Tinkerman

[GodalmingYellow]

I reckon there will be quite a few additions. Let's not get too doomstruck yet old chap.

We need 3 top level strikers, 2 creative midfielders, 3 wide midfielders, and 2 full backs, not to mention a temporary decent keeper. And on a reduced budget. Hmmm. You do the maths.

Don't think we need as many new players as this. I'd go for 8 new players. (3 strikers, 2 midfielders, 2 wingers, 1 full back.

Gone - 'permanent' staff members Rigg, Beano, Smalley, Davies, Lynn.
Gone - loanees - we will have been paying some or all of wages - Wroe, Williams, Connolly.

I count 8, have I missed anyone?

There's scope in the budget to put together a decent squad. Let's wait and see.

ps how the hell do Accy/D and R/Morecambe manage? We are much better resourced than them.

Accy manager subsidised them last season.

Those type of teams will never have success and will always just make up the numbers. Without meaning to sound patronising. I guess success for Accy and Morecambe is staying in the Football League. I imagine they manage with low paid hard working players who will never set the world alight but are capable of getting enough results for their means, and cheap loanees from higher division clubs around them, not to mention shareholder funding to bridge any gap.

As regards our squad, Lynn was dev squad and Davies probably on a low contract and presumably therefore on very small wages. Not enough to pay for even one replacement. Also Williams was heavily subsidised by Fulham. So 3 lost players (of which Williams was worth almost 2 players) which will pay for next to nothing. Add to that the reduced budget for next season and you will not even get the 8 replacements you seek, which will be insufficient imho anyway.

We have no choice but to wait and see but that doesn't stop us commenting on it or expressing concerns and IL and GWs running of the club so far.

[GodalmingYellow]

We need 3 top level strikers, 2 creative midfielders, 3 wide midfielders, and 2 full backs, not to mention a temporary decent keeper. And on a reduced budget. Hmmm. You do the maths.

I think we'll probably be ok on the full backs - they don't set the world alight but were solid enough for a lot of last season. Bevans as back-up too. But we certainly need at least 2 new strikers, replacements for Rigg and Williams, and a couple more central midfielders.

The goalie thing is interesting. I get the feeling they'll give Crocombe (who's meant to be promising) a go until Clarke is fit. I'd be happy enough with that rather than playing a loanee. We probably need another back-up keeper though.

I don't agree that the full backs were solid enough last season. In fact I think they were a significant part of our problems last season and were made to look better than they are (which isn't very good) by our quality centre backs. I would go further to suggest they are the worst 1st choice full backs we have had for many seasons. We need two new full backs.

[Eric Pollard]

There are a lot of assumptions in your squad review. How sure are you that Williams' wages were heavily subsidised?
One thing I do know is that our highest paid player last season has now left the club.
Let's see what happens anyway.

[Brahma Bull]

As regards our squad, Lynn was dev squad and Davies probably on a low contract and presumably therefore on very small wages. Not enough to pay for even one replacement. Also Williams was heavily subsidised by Fulham. So 3 lost players (of which Williams was worth almost 2 players) which will pay for next to nothing. Add to that the reduced budget for next season and you will not even get the 8 replacements you seek, which will be insufficient imho anyway.

We have no choice but to wait and see but that doesn't stop us commenting on it or expressing concerns and IL and GWs running of the club so far.

I concur Terry.

Lynn was on cheap money but I think Davies, Smalley, Rigg and Constable were all on 'respectable' wages. Williams was apparently heavily subsidised. Knowing that Hall was heavily subsidised in the first part of the season and then taking DC - there isn't much for GW to play with unless the budget was intending to be increased......! Certainly not enough to think we are going to bring any more than 5 players in (one/two of which will be subsidised loans once more I guess).

With the requirement of two strikers and probably wages to be invested in at least two central midfielders we will see how good GW is with one hand tied behind his back and how he can make a competitive squad with the addition of about 4/5 players when 8 went out the door (all my personal opinion of course).

Lack of communication and leadership is a criticism I think is quite acceptable at present - especially if we have signed players already as has been rumoured on social media.

[Brahma Bull]

Don't quite understand why we are being linked with Dave Winfield either.

[Jimski]

Stuart Lewis, Dave Winfield... Wycombe is a common theme here.

[Isaac]

New manager comes in and signs a load of his old players shocker. It just highlights to me that we're still stuck doing things the same way we always have, with inevitable consequences - we're replacing one set of journeymen players for another set.

There must be (surely?) scouts at the club, but either the managers are allowed to ignore them or they aren't doing their job.
I would have thought a medium term plan to look around the divisions below us for some youngish (or actually, older, late maturing players still have a part to play) talent.

[GodalmingYellow]

There are a lot of assumptions in your squad review. How sure are you that Williams' wages were heavily subsidised?
One thing I do know is that our highest paid player last season has now left the club.
Let's see what happens anyway.

You are assuming they are assumptions.

Highest paid player has indeed left the club.

So has our best player and top goal scorer for 6 consecutive seasons and second best of all time.

All will no doubt become clear but lets keep up the pressure on those in charge.

[Kernow Yellow]

Accy manager subsidised them last season.

Beattie was subsidising Accrington last season? Really? All the more shame we didn't try and get him in as our manager then.

I don't think you can really say that certain clubs make up the numbers, not in League 2 anyway. What about Burton? They made the play-offs but I don't really see that they differ much from Accy in terms of set-up or attendances. While 'big club' Bristol Rovers went down! One reason unfancied clubs can outperform bigger fish is by having a manager who makes the team more than the sum of their parts. Which is funny, as we had a manager who was doing pretty well at that earlier this season too.

Anyway, it's not hard to see how a club with half our attendances but who own their own ground can compete with us financially. Our long-term, high-rent lease agreement is a massive millstone round our club's neck at the moment.

[JoeyBeauchamp]

As regards our squad, Lynn was dev squad and Davies probably on a low contract and presumably therefore on very small wages. Not enough to pay for even one replacement. Also Williams was heavily subsidised by Fulham. So 3 lost players (of which Williams was worth almost 2 players) which will pay for next to nothing. Add to that the reduced budget for next season and you will not even get the 8 replacements you seek, which will be insufficient imho anyway.

We have no choice but to wait and see but that doesn't stop us commenting on it or expressing concerns and IL and GWs running of the club so far.

Why can't we get three/four/five long-term loans of young players from Prem/Championship clubs? Low (if any) wages, hungry, talented. Sign a few decent lower level pros plus them and we could do well.

[GodalmingYellow]

Accy manager subsidised them last season.

Beattie was subsidising Accrington last season? Really? All the more shame we didn't try and get him in as our manager then.

I don't think you can really say that certain clubs make up the numbers, not in League 2 anyway. What about Burton? They made the play-offs but I don't really see that they differ much from Accy in terms of set-up or attendances. While 'big club' Bristol Rovers went down! One reason unfancied clubs can outperform bigger fish is by having a manager who makes the team more than the sum of their parts. Which is funny, as we had a manager who was doing pretty well at that earlier this season too.

Anyway, it's not hard to see how a club with half our attendances but who own their own ground can compete with us financially. Our long-term, high-rent lease agreement is a massive millstone round our club's neck at the moment.

The problem with that mill stone is that as soon as we left the Manor, it was an inevitable consequence as the cost of building a stadium is high and the cost of repaying the mortgage for building a stadium is even higher, and the cost of subsidising a loss making business attached to said stadium is even higher still, especially when the new owner of said stadium takes the receipts for himself and also passes on the costs to the tenant. The club can now never recover from this issue unless someone is prepared to take on the council and invest a lot of money in a new stadium, or pay Kassam over the odds for something he has already had the money for (in the sale of the Manor). Those who stormed the Oxford Bastille have a lot to answer for. Having said that, our high rent is worth maybe 1000 on the gate, yet our attendances are significantly more than 1000 higher than all bar 5 other clubs in the division, so the high rent holds us back from where we could be, but does not hold us back compared to our rivals whose much lower gate turnovers far outweigh our high costs from rent.

I suspect players who are sought out by OUFC at this level, have higher wage demands than when the same players are sought out by other clubs in the division, and OUFC is not tough enough in its negotiations.

You're right KW that I didn't take he effect of a good manager into account, but you have to ask why managers who apparently overachieve at under-funded clubs, are never selected for the role at OUFC.

Beattie loaned his own money to Accrington to be able to sign players last season.

Burton had an average attendance of 2,720 last season compared to just 1,605 for Accy. That's quite a difference, although I would agree they did exceptionally well for their gates.

[Jimski]

Well, Morecambe got to the playoffs in 4th place a few years back. I don't see why they couldn't in principle go up. (I couldn't see them ever going up another tier without large financial backing, mind.

[Old Abingdonian]

Spot on, GY: my calculations (based only on the figures discussed on here) would suggest that the rent is worth about 1000 on the gate.

Comments over the years would suggest that you are also right about wage demands: this in turn would explain the new offer to Beano and Newey. We can't know whether taking a tougher bargaining position is down to Waddock or Lenagan - it is presumably part of an agreed approach.

[Dr Bob]

To quote Mooro from another thread: "Bevans allegedly turned down the new deal he was offered, with the club then choosing to trigger the one year option on the Dev deal he signed last summer."

Maybe he (or his agent) was trying to hold out for a better deal, but this immediately made me wonder what this might imply about the kind of wages being offered - and what, therefore, this might mean for squad-building. Oh - and both Morecambe and Accy can probably get away with paying lower wages and still attracting (relatively) decent players, because those parts of the country still have sane housing markets.

[Kernow Yellow]

Spot on, GY: my calculations (based only on the figures discussed on here) would suggest that the rent is worth about 1000 on the gate.

The rent in itself may only be worth 1000 on the gate (not that that's insignificant at our level), but when you take into account the service charge too, as well as the inability to generate decent commercial revenue from owning the ground then the numbers become much bigger. Am I right in thinking that we split pitchside advertising 50/50 with Firoka? And I'm sure we get less than 50% of the bar take and catering contracts etc. And presumably nothing at all from non-matchday conferencing. It all adds up.

The worst thing about it is that it's a rip-off anyway. The stadium's three-quarters built and undecorated. It already feels old and poorly maintained. All this drives fans away rather than attracting them. Yet we're paying top dollar for it and are tied into doing so for another couple of decades (I believe). It's a negative spiral that we need to snap out of, but that won't happen unless FK gets realistic about its value.