who were due to join the board at whatever point that rumour was floating about? I assume that tallies with what you are involved in here. Your scheme is proceeding but Rovers are not involved? Surely based on a property/stadium deal then you would need a local club and there are slim pickings not in Lansdowns empire - Bath peanut hugging division? I'm digging I know... There are plenty of businesses who are interested in a mixed used development and it doesn’t need to be a sports club. A sports club would be ideal but there are plenty of sports clubs / sports based organisations who are easier to deal with than Bristol Rovers (unfortunately). Myself and my colleague have gone out of our way to try and include Rovers (through our passion for the club rather than ease of inclusion) but the basic facts are that other organisations can see the potential and have the commercial acumen to engage properly where Rovers can’t. That’s the long and short of it! That’s not to say all will be a breeze as a large mixed use development like this is not easy to get over the line but having sensible, well managed, respected stake holders involved is the biggest challenge. With regards to board appointments.... I will say this....“no comment” which is exactly what should have been said when that question was raised via the local media. Thanks Dave. I suppose what I am therefore getting at is... is your proposal contingent on a professional sports club being involved? Sounds to me like you have a proposal for a mixed use development on a piece of land somewhere in North Bristol (Emersons/Ring Road) and you wanted Rovers involved but without them you are pushing on with development and there may or may not be a sporting provision to the deal. Sound fair? Very similar to Fruit Market in respect that a stadium will never be best use of land in terms of development/GDV but it seems you and your colleague tried your best regardless. If that is the case, Wael must be facing an ever dimishing pool of options and surely will only be left with redevelopment of the Mem if he won’t entertain external offers or reduction in control. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2021 23:15:14 GMT
Not sure why the comments should be passed to the Dunford family, they got their money back and rightly so. Are there still preference shares outstanding and has the Presidents Club tried to reestablish their Associate Director seat on the board for which they paid for? The Dunford family cast the net far and wide to raise funds to buy the Mem.they were grateful to all that made the purchase possible The Presidents club were part of that effort and their efforts were appreciated by them unlike the poster on here that consistently wants to belittle Yes there are preference shares outstanding and only one of the four has been called in as far as I know.The repayment claim has been rejected at this time as they do not have the funds to forward I have no information as to the Associate Directors position Is the interest being paid or accruing, it doesn't sound like the club is free of all of its debts and commitments yet? |
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 5, 2021 23:25:43 GMT
Some interesting additions to the thread - I hope you stay around on here David Townsend gasandproud
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2021 23:27:29 GMT
Some interesting additions to the thread - I hope you stay around on here David Townsend gasandproud Seconded AMPG. |
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 5, 2021 23:35:00 GMT
Not sure why the comments should be passed to the Dunford family, they got their money back and rightly so. Are there still preference shares outstanding and has the Presidents Club tried to reestablish their Associate Director seat on the board for which they paid for? The Dunford family cast the net far and wide to raise funds to buy the Mem.they were grateful to all that made the purchase possible The Presidents club were part of that effort and their efforts were appreciated by them unlike the poster on here that consistently wants to belittle Just the one? |
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Feb 5, 2021 23:43:46 GMT
The Dunford family cast the net far and wide to raise funds to buy the Mem.they were grateful to all that made the purchase possible The Presidents club were part of that effort and their efforts were appreciated by them unlike the poster on here that consistently wants to belittle Yes there are preference shares outstanding and only one of the four has been called in as far as I know.The repayment claim has been rejected at this time as they do not have the funds to forward I have no information as to the Associate Directors position Is the interest being paid or accruing, it doesn't sound like the club is free of all of its debts and commitments yet? I believe the interest is accuring.so the club is not free of all its debts.I know of trade creditors that have not been paid from June 2020 Whilst many on here thought the capitalisation of the debt was very significant I thought Walls commitment to under write the club for 2 years was more so OK he made that statement before the true implications on the pandemic were known but never the less I thought it was significant At the end of the day we are all rovers supporters and just want the best for the club,a review of the last 5years does not fill me with confidence going forward however |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2021 23:45:08 GMT
There is no agenda on my part. Perhaps there should be! Thanks for sharing. It's interesting, in so far as I understand it, which isn't absolute. Will it be long before we know what the development opportunity was? And does Al Qadi still have it as an available option? |
|
axegas
Joined: November 2015
Posts: 222
|
Post by axegas on Feb 6, 2021 3:22:59 GMT
What if they don’t have to contain this proviso though? Wael could sell part of the club to investors but retain overall control to raise funds, he could strike a deal like UWE where the club leases land or shares ownership of the land with other parties, he could even fund it out of his or his families funds, I know they aren’t fabulously wealthy but its not a complete stretch of the imagination if Wael possessed total commitment to delivering a new stadium. I think the majority of supporters would understand if Wael didn’t want to lose control the club and make a considerable investment just to get a stadium, as long as he could reassure them that he had a plan to deliver the stadium to the football club by other means. I don’t necessarily see it a bad thing if Wael wouldn’t want to give up control of the club even if did mean the club doesn’t get a stadium either, does the club in the long term want to be owned 76% by venture capitalists who have been sold a vision of the club being profitable at a stadium that hasn’t been built yet as per your suggestion? In my experience in business, you draw up firm plans for expansion then ask for investment to see it through not the other way round. It doesn’t matter how good of a business plan you’ve drawn up, it’s not going to attract significant amounts of investment unless the premise it’s built on, in your case the lease of the FM, is likely to become a reality as well. Wael mustn’t get drawn into the trap of selling our soul for a new stadium, we’ve seen it happen with Coventry and it could easily happen to us if either our relationship was to sour with future lessor or if the 76% that invest run us into the ground. We need a new stadium by all means but not at all costs. These experienced people who Wael associated with 5 years ago that you refer to, I’m assuming this is people like Michael Cunnah, Lee Atkins, Mike Turner. Is the assumption that they are all somehow more trustworthy and that Karim/Starnes/Gorringe/Widdrington are just yes men based on age and experience or something? There’s no tangible evidence out there that backs this up, neither me or you has ever been present at a board meeting before, Gorringe could dig his heels in at every suggestion Wael makes whilst Turner could have been agreeable to his suggestions for all we know. In fact it’s quite natural after there’s a transfer in ownership, in this case from the family to Wael, that the new regime should change the composition of the board room to reflect this. If your logic is that the new guys are yes men for Wael because he knows them better, then who’s to say the old board members with their association to the Al Qadi family weren’t just yes men for them? In that case if they are so much better than the new board members, are you saying that you trusted the Al Qadi family’s direction for the the club back then more than you trust Wael’s now? From the noises coming out of the club it sounds like Wael is far more committed to building a new stadium than Hani ever was, though I could of course be wrong. Finally I don’t like this implied notion that just because people heaped praise on Wael in the summer for funding the training ground and capitalising the loans (rightly so), they aren’t critical about any other aspect of his ownership and will just blindly follow him no matter what he does. I think most have woken up to the fact that Wael’s gamble on Garner and his vision was on reflection a poor move and have questioned Widdrington’s appointment to the board. With his five year track record of financial failure no sensible investor would put money into Rovers and leave Wael in control. As for the ability to offer sound advice then, yes, I would put Michael Cunnah, Lee Atkins, Mike Turner and Steve Hamer streets ahead of Karim, Martyn, Tom and Tommy when it comes to experience and wisdom. If we are going to have people with no longstanding connection to Rovers running the club then to me it makes sense to select the best we can. Hani has been painted as the bad guy but surely, after making the initial mistake of backing Wael in his Rovers adventure, he was simply trying to protect his family by mitigating losses. He saw the UWE Stadium Mk II as too big of a risk because of the financial guarantees required by the University. He considered the Evans Jones plans for a proper training ground development to be not financially viable for the club. And when he saw an opportunity with the Fruit Market scheme to extract the family from their financial millstone and at the same time give Rovers the chance of a new start at a new stadium he instructed Steve Hamer to go for it. When you say fans are critical of Wael's appointment of Ben Garner and of bringing Tommy Widdrington onto the Board of Directors I think you illustrate my point. They will criticise the symptoms of the problem but not the root cause. Most fans still think Wael has been unlucky, that he's been let down by those around him and that events have conspired against him. But I take a different view and believe that many of our problems are self inflicted. I think you do a disservice to the professional competencies and experience of Karim, Tom, Martyn etc. The phrase “streets ahead” is certainly not one I would use to describe Steve Hamer over Martyn Starnes, that’s for sure. What did Turner, Cunnah, Atkins even do anyway? They lurked in the shadows, I like how people like Tom Gorringe are more accessible and have more clearly defined roles, it’s easier to hold them to account that way. See I find your argument confusing, you blame Wael’s record of financial failure over his five year period as Club president and trumpet the likes of Cunnah, Atkins, Turner, Hamer as fonts of experience and wisdom, yet most of this so called financial failure happened when they sat on the board, from 2016 onwards until the new lot came in was the period when we were racking up the most debts. In fact, before the pandemic got in the way, we were on course to cut our financial shortfalls with the likes of Starnes and Gorringe in charge. A mistake is not what I’d describe the Al Qadi takeover in 2016, not from my stand point as a supporter any way. Our managers have been well backed, we’re substantially debt free, the largest infrastructure the club has undertaken in decades is already well under way. I doubt Wael would consider it a mistake either given the passion he’s developed for the club during that time. I’m not painting Hani as a bad guy either, I’m just trying to argue that just because Wael runs things differently, it doesn’t mean he’s necessarily taking the wrong approach. You know want to know why I think the fan base isn’t critical of the so called root causes as you’d like them to be? I think it’s because they don’t have a big need to. Things aren’t great on the pitch at the moment sure and Wael has definitely made a few mistakes along the way, but it’s part of the parcel of running a football club. We had bad spells under the Dunfords, we certainly had bad spells under Higgs. As long as the managers are continue to be backed and as long as the board know when is right for a change in manager, such as with Garner a few months ago, things will improve eventually. Off the pitch, apart from the pandemic which even the Uniteds and the Liverpools of this world are struggling with, we haven’t been in a stronger position for quite some time. |
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Feb 6, 2021 6:08:47 GMT
14 Nov 2020 - A 1 - 4 home defeat to Doncaster proves enough for the board and the trigger is pulled on Ben Garner - 6 wins in 33 games. Fleetwood wasn’t it? At first I thought I’d say I’d like to see less moaning at managers and more focus on the evolution of the squad over windows. Quite a big squad. Much of a muchness. There’s wage caps and things. Those who don’t start, little, barrel, for example how much are they earning? We have lacked a cutting edge all season. But managers and fans have watched the defence implode time after time. In fact one of the better performances, at posh, had the word ogogo writ large. Grant is not in the same place as ogogo, for example. So it points the fact the squad has been changed over twelve to eighteen months or so to something weaker, without incoming delivering as well as Lockyer, Craig, sercs,, Clarke, JCH obviously, etc. However is it correct to say any manager would have struggled to keep this squad from relegating us? I know Basel will leap in, as he hates Garner input, but I am beginning to think Garners teams started matches more composed organised and confident than Tisdales. We had a few tonkins under Garner this season, but there were some creditable performances too. The day Garner was sacked I didn’t sense death spiral of confidence like it feels now. Deleted comment. I missed it, offensive to who? I posted quite a balanced opinion surely? Specifically, over 18 months regulars have left the team, new guys have come into the squad, and now teams not performing at the level it was. And for that the blame is pretty much shared round, 2 managers, recruitment team, players, board. With the Garner comment, just ring fencing from start of this season up to his sacking, not a great amount of wins, but many of the draws deserved more on the day. he persisted with similar formation, personnel and method of playing, after Doncaster debacle bounced back in October showing composure organisation to get the ball down and play out from the back. Tinkering personnel, shape and tactic game by game, players won’t be familiarising with shape and tactic, which will take some degree off every performance until somethings become familiar. more than happy to engage in respectful constructive debate on both those paragraphs. |
|
