Weve sold Wilson, Maddison, Bayliss, Chaplin, etc for decent sums though. Net spend is probably as low as anyone else since relegation.
We sold Maddison under Mowbray and Wilson under Pressley
He's also sold players Bayliss (which he developed from the youth team and sold for ), McNulty (signed on a free sold for 1.2m) and Chaplin (bought for 500k sold for 750-1m)The only fee we spent in L1 before Robins arrived were £25,000 for Vincelot and a rumoured £100,000 for Jones and Turnbull.
Robins has done well but let’s not make out he’s done it on a shoestring - he’s been well backed
The thing he's done particularly well with are wages and youth. We were in the lower half on budgets last year and secured 7th .If it's as I understand it this year without any figures to back it up, I believe we have the 98th largest budget in terms of squad. If we don't go up, I'm sure that will be cut next season (Bayliss money filled the gap this year, need Wilson or a current player sold to bridge it for next term).
On that basis anything above 8th is progress and playing above levels if finance is a direct attribute of success as it would appear, but we have a young improving squad, which is our model and I think he's doing a decent job. Hard to compare with history based not only with off-field issues, finances or eras, but also as we were competing with other teams on a more level playing field a generation ago. The gap between the haves and have nots has never been wider. In the face of adversity, getting to the Championship is a significant achievement, but staying there and establishing ourselves in it, even to mid-table obscurity would be an even greater one.
He's also sold players Bayliss (which he developed from the youth team and sold for ), McNulty (signed on a free sold for 1.2m) and Chaplin (bought for 500k sold for 750-1m)
To say "He's been backed" is slightly misleading as it sounds like he's been provided with unheard of riches. Ever ask yourself why "he's been backed"? Maybe its because he has been successful and the board clearly feel he's good enough to invest in based on prior results?
He's also sold players Bayliss (which he developed from the youth team and sold for ), McNulty (signed on a free sold for 1.2m) and Chaplin (bought for 500k sold for 750-1m)
To say "He's been backed" is slightly misleading as it sounds like he's been provided with unheard of riches. Ever ask yourself why "he's been backed"? Maybe its because he has been successful and the board clearly feel he's good enough to invest in based on prior results?
T
You are proving my point. Mowbray failed, so did Pressley. Robins is flourishing- and he has no ground and half the regular income they did.
Under Pressley and playing at a different ground like the situation now we sold Wilson for £3m and Clarke for £750,000. The next season all the signings were free agents and not a penny was spent
Failed with what? He never had the transfer funds Robins has had.
Pressley sold nearly £4m worth of players and next season all were free agents
and how did Pressley get on under those conditions compared to how Robins is doing? You can't even throw the Sixfields argument in because Robins has the same situation.
Look what are you saying here? Robins is crap, overrated, worse than Mowbray and Pressley? What is your actual point??
Robins has had ZERO transfer funds- nil, nada, nothing. The Godden signing was funded by half the Bayliss money.
The only fee we spent in L1 before Robins arrived were £25,000 for Vincelot and a rumoured £100,000 for Jones and Turnbull.
Robins has done well but let’s not make out he’s done it on a shoestring - he’s been well backed
and how did Pressley get on under those conditions compared to how Robins is doing? You can't even throw the Sixfields argument in because Robins has the same situation.
Look what are you saying here? Robins is crap, overrated, worse than Mowbray and Pressley? What is your actual point??
How is this similar to Sixfields?
We had Mcnulty - did he get sold after 4 games?
And don’t forget the Chaplin profitRobins has had ZERO transfer funds- nil, nada, nothing. The Godden signing was funded by half the Bayliss money.
Marc McNulty scored 28 goals in his first full season, and had 7 by the January window, he didn't even start some games up to then, then went mad with 21 in the run-in and was immediately snapped up. Steve Bull scored 52 in his first full season and had 25 by Christmas. If we had someone like him now he'd have been gone in January.
I am struggling to understand why so many are determined to run down Mark Robins when he is doing what he is doing, and his achievements are backed by facts, figures and stats. Whats the agenda here?
It is not correct to say he hasn’t been backed - the money spent on Godden is the largest transfer fee this club has paid since 2008 and we were in the Championship until 2013
it is 100% correct- he got half the Bayliss money. We don't even know what Chaplin went for but its a safe bet Robins saw none of it.
Robins is doing well but has had more funds available to him than previous managers. I can’t understand how people are disputing this?
We have no comparison to make to the league 2 season.
it is 100% correct- he got half the Bayliss money. We don't even know what Chaplin went for but its a safe bet Robins saw none of it.
How much of £4m did get Pressley get?
How has he had more funds available to him when he has spent a net negative amount?
Part of being a manager is bringing players through to generate transfer funds you know, its not fluke that players have come to us, flourished under Robins then been sold on, thats part of being a good manager too.
Try comparing our net negative spending with the wage bills of Portsmouth, Sunderland, Ipswich, Oxford etc and see how your argument stacks up.
How has he had more funds available to him when he has spent a net negative amount?
Part of being a manager is bringing players through to generate transfer funds you know, its not fluke that players have come to us, flourished under Robins then been sold on, thats part of being a good manager too.
Try comparing our net negative spending with the wage bills of Portsmouth, Sunderland, Ipswich, Oxford etc and see how your argument stacks up.
Robins has had ZERO transfer funds- nil, nada, nothing. The Godden signing was funded by half the Bayliss money.
None but do you want to compare the loanees that Pressley used & the way he built a team to the loanees Robins brings in & how he builds a team? Robins is in a different universe when it comes to building a team, there is zero comparison.
No it’s not correct. As we’ve sold players in the past and then the manager has had to sign free transfers to replace them
You do understand getting a percentage of money of the players sold is indeed backing a manager?
Pressley has to reduce the wage bill by 30%
How has he had more funds available to him when he has spent a net negative amount?
Part of being a manager is bringing players through to generate transfer funds you know, its not fluke that players have come to us, flourished under Robins then been sold on, thats part of being a good manager too.
Try comparing our net negative spending with the wage bills of Portsmouth, Sunderland, Ipswich, Oxford etc and see how your argument stacks up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?