Us, Bournemouth and one other

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Every so often our owners are forced to step back and to bring in people to run the club for them. To be fair to them they have done well in terms of listening to people and bringing in Mcnally and then more recently Webber. These appointments are what have brought us success (unless McNally lost the plot a bit)  along with (generally) making good use of our parachute payments.

In the last two decades any time our board has had more direct control over footballing matters without a capable CEO has not gone as well.

I would suggest that where some of these other clubs regularly fail to get promoted despite greater riches there is an element there (Derby, Forest, Shef Weds) of meddling owners who get a bit too hands on and perhaps lack the patience that our owners have shown at times.

That patience can be a double edged sword though. In the championship it has generally benefitted us in recent times. In premier league I think it (plus the lack of genuine ambition to stay there) has hindered us as we have not been ruthless enough at times and tended to succumb to relegation with barely a whimper.

So it works both ways but I do fear that one time a relegation will prove one relegation to far, There are only so many times you can yo-yo up and down before the realisation that you cannot sustain premier league football under this ownership starts to eat away at the club. Although we have had several promotions, I believe this season will see us become the team with the record number of relegations from the premier league. Whilst others may not have taken the chance to get to the premier league as we have done, nobody else will have wasted as many opportunities to dine at the top table.

 

There is no evidence for this oft-repeated argument.

[Indy 3,283]

56 minutes ago, king canary said:

Maybe.

However do you think if we had £50m to spend we'd have just dropped it on those three players on permanent deals?

I still think you get 20% more out of player you sign than loan, very rarely do loan players actually deliver, from past expectations.

So who knows if we’d seen more from our loan players or not.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

There is no evidence for this oft-repeated argument.

I've told you this before Purple, from the horses mouth when Mcnally was appointed. They took a "step back" and didn't even know who the new manager was on the day lambert was appointed. 

I'd imagine they've done very similar with Webber. 

I'm not criticising them for it. I'm saying that their willingness to let someone who knows what they are doing run the football side of things is perhaps why we have done better than the likes of Forest, Derby, Shef Weds and Leeds over recent years.

I would wager though that if (when) any of those clubs get up they (except perhaps Derby) will make a better fist of trying to stay up than we have done in recent times because more than most they will realise that when you get to the premier league you have to do all you can to seize the opportunity. 

[BigFish 1,986]

2 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Awesome football last season most definitely. Frustrating to go up as champions though and not back a top class coach to improve further. 

Massively, massively overachieved last season. Many of the the gang of moaners on here were predicting an unseccessful relegation fight, League One and the shadow of administration. We had sold our only assets in Maddison and (remember them) the Murphy twins only to replace them with journeymen from the German third tier.

Problem was when we got up we were short all over the pitch. The idea that we were only 1/2/3 or whateber signings from a Prem side was fanciful. We could have "gone for it", splashed all the Premiership cash and would now still be in a relegation fight but £100 million poorer.

We could have got lucky, but it was unlikely. What the answer is, I really don't know but I do know that I haven't read a poster on here that knows either.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

This is interesting Jimbo. Are you saying they took a step back when Worthy, Lambert, Neil and Farke were appointed but were right at the front for Grant, Roeder, Gunn and Adams? 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

8 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I've told you this before Purple, from the horses mouth when Mcnally was appointed. They took a "step back" and didn't even know who the new manager was on the day lambert was appointed. 

I'd imagine they've done very similar with Webber. 

I'm not criticising them for it. I'm saying that their willingness to let someone who knows what they are doing run the football side of things is perhaps why we have done better than the likes of Forest, Derby, Shef Weds and Leeds over recent years.

I would wager though that if (when) any of those clubs get up they (except perhaps Derby) will make a better fist of trying to stay up than we have done in recent times because more than most they will realise that when you get to the premier league you have to do all you can to seize the opportunity. 

Only 17 can stay up. How much do you want to wager?

You'd have got your fingers burnt bigtime over QPR and the wonderful Fernandes...

[Midlands Yellow 3,942]

7 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I've told you this before Purple, from the horses mouth when Mcnally was appointed. They took a "step back" and didn't even know who the new manager was on the day lambert was appointed. 

I'd imagine they've done very similar with Webber. 

I'm not criticising them for it. I'm saying that their willingness to let someone who knows what they are doing run the football side of things is perhaps why we have done better than the likes of Forest, Derby, Shef Weds and Leeds over recent years.

I would wager though that if (when) any of those clubs get up they (except perhaps Derby) will make a better fist of trying to stay up than we have done in recent times because more than most they will realise that when you get to the premier league you have to do all you can to seize the opportunity. 

I’d go with that assessment of the better appointments. Delia may have had a little more influence putting Gunn and Adams in the hot seats. 

[Midlands Yellow 3,942]

6 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Massively, massively overachieved last season. Many of the the gang of moaners on here were predicting an unseccessful relegation fight, League One and the shadow of administration. We had sold our only assets in Maddison and (remember them) the Murphy twins only to replace them with journeymen from the German third tier.

Problem was when we got up we were short all over the pitch. The idea that we were only 1/2/3 or whateber signings from a Prem side was fanciful. We could have "gone for it", splashed all the Premiership cash and would now still be in a relegation fight but £100 million poorer.

We could have got lucky, but it was unlikely. What the answer is, I really don't know but I do know that I haven't read a poster on here that knows either.

So Norwich won the league by 5pts but it was clear we were already doomed ? Where do you get the £100M from ? Most  wouldn’t expect to spend that in 4/5 seasons but what was spent was woeful to help the squad. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

8 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

This is interesting Jimbo. Are you saying they took a step back when Worthy, Lambert, Neil and Farke were appointed but were right at the front for Grant, Roeder, Gunn and Adams? 

I can't really recall the process around appointing Worthy so possibly not him Nutty but certainly the latter three of that group yes I believe that the "board" were probably more collectively involved whereas the others were head hunted or recruited by individuals such as Mcnally and Webber who I think had/have greater autonomy. Of course the board will have given the final nod to all of the appointments but I suspect with Lambert, Neil and Farke is was very much a "go and get who you think is best" type approach and then nodded through.

Adams one because that was a McNally tenure appointment so doesn't quite fit the pattern but then there are always exceptions.

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

27 minutes ago, Indy said:

I still think you get 20% more out of player you sign than loan, very rarely do loan players actually deliver, from past expectations.

So who knows if we’d seen more from our loan players or not.

What do you base that on Indy? In a world where money seems to be all important I would have thought a player with a comfortable 3 or 4 year contract would have less to prove than one trying to impress clubs enough to get such a contract.

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

8 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I can't really recall the process around appointing Worthy so possibly not him Nutty but certainly the latter three of that group yes I believe that the "board" were probably more collectively involved whereas the others were head hunted or recruited by individuals such as Mcnally and Webber who I think had/have greater autonomy. Of course the board will have given the final nod to all of the appointments but I suspect with Lambert, Neil and Farke is was very much a "go and get who you think is best" type approach and then nodded through.

Adams one because that was a McNally tenure appointment so doesn't quite fit the pattern but then there are always exceptions.

 

So you only want to judge the owners on failed appointments. Just like Greeno only wants to judge them on the one season we spent in league one. I find that staggering.

Of course they also appointed Moxey whist Cooper, Doncaster, McNally and Webber fell out of the sky....

Edited June 22, 2020 by nutty nigel

[Jim Smith 2,314]

7 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

So you only want to judge the owners on failed appointments. Just like Greeno only wants to judge them on the one season we spent in league one. I find that staggering.

Of course they also appointed Moxey whist Cooper, Doncaster, McNally and Webber fell out of the sky....

Moxey was an Ed Balls screw up although at least was quickly (if not cheaply) rectified. My point is that since McNally the owners have in my view taken more of a back seat on football matters and tended to leave it to the CEO/Director of Football. 

I personally believe that before that they (and probably other board members) were a bit more hands on and yes probably had a much bigger input into previous managerial appointments whereas now I think it would be mainly left to Webber (or maybe the Webbers) and really just nodded through if he said he'd got the right man. 

Just my opinion and as I've said I think we've benefitted from it. You could argue that even Adams was not a disastrous appointment. 

I will judge them on their entire tenure which I think its fair to say has been something of a mixed bag although on balance seems likely to end with the club generally in better shape than it was when they took over. Promotion last season certainly got us out of an approaching hole anyway. The way we have generally bounced back from failures with successful seasons has been good. The one persistent failure has been retaining our premier league place when we've managed to get up there. 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

43 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I've told you this before Purple, from the horses mouth when Mcnally was appointed. They took a "step back" and didn't even know who the new manager was on the day lambert was appointed. 

I'd imagine they've done very similar with Webber. 

I'm not criticising them for it. I'm saying that their willingness to let someone who knows what they are doing run the football side of things is perhaps why we have done better than the likes of Forest, Derby, Shef Weds and Leeds over recent years.

I would wager though that if (when) any of those clubs get up they (except perhaps Derby) will make a better fist of trying to stay up than we have done in recent times because more than most they will realise that when you get to the premier league you have to do all you can to seize the opportunity. 

Jim, we have been through this before. Your ‘evidence’ is one throwaway remark (to a few fans in a pub or some such?) made in the gap between Doncaster being sacked and McNally really getting his feet under the desk and taking control. A remark you have previously acknowledged might not have been terribly significant. It probably was Delia simply saying she and MWJ could now go back to their usual hands-off role.

There is no evidence over more than two decades now that when the club has a CEO in place that the level of Smith and Jones’ direct involvement in the running of the club varies. All the evidence is that is stays the same.

S&J have a say, and often a decisive say, in the really major decisions, which would include whom to appoint as CEO, but in terms of day to day and month to month let that CEO have free rein.

Myself I don’t buy the simplistic idea that all the praise and all the blame should be attributed to the CEO, but if we go down that path then your notion falls apart. For example, Doncaster had a very successful few years to start and then it went wrong. By your notion that must have been because S&J initially left well alone but later started interfering.

Ditto with McNally. By all accounts McNally (plus Bowkett) ruled Carrow Road like an emperor. Some would use a word  like despot. Anyway he too started well and then it went bad. Yet as far as one can tell his iron control over how the club was run hadn’t diminished in the slightest.

You yourself  find it hard to explain how his later failure fits in with your S&J notion. And with Moxey, was he a good choice as CEO but hampered by S&J butting in all the time, or just a bad CEO. I doubt even you would attempt to claim the former.

And now by your reckoning we got promoted last season because S&J let Webber et al get on with it, but we’re getting relegated this season because S&J decided to oversee the summer transfer window?

[Jim Smith 2,314]

24 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Jim, we have been through this before. Your ‘evidence’ is one throwaway remark (to a few fans in a pub or some such?) made in the gap between Doncaster being sacked and McNally really getting his feet under the desk and taking control. A remark you have previously acknowledged might not have been terribly significant. It probably was Delia simply saying she and MWJ could now go back to their usual hands-off role.

There is no evidence over more than two decades now that when the club has a CEO in place that the level of Smith and Jones’ direct involvement in the running of the club varies. All the evidence is that is stays the same.

 

S&J have a say, and often a decisive say, in the really major decisions, which would include whom to appoint as CEO, but in terms of day to day and month to month let that CEO have free rein.

 

Myself I don’t buy the simplistic idea that all the praise and all the blame should be attributed to the CEO, but if we go down that path then your notion falls apart. For example, Doncaster had a very successful few years to start and then it went wrong. By your notion that must have been because S&J initially left well alone but later started interfering.

Ditto with McNally. By all accounts McNally (plus Bowkett) ruled Carrow Road like an emperor. Some would use a word  like despot. Anyway he too started well and then it went bad. Yet as far as one can tell his iron control over how the club was run hadn’t diminished in the slightest.

 

You yourself  find it hard to explain how his later failure fits in with your S&J notion. And with Moxey, was he a good choice as CEO but hampered by S&J butting in all the time, or just a bad CEO. I doubt even you would attempt to claim the former.

And now by your reckoning we got promoted last season because S&J let Webber et al get on with it, but we’re getting relegated this season because S&J decided to oversee the summer transfer window?
 

I didn't say our owners butt in all the time Purple, I said the owners of Forest, Derby and Shef Weds do.

I accept our owners haven't really butted in on the football side of things since Mcnally was appointed.

I think they were more involved under Doncaster.

I don't have a gripe with the way they run the club day to day now. My original response on this thread was to speculate that one of the reason we have been more successful than others who may have thrown more money at promotion in recent years (although probably not in wage bill terms) was because our owners have tended to take a back seat and leave McNally, Moxey and Webber to it. Moxey didn't work out obviously but was short lived. 

I do believe though that before the Mcnally era they were more involved, partly because of just witnessing what goes on at the club with my own eyes and also partly due to the conversation I am referring to in that pub pre-Brentford. Cooper was a Sainsbury's crony of theirs and even under Doncaster (who I see has inexplicably now got a top UEFA job) I think they were more hands on than they have been since. Just my opinion. You obviously disagree.

[king canary 7,580]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Maybe Duda as well? 

I don't know tbh. The players we spend money on rarely work out well and then we are stuck with their contracts for the next three years 

I don't know either but my guess is we wouldn't. Relying only on players other teams are willing to loan you somewhat limits your options. 

You're right that our history with expensive players isn't great- however that is what I mean by backing the wrong managers. I'm confident that giving that sort of budget to Webber would have generated better results than when we gave it to Neil.

[Indy 3,283]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

What do you base that on Indy? In a world where money seems to be all important I would have thought a player with a comfortable 3 or 4 year contract would have less to prove than one trying to impress clubs enough to get such a contract.

 

Not really as you say playing for a contract but those we loaned in weren’t really, as they were all in their mid career and already has hefty contracts so we’re here to get games, Amadou is prime example and to be honest most loan players we’ve had in on numerous premiership and championship campaigns haven’t been successful! Huckerby was our real last loan success. 
I can’t think of many others who like I said have come here and gone on to be regulars.......can you?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

12 minutes ago, Indy said:

Not really as you say playing for a contract but those we loaned in weren’t really, as they were all in their mid career and already has hefty contracts so we’re here to get games, Amadou is prime example and to be honest most loan players we’ve had in on numerous premiership and championship campaigns haven’t been successful! Huckerby was our real last loan success. 
I can’t think of many others who like I said have come here and gone on to be regulars.......can you?

So is that an argument for signing them or loaning them?

To go to recent past would we have been better keeping Matty Jarvis on loan or signing him?

The problem with signing players is that there's no guarantee they will work out. If the best you can hope for is even as high as 67% you still have the other 33% on your books for the next three or four years. (I doubt really successful signings are much higher than 50%)

Probably the most impressive things we've done in the last 7 years is to keep getting promoted with these players on our payroll. I think that's what sinks others even with their wonderful wealthy owners like the much pined for Fernandes.

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

47 minutes ago, king canary said:

I don't know either but my guess is we wouldn't. Relying only on players other teams are willing to loan you somewhat limits your options. 

You're right that our history with expensive players isn't great- however that is what I mean by backing the wrong managers. I'm confident that giving that sort of budget to Webber would have generated better results than when we gave it to Neil.

I don't think our history is any worse than most clubs though. It's just if you loan a player he only impacts the budget for the period of the loan.

That's why we invest so much in youngsters. 

Edited June 22, 2020 by nutty nigel

[king canary 7,580]

7 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I don't think our history is any worse than most clubs though. It's just if you loan a player he only impacts the budget for the period of the loan.

That's why we invest so much in youngsters. 

I'd disagree on that- our history with expensive players (by our standards) is pretty bad. 

The flip side of the loan situation is that it is a sunk cost- you can't make money on a loan player. So Amadou, Fahrmann, Roberts and Duda probably cost us north of £5m in loan fees without considering wages too and while we're not tied to those players we also can't make any of it back.

Our investment in youngsters is a good thing- just sometimes that investment in youngsters can be £10m rather than £2m.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

12 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'd disagree on that- our history with expensive players (by our standards) is pretty bad. 

The flip side of the loan situation is that it is a sunk cost- you can't make money on a loan player. So Amadou, Fahrmann, Roberts and Duda probably cost us north of £5m in loan fees without considering wages too and while we're not tied to those players we also can't make any of it back.

Our investment in youngsters is a good thing- just sometimes that investment in youngsters can be £10m rather than £2m.

Yes it's all a gamble but the sunk cost is restricted to the budget it comes from. 

The investment in youngsters probably has a lower success rate but there's less financial risk.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2020 by nutty nigel

[nutty nigel 7,509]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

I didn't say our owners butt in all the time Purple, I said the owners of Forest, Derby and Shef Weds do.

I accept our owners haven't really butted in on the football side of things since Mcnally was appointed.

I think they were more involved under Doncaster.

I don't have a gripe with the way they run the club day to day now. My original response on this thread was to speculate that one of the reason we have been more successful than others who may have thrown more money at promotion in recent years (although probably not in wage bill terms) was because our owners have tended to take a back seat and leave McNally, Moxey and Webber to it. Moxey didn't work out obviously but was short lived. 

I do believe though that before the Mcnally era they were more involved, partly because of just witnessing what goes on at the club with my own eyes and also partly due to the conversation I am referring to in that pub pre-Brentford. Cooper was a Sainsbury's crony of theirs and even under Doncaster (who I see has inexplicably now got a top UEFA job) I think they were more hands on than they have been since. Just my opinion. You obviously disagree.

Jimbo, I struggle to see where Bob Cooper wasn't successful. He was given the job with us mid-table champs and left after the play off final in 2002. Doncaster took over in 2002 and in 2004 we won the championship pretty much at a canter. Doncaster went wrong after that but it doesn't make him a bad appointment. Just means he was kept too long.

If you're going to say success happens despite the owners and the executive directors we're probably only left with divine intervention.

 

[sonyc 5,492]

4 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

You can’t beat the feeling of relegation again and again can you. 

Disappointing for sure especially as we just cannot seem to get more than a couple of seasons. Yet, looking at the all time stats for the last 50 years, we are well placed for a smaller club. I tend to remember the feeling of promotion more than the pain of relegation. Indeed, I often see good in things bad generally (and that includes people). It helps me anyway to enjoy life more in the round. I do understand too where you're coming from though.

...And it was a risk at the start of the season in what we did (and didn't) and I supported that approach so cannot really complain now.

[Midlands Yellow 3,942]

5 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Disappointing for sure especially as we just cannot seem to get more than a couple of seasons. Yet, looking at the all time stats for the last 50 years, we are well placed for a smaller club. I tend to remember the feeling of promotion more than the pain of relegation. Indeed, I often see good in things bad generally (and that includes people). It helps me anyway to enjoy life more in the round. I do understand too where you're coming from though.

...And it was a risk at the start of the season in what we did (and didn't) and I supported that approach so cannot really complain now.

Win the cup and all is forgiven. 

[BigFish 1,986]

3 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

So Norwich won the league by 5pts but it was clear we were already doomed ? Where do you get the £100M from ? Most  wouldn’t expect to spend that in 4/5 seasons but what was spent was woeful to help the squad. 

It is like talking to child when @Midlands Yellow gets involved. The facts are in front of your face. Going with braodly the same team as last year has left us 6 points adrift at the bottom. That is the gap in quality between the Prem and the Champs. Effectively the team is short all other the pitch.

We weren't automatically doomed, but were pretty much everyone's favourites to go down. The injuries at the back and the fact that Amadou didn't work out were the final nail in the coffin. When a bang average squad player in Prem cost upwards from £10 million and earns a million quid it is easy to burn through £100 (which is the TV money, give or take). Imagine you decide to rebuild the spine, new CB, DM & Striker. To get someone to come here probably requires a 4 year contract & £2.5 million a year. That's a £30 million financial committment on wages alone. Tranfer fees and add-ons probably £20 million each, so that's another £60 million. Total £90 million (fag packet accounting) which perhaps leaves enough to pick up a squad player.

Sure there might be resell value if the season still went **** up but we know from RVW, Naismith etc that doesn't always work out.

[Indy 3,283]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

So is that an argument for signing them or loaning them?

To go to recent past would we have been better keeping Matty Jarvis on loan or signing him?

The problem with signing players is that there's no guarantee they will work out. If the best you can hope for is even as high as 67% you still have the other 33% on your books for the next three or four years. (I doubt really successful signings are much higher than 50%)

Probably the most impressive things we've done in the last 7 years is to keep getting promoted with these players on our payroll. I think that's what sinks others even with their wonderful wealthy owners like the much pined for Fernandes.

 

My point again nutty, we know, Naismith’s and RVW show money doesn’t always buy quality.....but I was making the point that loan players are never committed to their loan club, Jarvis should never have been signed permanently and was only done so to free up his loan space.

I can’t think of one player we signed on loan who we then signed permanent who has gone onto becoming a regular in our squad, Hucks was the last I can really think of.

I’ve always been a firm supporter of promoting a good youth culture and bringing through the younger players, they are normally more motivated, have been with the club so know the structure, players and coaches, easier to transition into the first team squad.

So I stand by that loan players never give you more than 80% commitment if you’re lucky.

[Midlands Yellow 3,942]

4 minutes ago, BigFish said:

It is like talking to child when @Midlands Yellow gets involved. The facts are in front of your face. Going with braodly the same team as last year has left us 6 points adrift at the bottom. That is the gap in quality between the Prem and the Champs. Effectively the team is short all other the pitch.

We weren't automatically doomed, but were pretty much everyone's favourites to go down. The injuries at the back and the fact that Amadou didn't work out were the final nail in the coffin. When a bang average squad player in Prem cost upwards from £10 million and earns a million quid it is easy to burn through £100 (which is the TV money, give or take). Imagine you decide to rebuild the spine, new CB, DM & Striker. To get someone to come here probably requires a 4 year contract & £2.5 million a year. That's a £30 million financial committment on wages alone. Tranfer fees and add-ons probably £20 million each, so that's another £60 million. Total £90 million (fag packet accounting) which perhaps leaves enough to pick up a squad player.

Sure there might be resell value if the season still went **** up but we know from RVW, Naismith etc that doesn't always work out.

Thanks for your informative and courteous reply. 

[TIL 1010 4,722]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

Jimbo, I struggle to see where Bob Cooper wasn't successful. He was given the job with us mid-table champs and left after the play off final in 2002. Doncaster took over in 2002 and in 2004 we won the championship pretty much at a canter. Doncaster went wrong after that but it doesn't make him a bad appointment. Just means he was kept too long.

If you're going to say success happens despite the owners and the executive directors we're probably only left with divine intervention.

 

Bob The Grocer did not know one end of a football field from the other. Doomcaster was appointed company secretary in 1997 and chief executive in 2001 when BTG was still here. Munby took over as chairman from BTG when he resigned in 2002.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

15 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Bob The Grocer did not know one end of a football field from the other. Doomcaster was appointed company secretary in 1997 and chief executive in 2001 when BTG was still here. Munby took over as chairman from BTG when he resigned in 2002.

So how would you measure success? If we got to the play-off final and then won the champs at a canter in spite of the owners and the chief execs was it all down to Barry Skipper and Roger Munby?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

My point again nutty, we know, Naismith’s and RVW show money doesn’t always buy quality.....but I was making the point that loan players are never committed to their loan club, Jarvis should never have been signed permanently and was only done so to free up his loan space.

I can’t think of one player we signed on loan who we then signed permanent who has gone onto becoming a regular in our squad, Hucks was the last I can really think of.

I’ve always been a firm supporter of promoting a good youth culture and bringing through the younger players, they are normally more motivated, have been with the club so know the structure, players and coaches, easier to transition into the first team squad.

So I stand by that loan players never give you more than 80% commitment if you’re lucky.

Indy, when I was talking about playing for their futures I didn't mean with us. I meant with their parent clubs or other clubs who could be persuaded to sign them. Most of them we wouldn't have been able to sign permanently even if we'd wanted to.

Its just not true to say you only get 80% from loan players. We often got more commitment from loan players than permanents. Off the top of my head...

Lansbury, Barnett, Pacacheco, Naughton, Garrido, Dijks, Gunn, Reed, Leitner and Rhodes all gave more commitment than some permanents. 

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

20 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Indy, when I was talking about playing for their futures I didn't mean with us. I meant with their parent clubs or other clubs who could be persuaded to sign them. Most of them we wouldn't have been able to sign permanently even if we'd wanted to.

Its just not true to say you only get 80% from loan players. We often got more commitment from loan players than permanents. Off the top of my head...

Lansbury, Barnett, Pacacheco, Naughton, Garrido, Dijks, Gunn, Reed, Leitner and Rhodes all gave more commitment than some permanents. 

 

My spelling of Pacecho is a masterpiece. I refuse to edit it🙃