McKirdy & Robinson...Goodbye ?

[blackdog]

Port Vale boss answers questions on Robinson and McKirdy as they are left out - Stoke-on-Trent Live (stokesentinel.co.uk)

Maybe this answers some of the questions being posed.

[boslemportvale91]

Regarding Mckirdy. There's definitely a player in there, either his attitude or fitness is the issue.  We knew he had baggage but has he played much league wise ? I do wonder if we had a Micky Adams type manager he would get the best out of him. Still he scored a great goal against the liverpool kids I suppose.

As for Theo I'll happily pay for his train ticket. I'm sure he's a nice bloke but he's absolutely awful on the pitch.

[valefan16]

Expected. Not sure what’s gone on, McKirdy has barely featured. Theo has scored a few considering his low minutes this season but has not worked out. Hopefully get them out quickly and get replacements in. Hurst coming good maybe means we can replace McKirdy with a defender to improve that.

Going to end up with Maynard aren’t we.

[blackdog]

1 minute ago, boslemportvale91 said:

Regarding Mckirdy. There's definitely a player in there, either his attitude or fitness is the issue.  We knew he had baggage but has he played much league wise ? I do wonder if we had a Micky Adams type manager he would get the best out of him. Still he scored a great against the liverpool kids I suppose.

As for Theo I'll happily pay for his train ticket. I'm sure he's a nice bloke but he's absolutely awful on the pitch.

Adams would have kicked his backside all the way back to Trentham.

[Santa]

I was reminded that it was only because Rhys Browne decided to terminate his contract that we were able to pursue McKirdy. It does make you wonder what would have happened if he decided to stay.

As for Theo, I could never really get on board with his signing. I think I called it underwhelming at the time.

It's also worth pointing out that these two players didn't sign themselves - what went wrong?

[PV1973]

Of course he wants them out and nowhere near the team, it’s plain as day. The fact he put 3 kids on the bench in front of them who he probably wouldn’t have liked to have to put on the pitch says it all. 

[JRC]

Just now, Santa said:

I was reminded that it was only because Rhys Browne decided to terminate his contract that we were able to pursue McKirdy. It does make you wonder what would have happened if he decided to stay. 

We wouldn't have touched McKirdy! Hindsight we should have stuck with Dan Trickett-Smith and looked to bring in someone else in January. 

I personally would have got Ironside as the 4th striker (7 goals this season) instead of holding out for Maynard. Robinson was a last minute alternative when there was little left to choose from.

[Santa]

1 minute ago, JRC said:

I personally would have got Ironside as the 4th striker (7 goals this season) instead of holding out for Maynard. Robinson was a last minute alternative when there was little left to choose from.

Fair enough. If we are going to persist with signing ex-Macc players then we could at least sign the half decent ones.

[toyahw]

Questions are, why were they here in the first place. And is the best way to deal with it? Not a good starting point for negotiation with potential buyers. They could have just "tweaked an ankle" and be out for a couple of weeks. Very odd situation.

[Smallthorne Dog]

The whole Askey Out, Askey In situation boils down to this issue if you ask me.
Askey is a manager jnown for building squads that are greater than the sum of their parts. Its all about the right attitude, a good work ethic, versatility and a willingness to sacrifice personal glory for the benefit of the team.
So players like McKirdy and Robinson are the polar opposite of everything Askey stands for and expects in his players.
They were both late additions to the squad after it appeared our summer business was complete. Sowho was responsible for bringing them in?
Askey? If so, then its a complete screw up and its his own fault, and he has to go.
The owners or Frank Sinclair? Maybe this has been an internal battle from the beginning and Askey never wanted either of them (their disruptive attitude has been at the heart of our terrible form) and he has finally won that battle and it has been agreed he can ship them out?
If that is the case, its extremely worrying, in that a) their is an influence greater than the manager who has the final say on transfers, and b) The manager has seemingly allowed player he doesnt want or need to be signed by the club to the detriment of what he js trying to do, and what plainly worked last season.
I'd be inclined to think that Askey didnt want either player in the first instance. I'm not convinced he ever wanted Mitch Clarke back at the club, and it is relatively common knowledge that if he'd have had his way, Popey would have gone i the summer.
If that is the case, he has to be allowed to get rid of the players he wants to get rid of and sign the ones he wants to sign.
Despite all the bad results, something is telling me this isnt all Askey's doing.

[JRC]

5 minutes ago, toyahw said:

Questions are, why were they here in the first place. And is the best way to deal with it? Not a good starting point for negotiation with potential buyers. They could have just "tweaked an ankle" and be out for a couple of weeks. Very odd situation.

Nobody will buy either, they will be free transfers. 

[Joe B]

Both bad transfers. File them under the 'Not Good' category. We go again.

[Joe B]

5 minutes ago, Smallthorne Dog said:

The whole Askey Out, Askey In situation boils down to this issue if you ask me.
Askey is a manager jnown for building squads that are greater than the sum of their parts. Its all about the right attitude, a good work ethic, versatility and a willingness to sacrifice personal glory for the benefit of the team.
So players like McKirdy and Robinson are the polar opposite of everything Askey stands for and expects in his players.
They were both late additions to the squad after it appeared our summer business was complete. Sowho was responsible for bringing them in?
Askey? If so, then its a complete screw up and its his own fault, and he has to go.
The owners or Frank Sinclair? Maybe this has been an internal battle from the beginning and Askey never wanted either of them (their disruptive attitude has been at the heart of our terrible form) and he has finally won that battle and it has been agreed he can ship them out?
If that is the case, its extremely worrying, in that a) their is an influence greater than the manager who has the final say on transfers, and b) The manager has seemingly allowed player he doesnt want or need to be signed by the club to the detriment of what he js trying to do, and what plainly worked last season.
I'd be inclined to think that Askey didnt want either player in the first instance. I'm not convinced he ever wanted Mitch Clarke back at the club, and it is relatively common knowledge that if he'd have had his way, Popey would have gone i the summer.
If that is the case, he has to be allowed to get rid of the players he wants to get rid of and sign the ones he wants to sign.
Despite all the bad results, something is telling me this isnt all Askey's doing.

Again, it seems like we're doing mental gymnastics to excuse poor recruitment.

I personally don't believe that Carol Shanahan or Head of Coaching Development have a bigger say in signings than the manager. 

Is it not more reasonable to assume it's just a misstep in recruitment, ala Whitehead, Mills, Lloyd, Evans, Archer, and Kennedy?

We all seemingly want to believe that Port Vale is some sort of soap opera, instead of coming to terms with the idea that maybe our current manager doesn't have the best record when signing players.

[toyahw]

11 minutes ago, Joe B said:

Both bad transfers. File them under the 'Not Good' category. We go again.

We've hardly seen any of either on the pitch. We've seen more of Mills and Whitehead.  Who are totaly poor. Clearly it is a personality issue, but it is Askey's job to get a tune out of the players he has supposedly signed, no? This is what worries me.

When he rocked up he got more out of the existing players. Recently it seems it is going the other way. If he can't get a trick out of "his" signings that is very worrying.

Plus neither have any reason to leave. They can just sit on their contracts and basically just be a drain on club resources. Very poor club management for me.

[Smallthorne Dog]

Again, it seems like we're doing mental gymnastics to excuse poor recruitment.
I personally don't believe that Carol Shanahan or Head of Coaching Development have a bigger say in signings than the manager. 
Is it not more reasonable to assume it's just a misstep in recruitment, ala Whitehead, Mills, Lloyd, Evans, Archer, and Kennedy?
We all seemingly want to believe that Port Vale is some sort of soap opera, instead of coming to terms with the idea that maybe our current manager doesn't have the best record when signing players.

He might have a poor record at Vale when it comes to recruiting quality. But his whole managerial career has been built on signing players with the right attitude.
When he cam into the club he wanted rid of Miller and Whitfield straight away because they didnt posess the right professional approach. Its well documented that he wanted rid of Pope when he failed to heed his warnings over his social media conduct.
Yet Pope didnt go and he signs McKirdy, a player whise disruptive attitude is well known.
So either we believe that Askey has suddenly changed beliefs that he has held for his entire career and has led to his relative success in management so far? Or you have to conclude that there is an other influence involved in the signing of players?