How Brutal a cull does it need to be???

[The Tomahawk Kid]

Yes it has, last weekend.

Okay, so who won the Play Off Final then -

Nice!

[paddy71]

Okay, so who won the Play Off Final then -

Nice!

Boreham wood 3-1

[BinnyJ]

DO you reckon any of the players thought they would be signing on for a club that would be on the third manager . No physio and various directors and heads of recruitment who have left.

Everyone can all bellyache about where we fin8shed but we did do well on the last few games to stay up

Watching the play the onmly difference is we couldn't score

We do have basis of a decent team. To suggest we bin all of them shows either stupidity or a lack of football knowledge

Build on what we have

the 'basis' of a decent team ? build on what we got ???/ lets hear it then ? have you been to any games this season ? heard it all now !

[ant]

Sorry if its been mentioned earlier.. forgot about Andy Parry. Gone to Southport i believe?

[chipmunx]

Sorry if its been mentioned earlier.. forgot about Andy Parry. Gone to Southport i believe?

I think just about everyone forgot about him Tony....

[Wintergreen]

Nice!

Boreham wood 3-1

You sure bud?

[Suffolk Blue]

The size of the cull shouldn't surprise anyone. The way I look at it is that the team were to all intents and purposes relegated but reprieved by events elsewhere. After so much graft in far away places they still weren't good enough to save themselves against the weakest of opposition on the final day. If we had gone down you'd expect just such a cull - so lets not delude ourselves.

Agree with the comment above that we now have a "bonus" season. My main cause for any optimism is simply that throughout the latter half of the season, I was relatively comfortable with the management of AP and therefore look forward at least to the possibility of him putting a team together. Even without a large budget my instinct tells me he could do a better job in terms of working within constraints. John Askey showed us that this is possible last season.

Provided that he can get rid of the transfer listed players still commanding a wage and a hangover from the Cox era of course. Despite him being long gone, in my view his acquisitions remained the main reason for our brush with NL death. There's probably not much appetite for a dedicated thread on the subject but the issue of how Paul Cox went about his business for the club, especially in the light of his repeating the experience at Guiseley is probably more interesting than picking over the bones of the season. However, in summary my view is that when selecting players Cox tended to follow a mental template of what his team should look like rather than actually focussing on how players blended into a team. This might explain his constant reluctance to change a squad when it was obvious that he should and also many of his acquisitions which seem to have been made based on a view of how certain attributes would enhance this template and make it work better. It also may go some way to explain why he feels he needs such a big squad.

The word I'd use to describe what he left in general terms would be "misfits". Players who whilst having some decent attributes just didn't fit when it came to someone else building a team around different principles. Dan Jones is a great example of this. One standout attribute - a throw; a decent fee kick when required but his core defensive skill set - the thing you'd look for if you were going to make him a long-term fixture - no more than average when compared with other defenders, meaning you either didn't play him, or play him out of position, or play him in his position accepting that there may be others that were better in defensive duties.

Cox left a bigger mess than was probably immediately obvious. This wasn't really dealt with properly by those in charge when Moore was appointed and a decision poorly made was left to fester until by the time AP was appointed, we were probably the worst team in the NL. Since then our "form" position has waivered around the 16th-17th mark and given all the inherited problems not a bad effort given that the squad rarely played like an integrated team and tended to grind results out through defensive grit and of course the goals of Luke James. Anything from this point forward would be a bonus.

[Pedro]

The size of the cull shouldn't surprise anyone. The way I look at it is that the team were to all intents and purposes relegated but reprieved by events elsewhere. After so much graft in far away places they still weren't good enough to save themselves against the weakest of opposition on the final day. If we had gone down you'd expect just such a cull - so lets not delude ourselves.

Agree with the comment above that we now have a "bonus" season. My main cause for any optimism is simply that throughout the latter half of the season, I was relatively comfortable with the management of AP and therefore look forward at least to the possibility of him putting a team together. Even without a large budget my instinct tells me he could do a better job in terms of working within constraints. John Askey showed us that this is possible last season.

Provided that he can get rid of the transfer listed players still commanding a wage and a hangover from the Cox era of course. Despite him being long gone, in my view his acquisitions remained the main reason for our brush with NL death. There's probably not much appetite for a dedicated thread on the subject but the issue of how Paul Cox went about his business for the club, especially in the light of his repeating the experience at Guiseley is probably more interesting than picking over the bones of the season. However, in summary my view is that when selecting players Cox tended to follow a mental template of what his team should look like rather than actually focussing on how players blended into a team. This might explain his constant reluctance to change a squad when it was obvious that he should and also many of his acquisitions which seem to have been made based on a view of how certain attributes would enhance this template and make it work better. It also may go some way to explain why he feels he needs such a big squad.

The word I'd use to describe what he left in general terms would be "misfits". Players who whilst having some decent attributes just didn't fit when it came to someone else building a team around different principles. Dan Jones is a great example of this. One standout attribute - a throw; a decent fee kick when required but his core defensive skill set - the thing you'd look for if you were going to make him a long-term fixture - no more than average when compared with other defenders, meaning you either didn't play him, or play him out of position, or play him in his position accepting that there may be others that were better in defensive duties.
Hi
Cox left a bigger mess than was probably immediately obvious. This wasn't really dealt with properly by those in charge when Moore was appointed and a decision poorly made was left to fester until by the time AP was appointed, we were probably the worst team in the NL. Since then our "form" position has waivered around the 16th-17th mark and given all the inherited problems not a bad effort given that the squad rarely played like an integrated team and tended to grind results out through defensive grit and of course the goals of Luke James. Anything from this point forward would be a bonus.

Well written but when you are so far away a owner should appoint people with proven track record
I think Paul Casson probably was probably stung financially.
Do we have a CEO?
Do we have a Commercial Manager?
Yes people make mistakes but we do not learn from them.
The sponsorship by the Hospice has cost them money in terms of voluntary contributions with people saying I contribute to a Hospice not a Football Club
It would be interesting to see what the sponsorship returned in revenue.
Let's hope we do things better this season I wait eagerly for the better players to be signed

[Suffolk Blue]

Well the thread really wasn't about the Cassons Pedro. I know your views on the subject and I actually agree with a lot of what you say.

Leaving aside the obvious comments regarding the state of the club before the current owners took over and the fact that as 100% owners whether they do a good, bad or indifferent job is pretty much irrelevant, I would put the question a bit differently. I would ask - what evidence is there that the club has been well led or managed over the last 12-18 months?

This is not a question primarily about investment - which I know you have strong views about. Its more about irrespective of the level of investment how clever the owners have been in their management of the club? In this respect the points regarding commercial development and CEO leadership are proper and valid questions. The owner has chosen to put family members into these roles - which can always be contentious and in both cases the inference has been that irrespective of their lack of football experience would be more than compensated by the fact that they have strong business capabilities.

The reason I raised the issue above was because amongst all the other issues which weren't of the owners making, the level of problem/issue detection and control over the last 12 months or so do not look at least from what I can see to be that great. God knows it must be a virtually impossible job to be a football club CEO, especially a non-league one but the role of a Chief Executive does come into play at times when the day-to-day management of the club breaks down. Management gurus tend to refer to the need to be "active and visible" in these circumstances. What I saw in the first months of the season was reactive and very much in the closet. Commercially I feel the way you do. Looks a shambles. Not for me to appraise those concerned but if it were their end of season report would say "could do much better".

[Steelworks End]

Maybe the season just finished will be a wake-up call for all concerned. Ady Pennock's ideas are clear to see; just six players from the current squad retained (under contract) and three offered a new deal, plus five contracted players who are open to offers - either to raise transfer money (unlikely to be much, if anything) or, more likely, don't feature in his plans.

One can only hope that he has realistic replacements lined up (accepting that not all his targets will end up signing), rather than waiting until August is upon us and seeing who is available. To do this, he needs a clear budget from Paul Casson, and of course his backing.

Off the field, and despite the valiant efforts of a number of individuals, the impression is that the club is drifting along rudderless as the tide drains Walney Channel. There are things that we do very well; thanks to Adam's commentary and Matt's camera we have one of the best highlights programmes around, and Ryan has been innovative with the printed programme covers. But other aspects of running the club do need looking into - the shop is slowly improving but stock is still limited in range. And the commercial side needs to be more dynamic in extracting money not only from supporters but from the general public. Older supporters will remember the club bingo fundraiser; my Mam bought a ticket every week, yet her only interest in the soccer was she knew where my Dad and I didappeared to on a Saturday afternoon (and why we came home grumpy!). Can we do something similar again?

With gates of 1,500 or so and below last season, we need to find out precisely why more supporters are not coming to Holker Street, be it poor facilities, poor football, or just general apathy, and do something about it. Making a greater effort to engage with the community would be a start.

[The Tomahawk Kid]

Boreham wood 3-1

You sure bud?

How many attended the final? I was told Tranmere took 20,000! Surely not?

[Steelworks End]

Attendance was 16,306, which would include supporters of both clubs and neutrals. So substantially less than 20,000 from Birkenhead.

[mall]

Last weeks Friday nights sports show at six o'clock (11-5-18) on Radio Cumbria is a very good example of how badly the club is being run. I dont know how to do it but, if you can be bothered its worth listening to @ (32 minutes in).

[The Tomahawk Kid]

Attendance was 16,306, which would include supporters of both clubs and neutrals. So substantially less than 20,000 from Birkenhead.

Thanks for clearing that up

[Pedro]

Well the thread really wasn't about the Cassons Pedro. I know your views on the subject and I actually agree with a lot of what you say.

Leaving aside the obvious comments regarding the state of the club before the current owners took over and the fact that as 100% owners whether they do a good, bad or indifferent job is pretty much irrelevant, I would put the question a bit differently. I would ask - what evidence is there that the club has been well led or managed over the last 12-18 months?

This is not a question primarily about investment - which I know you have strong views about. Its more about irrespective of the level of investment how clever the owners have been in their management of the club? In this respect the points regarding commercial development and CEO leadership are proper and valid questions. The owner has chosen to put family members into these roles - which can always be contentious and in both cases the inference has been that irrespective of their lack of football experience would be more than compensated by the fact that they have strong business capabilities.

The reason I raised the issue above was because amongst all the other issues which weren't of the owners making, the level of problem/issue detection and control over the last 12 months or so do not look at least from what I can see to be that great. God knows it must be a virtually impossible job to be a football club CEO, especially a non-league one but the role of a Chief Executive does come into play at times when the day-to-day management of the club breaks down. Management gurus tend to refer to the need to be "active and visible" in these circumstances. What I saw in the first months of the season was reactive and very much in the closet. Commercially I feel the way you do. Looks a shambles. Not for me to appraise those concerned but if it were their end of season report would say "could do much better".

Alot better the report should say,my school report always said has too much to say