Transfer rumours, targets & new signings

[dantheman]

3 hours ago, Joe B said:

Absolutely fundamental we give this whole project time. 

Top 7 is definitely the aim, but Blackpool could have panicked and sacked Critchley after a dreadful start. They have principles about how they wanted to play and develop footballers, which led to them sticking with him as they had a philosophy to adhere to, and it has resulted in promotion.

For the first time ever it feels we have a bit of direction, a bit of a plan. If it doesn't work perfectly early doors then it cannot be panic time. 

Cracking post and fully agree.  But I also think at the same time given the money that has been spent there needs to be positive signs on the pitch to give people hope. Last season was a an absolute car crash for everyone involved. Hopefully lessons have been learned and the good times are on there way back. But ultimately we are there to watch( hopefully!! 🙏🙏) the product on the pitch.
 

I feel we are in a far better position than we were but ultimately know one really knows until a competitive ball is kicked. Carol and Kevin deserve some luck. They haven’t had any since taking over but have faced everything head on and are such a credit to port vale. We are very lucky to have them as owners. 
 

[Iron Curtain]

16 minutes ago, Chopper Harris said:

Agree that Clarke should be given time but weren’t you pressing the panic button after Askey went on a bad run.  if we go on a bad run in the next couple of seasons similar to Askey why are you now advocating that Clarke should be treated differently? 
 

I am all for a long term project and sticking with a manager because chopping and changing managers simply hasn’t worked for us, for god knows how long. Hopefully Clarke will be a roaring success and the players he has signed will be an improvement. 

I think the proper foundation of the football department and total energy and analytics going into recruitment means they should be given some time if that does happen.

Askey rightly was rightly targeted because buying a bunch of players who helped you win none league at your sixth time of asking didn’t bode well and full the fans with confidence for a turnaround story

[Joe B]

23 minutes ago, Chopper Harris said:

Agree that Clarke should be given time but weren’t you pressing the panic button after Askey went on a bad run.  if we go on a bad run in the next couple of seasons similar to Askey why are you now advocating that Clarke should be treated differently? 
 

I am all for a long term project and sticking with a manager because chopping and changing managers simply hasn’t worked for us, for god knows how long. Hopefully Clarke will be a roaring success and the players he has signed will be an improvement. 

Because Askey had an old ageing squad, a poor transfer record, and one tactical system which he had no idea how to deviate from. He was found out tactically, the squad needed a rebuild, and Askey's transfer record was so poor that I didn't trust him to oversee said rebuild. The squad had failed to improve in 18 months under him and was getting older, more unbalanced, and stale. Furthermore, Askey had no track record of success at this level. As a result, I advocated we moved on from him to install a new manager who could evaluate the squad, identify targets, and oversee the necessary rebuild with a full pre-season to implement a style of play. It wasn't 'panic stations', as it was often characterised. I think people sick of Askey gave it as much thought as you did, and just reached a different conclusion.

I wrote this at the time which goes into more detail: https://pvlollipop.sport.blog/long-reads/

Clarke has a good record, has overseen a rebuild alongside a complete football operations restructuring, and hasn't had 18 months to improve the squad yet. Clarke also has a proven record of rebuilding teams, as he did at Rovers.

It's not the same situation. Carol has invested in a new approach for Port Vale and a dodgy run of results cannot be the trigger to curtail that. Askey built a 'win-now' squad which failed to win-now, and didn't display any evidence that he could fix it.

I also wrote another article below the one linked above entitled 'A Recruitment Manifesto' which called for the exact restructuring of recruitment which we have since undergone, including explicit calls for a DoF and utilising data (exactly what we've done).

Unfortunately you went for a oversimplified 'Gotcha!' over two incomparable situations. 

[Chopper Harris]

27 minutes ago, Joe B said:

Because Askey had an old ageing squad, a poor transfer record, and one tactical system which he had no idea how to deviate from. He was found out tactically, the squad needed a rebuild, and Askey's transfer record was so poor that I didn't trust him to oversee said rebuild. The squad had failed to improve in 18 months under him and was getting older, more unbalanced, and stale. Furthermore, Askey had no track record of success at this level. As a result, I advocated we moved on from him to install a new manager who could evaluate the squad, identify targets, and oversee the necessary rebuild with a full pre-season to implement a style of play. It wasn't 'panic stations', as it was often characterised. I think people sick of Askey gave it as much thought as you did, and just reached a different conclusion.

I wrote this at the time which goes into more detail: https://pvlollipop.sport.blog/long-reads/

Clarke has a good record, has overseen a rebuild alongside a complete football operations restructuring, and hasn't had 18 months to improve the squad yet. Clarke also has a proven record of rebuilding teams, as he did at Rovers.

It's not the same situation. Carol has invested in a new approach for Port Vale and a dodgy run of results cannot be the trigger to curtail that. Askey built a 'win-now' squad which failed to win-now, and didn't display any evidence that he could fix it.

I also wrote another article below the one linked above entitled 'A Recruitment Manifesto' which called for the exact restructuring of recruitment which we have since undergone, including explicit calls for a DoF and utilising data (exactly what we've done).

Unfortunately you went for a oversimplified 'Gotcha!' over two incomparable situations. 

You know what i think some of your posts are really good but if you actually stopped being condescending  to other posters you would have far greater credibility. 

If hypothetically speaking Clarke and Flitcroft after a few seasons have a similar record to Askey and go on a bad run will you be panicking again like you did last season or will you all in for a long term project? 
 

i m not arguing for or against Askey to be manager. Clarke and Flitcroft are at the helm now. I m just bemused how Flitcroft and Clarke have almost got free reign for you whether they do well or badly according to your last posts. If results are similar or the same as to how Askey or any of our previous managers have done why are you saying you aren’t going to question it and let it go? 
 

I hope Flitcroft and Clarke do succeed like any manager. Any management team though however they are structured should be treated equally , fairly and should both be scrutinised the same? 
 

it’s not a simplified gotcha, I m just pointing out you can’t have it both ways. 

[Chopper Harris]

26 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

I think the proper foundation of the football department and total energy and analytics going into recruitment means they should be given some time if that does happen.

Askey rightly was rightly targeted because buying a bunch of players who helped you win none league at your sixth time of asking didn’t bode well and full the fans with confidence for a turnaround story

What if Clarke and Flitcroft have a similar record to Askey or any of our previous managers? Why should they be treated differently? Just because you like the signings they have made more? It should go on results surely? 

[tisdeano]

I’m liking we have a transfer plan now

We certainly didn’t under Askey

[Iron Curtain]

55 minutes ago, Chopper Harris said:

What if Clarke and Flitcroft have a similar record to Askey or any of our previous managers? Why should they be treated differently? Just because you like the signings they have made more? It should go on results surely? 

Answered in original post 

[Chopper Harris]

8 minutes ago, tisdeano said:

I’m liking we have a transfer plan now

We certainly didn’t under Askey

Yeh I get that. The signings Clarke and Flitcroft are extremely promising and I am looking forward to seeing them play. But I m not debating whether Clarke and Flitcroft are signing better players than Askey and whether I think they will be more successful. I wish them every success and want us to get promoted as much as anybody. Albeit people seem to only remember the bad run for Askey and forget how we nearly made the playoffs the season before and the same players went on an unbeaten run under Clarke. 
 

I am pointing out that no matter what the structure of the management is or what the process is of how we sign players surely Clarke and Flitcroft should be measured on results just like Askey. We can’t have one rule for one and another rule for a different management regime because they are  new and talk the talk. 
 

I am not saying we don’t need a new long term plan/project either. It’s what this club has been crying out for a long time. I do hope that Clarke and Flitcroft are given time and supporters don’t press the panic button as soon as we go on a bad run because we will. That’s inevitable in football. 
 

 

[Tony Rodriguez]

My understanding of this model of management is that the structure and playing style throughout the club remains constant although the personnel can change within it.

If it does not work with DC then he can be replaced but the new person will have to buy in to our way of playing. That then gives a level of consistency rather than disruption every time a new manager is appointed, bringing in new players to suit his preferred system.

The DoF seems to have far greater longevity and maybe the easier ride.

 

 

[philmpv]

My understanding of this model of management is that the structure and playing style throughout the club remains constant although the personnel can change within it.
If it does not work with DC then he can be replaced but the new person will have to buy in to our way of playing. That then gives a level of consistency rather than disruption every time a new manager is appointed, bringing in new players to suit his preferred system.
The DoF seems to have far greater longevity and maybe the easier ride.
 
 

Isn't DF only on a 1 year contract until February? Doesn't suggest longevity to me

[Iron Curtain]

19 minutes ago, philmpv said:

29 minutes ago, Tony Rodriguez said:

My understanding of this model of management is that the structure and playing style throughout the club remains constant although the personnel can change within it.
If it does not work with DC then he can be replaced but the new person will have to buy in to our way of playing. That then gives a level of consistency rather than disruption every time a new manager is appointed, bringing in new players to suit his preferred system.
The DoF seems to have far greater longevity and maybe the easier ride.
 
 

Isn't DF only on a 1 year contract until February? Doesn't suggest longevity to me

The concept stands.

It’s a big change to implement some significant but much needed change at the club.

This will be a 1 year test as much for flickers as it is for Carol. My guess was it was him who asked for the review point at 1 year. He can only be impressed at how much he has been backed.

DoF is a long term role. And if things are going well it will get locked in.

[werstayinup]

So any rumours out there peeps on who might be signing this coming week as the sentinel i think it was seems to think we are close to our next signing,surely it can only be a wide player,striker or RB but i have no idea who is still out there now

[Sam Kelly's Left Boot]

Win the league 18/1, lump on.

[Santa]

18 hours ago, philmpv said:

18 hours ago, Tony Rodriguez said:

My understanding of this model of management is that the structure and playing style throughout the club remains constant although the personnel can change within it.
If it does not work with DC then he can be replaced but the new person will have to buy in to our way of playing. That then gives a level of consistency rather than disruption every time a new manager is appointed, bringing in new players to suit his preferred system.
The DoF seems to have far greater longevity and maybe the easier ride.
 
 

Isn't DF only on a 1 year contract until February? Doesn't suggest longevity to me

I wonder if DF is in more of a change management role, for now at least.  He suggested at the time that the football side of things needed restructuring. 

[dishydave]

I don't think Flickers will be going anywhere unless we sack him. The job is ideal for him as it is only part time and it allows him to concentrate on the family business that he also runs.
Back to transfer rumours how about luke hendrie RB who turned down a contract at grimsby possibly a good back up to Gibbons and definitely an improvement on Mills