Jump to content

LB_DCFC

Member
  • Content Count

    396
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LB_DCFC

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,145 profile views
  1. I personally did. You can scrutinise the ethics behind it, and I understand if you do, but until there's a specific rule against something then I'm not going to question you that much (and I thought the rule they got done on, bringing the game into disrepute or something along those lines is too vague anyway) .
  2. I'm pretty sure that Derby would've got the ground independently valued and sold it for that, otherwise it does leave the club open for some scrutiny. It is sort of cheating, and you can criticise the ethics behind it I guess, but if isn't explicitly against the rules, what's the point of adhering to a rule that isn't there?
  3. Not necessarily. Some of the best managers like guardiola never adjust their style under any circumstance, but he changes the players to suit his system (obviously having bottomless pits of cash helps!). Klopp has his style & sticks to it etc but then managers like Poch at spurs adapts systems depending on the opponent (switching between 4 and 3 at the back etc). All see success and all approach management in different ways. Klopp and guardiola especially had patchy first seasons laying the groundwork for their systems, and even when they were going through rough spells they never altered their approach. (Not saying Frank is on the level of these managers obviously, just giving examples!) I'd argue that clubs like sheff W have a squad quite suited to Bruce's football, so he sees success. Sheff U have developed a squad over a number of years to fit Wilder's system, and have seen success. Bielsa has his system. Farke has his system, suffered last year implementing it, thriving this year. I don't think it's as binary as 'a good manager can alter his style', although it does help in certain situations, but not in others (lose trust of players if you constantly tinker etc). There are many ways of approaching it.
  4. It's no coincidence that the top 6 is comprised of either teams that have allowed managers time to build something (Norwich, Sheff U, Bristol C), or have qualities that are clearly too good for this league (Leeds=Bielsa, West Brom & Villa's squads with both having expensive PL players). We are clearly in neither camp at the moment, so why not allow the time to see if we could jump in to those areas? Especially after what we've seen in the previous couple of years. I've seen enough green shoots to allow me to think that there is a successful project in here, and changing the manager will only contribute to the mess that has been created by changing managers. Anyway, I don't think we'd be able to afford to sack another manager anyway, so the whole discussion is rather futile.
  5. Are we saying that none of it is Frank's fault? Of course we aren't. All we're saying is that it cannot possibly be all Frank's fault for the lack of tempo, movement etc from tonight after seeing what happened in the previous 2 games, where all that was seen and in an abundance. Sometimes you can say that a manager's tactics were the sole direct cause of a poor performance, but tonight I don't think that was entirely the case, although, as I've already said, his decision to start Bryson did contribute quite a lot to the poor performance imo, but was not in any way the sole reason.
  6. Agreed. The difference between Saturday and today in terms of pace and tempo was staggering, which is something that Lamps definitely didn't tell them to do (although starting Bryson definitely contributed to that). So ponderous in the transition between defence and attack, contributed to by all the elements of the team, no intelligent runs from the front 3, lack of urgency from the defence, poor positioning and running from the midfield 3 causing the side-to-side passing of the defence and, unfortunately, we really missed malone. A collection of errors from all elements of the team (and management) tonight, culminating in that.
  7. Both. As shown by the level of people wanting No Deal, which would be dreadful for NI.
  8. I'm not disputing that at all, but I don't think it Would have caused as much division as this has. Guess we'll never know, though.
  9. I suspect the level of division is entirely reliant on what deal, or lack of, happens. Anything other than No Deal and I can see a significant amount of Brexit voters proclaiming that is 'isn't what they voted for' etc, and if No deal happens the same from Remain voters. A massive problem was that the referendum was a binary 'Leave' vs 'Remain' vote, whereas in reality Leave has so many options that this was always going to happen, especially with the differences of opinion in Parliament. May's deal was a 'hard brexit', not hard enough for the ERG, too hard for anyone other than Conservatives. No Deal is widely denounced, customs union voted down, common market voted down, revocation voted down. What do you do now? All because Cameron was worried that the Tories would lose voters to UKIP. In the end it could end up destroying their party.
  10. Very Important to note that Scotland is 53% Remain and 30% No Deal. (According to the same data source) Especially with the enormous problems Brexit poses regarding Northern Ireland, if we do leave, could we see the break up of the Union? It definitely makes it significantly more likely. Also, that amount of people believe that No Deal is the best option? That's rather concerning, though I doubt it'll happen (And YouGov is hardly the most reliable I might add). Only the ERG really believe it's even remotely a good Idea in parliament, but it gets more and more likely the closer we get to the deadline. It's incredible how divided our country is and will be for the next decade at least I suspect. And to think this is only the beginning!
  11. I don't disagree, however I'd suggest that if you are attempting to get out a hole and have such a complex issue such as FFP as a problem, the best way forward may be to keep the person that already has extensive knowledge of the situation at the club and you believe has the capability to fix said problem . I'd say that, over the last 3 years, our finances have been handled really really well considering the situation, and Pearce has a lot to do with that, and he got a promotion out of it. He may have had a hand in creating the mess (we don't know the full situation so I won't put a specific amount of blame on anyone), but he seems to be leading the club out of the mess pretty successfully, so right now he's justifying it. (whether he deserved to get that chance in the first place is open to interpretation I guess)
  12. "But insiders at Pride Park insist they will be operating within the financial limits and do not fear any sanctions over the summer, based on current submissions to the EFL." Percy, the one journalist you can definitely trust. Looks like good news on the FFP front
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.