The next manager

[BWFC_Insane]

Knowing he would be “forgiven”, excused, whatever might make him mor likely to go. At which we return to Dibble’s first question. If not he, then who? Even supposing the finances level off - as there’s no indication whatsoever that we’re suddenly going to be rich - who can manage this team of kids, loans and last-ditch freebies into something able to target 60+ points from 44 games? Or, as must be more likely, attempt to bounce back from Division Four?

I think if this thing is ever done someone has to decide whether we want to a) build a new team (18/19 signings) from frees and loans to have a chance this season or b) take a blend of kids and say a dozen new players and try and stay up but with an eye to the future or c) go mainly with the kids in the hope it pays off for next season.

I don't think c) is a sensible option once you put the emotion aside.

So for me in reality it is a or b. It isn't easy because financially the incentive is there to give it a go.

If a - then if Parky is happy - it has to be him.

If b - then I don't think Parky makes sense and I think saying to Spooner/MCcann - its yours build a team with some kids involved - they know which ones are ready and the sort of players they need with them.

Whatever there is an interesting discussion about which youngsters people feel could make serious contributions based on evidence so far - I'd say Brockbank, Zouma and Edwards are absolutes. Politic definitely could make some useful appearances and Darcy looks a player to me. The left back (can't remember his name apologies to the lad) also looked very capable.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

It’s an interesting question as to how many “senior” players we need to hire. My gut feeling is somewhere in the eight to ten range, quite possibly all on the sort of short-term contracts that have (rightly IMO) been typical since the Ken/Parky era started: nothing more than two years because we don’t know where we’ll be.

[BWFC_Insane]

It’s an interesting question as to how many “senior” players we need to hire. My gut feeling is somewhere in the eight to ten range, quite possibly all on the sort of short-term contracts that have (rightly IMO) been typical since the Ken/Parky era started: nothing more than two years because we don’t know where we’ll be.

More than 8/10. We need at least 15/16 seniors. If you assume the ones who didn't play Saturday are as good as finished here...

That's a few to sign. You can have some kids, say 8//9 to make a squad of 24 but unless you're going with my option c - and I wouldn't - that's a lot of newbies needed.

[jimbo]

It’s an interesting question as to how many “senior” players we need to hire. My gut feeling is somewhere in the eight to ten range, quite possibly all on the sort of short-term contracts that have (rightly IMO) been typical since the Ken/Parky era started: nothing more than two years because we don’t know where we’ll be.

It’s a really interesting one. Realistically we need to get about 65-70 points to stay up. That’s not far off play off standard. IMO it’s going to be nigh on impossible to build a team at such short notice from the bargain bin to hit those levels. That means any money we do spend is likely going to be futile and not affect outcome. Would we be better writing this season off completely, giving the kids a full season and then actually trying next year and building a promotion side.

The flip side is the kids playing every week will harm them physically, while being pasted a few times will harm them mentally.

Also if we get pasted every week, fans will drop off and they’re obviously hard to win back. What we save from not signing anyone might give a big long term cost.

We probably need 8 or 9 to make us semi competitive this year and protect the youngsters. Maybe recruit some L2 level players who might be useful next year and willing to stick around. There needs to be some forward planning with recruitment rather than short term bodge jobs.

[Prufrock]

Depends what happens with the Coventry Five as well I think. They might be protected in that they did it as a group unlike Magennis.

Assuming they all get fired off then we need to sign at least 10 I think. Those kids are running their hearts out but some of them are going to get hurt if they have to do that 50 times this season.

White is the left back BWFCi. Thought he was one who looked out of his depth last week but coming on 15 mins is isn't ideal so glad to hear he did well on Sat. 11 absolute heroes.

Brockbank, Zouma, Edwards, Politic all looked capable to be in a first team "squad" at least to me. And I know they think v highly of Darcy.

Tough for the fans to keep going for a whole season of that too.

Edit: yeah, basically what Jimbo said.

[BWFC_Insane]

I would say staying up not as impossible as made out - but very very hard. 60 points would give us 48 - that would be in with a sniff of survival given Bury's woes....not much more than a sniff though.

62/63 would be a real chance territory.

Right now that looks impossible but with some sensible recruitment we'd have half a chance. Its still more likely we go down.

If FV takeover in next few weeks they can't afford to write the season off - equally they shouldn't bank on staying up and need an eye to the future.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Eight might be too few but 16 is IMO too many. It would essentially relegate *all* the kids to support roles, and while they certainly need to be protected from overuse I would hate for their development to be stunted by this year’s Jamie Proctor or Jonathan Grounds.

As noted, we should only be hiring players who might suit (and be happy in) D4 - unless we only give them one-year contracts. Realism is essential.

[jimbo]

I would say staying up not as impossible as made out - but very very hard. 60 points would give us 48 - that would be in with a sniff of survival given Bury's woes....not much more than a sniff though.

62/63 would be a real chance territory.

Right now that looks impossible but with some sensible recruitment we'd have half a chance. Its still more likely we go down.

If FV takeover in next few weeks they can't afford to write the season off - equally they shouldn't bank on staying up and need an eye to the future.

If ‘they can’t afford to write the season off’ means we’ll be financially crippled if we don’t sign anyone and get relegated, what will happen if we sign a load and still get relegated? End outcome the same but we’ll have spent a load more cash getting there.

It’s going to be so hard to balance for whoever comes in.

[BWFC_Insane]

Eight might be too few but 16 is IMO too many. It would essentially relegate *all* the kids to support roles, and while they certainly need to be protected from overuse I would hate for their development to be stunted by this year’s Jamie Proctor or Jonathan Grounds.

As noted, we should only be hiring players who might suit (and be happy in) D4 - unless we only give them one-year contracts. Realism is essential.

I'm thinking a squad of 23/4.

I think you're pushing it if you have more than 7/8 kids in it. Personally. Taking aside emotion the brutal truth is that most of those who played would benefit from more physical development before being first teamers...and like not just for us but generally for them and their careers.

If you take say, 6 kids, add in Weir, Hobbs (maybe a couple of strikers) - thats say 9/10 players. You still need 14 ish more at least...and that's if in reality there are 6 ready to be in the first team squad....I'm doubtful there are in truth.

[Prufrock]

I think you can get away with a smaller squad in league 1. You hardly play twice a week given there are no international breaks. Given our finances we might have to gamble a little bit too. Smaller squad sprinkled with kids and hope not to get to many injuries.

[BWFC_Insane]

I would say staying up not as impossible as made out - but very very hard. 60 points would give us 48 - that would be in with a sniff of survival given Bury's woes....not much more than a sniff though.

62/63 would be a real chance territory.

Right now that looks impossible but with some sensible recruitment we'd have half a chance. Its still more likely we go down.

If FV takeover in next few weeks they can't afford to write the season off - equally they shouldn't bank on staying up and need an eye to the future.

If ‘they can’t afford to write the season off’ means we’ll be financially crippled if we don’t sign anyone and get relegated, what will happen if we sign a load and still get relegated? End outcome the same but we’ll have spent a load more cash getting there.

It’s going to be so hard to balance for whoever comes in.

I meant more in terms of capital with fans than financially...

[jimbo]

I would say staying up not as impossible as made out - but very very hard. 60 points would give us 48 - that would be in with a sniff of survival given Bury's woes....not much more than a sniff though.

62/63 would be a real chance territory.

Right now that looks impossible but with some sensible recruitment we'd have half a chance. Its still more likely we go down.

If FV takeover in next few weeks they can't afford to write the season off - equally they shouldn't bank on staying up and need an eye to the future.

If ‘they can’t afford to write the season off’ means we’ll be financially crippled if we don’t sign anyone and get relegated, what will happen if we sign a load and still get relegated? End outcome the same but we’ll have spent a load more cash getting there.

It’s going to be so hard to balance for whoever comes in.

I meant more in terms of capital with fans than financially...

Fair enough. I agree that being battered every week could be damaging in the long term as it will drive people away, many of whom won’t cone back.

[Hoboh]

I think you can get away with a smaller squad in league 1. You hardly play twice a week given there are no international breaks. Given our finances we might have to gamble a little bit too. Smaller squad sprinkled with kids and hope not to get to many injuries.

Agree, I think for all sorts of financial reasons a squad of about 18 to 20 absolute tops is the only viable option this season.

[jimbo]

I think you can get away with a smaller squad in league 1. You hardly play twice a week given there are no international breaks. Given our finances we might have to gamble a little bit too. Smaller squad sprinkled with kids and hope not to get to many injuries.

The flip side to that is there’s no blocks of 2 weeks without a game for recovery. We also enter the FA cup at the first round and have that bloody comp with the premier league academy sides to play in.

[Jugs]

I think we definitely need some older players in there. As much as it was great to watch the kids on Saturday, once we start playing better teams than Coventry, we'll get turned over. A few heavy defeats here and there could knock the stuffing out of everyone.

That said, there's no guarantee we wouldn't get battered with senior pros in the team, too - just look at last season.

At the same time, these kids are going to tire. The lads they'll be facing week in and week out will be bigger, stronger and fitter.

[bristol_Wanderer3]

I think it is quite a distinct choice we have now.

If Parky stays then we need a full squad (15-20) of experienced players with the youth relegated to back up players, with maybe one or two becoming regulars. Parky has not demonstrated any inclination to play a style other than a hard running, hard working, often direct style of football. Not really suited to a team of young players still developing physically.

If we are going to prioritize developing young players, with a lower wage bill, potential for selling on, and accepted fluctuations in performance, and become that type of club, then we need a different type of direction and management team altogether imho. The focus would need to be on developing a more technical style of play, with a sprinkling (perhaps 8-10) experienced players. It maybe that the management team is already there with Jimmy Phillips, David Lee, Nicky Spooner and Gavin McCann?

[Harry Genshaw]

8-10 experienced pro's seems about right. Ignoring the strike issue and using players we know about as an example;

Alnwick, Wilson, Lowe, Hobbs and Connolly would give us an alternative back 4 and cover for defensive midfield slots.

You've then got say 4 places (if signing 9 new players) for the forward positions.

It would leave us light certainly but costs would be low and we may have some breathing space for loans in the event of injuries or suspensions

[BWFC_Insane]

8-10 experienced pro's seems about right. Ignoring the strike issue and using players we know about as an example;

Alnwick, Wilson, Lowe, Hobbs and Connolly would give us an alternative back 4 and cover for defensive midfield slots.

You've then got say 4 places (if signing 9 new players) for the forward positions.

It would leave us light certainly but costs would be low and we may have some breathing space for loans in the event of injuries or suspensions

Is Alnwick here still? Not played at all has he? Nor been seen in the training photos - could be injured I guess. Wilson has gone elsewhere. I can't see Connolly if I'm honest - our wages are so restrictive now in embargo....

[officer_dibble]

Alnwick can go. I prefer him to Matthews, for whatever reason he hasn’t been by management. That young keeper from Saturday was class, a real prospect. He should be number two. Emergency loan a third when / if required.

Deffo agree on spending budget on the forward line.

[BWFC_Insane]

Alnwick can go. I prefer him to Matthews, for whatever reason he hasn’t been by management. That young keeper from Saturday was class, a real prospect. He should be number two. Emergency loan a third when / if required.

Deffo agree on spending budget on the forward line.

Not being harsh - but as calm as that keeper remained and as well as he played - no way on gods earth should he be considered number two - just no. He needs to grow a bit first.

He was outstanding but its just not fair to expect him to do that more than a couple of times IMHO.