Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: redarmy82 on January 07, 2020, 10:34:03 am
-
Just splashed out 500k on a midfielder.
Smaller gates than us, wonder why we can't follow suit?
-
£500k potentially rising to £1m for a Conference player. Game's gone mad.
-
As I said on anther thread, there are two sides to every transfer deal..
Had Idah not played for Norwich on the weekend he would probably be with us by now..
-
Just splashed out 500k on a midfielder.
Smaller gates than us, wonder why we can't follow suit?
Another negative opening post. No surprise.
-
£500k?
Cheap option. We've already got one worth considerably more than that.
-
Ferguson says he tried to sign him for us.
-
Just splashed out 500k on a midfielder.
Smaller gates than us, wonder why we can't follow suit?
different business model to us. They invest their 500k hoping to turn that investment into millions when they sell him on to a championship club. We prefer to spend small amounts on loan fees. This means we aren't exposed to a risk should a player turn out to be crap. But it does mean we won't reap the rewards of the investment.
-
Desperate roll of the dice by a desperate manager
Probably spending the Toney fee before he’s gone.
Would much rather have our board than the knob who runs Peterborough
-
There'd be plenty of criticism on here if we spent 500k on a non-league player. And rightly so.
-
There'd be plenty of criticism on here if we spent 500k on a non-league player. And rightly so.
“Non league player” is a broad term. What level a player plays at is irrelevant to an extent. If they are good, they are good. They obviously think they are signing a championship player.
-
Coppinger was a non league player
-
Peterborough have a brilliant record of signing non league players and making massive profits. I seem to remember when Ferguson came here most people on here were eager for us to try and do the same. So I don’t think many would’ve been criticising in fact I think most would’ve been excited
-
Desperate roll of the dice by a desperate manager
Probably spending the Toney fee before he’s gone.
Would much rather have our board than the knob who runs Peterborough
I'm with you.
It's frustrating at times but we're solvent and have a half decent squad.
The game is littered with clubs who 'gave it a go' and lived (or didn't) to regret the decision.
-
All the money Fergie's been allowed to spend and we still did the double on them! Mmmmm!
-
There'd be plenty of criticism on here if we spent 500k on a non-league player. And rightly so.
“Non league player” is a broad term. What level a player plays at is irrelevant to an extent. If they are good, they are good. They obviously think they are signing a championship player.
Sure, I get that. But people would definitely be complaining on here and Twitter if we spent that much money on someone relatively unknown who plays for Barnet. How many times have we paid 500k plus in our history on a player? It must be less than 5.
I'm just so, so tired of people finding any reason, even ones that have nothing to do with Rovers, to have a dig or moan about the club.
-
Ferguson spending on players for the next manager because patience must be running out with him (again)
-
There'd be plenty of criticism on here if we spent 500k on a non-league player. And rightly so.
“Non league player” is a broad term. What level a player plays at is irrelevant to an extent. If they are good, they are good. They obviously think they are signing a championship player.
Sure, I get that. But people would definitely be complaining on here and Twitter if we spent that much money on someone relatively unknown who plays for Barnet. How many times have we paid 500k plus in our history on a player? It must be less than 5.
I'm just so, so tired of people finding any reason, even ones that have nothing to do with Rovers, to have a dig or moan about the club.
I think the answer is only once, with Sharp?
Have in mind 350,000 for Matt Mills and then a couple of 100,000s for Heffernan, Wellens and Hayter. Not sure anything between Sharp though until you get down to these lot.
-
Wasn't wellens a free from Oldham
-
There'd be plenty of criticism on here if we spent 500k on a non-league player. And rightly so.
“Non league player” is a broad term. What level a player plays at is irrelevant to an extent. If they are good, they are good. They obviously think they are signing a championship player.
Sure, I get that. But people would definitely be complaining on here and Twitter if we spent that much money on someone relatively unknown who plays for Barnet. How many times have we paid 500k plus in our history on a player? It must be less than 5.
I'm just so, so tired of people finding any reason, even ones that have nothing to do with Rovers, to have a dig or moan about the club.
I think the answer is only once, with Sharp?
Have in mind 350,000 for Matt Mills and then a couple of 100,000s for Heffernan, Wellens and Hayter. Not sure anything between Sharp though until you get down to these lot.
Didn’t we pay over a hundred grand for Whiteman.
-
Paid money for James in the close season too I believe.
-
They have put a 13m price tag on tony and they will prob get it , u can’t knock there business model them make loads from transfers
-
They have put a 13m price tag on tony and they will prob get it , u can’t knock there business model them make loads from transfers
cost them 650k
-
13 million haha won't get that maybe 3 million at most
-
So do they feel able to spend so much because they believe that they we get more back further down the line?
-
We should be more concerned about our own recruitment at least Peterborough are looking in the National league, where are we looking the Sunday league? :chair:
-
I assume their model is they invest in young talented players, with a good sense of knowledge that they will earn money on them.
Similar to what we did with sharp,
We also spent money outside of the budget for whiteman because we had good knowledge that we would eventually make money.
-
How do they pass FFP on 5k average gates 🤔. MacAnthony when asked last week about a signing said no as they'd struggle to pass it. Maddison maybe going out?
-
Not done them much good mind. They have never done more than a single season in the Championship and aside from when Ferguson got us relegated to League Two, they have barely ever been in a higher league than us in recent memory. They might have made money but they are cack.
-
I assume their model is they invest in young talented players, with a good sense of knowledge that they will earn money on them.
Similar to what we did with sharp,
We also spent money outside of the budget for whiteman because we had good knowledge that we would eventually make money.
a bit late in life to assume mate, they've been doing this for years it is an" industry", where have you been all these years ...... :facepalm:
the figures here might be wonky but the names aren't
and this is only the first page of names ....... that Barry Fry is the cause of it all
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/peterborough-united/transferrekorde/verein/1072/plus/0/galerie/0?saison_id=&pos=&detailpos=&altersklasse=&w_s=
page 2 of " who's who" here
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/peterborough-united/transferrekorde/verein/1072/plus/0/galerie/0?saison_id=&pos=&detailpos=&altersklasse=&w_s=
all those names including tommy rowe make me dizzy.
-
Not done them much good mind. They have never done more than a single season in the Championship and aside from when Ferguson got us relegated to League Two, they have barely ever been in a higher league than us in recent memory. They might have made money but they are cack.
This is a good point. For all their business model is being talked up and their great signings vaunted a lot, they have finished outside the Play Offs in League One five years in a row. We beat them to it last year having signed only a couple of free transfers and two teenage loanees before the season started.
-
Not done them much good mind. They have never done more than a single season in the Championship and aside from when Ferguson got us relegated to League Two, they have barely ever been in a higher league than us in recent memory. They might have made money but they are cack.
This is a good point. For all their business model is being talked up and their great signings vaunted a lot, they have finished outside the Play Offs in League One five years in a row. We beat them to it last year having signed only a couple of free transfers and two teenage loanees before the season started.
Give DF 5 million to spend in this window and he still will not get them promoted.
-
You do realise he’s got them promoted twice before out of this league 🤷🏼♂️
-
He got us out of this league too
-
You do realise he’s got them promoted twice before out of this league ♂️
And took them back down again.
And yes he took us out of this league as well as roversdude said.
Let’s see where his Posh team end up this season.
More chance of another P45 for DF than promotion imo.
Just really pleased we have a proper manager now & not that incompetent, tactically inept, self centred one we did have.
Just my opinion OK.
-
You do realise he’s got them promoted twice before out of this league 🤷🏼♂️
They might go up this season, although their recent form is poor and they have played more games than most. What is true is that he hasn’t had a promotion to the Championship since 2010-11 season. Football moves on quickly and plenty will think he and his tactical thinking has aged a lot in that time.
-
All that investment.
All those players.
And they are currently 10th in the points per game table...
-
He took us out of this league, in both directions.
I really don't like him, but I would take him as a scout. He knows how to get good players, not sure he can get them to perform close to their potential, consistently, though.
-
Barry Fry does the recruiting at posh, doesn’t he.
-
Barry Fry does the recruiting at posh, doesn’t he.
All clubs have scouts, but managers always will get the final say.
-
You do realise he’s got them promoted twice before out of this league ♂️
And took them back down again.
And yes he took us out of this league as well as roversdude said.
Let’s see where his Posh team end up this season.
More chance of another P45 for DF than promotion imo.
Just really pleased we have a proper manager now & not that incompetent, tactically inept, self centred one we did have.
Just my opinion OK.
We weren’t talking about their performance in the championship though.
-
Ferguson generally brought in good signings, that is one thing we cannot criticise him for, he was well backed too by the board despite him wanting more which he gets at peterbrough.
It is a great point made further up the thread, all that money spent on their squad and they are no better than us.
Granted, if we had their forwards I think we would be top of the league.
-
Even more so when you think the majority of the squad was signed by Steve Evans who also had a good amount of money to spend
-
I hadn't realised, but Peterborough were on fire earlier in the season. When we beat them at home, it was their only defeat in an 11 match run. Apart from losing to us, their run was.
P10 W8 D2 L0 F32 A8
Since that run, they've been shite.
P10 W2 D3 L5 F 10 A18.
Another month of that form and they are out of the running.
-
The only thing for me I find interesting with Peterborough is the comparison of contrasting methods and personalities. There's no particular right or wrong but different ways of trying to achieve the same things.
Whatever we think of Ferguson tactically or as a man manager, it's fair to say he has a different approach to recruitment along with Fry. I've no doubt he has good connections at all different levels that help him spot a player and they like to trade their way to success taking bigger risks. We by contrast have a more modest and prudent approach although I'd like to think McCann and now Moore seem to be better at getting the best out of players for longer, perhaps being a little more patient including tactically during matches.
-
Been looking a bit more at Peterborough's record. It's dreadful against better sides.
Matches against top 12 teams:
P12 W1 D5 L6 Pts 8, PPG 0.67
Compare that to our record:
P13 W6 D2 L5 Pts 20 PPG 1.54
Peterborough have another 10 games to play against top half sides. If they match that record, they are out of the running for the play-offs.
-
Our form is the complete opposite, good against the top sides and struggled against the bottom sides
-
Our form is the complete opposite, good against the top sides and struggled against the bottom sides
Not quite correct. Or, at least, it's a bit more complicated than that.
Our form against sides from 13th and lower is:
P9 W3 D5 L1 Pts 14 PPG 1.56
So in fact our form against the bottom half sides is marginally better than it is against top half sides. Of course, for most teams, by definition, you expect to pick up significantly more points against bottom half than top half sides, so in that sense, you're right that we have done RELATIVELY not so well against bottom half sides. That actually augurs very well for us if we do make the play-offs. We'll have made the play-offs by being strong against good sides. Unlike Peterborough for example, who are the very dictionary definition of flat track bullies.
PPG against top half sides: 0.67
PPG against bottom half sides: 2.33
-
Our form is the complete opposite, good against the top sides and struggled against the bottom sides
Not quite correct. Or, at least, it's a bit more complicated than that.
Our form against sides from 13th and lower is:
P9 W3 D5 L1 Pts 14 PPG 1.56
So in fact our form against the bottom half sides is marginally better than it is against top half sides. Of course, for most teams, by definition, you expect to pick up significantly more points against bottom half than top half sides, so in that sense, you're right that we have done RELATIVELY not so well against bottom half sides. That actually augurs very well for us if we do make the play-offs. We'll have made the play-offs by being strong against good sides. Unlike Peterborough for example, who are the very dictionary definition of flat track bullies.
PPG against top half sides: 0.67
PPG against bottom half sides: 2.33
Whilst I agree the trend is there, the false positioning in the table doesn't help. Until we caught up a game last night we were behind others on games thus much further down then we perhaps may have been.
BUT, i agree we have performed less well against lower sides, the reason being I think that we struggle when given less time to play and against defensive sides. Solve that and we're a very good side.
-
I thought Shrewsbury's tactics were iditiotic last night. I'd take us against any side in the division who come to try to play football against us without pressing us hard, high up the pitch.
-
Our results against the lower teams imo comes from not having a striker like Marquis this season who will get the goals. Against those teams he used to fill his boots and struggle against the better teams. We are easily capable of out footballing and edging better teams but when you need to blow away a stubborn defensive/set piece side we haven't got the tools right now
-
Are we judging performances against higher and lower teams based on where they are in the table now, or at the time when the match was played.?
Take Portsmouth for example, when we played them at home they were well below us but now they are not.. Does that mean we lost that match to a higher or lower team.?
I’m firmly in the camp which has the next game always as the most important and potentially the hardest, regardless of the opposition..
-
Are we judging performances against higher and lower teams based on where they are in the table now, or at the time when the match was played.?
Take Portsmouth for example, when we played them at home they were well below us but now they are not.. Does that mean we lost that match to a higher or lower team.?
I’m firmly in the camp which has the next game always as the most important and potentially the hardest, regardless of the opposition..
I was thinking the same about Lincoln IDM.
They were in the top half when we played them and are in the bottom half now.
-
Just splashed out 500k on a midfielder.
Smaller gates than us, wonder why we can't follow suit?
Not a negative post. Just a reasonable question on an open forum. Not everything is negative just because someone doesn't like it.
Another negative opening post. No surprise.
-
Our form is the complete opposite, good against the top sides and struggled against the bottom sides
Not quite correct. Or, at least, it's a bit more complicated than that.
Our form against sides from 13th and lower is:
P9 W3 D5 L1 Pts 14 PPG 1.56
So in fact our form against the bottom half sides is marginally better than it is against top half sides. Of course, for most teams, by definition, you expect to pick up significantly more points against bottom half than top half sides, so in that sense, you're right that we have done RELATIVELY not so well against bottom half sides. That actually augurs very well for us if we do make the play-offs. We'll have made the play-offs by being strong against good sides. Unlike Peterborough for example, who are the very dictionary definition of flat track bullies.
PPG against top half sides: 0.67
PPG against bottom half sides: 2.33
Bit you have to compare the league placings of when we played them, not what they are now.
Portsmouth were near the bottom when we lost to them and Lincoln were near the top for example
-
Apologies, just seen IDM has made the same point
-
It just confuses things too - more so when you consider that regardless of league positions we played Pompey off the park yet still lost.!
-
All that investment.
All those players.
And they are currently 10th in the points per game table...
12th now.