ariotofmyown

I have misjudged this season from minute 1 with my over-confidence. I’m going to continue doing so- we’ll win Friday and end on 53 points 
 

Worse, definitely worse.  Driven in part by 24/7 news outlets that have to turn a profit and social media. 
I agree with a lot of what you said and would like to expand upon others but this isn't the thread for that and I'd only be putting the effort in to write an off topic post that may end up being removed. 
I think regarding covid however, as we emerge from the pandemic we really need to start pushing back against the Government, big business and the media now.  In an ideal world we'd be given the truth, get our freedoms restored, learn lessons for the future and have those that profited from the crisis or exploited it in some way pay their dues.

Shame there isn’t an academy thread.?
Getting back to the potential takeover,
Fact : No limits sports ltd have agreed terms to buy DCFC.
Fact: Due diligence has been completed and the SPA signed.
Fact : A deposit has been paid and proof of funds has been seen by Mel’s lawyers.
Fact: We are waiting on EFL approval for the takeover.
Have I missed anything ?
 

Where do the purchases of Evans, Holmes, Bielik and Jozwiak fit into this? 
I'd argue that at least two of them didn't turn out as we'd hoped, proving that it is a recruitment problem rather than an academy problem.

15/16 - instead of Hanson filling in at CM/AM, we either go 442 with Bent up top, or push Baird to CM/AM instead. A few injuries later in the season so we're forced to play Bryson at DM. We continue with an out of form Christie or play Keogh at RB. Injuries to Forsyth and Olsson means that Shackell or Johnson have to play LB. This was all in the season when we had 30+ players on senior wages. Maybe we should have doubled down and signed another LB (on top of Forsyth and Olsson), another RB (on top of Christie and Baird) and another DM/CM/AM (on top of Hendrick, Hughes, Butterfield, Johnson, Bryson and Thorne, with Baird also capable of filling in)
16/17 - Injuries to Olsson and Forsyth gave Lowe a chance. Perhaps we needed that 3rd senior LB afterall
18/19 - Let's sign another RB when we already have Wisdom. Bogle may be good enough but that doesn't matter. We've already got Lawrence, just got Wilson on loan, bought Jozefzoon and Waghorn. But let's sign another winger because we don't want an academy graduate to be 5th choice on the wing, or 4th choice CF!
19/20 - Bogle may have established himself as an excellent RB in this league, and Wisdom is capable backup, but let's sign another anyway? That 3rd choice LB on senior wages we signed back in 15/16 can play a few games again now that Malone and Forsyth are both unavailable. Plus that DM we signed in the same season and hasn't played since can now fill in for the first time since that season because 5 first team options in that position are all injured. We don't want an academy graduate to fill in as 6th choice for 2 positions. Let's continue to play the rubbish Jozefzoon and Anya rather than give a reliable player such as Knight a go. Dowell's doing poorly, but let's not cut his loan short as we don't want Sibley playing.
20/21 - Well with no income from Lowe and Bogle, we can't recruit that exciting young winger from Poland. Anya and Jozefzoon can stick around. We also need to cave in to Huddlestone's demands and give him a 2 year deal on £20k pw just t o prevent Bird playing. Good job we've kept Malone at the club otherwise we'd be forced to include Lowe or Buchanan in the matchday squad.

Agreed but does it ever work like this? I suppose the exception could be the top of the tree but then different pressures come into play and it's easier to buy an international instead of develop.
The whole academy system is flawed really. Take a championship club, anyone really. They develop a lad from say U8s. Good player but not quite that special. He may go through the system till 16 and then clubs start making decisions on U18 youth contracts. The bigger clubs then cull and those players are picked up by the smaller teams, they then cull and those players might go to semi pro clubs etc. So really, most of the time the academy has a player, someone else might have developed him. 
Chelsea are just scooping up anything that might be a threat. I don't believe it's about player development but more protectionism with them.  

But the only manager who you could even argue has prioritised academy players over better experienced players is Cocu (and I don’t even think he did, really) by which point first team investment had been scaled back because of P&S issues that arose as a result of overspending on first team players.
I just don’t understand the line of thinking - Mel has funded the academy from a cash perspective. He has also funded the first team from a cash perspective and a profit perspective. The academy helps to fund the first team from both a cash perspective and a profit perspective. So then the issue is that too many academy players have been promoted - please give specific examples of this happening before it became a necessity to do so because we could no longer afford to carry expensive first team players? Bennett at Wembley is literally the only one you could possibly argue and for reasons I gave originally I don’t think that’s the case.
Bogle was, is and will continue to be much better than Wisdom so that wasn’t an issue. Knight and Bird transformed the team when becoming first team players last season, in part due to necessity because Bielik did his knee. Lowe playing instead of Malone in Cocu’s season maybe, but Malone was no world beater. Other than that, I can’t see many examples of managers picking youth players in direct place of more experienced first team players.
The fact is, the academy has given the first team the budget to sign better players. The fact that money has been wasted is nothing to do with the academy. 

Great post.
As @GboroRam mentioned though, is it worse than before?
In the past, media sensationalism taught us to despise those who are different. Now that is mostly no longer acceptable, we are taught to despise those with different opinions. It's progress of sorts as at least people can change their minds!
Maybe people have to stand up and reject sensationalism, but I'm not sure that's possible. Social Media has just amplified this massively as it's full of nobodies looking to earn money from extreme views. There is even less of a filter these days.  This also drowns out moderate voices looking for compromise.
Heard an interesting radio programme a few months back about gerrymandering in the US, where election boundaries were kept being redrawn to sure up either sides support.
So originally, you may have two election areas, both mixed between rich and poor, black and white etc. To win an election, a candidate had to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters.
Over time, boundaries were redrawn to end up with one party's voters in one area and vice versa. This then meant the winning party was a given and the only challenge came from within the own party, attempting to push further from the centre ground towards the extreme.
This seems to be how the media also seems to operate these days, perhaps as the are so driven by commercial need to sensationalise. Think we need the BBC more than ever, but one that can always provide an unbiased factual account of what us going on. Maybe the news could be replaced with More or Less?

Great post.
As @GboroRam mentioned though, is it worse than before?
In the past, media sensationalism taught us to despise those who are different. Now that is mostly no longer acceptable, we are taught to despise those with different opinions. It's progress of sorts as at least people can change their minds!
Maybe people have to stand up and reject sensationalism, but I'm not sure that's possible. Social Media has just amplified this massively as it's full of nobodies looking to earn money from extreme views. There is even less of a filter these days.  This also drowns out moderate voices looking for compromise.
Heard an interesting radio programme a few months back about gerrymandering in the US, where election boundaries were kept being redrawn to sure up either sides support.
So originally, you may have two election areas, both mixed between rich and poor, black and white etc. To win an election, a candidate had to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters.
Over time, boundaries were redrawn to end up with one party's voters in one area and vice versa. This then meant the winning party was a given and the only challenge came from within the own party, attempting to push further from the centre ground towards the extreme.
This seems to be how the media also seems to operate these days, perhaps as the are so driven by commercial need to sensationalise. Think we need the BBC more than ever, but one that can always provide an unbiased factual account of what us going on. Maybe the news could be replaced with More or Less?

Oh yeah its not just limited to one news station/political party - everyone does its cos it generates money, power or both.  It is killing society however as we're forever being told the other side is evil.  We're being manipulated and shepherded into boxes and taught to despise people that don't agree with us rather than focus on what we do have in common. 
As for covid, I think we all agree that the first lockdown was warranted but as time has gone on not only have the goal posts have moved but they continue to move.  IMO politicians, big corp and the media gained a lot of power and money during the initial outbreak and its been in their interests to prolong the pandemic ever since. 
Does it really matter if a country has been financially ruined for example?  The rich can even make money betting against economies anyway and move to some sunny tax haven to avoid any fallout. 
What we really need is someone to give us the truth, for politicians to ensure we get our freedoms back and for those that have made millions/billions throughout the pandemic to pay their share.  I'm fairly certain non of that is going to happen though.

Sorry Texas - i didn't mean to belittle your opinion, it was meant tongue in cheek if anything, as I saw the news article about Sweden and remembered the argument from a couple of months back.
As with almost everything about this god forsaken pandemic, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Right now I'm feeling very optimistic that the UK is finally reaping the benefit of the hellish lockdowns we've been through. Huge amounts of people vaccinated and infections/deaths/hospitalisations driven right down. You say you'd still rather be in Sweden's shoes - I disagree. I don't hold it against you, and I do understand your argument ?

this is my view I am not getting into the tennis that was played in the first version.  
I read that Sweden changed direction after the first wave because they recognised it was wrong
I read that brazil are in a terrible position because the leader is a denier.
I believe that wearing masks and applying other controls has saved many lives of those who required hospital treatment.

I've had covid and so have many people I know and care about. It was awful. My Uncle had it and died from it alone in hospital. I haven't been brainwashed into being scared or to overreact because it actually happened and myself and family have had to mourn the death of a loved one. Facts not media hype. 

I just don't get your point Texas, never will I suppose.  Covid kills, if you are content with so be it but you must be a cold hearted....
Masks and controls reduce infections allowing hospitals to concentrate on helping people recover.  If the number of people ending up in hospital is spread over a longer period of time then those that are in trouble get better care.

But the narrative that none of this is necessary doesn't make sense. Why would the UK government, the Chinese government, the collective European governments etc etc etc lie and cripple all their economies if they didn't believe that there was a serious public health risk? That's what I'm being expected to believe. And that the excess mortality figures around the world aren't real. 
Why? Can anyone give me a reason that doesn't sound completely tinfoil hat territory? 

I thought we'd gone over this before? Covid ravages some people's lungs, and a serious number of people end up dying of pneumonia caused by the effects of Covid. That's why the "died with Covid" figure is still relevant.  Look at excess deaths if you want to get a feel for the true effect.

 

I’d say we’re in a concerning position, rather than being in trouble. There are other teams in more trouble. I would rather be in our position, right now, this evening, than:
Rotherham: got games in hand, but that’s not really worth much at the bottom of the table, especially with such a packed schedule. I’d rather have points on the board.
Huddersfield: in worse / similar form to us and with a much more difficult run in. 
Coventry: got a game in hand, but again, it’s doesn’t mean points in the bank when you’re at the bottom. 
we’d need all three of those teams to have a better final few games than us before I’m going to worry. 1 or even 2 might, but not all 3. That’s not blind faith, that’s just reasonable and realistic odds. 
on the other hand, there’s:
Birmingham: I would personally rather be in Birmingham’s position right now. But if you’re saying Coventry could catch us, then there’s also just as much chance that we could catch Birmingham. I don’t think we’ll catch Birmingham, but I also don’t think Coventry will catch us.
i bet you’ll find people on the Birmingham forum writing there hands too. But they’ll be fine, and so will we.

We are too big to go down and also don't deserve to go down. Every game is a Champions League final now (see we already got there). We have a divine right to stay up.
If we do go down, we'll absolutely smash League One and all those little clubs will be in awe of us.  And who doesn't want to go to Wembley to see us in the Papa John's vs someone like Swansea reserves? Rooney will get his boots on again and score about 30 goals.
(This post can be used to justify how people have been posting that we are too big to go down)

People seem to be thinking that the plan was to suddenly promote the kids en mssse from the academy rather than the gradual introduction that @Ghost of Cloughquoted.
Bringing through 1 a season for a few years should have been relatively uncontroversial as an objective. 
Through adverse circumstances and the failure of other parts of the strategy tho, we find ourselves in the position of several relatively inexperienced players all at once.
Interestingly tho, we still have a spine of Marshall wisdom shinnie and CKR, with possibly Lawrence just behind him. That's experienced, if a bit poo....... 

Barnsley, Brentford and Reading have 3 if the 4 youngest squads in the league, but are in the top 7. The rest of the top 7 in the league are Swansea (8th), Bournemouth (9th), Norwich (12th) and Watford (14th). Kind of suggests younger squads do better.
The 6 oldest squads are: Birmingham, Millwall, Wycombe, Sheff Weds, Forest, Cardiff

A big contributor to our struggles this season has been the reliance on youth and the insufficient experience to supplement them. Bird and Sibley have struggled, Knight has had a really poor second half of the season and Buchanan has struggled recently. Inconsistency due to being young players. But they are all huge talents and IMO will all play in the premier league in their careers. I agree with Rooney that Buchanan could even go to the very top. If we can get through and survive and keep these players, this season could well be the making of them.

We as a fan base seem to be incredibly quick to write young players off and chase this mystique of experience.
There is so much I dislike about football currently. The money is stupid, the diving and theatrics are embarrassing. The use of VAR is a joke. It is a hollow soulless sport currently. What still seems real and something I can support is our own young players representing us.
 

Our embargo and poor P&S position are the result of an utterly ridiculous recruitment policy of signing “experienced” (read: crap) Championship players for large transfer fees and on large wages, who all in theory were too good for the division and would guarantee us promotion - policy you seem to be advocating? An overly expensive academy has zero impact on this for as long as the owner is willing to fund it on a cash basis. I can’t see any indication this is not the case anymore?
I think you are right in saying Lowe wasn’t good enough to be first choice but equally I don’t think he was given much opportunity to be. In fact, Lampard was allowed to sign Malone (expensive up front, massive wages, long contract) and loan out Lowe. He was then allowed to sign Cole and keep Lowe out on loan - Cole was hugely uninspiring and very poor at Wembley. Lowe didn’t have to be sold but he had been usurped by the next one from the academy, Buchanan. Bogle was sold for P&S reasons, in my opinion. £Xm of pure profit to offset the losses generated by the transfer policy you advocate - a direct benefit of the academy is that players sold from it count as pure profit with negligible amortisation costs going into P&S calculations. As an aside, Bogle was much much better from Wisdom from the get go.
Bennett was a very decent and cheap back up that season. Won us some very important games with his input (Hull away, Reading away, WBA home) were all winning goals he contributed to. Compare that to David Nugent for example and the return on investment doesn’t even compare. Any experienced Championship player worth their salt are not going to be happy as backup to Marriott, Waghorn, Nugent et al. He was a perfectly serviceable player produced at negligible P&S cost. You simply cannot carry expensive back ups to back ups at this level. The decision to start him at Wembley was also not due to not having a big enough squad - Waghorn and Marriott were on the bench! He was selected on merit, rightly or wrongly.

Following that statement, we spent £8m on Bielik, £4m on Jozwiak, recruited Rooney on a record Champiomship wage, plus flip flopping in and out of a transfer embargo.
1 regular, 2 rotation, 1 backup, and the rest are emergency cover. Those are the roles given to our current academy graduates.
Yeah... Bielik, Davies, Clarke, Byrne, Waghorn, Gregory, Edmundson, Ibe all unavailable.

The results went quite well today.  ie 2 out of 3 
Rotherham had their best chance of a win tonight but then will be tired from now on. 
Rotherham have Cov and Brum next all fighting to stay up .
 
We can’t rely on other teams losing we need to win ourselves.