Fleetwood- Wednsdeh

[roversdude]

Can’t see what Bogle did wrong other than not make the moves (football and transfer wise) that our then manager wanted. The youth team all say Bogle was brilliant with them and to be fair he turned up to support them, then GMc welcomed him back to the first team.
At the time I was slightly miffed with OB for not moving but we don’t even know for definite anything was on offer. RW said about cutting his nose off to spite his face - certainly true and one of the factors that have cost us this season

[Bentley Bullet]

When Wellens said he was cutting his nose off to spite his face I understood it to mean he meant he was planning for the longer-term rather than short term instant success. After all, that was his directive when given the job. Whether that meant playing young players with promising futures instead of older players with dodgy pasts I'm not sure, but it is a theory.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So, because no evidence has been revealed that he broke club rules, he didn't break any? Maybe Wellens' claims of Bogle not obeying instructions were classed as not carrying out orders? And, if Wellens' decision to remove Bogle from the training ground was unfair, why didn't the owners step in?

McSheffrey, as the new manager, could wipe the slate clean without losing face, as Wellens surely would have had he relented and brought him back, even if he'd wanted to.

Notice McSheffrey didn't take Bogle off the transfer list!

BB.


"So, because no evidence has been revealed that he broke club rules, he didn't break any?" No. I didn't say anything of the sort. I can't have any certainty what happened. I'm looking at circumstantial evidence and seeing what looks the most likely story on balance.

You are deciding what you'd like the story to be and suggesting that there might be facts that we don't know about that would support that story.

"Maybe Wellens' claims of Bogle not obeying instructions were classed as not carrying out orders?" Maybe. You're guessing. But if that's the case, why didn't he relgate half the first team squad to the reserves. Because they clearly weren't playing to orders throughout August-November. At least I hope to God they weren't.

"And, if Wellens' decision to remove Bogle from the training ground was unfair, why didn't the owners step in? " They sacked him within 6 months of him being recruited. Absolutely unprecedented from this senior management team.

"McSheffrey, as the new manager, could wipe the slate clean without losing face, as Wellens surely would have had he relented and brought him back, even if he'd wanted to." So, clearly whatever hypothetical disciplinary offence Bogle might hypothetically have committed, it was sufficiently low grade to warrant him immediate reinstatement. Wellens couldn't do that because he would have lost face. But the alternative was 4 months of playing Young Frankenstein up front. Which did far more than lose face. The very best case you can put on this argument is that Wellens was honestly trying to make a point for the good of the club and f**ked up.

"Notice McSheffrey didn't take Bogle off the transfer list! "
Agreed. And that has precisely WHAT to do with what we are talking about?

[BillyStubbsTears]

When Wellens said he was cutting his nose off to spite his face I understood it to mean he meant he was planning for the longer-term rather than short term instant success. After all, that was his directive when given the job. Whether that meant playing young players with promising futures instead of older players with dodgy pasts I'm not sure, but it is a theory.

Which part of selecting players we didn't own, who were four levels below the quality required, resulting in us gaining 13 points from the first 20 games was "planning for the long term"?

[Bentley Bullet]

So, because no evidence has been revealed that he broke club rules, he didn't break any? Maybe Wellens' claims of Bogle not obeying instructions were classed as not carrying out orders? And, if Wellens' decision to remove Bogle from the training ground was unfair, why didn't the owners step in?

McSheffrey, as the new manager, could wipe the slate clean without losing face, as Wellens surely would have had he relented and brought him back, even if he'd wanted to.

Notice McSheffrey didn't take Bogle off the transfer list!

BB.


"So, because no evidence has been revealed that he broke club rules, he didn't break any?" No. I didn't say anything of the sort. I can't have any certainty what happened. I'm looking at circumstantial evidence and seeing what looks the most likely story on balance.

You are deciding what you'd like the story to be and suggesting that there might be facts that we don't know about that would support that story.

"Maybe Wellens' claims of Bogle not obeying instructions were classed as not carrying out orders?" Maybe. You're guessing. But if that's the case, why didn't he relgate half the first team squad to the reserves. Because they clearly weren't playing to orders throughout August-November. At least I hope to God they weren't.

"And, if Wellens' decision to remove Bogle from the training ground was unfair, why didn't the owners step in? " They sacked him within 6 months of him being recruited. Absolutely unprecedented from this senior management team.

"McSheffrey, as the new manager, could wipe the slate clean without losing face, as Wellens surely would have had he relented and brought him back, even if he'd wanted to." So, clearly whatever hypothetical disciplinary offence Bogle might hypothetically have committed, it was sufficiently low grade to warrant him immediate reinstatement. Wellens couldn't do that because he would have lost face. But the alternative was 4 months of playing Young Frankenstein up front. Which did far more than lose face. The very best case you can put on this argument is that Wellens was honestly trying to make a point for the good of the club and f**ked up.

"Notice McSheffrey didn't take Bogle off the transfer list! "
Agreed. And that has precisely WHAT to do with what we are talking about?

You're getting confused with being ineffective while carrying out instructions and refusing to carry out instructions. It is a fact that Wellens said Bogle wasn't making the runs he was instructed to make. As one of the senior players at the club, it was a lot less acceptable than a rookie player attempting the runs but getting them wrong.

[Bentley Bullet]

When Wellens said he was cutting his nose off to spite his face I understood it to mean he meant he was planning for the longer-term rather than short term instant success. After all, that was his directive when given the job. Whether that meant playing young players with promising futures instead of older players with dodgy pasts I'm not sure, but it is a theory.

Which part of selecting players we didn't own, who were four levels below the quality required, resulting in us gaining 13 points from the first 20 games was "planning for the long term"?

The club was hit with a shocking injury list. Many of those players were not intended to start in the first 11.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Let me get this straight then.

Your argument is that Bogle was disciplined for not making the right runs. But Cukur wasn't disciplined, which can only mean he was making the runs required of him.

You really want to die on this hill?

[BillyStubbsTears]

When Wellens said he was cutting his nose off to spite his face I understood it to mean he meant he was planning for the longer-term rather than short term instant success. After all, that was his directive when given the job. Whether that meant playing young players with promising futures instead of older players with dodgy pasts I'm not sure, but it is a theory.

Which part of selecting players we didn't own, who were four levels below the quality required, resulting in us gaining 13 points from the first 20 games was "planning for the long term"?

The club was hit with a shocking injury list. Many of those players were not intended to start in the first 11.

I know the club was hit by a shocking injury list. Which makes it a very dubious management decision to sideline a fit professional and consistently select young lads who were demonstrably leagues out of their depth.

Do you want to sit down and ask yourself if you've really thought this through?

[Bentley Bullet]

Let me get this straight then.

Your argument is that Bogle was disciplined for not making the right runs. But Cukur wasn't disciplined, which can only mean he was making the runs required of him.

You really want to die on this hill?

If Bogle had not refused to leave Wellens would have been able to sign a decent striker, and the Cukur scenario wouldn't have existed.

I'd rather die over the hill than under it.

[Campsall rover]

Right lads I think we should leave it there don’t you.

We can go round in circles for ever and a day on this one.

It’s all about opinions. We don’t have all the facts.

The only opinion that counts is mine.     Yes I am joking. Well no I am not really. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB.

1) That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what we are talking about. Bogle chose not to leave. As was his contractual right. The question was, how should that situation have been managed, given that fact?

2) But let's indulge you anyway. How would we have been able to sign a decent striker? The word was that Bogle refused to go to a lower L2 side. Do you think a lower L2 side would have paid  him any more than a lower L2 wage? Of course not. So the only way Bogle was going to leave was if we paid him off to make it worth his while. The saving we would have made would have been that of a lower L2 striker's salary.

[Bentley Bullet]

When Wellens said he was cutting his nose off to spite his face I understood it to mean he meant he was planning for the longer-term rather than short term instant success. After all, that was his directive when given the job. Whether that meant playing young players with promising futures instead of older players with dodgy pasts I'm not sure, but it is a theory.

Which part of selecting players we didn't own, who were four levels below the quality required, resulting in us gaining 13 points from the first 20 games was "planning for the long term"?

The club was hit with a shocking injury list. Many of those players were not intended to start in the first 11.

I know the club was hit by a shocking injury list. Which makes it a very dubious management decision to sideline a fit professional and consistently select young lads who were demonstrably leagues out of their depth.

Do you want to sit down and ask yourself if you've really thought this through?

Don't worry yourself, I've thought it through, as usual. Really really thought it through and in conclusion, you're wrong and I'm right, as usual.

[Campsall rover]

Just realised the title of the thread is Fleetwood v Wednesday

Think we have gone off topic just a tad.
BST & BB let’s call it a draw and move on.

[Bentley Bullet]

A draw would be a cause for celebration to him, but not to me.

[Colemans Left Hook]

Just realised the title of the thread is Fleetwood v Wednesday

Think we have gone off topic just a tad.
BST & BB let’s call it a draw and move on.

lets just repeat what i said the other day Wednesday literally have a striker for every day of the week

they have that many strikers they could form a picket line

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgDKtLPp46s