Notes from Supporters Forum (3 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

Yes, as KSB said Da Costa and Hilssner were signed as first team players and disregarded almost straight away, that would be two other options..

Harping back to a couple of missed transfers per season isn’t an excuse though. That level of wastage is actually pretty standard and should be costed in.

 

---

[shmmeee]

Doesn't really help when you have a manager watch players barely able to walk and refuses to take them off. I'm sure Dabo would have been back sooner if Robin's hadn't stood and watched him against Derby and did something reactive.

Often wonder about the medical side of stuff, the use of the U23 and everything else.

Take them off for who though, that’s the problem. Unless you’re advocating chucking U23s in who are miles off.

 

[PVA]

Didn’t Luton have about the same? And we had two unfit players on the bench, and another two or three on the pitch.

I'm not sure. But they have a bigger squad than us.

Just don't think it's fair to say we don't have many injuries or to act surprised that 7 injuries would affect the quality of our bench.

 

[Nick]

Take them off for who though, that’s the problem. Unless you’re advocating chucking U23s in who are miles off.

Funnily enough, when he eventually caved and took OHare off we got an equaliser.

It isn't always about like for like subs, he could have altered the system a bit. Dabo physically couldn't walk either, 1-0 up. Bring him off and go flat back 4 with JCS at left back. If Josh Reid is nowhere near good enough, why are we paying a fee for him after he had a season in the SPL?

 

[Grendel]

I'm not sure. But they have a bigger squad than us.

Just don't think it's fair to say we don't have many injuries or to act surprised that 7 injuries would affect the quality of our bench.

they don’t have a bigger squad or a bigger wage bill

 

[Nick]

they don’t have a bigger squad or a bigger wage bill

2 More players in the squad apparently.

No idea about wage bill.

 

[Grendel]

2 More players in the squad apparently.

No idea about wage bill.

does that include hillsner jobello and Da Costa?

 

[PVA]

I don't know about wage bill, but they have a bigger squad however you want to define squad.

 

[Grendel]

I don't know about wage bill, but they have a bigger squad however you want to define squad.

how many do they have?

 

[Nick]

does that include hillsner jobello and Da Costa?

No because they aren't in our squad?

 

[wingy]

That WC fixture congestion will see Gus
suspended before the end of October again in December and possibly. March.

 

[Grendel]

No because they aren't in our squad?

well they were on the first team squad in January and it was the clubs decision - along with Pask to release them and make them unavailable as with Walker

 

[Skyblueweeman]

weeman found it funny

I found it funny because of how you try and convey things to suit a weak arguement - that I'm not really questioning (but I'll get to that in a minute).

Madison and Macallum were established 1st team players when sold. 16 games is a 1/3 of a season - it wasn't as if he was a 50/50 project and we sold him after 3 games as we weren't sure on him. Others on here have pointed out a number of players that have been sold to help with the running costs of the club.

You then said - 'You say money goes into club costs - er I think you’ll find that the money is partly used to support an investment portfolio'. If money is 'partly used to support an investment portfolio', where does the rest of it go?? It doesn't all go towards an investment portfolio/joys handbags, does it.

It's like you think the club is run on magic beans.

No one disagrees with the fact that the owners take money out of the club - as harsh as it sounds, they're entitled to do so. Do I think that makes them great custodians of our club? No.

The fact remains that the selling of your better players is a totally natural process within football, not restricted solely to Coventry City FC. The funds from said sales go into keeping a club running as costs aren't paid for with your magic beans.

I don't doubt they take money out. And I do believe that we could spend more on player retention, player recruitment, Ryton etc if they took less. I don't like it but that's the way it is.

Player sales will continue to happen - even if we had an amazing owner who took nothing out that they were owed. That happens everyway. To insinuate we tout players out to cover costs is crazy. Even by your 'Jackett' standards...

 

[shmmeee]

Funnily enough, when he eventually caved and took OHare off we got an equaliser.

It isn't always about like for like subs, he could have altered the system a bit. Dabo physically couldn't walk either, 1-0 up. Bring him off and go flat back 4 with JCS at left back. If Josh Reid is nowhere near good enough, why are we paying a fee for him after he had a season in the SPL?

Because not all transfers work.

My point is often it’s a choice between leaving a half fit player on, bringing on a different half fit player, or throwing in an U23.

 

[Grendel]

I found it funny because of how you try and convey things to suit a weak arguement - that I'm not really questioning (but I'll get to that in a minute).

Madison and Macallum were established 1st team players when sold. 16 games is a 1/3 of a season - it wasn't as if he was a 50/50 project and we sold him after 3 games as we weren't sure on him. Others on here have pointed out a number of players that have been sold to help with the running costs of the club.

You then said - 'You say money goes into club costs - er I think you’ll find that the money is partly used to support an investment portfolio'. If money is 'partly used to support an investment portfolio', where does the rest of it go?? It doesn't all go towards an investment portfolio/joys handbags, does it.

It's like you think the club is run on magic beans.

No one disagrees with the fact that the owners take money out of the club - as harsh as it sounds, they're entitled to do so. Do I think that makes them great custodians of our club? No.

The fact remains that the selling of your better players is a totally natural process within football, not restricted solely to Coventry City FC. The funds from said sales go into keeping a club running as costs aren't paid for with your magic beans.

I don't doubt they take money out. And I do believe that we could spend more on player retention, player recruitment, Ryton etc if they took less. I don't like it but that's the way it is.

Player sales will continue to happen - even if we had an amazing owner who took nothing out that they were owed. That happens everyway. To insinuate we tout players out to cover costs is crazy. Even by your 'Jackett' standards...

“That’s the way it”

You seem very supportive of our owners these days - you also are constantly avoiding the comments regarding the club owners strategy to frequently try and obtain assets while at the same time compromising the clubs existence

Next time you have a fireside chat with Dave ask him about that as his CV shows he’s a specialist at compromising clubs’ existence through such actions

Oh and I’ve never seen a administrator (which is all Boddy is) trying to flog players by putting a price in the programme

Amateur fool well above his pay grade

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

“That’s the way it”

You seem very supportive of our owners these days - you also are constantly avoiding the comments regarding the club owners strategy to frequently try and obtain assets while at the same time compromising the clubs existence

Next time you have a fireside chat with Dave ask him about that as his CV shows he’s a specialist at compromising clubs’ existence through such actions

Oh and I’ve never seen a administrator (which is all Boddy is) trying to flog players by putting a price in the programme

Amateur fool well above his pay grade

It was in the CT where the £5m figure was posted. Of course Boddy could ask them to retract this if he felt it was inaccurate

 

[Grendel]

It was in the CT where the £5m figure was posted. Of course Boddy could ask them to retract this if he felt it was inaccurate

it was desperate even by his standards - I’m surprised he doesn’t make players walk around with “for sale” boards on before games start

 

[Grendel]

Because not all transfers work.

My point is often it’s a choice between leaving a half fit player on, bringing on a different half fit player, or throwing in an U23.

I think the problem we had when promoted is we’d agreed promotion bonuses in contracts which seems to have virtually doubled salaries

So we have a high wage budget to earnings but the playing squad largely was then unchanged. We signed a couple of players that summer for fees but with Covid rental costs etc we are in effect losing money every week and have owners who no longer offer any financial support other than Wonga loans

Extending contracts of the likes of Allen, Kelly and Godden makes sense in that situation as they’ll be players even with the bonus on promotion at lower wages than championship players. I foresee a couple of players being sold rapidly after fans have stumped up for season tickets to create a kitty to buy cheaper players to try and compete

The wage bill certainly can’t go uk any more.

What oriole don’t seem to get is the accounts show a club with significant financial issues and it won’t get better. Unlike other clubs we have an ownership that has zero interest in the club unless - well it can continue to accumulate interest

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

i genuinely think the club is in a mess. Our wage bill actually is competitive compared to say Luton that’s a fact. But I assume it’s largely down to promotion bonuses through contractual obligations

The ownership isn’t a suitable vehicle at this level abs that’s it really

You just whinged a little more. Solutions please

 

[Grendel]

You just whinged a little more

Oh sorry what’s going to happen? Am I going to be sent to see big Dave and Old Fiver for a bit of reprogramming?

 

[PVA]

Ridiculous to say we don't normally sell key first team players.

What on earth were McCallum, Bayliss, Maddison, Wilson etc if not key first team players?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Oh sorry what’s going to happen? Am I going to be sent to see big Dave and Old Fiver for a bit of reprogramming?

What would make you happy or show progress? Would you be less happy in league two or league one?

 

[Grendel]

Ridiculous to say we don't normally sell key first team players.

What on earth were McCallum, Bayliss, Maddison, Wilson etc if not key first team players?

maddison was sold as the club were on the brink of an embargo - very good planning that. Wilson was sold when the funding gap after the sixfields shambles

I’ve already stated McCallum is about the only player we made a success of as a profit from a signing as a young player

The other sales have been academy players who were sold to higher leagues and the proportion of transfer permitted would allow the club to sign league 1 and 2 players

None of the players you mention other than Wilson (who had to be sold to fund the failed Ricoh takeover) actually were anywhere near the type of player we would now have to sell to even recoup a fraction of the value we can now spend on for a replacement

What’s your view on the recent accounts and what really stands out to you?

 

[Grendel]

What would make you happy or show progress? Would you be less happy in league two or league one?

with respect the only reason we went into those leagues was due to these owners - in a perfect world I’d be happy as we are now back where we started if we had another owner with an actual strategy to advance the club - not one whose systematically failed at every real strategic decision they’ve made

 

[Grendel]

Thanks for the update Pete.

My own feeling is it is a waste of time asking Boddy about anything other than match day experience questions. He isnt going to tell you, is going to dress it up as best he can to put the owners in a positive light with the same old spin. The guy has little real power within the club other than day to day administration operations (as important as that is), he is just a more acceptable face than Fisher.

this really is the point and going forward we just should about march day matters ax that’s all Dogsboddy deals with

if strategic direction questions are raised they should only be presented if the Empress turns up. Not that the Queen of Spin would address anything directly but she is at least the person pulling the strings

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Harping back to a couple of missed transfers per season isn’t an excuse though. That level of wastage is actually pretty standard and should be costed in.

It does really though when it accumulates to the extent where you have 10+ first team players on the books, all of whom make little to no contribution on the pitch.

Hilssner, Jobello, Mason, Bright, Kastaneer, Pask, Drysdale, Kelly, Jones, Dacosta and now Shipley and Walker. That's 12 players surplus to requirements. Most were signed as first team players.

You can't honestly believe that level of wastage is standard.

 

[Grendel]

It does really though when it accumulates to the extent where you have 10+ first team players on the books, all of whom make little to no contribution on the pitch.

Hilssner, Jobello, Mason, Bright, Kastaneer, Pask, Drysdale, Kelly, Jones, Dacosta and now Shipley and Walker. That's 12 players surplus to requirements. Most were signed as first team players.

You can't honestly believe that level of wastage is standard.

Whose to blame for that?

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Whose to blame for that?

Copied and pasted from my previous post:

Not really sure why Robins is bemoaning about a small squad when I don't think that's necessarily the case. The budget is there for him and the backroom staff to use freely as they wish - it's on them if they're misusing it by offering reasonably long-term contracts to players that have more of a risk element attached to them than most (E.g. Hilssner, Kasta, Jobello, Dacosta etc).

There's clearly a fundamental flaw in the recruitment process, one being the length of contracts we offer to new and existing players, and it desperately needs addressing.

The lack of depth really is an issue of Robins and the backroom staff's own making, it's not necessarily a budgetary issue IMO.

 

[Grendel]

Copied and pasted from my previous post:

Not really sure why Robins is bemoaning about a small squad when I don't think that's necessarily the case. The budget is there for him and the backroom staff to use freely as they wish - it's on them if they're misusing it by offering reasonably long-term contracts to players that have more of a risk element attached to them than most (E.g. Hilssner, Kasta, Jobello, Dacosta etc).

There's clearly a fundamental flaw in the recruitment process, one being the length of contracts we offer to new and existing players, and it desperately needs addressing.

The lack of depth really is an issue of Robins and the backroom staff's own doing, it's not a budgetary issue IMO.

I think with Walker it’s a case of not working out but as it seems he wanted to sign him and Godden was second choice it’s very strange the style of play would never suit Walker

the other thing I don’t get is offering contracts to L1 journeymen like Allen Godden and Kelly who have no resale value and weren’t Going anywhere

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

I think with Walker it’s a case of not working out but as it seems he wanted to sign him and Godden was second choice it’s very strange the style of play would never suit Walker

the other thing I don’t get is offering contracts to L1 journeymen like Allen Godden and Kelly who have no resale value and weren’t Going anywhere

Yeah I don't really think the players we identify is necessarily an issue per say as due to our restricted budget we have to take more calculated risks than most in the league.

Also like with Walker sometimes signings don't work out which is just part and parcel, no manager or backroom staff will ever get it right every time.

But they can mitigate the fallout from signings not working out by being disciplined and strict with regards to the lengths of contracts they give out. Ours give out 3-year contracts like they're going out of fashion and think it's some kind of coup.

It's a terrible strategy and it's snowballed to a point where it's now becoming hugely detrimental to our ability to recruit, as shown in the most recent window and perhaps will also cause issues with recruitment in the summer as well if the club are unable to move players on permanently.

 

[Liquid Gold]

We're listened to your worries

We're not going to do anything about it

We've listened

Fuck off

 

[Ian1779]

The fact that at one point this season we probably could've fielded a full Starting XI with the amount of deadwood we had shows there's a fundamental flaw somewhere.

When a chunk of our budget is being taken up by players that are pretty much making zero contribution it's no wonder our squad of usable players is thin.

Not really sure why Robins is bemoaning about a small squad when I don't think that's necessarily the case. The budget is there for him and the backroom staff to use freely as they wish - it's on them if they're misusing it by offering reasonably long-term contracts to players that have more of a risk element attached to them than most (E.g. Hilssner, Kasta, Jobello, Dacosta etc).

That ‘deadwood’ is made up probably of a 50/50 split of players that aren’t good enough at this level and those we’ve taken a chance on and it had not materialised. It’s more likely to happen when you move through the leagues at a relatively quick pace.

 

[PVA]

It’s more likely to happen when you move through the leagues at a relatively quick pace.

Exactly.

The squad has improved year on year. You're bound to get left with some deadwood.

 

[shmmeee]

It does really though when it accumulates to the extent where you have 10+ first team players on the books, all of whom make little to no contribution on the pitch.

Hilssner, Jobello, Mason, Bright, Kastaneer, Pask, Drysdale, Kelly, Jones, Dacosta and now Shipley and Walker. That's 12 players surplus to requirements. Most were signed as first team players.

You can't honestly believe that level of wastage is standard.

Well four of those aren’t on the books, two are in or around the team even if they shouldn’t be, another is a kid and another is a special case long term injury on a short term contract.

Really we’re talking about Hilßner and Dacosta, maybe Walker.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

That ‘deadwood’ is made up probably of a 50/50 split of players that aren’t good enough at this level and those we’ve taken a chance on and it had not materialised. It’s more likely to happen when you move through the leagues at a relatively quick pace.

As I said, the type of player we target isn't an issue.

The length of contract we insist on offering to both new and existing players is the issue.

How quickly we've transcended up the league is somewhat irrelevant to the arguement as regardless of what league we were in this strategy of handing out 3-year contracts to players that simply don't deserve it would still be in place.