Robins still working wonders at Coventry (1 Viewer)

[Sky Blue Pete]

 

---

[CDK]

Which paper is that?

 

[Evo1883]

View attachment 21522

Around half this team including subs featured in league 1 and 1 in league 2 for City.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Which paper is that?

Looks like the i or maybe the Metro

 

[covhead1]

I must admit that my faith in Robins did wane from time to time last season, his tactics seemed too negative in a few games but we avoided relegation and that, for me was good enough.
This season things seem different and a lot more positive on the pitch.
Faith restored PUSB!!

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Which paper is that?

Henry winter I think

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Think one of the other 4 was Dacosta too

 

[False9]

Think one of the other 4 was Dacosta too

Maatsen, viktor, sheaf, hamer?

 

[Frostie]

Maatsen, viktor, sheaf, hamer?

This, Dacosta was a free.

 

[Gibbo]

'Free' implies surplus to requirements, as in the disparaging comment heard often 'reliant on frees and loans'. That is a complete misunderstanding of the transfer market outside the Prem and a few (and diminishing number of) Championship clubs, which is all most journalists know or care about. Clubs' budgets are made up of wages and fees, journalists only think about fees, and don't consider wages.

Post Bosman the player is in much more control. As his contract comes to an end he shops around for a new deal. It is in his interest to be free to choose the best deal and not let a transfer fee get in the way. See Ryan Wintle Crewe to Cardiff where he got a massive salary increase but Crewe got nought, but was technically a 'free'. He just ran down his contract and refused the improved offer from Crewe. See also closer to home, O'Hare is also a 'free'.

But O'Hare is not a free in the pejorative sense implied by journalists.'Frees' can be investments. At a more modest level players just seek an upgrade in wages or the opprtunity for glory - MacFadz and Kelly are in this camp. They could have stayed where they were as I don't think they were surplus to requirements as the term 'free' implies.

The clever thing is identifying who is available for free or even a small fee making them almost free. Robins was very good at that in L2 and L1 particularly before the latter's promotion season - MacF, Allen, Markosi, Wilson, Rose?, Dabo, Pask was not a bad haul

The one major exception to this is the position of striker - hence the spend on Godden and Walker. They are in short supply so the law of supply and demand dictates.

Loans are a mixed blessing but given the size of squads that the likes of Chelsea and Man City have, its a good job this market exists, as it gives young British players the chance to impress and build career by playing competitive matches - Harry Kane, Dean Henderson....

I bloody hate the disparaging comment 'loans and frees'. Time these journos got out more

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

'Free' implies surplus to requirements, as in the disparaging comment heard often 'reliant on frees and loans'. That is a complete misunderstanding of the transfer market outside the Prem and a few (and diminishing number of) Championship clubs, which is all most journalists know or care about. Clubs' budgets are made up of wages and fees, journalists only think about fees, and don't consider wages.

Post Bosman the player is in much more control. As his contract comes to an end he shops around for a new deal. It is in his interest to be free to choose the best deal and not let a transfer fee get in the way. See Ryan Wintle Crewe to Cardiff where he got a massive salary increase but Crewe got nought, but was technically a 'free'. He just ran down his contract and refused the improved offer from Crewe. See also closer to home, O'Hare is also a 'free'.

But O'Hare is not a free in the pejorative sense implied by journalists.'Frees' can be investments - O'Hare and Walker. At a more modest level players just seek an upgrade in wages or the opprtunity for glory - MacFadz and Kelly are in this camp. They could have stayed where they were as I don't think they were surplus to requirements as the term 'free' implies.

The clever thing is identifying who is available for free or even a small fee making them almost free. Robins was very good at that in L2 and L1 particularly before the latter's promotion season - MacF, Allen, Markosi, Wilson, Rose?, Dabo, Pask was not a bad haul

The one major exception to this is the position of striker - hence the spend on Godden and Victor. They are in short supply so the law of supply and demand dictates.

Loans are a mixed blessing but given the size of squads that the likes of Chelsea and Man City have, its a good job this market exists, as it gives young British players the chance to impress and build career by playing competitive matches - Harry Kane, Dean Henderson....

I bloody hate the disparaging comment 'loans and frees'. Time these journos got out more

Walker wasn’t a free and O’Hare technically was, they offered him a contract but he was never good enough to impact their first team so went to a more realistic level

 

[fernandopartridge]

'Free' implies surplus to requirements, as in the disparaging comment heard often 'reliant on frees and loans'. That is a complete misunderstanding of the transfer market outside the Prem and a few (and diminishing number of) Championship clubs, which is all most journalists know or care about. Clubs' budgets are made up of wages and fees, journalists only think about fees, and don't consider wages.

Post Bosman the player is in much more control. As his contract comes to an end he shops around for a new deal. It is in his interest to be free to choose the best deal and not let a transfer fee get in the way. See Ryan Wintle Crewe to Cardiff where he got a massive salary increase but Crewe got nought, but was technically a 'free'. He just ran down his contract and refused the improved offer from Crewe. See also closer to home, O'Hare is also a 'free'.

But O'Hare is not a free in the pejorative sense implied by journalists.'Frees' can be investments - O'Hare. At a more modest level players just seek an upgrade in wages or the opprtunity for glory - MacFadz and Kelly are in this camp. They could have stayed where they were as I don't think they were surplus to requirements as the term 'free' implies.

The clever thing is identifying who is available for free or even a small fee making them almost free. Robins was very good at that in L2 and L1 particularly before the latter's promotion season - MacF, Allen, Markosi, Wilson, Rose?, Dabo, Pask was not a bad haul

The one major exception to this is the position of striker - hence the spend on Godden and Walker. They are in short supply so the law of supply and demand dictates.

Loans are a mixed blessing but given the size of squads that the likes of Chelsea and Man City have, its a good job this market exists, as it gives young British players the chance to impress and build career by playing competitive matches - Harry Kane, Dean Henderson....

I bloody hate the disparaging comment 'loans and frees'. Time these journos got out more

I agree with what you're saying but still think it's generally the case in all of the Football League divisions that clubs able to spend money on fees are those you find towards the top of the table, so it is still relevant.

 

[Evo1883]

I agree with what you're saying but still think it's generally the case in all of the Football League divisions that clubs able to spend money on fees are those you find towards the top of the table, so it is still relevant.

Completely correct

What's being missed here is 1 of 4 fees .

Wages
Signing on fee
Agent fees
Transfer fee

We save the one which usually costs the most upfront

 

[Gibbo]

C

Walker wasn’t a free and O’Hare technically was, they offered him a contract but he was never good enough to impact their first team so went to a more realistic level

Walker corrected

 

[Gibbo]

I agree with what you're saying but still think it's generally the case in all of the Football League divisions that clubs able to spend money on fees are those you find towards the top of the table, so it is still relevant.

Yes money can buy success - but can lead to disaster - see Derby Sheff Wed and Hull

That was not my point. Players are 'free' because they are no longer sold like cattle, which they were pre-Bosman, but can now be free agents, talented players, shopping for the best deal. The variables are wages and the prospect of success, whiich are never considered in articles. 'Free' is just a euphemism for 'bargain basement'

The problem exists when the two systems operate in the same division - as in the Championship which is part Prem part league 1 in its financial make up. The bogy is the parachute payment

 

[robbiekeane]

whilst i agree he's worked wonders, im not sure we can claim 4th spot in the championship after 4 games!

 

[Johhny Blue]

whilst i agree he's worked wonders, im not sure we can claim 4th spot in the championship after 4 games!

I’m pretty sure we already have

 

[stay_up_skyblues]

It’s like watching Sheff Utd’s rise from the depths to the promised land, only with less long balls.

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

It’s like watching Sheff Utd’s rise from the depths to the promised land, only with less long balls.

Yes - that was weird. You couldn't really work out who any star player was in the Sheffield United team. They seemed to have a few journeymen (McGoldrick, Sharp etc), a strong team ethic and pulled off the nigh on impossible.

 

[Greggs]

It’s like watching Sheff Utd’s rise from the depths to the promised land, only with less long balls.

More like Southampton