ealingfox Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Entirely the right move if Robinson was responsible for coaching our defence, our strikers and our set pieces.
Neil_LCFC Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Entirely the right move if Robinson was responsible for coaching our defence, our strikers and our set pieces. Exactly right .
Harry - LCFC Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 There must be more to it than that. It can't have been Robinson that set a 30k per week wage cap surely? If we even have one of course.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Entirely the right move if Robinson was responsible for coaching our defence, our strikers and our set pieces. Spot on.. If we even have one of course.What, so thats all crap too?Bloody Hell! Note to self...stop reading this forum as though anyone knows any facts whatsoever!
fleckneymike Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Perhaps we're missing a more obvious reason. Robinson was brought in to ensure that we complied with FFP, Robinson claimed we had, perhaps the accounts will show that we hadn't and that the reported huge fine is on its way.
Guest ttfn Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 And pay what for whom? I think we should get Lee Cattermole in on loan. Come on Col, you've been on here and a City fan long enough to know that we could each list 10 players and speculative prices but we really don't have any idea and those sorts of threads are always a bit embarrassing. That said, I think we need a new left back, a new versatile forward/wide player and a new centre back. And maybe a new goalkeeper. From a price perspective all I'd ask is that the players we bring in have a reasonable prospect of retaining their value. For all of the criticism of our summer dealings those players we did bring in will have retained their value, with the possible exception of Ulloa who I think we could sell for a decent price if we go down and he scores another 3 or 4. In the unlikely event that there is real quality available and interested in coming, then we should pay whatever is necessary to get the deal done (notwithstanding the parameters regarding retained value).
Stadt Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 When you go to the supermarket you are given a shopping list and some money to buy the items on that list, that list will contain items which you absolutely need and some items which are not essential. If, for arguments sake, you're making bolognese sauce, you absolutely need tomatoes, ground beef, onions, and a few herbs. You can garnish it with parmesan, have a side salad, garlic bread etc but non of those are essential to the making of the bolognese. If you return from the shops with beef, onions, parmesan and a side salad you can't have bolognese, indeed you can barely have a meal at all. I would assume that from our shopping list of essentials we missed out on what we needed and got some of the non essentials instead.We wanted tesco's finest beef and ended up with Quorn veggie beef
nettle Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 I can remember a interview with Steve Walsh and he said he and Nigel were pretty happy with who we had got and we wouldn't be bringing many in. So why is Terry Robinson being blamed?
Harry - LCFC Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 What, so thats all crap too? Bloody Hell! It was only a rumour. I don't know whether we have one or not so I can't say either way. I just don't think we can say concretely that we are operating with a cap of some sort.
Guest ttfn Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Perhaps we're missing a more obvious reason. Robinson was brought in to ensure that we complied with FFP, Robinson claimed we had, perhaps the accounts will show that we hadn't and that the reported huge fine is on its way. Or we did and his work is done. Personally I think the scenario you've suggested is fanciful. They would have known in about February whether they were going to be compliant with FFP for the 2013/14 season - they wouldn't have waited until now to sack him with the prospect of getting somebody new (and better qualified) in to handle Premier League transfer activity.
The Blue Moon Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Someone has to take the blame for the poor recruitment this summer. If this was the Apprentice, Sugar would say the failure of the task (getting relegated) was down to lack of quality additions in the summer and sack whoever was most responsible for that. If that was Robinson then I'm happy enough (but raise question marks over why our owners gave him so much power over Pearson) but for all we know it might be that Robinson is Pearson's scapegoat. I don't think anyone on here will know all the facts, so it's all speculation until Pearson brings out his autobiography in 15 years.
Mark_w Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Maybe it would be an idea to wait until we know why he's gone before we start pointing fingers at this person or that person for random problems?
RowlattsFox Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Get Sven in. As director of football? That'd be fun.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 I think we should get Lee Cattermole in on loan. Come on Col, you've been on here and a City fan long enough to know that we could each list 10 players and speculative prices but we really don't have any idea and those sorts of threads are always a bit embarrassing. That said, I think we need a new left back, a new versatile forward/wide player and a new centre back. And maybe a new goalkeeper. From a price perspective all I'd ask is that the players we bring in have a reasonable prospect of retaining their value. For all of the criticism of our summer dealings those players we did bring in will have retained their value, with the possible exception of Ulloa who I think we could sell for a decent price if we go down and he scores another 3 or 4. In the unlikely event that there is real quality available and interested in coming, then we should pay whatever is necessary to get the deal done (notwithstanding the parameters regarding retained value). You and I both know that that isn't my point. What is my point is that people have been saying it was great that we didn't spend a lot on players. They argued we either didn't need to, nor was it wise to do so. Remember all the posts on how QPR were mad because they were 'spending again'? Now, it seems, a uturn has happened. It's great that Robinson has gone because now we can spend, spend spend. You also know that to get in the quality we now clearly need, will not come cheap. It didn't in the summer. It certainly won't now!
The Blue Moon Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Agree with ttfn and Mark W. Easy for the pro Pearson camp to slag off Robinson and anti Pearson the opposite. But only a handful of people will actually be ITK about it.
ARTY_FOX Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 I can remember a interview with Steve Walsh and he said he and Nigel were pretty happy with who we had got and we wouldn't be bringing many in. So why is Terry Robinson being blamed? If Robinson is at fault for what's being speculated what's he supposed to say the dof is a nob and won't sign the players I scout?
lgfualol Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 I can remember a interview with Steve Walsh and he said he and Nigel were pretty happy with who we had got and we wouldn't be bringing many in. So why is Terry Robinson being blamed? Cus saying the opposite will probably annoy the team
Raj Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 We should get craigadams22 as his replacement!think you'll find its probably now craigadams27!!!!!
nettle Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 If Robinson is at fault for what's being speculated what's he supposed to say the dof is a nob and won't sign the players I scout? Maybe Robinson got all the players Nigel wanted.
ARTY_FOX Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Maybe Robinson got all the players Nigel wanted. But we already know we missed out on targets? What we don't know is if it was his fault though
The Doctor Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 We should get craigadams22 as his replacement! Now he could out-wheeler-dealer the bastard son of Harry Redknapp and Delboy. Adams in!
nettle Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 But we already know we missed out on targets? What we don't know is if it was his fault thoughWho did we miss out on then?
fleckneymike Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Or we did and his work is done. Personally I think the scenario you've suggested is fanciful. They would have known in about February whether they were going to be compliant with FFP for the 2013/14 season - they wouldn't have waited until now to sack him with the prospect of getting somebody new (and better qualified) in to handle Premier League transfer activity. The tax year end accounts aren't finalised till now http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
Freeman's Wharfer Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Perhaps he's gone now and not at the end of last summer because he's already failing to land identified targets for 1st of January This is the main concern for me. Has he gone based on what he did in the summer or because he was already failing (again) to get things sorted for this January? That he's gone just before January indicates to me that it's the latter.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.