Agreed. All well and good signing additional players pre any adjustments in spend rules. At least make sure the players signed are good enough though, especially when breaking transfer records for them.
It's probably lucky for Dodds he's got a 3.5 year contract - if I was Dan Rice I wouldn't be best pleased about the public criticism of players I'd signed for the team at significant expense in January.
What don’t you understand about the need to buy players with an eye on next season as it’s been explained multiple times that the financial rules are changing? Can’t you just be pleased that we are now in the market to buy players rather than find a negative?
I can never work out if you're being deliberately obtuse or just incapable of critical thinking. I explained my views on the previous page. I would've hoped, as someone who proudly claims to have trained as a journalist, you might have been able to understand what I wrote.
I get that. I just feel disappointed that who we got for our money, assuming they are fully fit, are not as good as what we have but maybe who we have to rely on to keep us in the Championship. That said, Taylor, Low and Humphreys would all have a price tag way north of a million €. I guess the argument is not whether Westergaard and Anders are better players than those three, more are they better players than Bakinson, Leahy and Skurra.
I was responding to this post as I don’t have time or inclination to wade through your relentless negativity. You suggest that there could be friction between the acting chairman and the head coach that he himself appointed and who has only been with us for a month. To support that opinion you suggest that Mike Dodds publicly criticised players signed by Dan Rice when he did no such thing. He said that the new arrivals (not just the Danes) had to earn their place in the team over the players who have been so successful up to now. What’s wrong with saying that? What would you have said if MD had promoted the new players at the expense of those who got us to second in the table?
I would've been delighted if they had replaced those that had got us second in the table if they had helped us secure more points in February than we managed to secure. Just like I was when Simons came into the team ahead of Leahy. Just like I was when Norris came into the team ahead of Ravizzoli. Just like I have when Reach or Back or Lowry play. Because they add value to the team. And adding value should, in theory, win more points and help secure promotion.
If the head coach has decided that a fully fit Westergaard, Hagelskjær and Berry don't add value to a League One team struggling for form then I cannot see how they will add value to a Championship team likely to be fighting to avoid relegation. And if that's the case, I think they were not sensible signings. (This is a repeat of the point I made earlier this morning, for your benefit, apologies to everyone else who've had to read it twice).
I admire Dodds for being candid when asked why the Danes weren't playing. I would, in Yes Minister speak, describe it as a brave decision. You can dress it up however you like but he's saying that he doesn't think fully fit, transfer-record-busting signings, are good enough for the current squad. They're behind Skura, Leahy and Bakinson. If I was Dodds' boss, and I had personally sanctioned those record-busting signings, my eyebrows would be quivering. If I was a man with thin skin, I might interpret that as public criticism that would be better kept behind closed doors.
Fortunately I'm sure Dan Rice is a better man than me.
And I'm pretty confident, Alan, that's something we might finally be able to agree on.
Could add Joe Low to this list as likely he could be off too. Simon’s though has an option to buy and I think Bradley will end up back here permanently.
I’d have absolutely no issue if he played them at the expense of other players if they improved the team, much like Simon’s coming in and taking the place of Leahy or Bakinson. Or basically any other player you sign and takes the place of another player.
You have more patience than me, so fair play for providing an explanation when it wasn't really necessary.
You have to wonder whether Mike Dodds has ever received any media training. An experienced newly-appointed head coach would straight bat that question back at the person asking it. He chose not to do so. That could either be naiveté or a lack of concern at the consequential implications.
Given we have another source citing a poisonous atmosphere behind the scenes, it leaves you wondering whether Mike Dodds might decide to cut his losses in the summer, particularly in the event promotion isn't achieved.
I remember when people bemoaned managers supposedly being vague and not wanting to give too much away and now we worry he's done for himself by not being 'media trained' enough to dodge a question?
I thought the question was valid, and his response was fine...he does not think they are better than the first 11 that have got us this far at the moment...not sure DR or Lommy will be ripping up his contract as yet.
I don't think it's negative necessarily to wonder why experienced players are not getting a game. Were Norris, Reach, lowry and Back all part of the same financial shenannigans? (They've all played a match)
Surely they came to play, not be part of a financial fiddle?
They'll be short of even more game time by the time the next season starts!
I am somewhat worried by financial constraints next season. So are we saying we had to spend what we did now as come the summer we won’t be able to. Will that, despite our owner being ludicrously wealthy, mean we return to Little Wycombe, hoping for loans and players wanting to rebuild their careers with us so available on a free or for buttons?
Facebook “Oi Rice, why won’t you pay Joe Low what he wants and sign Caleb Taylor for £10M? Have you even asked ML for the money you waster?”
Rice “Oh he’s got the money, I’m just not going to prison for Wycombe”
After the "don't worry about the money" infamous quote from the not so distant past, leading us to being a fine line from oblivion at Torquay, yes we do always have to have half a worry about this.
But if we went up our revenue would increase a lot as well and we'd "probably" be in the most secure position we've been in if we're adhering to financial rules and don't go out on a limb. Time will tell if bringing all these players in in Jan is absolute forwarding thinking genius or not though.
Now this really is conspiracy stuff and I’m not suggesting this actually has happened, but could theoretically there be some sort of arrangement where we buy players at a premium in 2025 before the financial rules apply, and arrange for them to be sold on after the financial rules kick in at a small loss but with the timings of the transfers meaning we have more budget within the rules to play with next season?
To be a successful team (particularly in the Championship) you need 25 quality players in the squad. It stands to reason 14 of those are not going to be in the starting 11. Sometimes good players will not get a game, look at Morley under Evatt. We became accustomed to Gareth only realistically having around 18 players to pick from at any time so selection was relatively easy.
Whilst we spent a bit of money on the two Danes, assuming we go up I suspect our signings will be at a much higher value, particularly if we get big money for Kone. If we don't spend, then our one season in the Championship will be repeated.
With regard to your comment about them coming to play, obviously this would be their desire. However we may be offering much higher wages than they get in Denmark/Norway which would be a plus for them. They might (although unlikely), have wanted to experience life in England.
Buy a player for 800k now, just so you can sell him for 500k next season, to allow you to buy another player you actually want for 500k?
Why not just buy the player you actually want now for 750k? That's 50k overall and you get the player you want for half a season longer.
It's hard enough getting my head around the thought that we HAD to buy players no better than the players we already had this season because we might not be able to afford them next season.
Personally I'd have tried to buy players who were BETTER than the players we already had and played them during the second half of this season.
Comments
Agreed. All well and good signing additional players pre any adjustments in spend rules. At least make sure the players signed are good enough though, especially when breaking transfer records for them.
Looks a handy signing too, I expect we will see more of him as that Harvie injury didn’t look good.
It's probably lucky for Dodds he's got a 3.5 year contract - if I was Dan Rice I wouldn't be best pleased about the public criticism of players I'd signed for the team at significant expense in January.
I'll bite, which "criticism" might this be?
I think MD said something upon the lines of 'they still need to work to replace the players in front of them' or something like that.
Makes sense. Come into a club that is sat 2nd, you'd expect to work hard to get in.
What don’t you understand about the need to buy players with an eye on next season as it’s been explained multiple times that the financial rules are changing? Can’t you just be pleased that we are now in the market to buy players rather than find a negative?
I can never work out if you're being deliberately obtuse or just incapable of critical thinking. I explained my views on the previous page. I would've hoped, as someone who proudly claims to have trained as a journalist, you might have been able to understand what I wrote.
We have two excellent centre backs here on loan. Who won’t be here next season.
We have two excellent midfielders here on loan. Who won’t be here next season.
We have signed potential replacements ahead of financial constraints for next season.
It’s not complicated. Nothing to see here. Move on.
At last common sense.
I get that. I just feel disappointed that who we got for our money, assuming they are fully fit, are not as good as what we have but maybe who we have to rely on to keep us in the Championship. That said, Taylor, Low and Humphreys would all have a price tag way north of a million €. I guess the argument is not whether Westergaard and Anders are better players than those three, more are they better players than Bakinson, Leahy and Skurra.
I was responding to this post as I don’t have time or inclination to wade through your relentless negativity. You suggest that there could be friction between the acting chairman and the head coach that he himself appointed and who has only been with us for a month. To support that opinion you suggest that Mike Dodds publicly criticised players signed by Dan Rice when he did no such thing. He said that the new arrivals (not just the Danes) had to earn their place in the team over the players who have been so successful up to now. What’s wrong with saying that? What would you have said if MD had promoted the new players at the expense of those who got us to second in the table?
I would've been delighted if they had replaced those that had got us second in the table if they had helped us secure more points in February than we managed to secure. Just like I was when Simons came into the team ahead of Leahy. Just like I was when Norris came into the team ahead of Ravizzoli. Just like I have when Reach or Back or Lowry play. Because they add value to the team. And adding value should, in theory, win more points and help secure promotion.
If the head coach has decided that a fully fit Westergaard, Hagelskjær and Berry don't add value to a League One team struggling for form then I cannot see how they will add value to a Championship team likely to be fighting to avoid relegation. And if that's the case, I think they were not sensible signings. (This is a repeat of the point I made earlier this morning, for your benefit, apologies to everyone else who've had to read it twice).
I admire Dodds for being candid when asked why the Danes weren't playing. I would, in Yes Minister speak, describe it as a brave decision. You can dress it up however you like but he's saying that he doesn't think fully fit, transfer-record-busting signings, are good enough for the current squad. They're behind Skura, Leahy and Bakinson. If I was Dodds' boss, and I had personally sanctioned those record-busting signings, my eyebrows would be quivering. If I was a man with thin skin, I might interpret that as public criticism that would be better kept behind closed doors.
Fortunately I'm sure Dan Rice is a better man than me.
And I'm pretty confident, Alan, that's something we might finally be able to agree on.
Could add Joe Low to this list as likely he could be off too. Simon’s though has an option to buy and I think Bradley will end up back here permanently.
I’d have absolutely no issue if he played them at the expense of other players if they improved the team, much like Simon’s coming in and taking the place of Leahy or Bakinson. Or basically any other player you sign and takes the place of another player.
You have more patience than me, so fair play for providing an explanation when it wasn't really necessary.
You have to wonder whether Mike Dodds has ever received any media training. An experienced newly-appointed head coach would straight bat that question back at the person asking it. He chose not to do so. That could either be naiveté or a lack of concern at the consequential implications.
Given we have another source citing a poisonous atmosphere behind the scenes, it leaves you wondering whether Mike Dodds might decide to cut his losses in the summer, particularly in the event promotion isn't achieved.
I remember when people bemoaned managers supposedly being vague and not wanting to give too much away and now we worry he's done for himself by not being 'media trained' enough to dodge a question?
I thought the question was valid, and his response was fine...he does not think they are better than the first 11 that have got us this far at the moment...not sure DR or Lommy will be ripping up his contract as yet.
It does seem surprisingly complicated to quite a few people though.
Not me though, as I levelled you with a pro to make it 5v5 in the thumbing wars.
I don't think it's negative necessarily to wonder why experienced players are not getting a game. Were Norris, Reach, lowry and Back all part of the same financial shenannigans? (They've all played a match)
Surely they came to play, not be part of a financial fiddle?
They'll be short of even more game time by the time the next season starts!
I am somewhat worried by financial constraints next season. So are we saying we had to spend what we did now as come the summer we won’t be able to. Will that, despite our owner being ludicrously wealthy, mean we return to Little Wycombe, hoping for loans and players wanting to rebuild their careers with us so available on a free or for buttons?
Facebook “Oi Rice, why won’t you pay Joe Low what he wants and sign Caleb Taylor for £10M? Have you even asked ML for the money you waster?”
Rice “Oh he’s got the money, I’m just not going to prison for Wycombe”
That would be the point of the rules
I wish he'd decided to get under the financial wire by buying Morley as we have two midfielders who won't be here next season.
After the "don't worry about the money" infamous quote from the not so distant past, leading us to being a fine line from oblivion at Torquay, yes we do always have to have half a worry about this.
But if we went up our revenue would increase a lot as well and we'd "probably" be in the most secure position we've been in if we're adhering to financial rules and don't go out on a limb. Time will tell if bringing all these players in in Jan is absolute forwarding thinking genius or not though.
Now this really is conspiracy stuff and I’m not suggesting this actually has happened, but could theoretically there be some sort of arrangement where we buy players at a premium in 2025 before the financial rules apply, and arrange for them to be sold on after the financial rules kick in at a small loss but with the timings of the transfers meaning we have more budget within the rules to play with next season?
To be a successful team (particularly in the Championship) you need 25 quality players in the squad. It stands to reason 14 of those are not going to be in the starting 11. Sometimes good players will not get a game, look at Morley under Evatt. We became accustomed to Gareth only realistically having around 18 players to pick from at any time so selection was relatively easy.
Whilst we spent a bit of money on the two Danes, assuming we go up I suspect our signings will be at a much higher value, particularly if we get big money for Kone. If we don't spend, then our one season in the Championship will be repeated.
With regard to your comment about them coming to play, obviously this would be their desire. However we may be offering much higher wages than they get in Denmark/Norway which would be a plus for them. They might (although unlikely), have wanted to experience life in England.
That would be nonsense...
Buy a player for 800k now, just so you can sell him for 500k next season, to allow you to buy another player you actually want for 500k?
Why not just buy the player you actually want now for 750k? That's 50k overall and you get the player you want for half a season longer.
It's hard enough getting my head around the thought that we HAD to buy players no better than the players we already had this season because we might not be able to afford them next season.
Personally I'd have tried to buy players who were BETTER than the players we already had and played them during the second half of this season.
Other opinions are possible.
As a veteran of the John Sutton era, I learned that it’s wise not to:
(a) rubbish a player before you’ve seen them play a few times and;
(b) wet yourself about a player you’ve never seen play before.