Fans Forum 14/08/2012

[Bruce Rioja]

What really made me cringe, was when (older) people would stand up and say "Hello I'm Mike, MYYYY first game I ever went to was ..... and here is my question.", like they were trying to out do each other with who's the bigger fan.

Ooof, yeah. I recall it started with one guy saying "Hello, my name's X, my first game was Eddie Hopkinson's testimonial...." and this led to some sort of cock-measuring Eddie Hopkinson-off. The further the questioner went back in terms of having watched Eddie Hopkinson, the more gravitas they had. Deary me!

[CAPSLOCK]

I know Liverpool wanted Coyle a while back

Nurse, nurse, I need a change of underwear

[CAPSLOCK]

Stupid question of the night went to (and I have to simplify due to the very long winded way it was asked) 'Why do we kick towards the away fans in the second half'.

Not anything said that most of you don't really know about.

Sitting in the North Stand I reckon we must've kicked towards me in the second half about 15 of 19 times last season!

I honestly can't remember us attacking the South Stand in the second half of any game

To be honest, there probably is something in a change of tack

Teams do like to attack their own support second half, I think, and attacking an empty end or the North Stand is probably a similar experience, noise wise

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

He did say that his preferred way of playing was with a 3 in midfield. Especially if he could have had NRC/Holden/M.Davies fit. Said that the reason he went 4-4-2 was going for victories towards the end of the season. Being honest, i'm not sure I believe him, especially when he referred to the coming season and said that he wanted "two players for ever position" and then listed a 4-4-2 unsurprisingly.

Eeeeeeeeeenteresting. Very eeeenteresting.

Owen was asked for the coming season what constitutes the minimum acceptable performance and what would be failure. He said promotion was the minimum requirement and not getting promoted would be failure.

Balls-out, fair enough, probably right too (though I'd say not finishing top-six would be failure - owt can happen in this division, and owt can happen in the play-offs).

[Bruce Rioja]

Given the news of Muamba's retirement - Coyle said last night at the forum that the problem was that they don't know what ultimately caused it, and I suppose that if they can't ultimately ascertain that, then he can't ever be risked.

[BWFC_Insane]

Given the news of Muamba's retirement - Coyle said last night at the forum that the problem was that they don't know what ultimately caused it, and I suppose that if they can't ultimately ascertain that, then he can't ever be risked.

Yeah, and the way he said it, you could tell really......

I suppose at the most basic level, as they can't pinpoint a real cause then he presumably couldn't be insured to play.....

[Barr Hill]

Should someone have asked PG if OC lost 3 games in a row would he be sacked!!!!!!

[NiceHotCuppaTea]

He's obviously not gonna answer that type of question is he? Even if we do wanna know the answer...

[Jez]

sacking your manager 3 games into the season is a great idea

[boltonboris]

It's obviosuly a joke to poke fun at the Blackburn owners..

[Bruce Rioja]

There were a couple of other things that were said the other night too, which I don't think have hitherto been mentioned on here.

1/ A guy stood up and asked how come we let Mark Connolly go to Crawley yet re-signed Zat Knight? Coyle replied that "Mark Connolly was never going to be good enough to break into the first team", which is fair enough. However, he then went on to reason that "Connolly has fantastic technical ability and is a great player of the ball but is simply too slow" and left it at that. By inference then, are we to assume that Coyle believes Zat Knight to have great technical ability, be a great ball player AND has a lick of pace as well? Once again a case of 'you and me watch a different fecking game, sunshine' if so.

2/ The other thing, and something that heartened me enormously was the subject of player's wages. Apparently, the 11 players we released accounted for £16m per annum in wages. I've done the maths so that you don't have to, that's an average of £28K per week, each. Narr then, their contracts were set out that they'd receive this money regarless as to whether they played or not, and regardless as to what they achieved either individually or as a team. They'd get their money come what may. Absolutely fecking bonkers!
Anyway, Squad Coyle are all on relatively modest basic salaries. He said "The big money's there to be earned, but it's in the form of bonuses, they need to play games and achieve it. It's geared around individual and collective success".

And that'll do for me, Cocker!

[BWFC_Insane]

There were a couple of other things that were said the other night too, which I don't think have hitherto been mentioned on here.

1/ A guy stood up and asked how come we let Mark Connolly go to Crawley yet re-signed Zat Knight? Coyle replied that "Mark Connolly was never going to be good enough to break into the first team", which is fair enough. However, he then went on to reason that "Connolly has fantastic technical ability and is a great player of the ball but is simply too slow" and left it at that. By inference then, are we to assume that Coyle believes Zat Knight to have great technical ability, be a great ball player AND has a lick of pace as well? Once again a case of 'you and me watch a different fecking game, sunshine' if so.

2/ The other thing, and something that heartened me enormously was the subject of player's wages. Apparently, the 11 players we released accounted for £16m per annum in wages. I've done the maths so that you don't have to, that's an average of £28K per week, each. Narr then, their contracts were set out that they'd receive this money regarless as to whether they played or not, and regardless as to what they achieved either individually or as a team. They'd get their money come what may. Absolutely fecking bonkers!
Anyway, Squad Coyle are all on relatively modest basic salaries. He said "The big money's there to be earned, but it's in the form of bonuses, they need to play games and achieve it. It's geared around individual and collective success".

And that'll do for me, Cocker!

The Connolly released cos he "doesn't have blistering pace" as a comparison against Knight was piss funny. But lets be honest, he was being nice about saying "connolly wasn't good enough".

As for the wages thing, it was positive news. Its how Allardyce had us set up initially, basic wage with tons of bonuses built in. He moved away from that later in his tenure as his desire for "top players" heightened and the realisation that they didn't fancy "low basic salaries" increased.

[wanderers_on_tour]

There were a couple of other things that were said the other night too, which I don't think have hitherto been mentioned on here.

1/ A guy stood up and asked how come we let Mark Connolly go to Crawley yet re-signed Zat Knight? Coyle replied that "Mark Connolly was never going to be good enough to break into the first team", which is fair enough. However, he then went on to reason that "Connolly has fantastic technical ability and is a great player of the ball but is simply too slow" and left it at that. By inference then, are we to assume that Coyle believes Zat Knight to have great technical ability, be a great ball player AND has a lick of pace as well? Once again a case of 'you and me watch a different fecking game, sunshine' if so.

2/ The other thing, and something that heartened me enormously was the subject of player's wages. Apparently, the 11 players we released accounted for £16m per annum in wages. I've done the maths so that you don't have to, that's an average of £28K per week, each. Narr then, their contracts were set out that they'd receive this money regarless as to whether they played or not, and regardless as to what they achieved either individually or as a team. They'd get their money come what may. Absolutely fecking bonkers!
Anyway, Squad Coyle are all on relatively modest basic salaries. He said "The big money's there to be earned, but it's in the form of bonuses, they need to play games and achieve it. It's geared around individual and collective success".

And that'll do for me, Cocker!

That Knight/Connolly comparison does seem a little non sensical but I guess Coyle couldn't just come out with the old "because he's shite" so just tried to bluff it through. Also Knight (should) have extra physical attributes in his favor, such as being fookin massive, that even if he doesn't use to his full advantage Connolly just will never have.

That second point though is very warming. It seems almost too obvious that players should have some sort of extra incentive for good perfomances, but in reality it must be quite difficult negotiating with a professional footballer that his bottom line wage figure could be less then what he could get being half arsed elsewhere. Still makes me wonder why no one could spot the potential for financial, and performance meltdown a mile off.

[General Mannerheim]

He's obviously not gonna answer that type of question is he? Even if we do wanna know the answer...

These events are an excercise in sychophancy so negative comments like that wouldnt have been welcome. but id have loved it if somebody asked PG to state when in his eyes, enough is enough? how many games does he have to lose before he's sacked? just so Owen was publically given his target. - trouble is, PG would have just bounced it back, St Owen is the right man bla bla bla - thus giving Owen no real incentive to improve.

[thebish]

Apparently, the 11 players we released accounted for £16m per annum in wages. I've done the maths so that you don't have to, that's an average of £28K per week, each.

it's all eye-watering...

but then, RVP and Shrek reputedly each get £250,000 per week...

as I think I have noted before - they earn in one week what it would take me over 10yrs to earn...

but then - they're good at footie - and I'm not!