Takeover Update

[Curtains]

2 minutes ago, DCFC Kicks said:

The EFL charges were always round the corner no matter who was in charge during the 18/19 season.

Yes of course Lampard always wanted to manage Chelsea, what's wrong with that? When he signed for Derby Chelsea weren't under an embargo, so how could he have "stitched Mel up" this way? The embargo was the only reason they went for Lampard, there's no way he thought he'd manage Chelsea after one season in management.

I agree his delaying in the summer about leaving wasn't good.

How is it Lampard's fault the 3 loans left a void the following season when he wasn't even here. It was our choice not to replace them. 

 

How could you replace them 

We didn’t have the money and FFP was a problem.

 

[DCFC Kicks]

Just now, Curtains said:

How could you replace them 

We didn’t have the money and FFP was a problem.

 

Exactly. My point was how is it Lampard's fault we didn't replace his loans?

[Curtains]

3 minutes ago, DCFC Kicks said:

Exactly. My point was how is it Lampard's fault we didn't replace his loans?

It’s Lampards fault he signed poor players like Joz and Holmes and Waghorn and Marriott and Malone. 
 

He had 3 top class loans which we couldn’t replace and then he left us. 
 

Actually Waghorn wasn’t that bad he saved us from relegation last season so I’m indebted to him 

Edited August 16, 2021 by Curtains

[DCFC Kicks]

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

It’s Lampards fault he signed poor players like Joz and Holmes and Waghorn and Marriott and Malone. 
 

He had 3 top class loans which we couldn’t replace and then he left us. 
 

Actually Waghorn wasn’t that bad he saved us from relegation last season so I’m indebted to him 

So Mel and our entire recruitment team weren't involved in which players we signed? it was just 100% Lampard? I'd say the more likely scenario for example would have been: he said he wanted and new LB, and the club came back with Malone. (he didn't sign Jozwiak, who I also don't think is poor)

It would have been impossible to replace those loans anyway in any scenario, they were that good. We were lucky they were here at all.

 

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, DCFC Kicks said:

So Mel and our entire recruitment team weren't involved in which players we signed? it was just 100% Lampard? I'd say the more likely scenario for example would have been: he said he wanted and new LB, and the club came back with Malone. (he didn't sign Jozwiak, who I also don't think is poor)

It would have been impossible to replace those loans anyway in any scenario, they were that good. We were lucky they were here at all.

 

I give in it’s all Rooney and Roseniors fault the mess we are in. 

[Chris_Martin]

7 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I give in it’s all Rooney and Roseniors fault the mess we are in. 

[ColonelBlimp]

On 15/08/2021 at 11:47, i-Ram said:

I refer you to a section of the bland minutes prepared after the Supporters Group Charter Meeting:

Mel Morris intended to sell the club 2 years ago, and has had to continue to subsidise the club ever since then – though he never intended to. This cannot continue in perpetuity.

It would be fair to say the rational reason you are looking for is that Morris is two years into drip financing the club, something he clearly never wanted to do, and he also made it clear that he will offer no guarantees to continue doing so.

And wasted those 2 years on a couple of obvious chancers. No Sympathy.

[DavesaRam]

2 hours ago, DCFC Kicks said:

The EFL charges were always round the corner no matter who was in charge during the 18/19 season.

Yes of course Lampard always wanted to manage Chelsea, what's wrong with that? When he signed for Derby Chelsea weren't under an embargo, so how could he have "stitched Mel up" this way? The embargo was the only reason they went for Lampard, there's no way he thought he'd manage Chelsea after one season in management.

I agree his delaying in the summer about leaving wasn't good.

How is it Lampard's fault the 3 loans left a void the following season when he wasn't even here. It was our choice not to replace them. 

 

I never said that there was anything wrong with Lampard wanting to manage Chelsea. We all knew he would eventually be on his bike after finding his feet here, but Mel was sold the lie that it would be in 2 or 3 years. But the real intention was to chuck him in at Derby, make him look good and move him on quickly.

Neither was it Lampard's fault that the three loanees left an unbridgeable gulf when they left - they were part of the whole setup to make him look good. Unless of course he engineered the whole scheme for himself. I suspect Chelsea had rather a lot to do with it. 

What is Lampard's fault is keeping us dangling on a thin piece of cotton all the way through summer so that we could do very little preparation - remember, Cocu only arrived to start his job when the squad were already on their pre-season tour, with no signings made. So poor Philip couldn't go looking for any players he wanted, and ended up being forced to buy or loan people to which all he could say is "OK. you'll do. If I must". It certainly wasn't our choice to not replace them, we couldn't because of Frank Lampard's behaviour.  IF he had any decency he could have pulled some strings behind the scenes to offer one or two of the 3.5 million apprentices Chelsea had on their books at the time.

It was a disgraceful situation which could have been avoided if Frank had simply told us in time what had clearly been set up for months, more likely an entire season.

Edited August 16, 2021 by DavesaRam

[DCFC Kicks]

3 minutes ago, DavesaRam said:

I never said that there was anything wrong with Lampard wanting to manage Chelsea. We all knew he would eventually be on his bike after finding his feet here, but Mel was sold the lie that it would be in 2 or 3 years. But the real intention was to chuck him in at Derby, make him look good and move him on quickly.

Neither was it Lampard's fault that the three loanees left an unbridgeable gulf when they left - they were part of the whole setup to make him look good. Unless of course he engineered the hole scheme for himself. I suspect Chelsea had rather a lot to do with it. 

What is Lampard's fault is keeping us dangling on a thin piece of cotton all the way through summer so that we could do very little preparation - remember, Cocu only arrived to start his job when the squad were already on their pre-season tour, with no signings made. So poor Philip couldn't go looking for player he wanted, and ended up being forced people to which all he could say is "OK. you'll do. If I must". It certainly wasn't our choice to not replace them, we couldn't because of Frank Lampard's behaviour.  IF he had any decency he could have pulled some strings behind the scenes to offer one or two of the 3.5 million apprentices Chelsea had on their books at the time.

It was a disgraceful situation which could have been avoided if Frank had simply told us in time what had clearly been set up for months, more likely an entire season.

I agree that Lampard's delaying in the summer harmed us. But the fact we couldn't sign any players harmed us much more.

How was Mel sold a lie? Lampard probably also thought he'd be here a few seasons. Who could have for foreseen Chelsea's embargo? The charges against Chelsea only came out after Lampard's Derby appointment, so how could it have been part of a plan? There's no way Chelsea would have hired him if they weren't under embargo.

I don't understand your whole "make him look good" theory. Wouldn't him looking good mean winning as many games as possible and challenging for promotion? What's wrong with that?

Why would Chelsea only be interested in making him "look good"? If they wanted him as manager there's no use in him only looking good, he'd have to actually BE good.

So he brought in the best loans he could, to win as many games as he could and look as good of a manager as he could. Isn't that what all mangers do all the the time?

If Lampard had happened to stay for the 19/20 season, all the problems with the EFL and FFP would still be exactly the same. It had nothing to do with Lampard personally.

 

[Woodley Ram]

2 hours ago, DCFC Kicks said:

So Mel and our entire recruitment team weren't involved in which players we signed? it was just 100% Lampard? I'd say the more likely scenario for example would have been: he said he wanted and new LB, and the club came back with Malone. (he didn't sign Jozwiak, who I also don't think is poor)

It would have been impossible to replace those loans anyway in any scenario, they were that good. We were lucky they were here at all.

 

I nthink he meant JoFlo

[RadioactiveWaste]

5 hours ago, Coconut said:

Completely off topic but had a weird dream last night that England had been taken over by / sold off to the Netherlands (& possibly the Danish in a coalition). None of it makes any sense of course and it's a series of vague and poorly written ramblings, but...

 

 

Well, there's plenty of Rangers fans who are totally in love with Britain being taken over by a dutch king (William of Orange)....and plenty of Danes who made england their home whether the locals liked it or not back in the day (OK, vikings haven't been a thing for a while, but who knows what might happen if Sarah Lund goes bad?).

 

[atherstoneram]

3 hours ago, DavesaRam said:

I would think the Frank Lampard tenure was the turning point that ended up up putting us where we are. 
 

He was always going to manage Chelsea, but no way could they employ a complete rookie. So some high level fixers hawked him around a few clubs to get him a “leg up”, and is how we were able to get the three loan players who made our team, and left it completely characterless when they moved on.

I don’t blame Mel going for it, but he was stitched up thinking he had 2 or 3 years of Frank. The whole thing was to make Frank look good, and it worked.

Sat at Wembley looking at the starting team told any fans with any nous that Chelsea were getting their man. They might as well have put “Bye. Been nice knowing you. Love from Frank” on the screens.

And if you’re not convinced, watch the video of Frank after he had “briefly” consoled the players. He wandered around circling the melee of players with a look on his face that said no matter much of a Chelsea hero he might be he wouldn’t get this sort on interaction with the fans again.

And then there was the summer of “Will he or won’t he”. Not “go”, but actually tell us he is leaving so we have got a chance to sort our next season out.

His keeping us dangling wrecked our preparations, and therefore our entire season, from which we never recovered.

Being subsequently forced to play Rooney when he was nearly as past it as me didn’t help, but the whole Lampard episode did huge damage. Mel’s only mistake was being used as the “Patsie”.

When Frank arrived he created the impression of being a man of integrity. Now I don’t which of his two faces I dislike the most.

Question: when he arrived, what state were we in financially?

If Ipswich Town had been in a better financial position we wouldn't have got Lampard, he was all set to become their manager until he realised the state the finances were and then walked away.

[RoyMac5]

13 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

If Ipswich Town had been in a better financial position we wouldn't have got Lampard, he was all set to become their manager until he realised the state the finances were and then walked away.

Now they're signing all our trialists they must be a bit better off than us.

[DavesaRam]

43 minutes ago, DCFC Kicks said:

I agree that Lampard's delaying in the summer harmed us. But the fact we couldn't sign any players harmed us much more.

How was Mel sold a lie? Lampard probably also thought he'd be here a few seasons. Who could have for foreseen Chelsea's embargo? The charges against Chelsea only came out after Lampard's Derby appointment, so how could it have been part of a plan? There's no way Chelsea would have hired him if they weren't under embargo.

I don't understand your whole "make him look good" theory. Wouldn't him looking good mean winning as many games as possible and challenging for promotion? What's wrong with that?

Why would Chelsea only be interested in making him "look good"? If they wanted him as manager there's no use in him only looking good, he'd have to actually BE good.

So he brought in the best loans he could, to win as many games as he could and look as good of a manager as he could. Isn't that what all mangers do all the the time?

If Lampard had happened to stay for the 19/20 season, all the problems with the EFL and FFP would still be exactly the same. It had nothing to do with Lampard personally.

 

Of course it meant winning as many games as possible and challenging of promotion. But that was all they wanted, because although is appointment was inevitable, they couldn't possibly entertain taking him on when he has no experience whatsoever. But if we had got promoted, what would he have looked like by jumping ship immediately? Getting promoted and then going to Chelsea would look bad for both Frank and Chelsea. That is why he kept the two strikers who were on fire for us on the bench until it was too late to save the play-off  game, but started the match with two strikers who couldn't hit a barn door with an entire country music festival of banjos.

If he has stayed, we would most likely have kept at least some of the loanees, especially the Chelsea ones, we would have been able to recruit properly, and had a full pre-season of training, and continuity of style of play. Remember, Cocu's playing style was totally different, so he even had to put them to sleep before he could work on tactics. There is a fair chance we would have had a much better season, maybe even challenging for promotion again.

[Van der MoodHoover]

1 hour ago, atherstoneram said:

If Ipswich Town had been in a better financial position we wouldn't have got Lampard, he was all set to become their manager until he realised the state the finances were and then walked away.

I thought it was because they wouldn't (or maybe couldn't) pay Frank what Frank thought he was worth? 

[atherstoneram]

3 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I thought it was because they wouldn't (or maybe couldn't) pay Frank what Frank thought he was worth? 

But Frank said ‘Harry, it’s difficult because they’ve got no budget and I can’t bring any players in, what can I do?’

[Van der MoodHoover]

5 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

But Frank said ‘Harry, it’s difficult because they’ve got no budget and I can’t bring any players in, what can I do?’

What happened to the 5m they rinsed us for Waghorn? Or was that Frank's brainchild once he landed here? 

[atherstoneram]

1 minute ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

What happened to the 5m they rinsed us for Waghorn? Or was that Frank's brainchild once he landed here? 

https://www.eadt.co.uk/sport/frank-lampard-close-to-ipswich-town-job-2669818

[Van der MoodHoover]

1 minute ago, atherstoneram said:

https://www.eadt.co.uk/sport/frank-lampard-close-to-ipswich-town-job-2669818

I like this bit, from the wisdom of uncle 'arry...talking about Mel. 

“He was going to go for an experienced manager but I told him ‘you keep getting managers and then getting rid of them, you’ve not been very clever – take Frank Lampard’.

?

[DCFC Kicks]

56 minutes ago, DavesaRam said:

Of course it meant winning as many games as possible and challenging of promotion. But that was all they wanted, because although is appointment was inevitable, they couldn't possibly entertain taking him on when he has no experience whatsoever. But if we had got promoted, what would he have looked like by jumping ship immediately? Getting promoted and then going to Chelsea would look bad for both Frank and Chelsea. That is why he kept the two strikers who were on fire for us on the bench until it was too late to save the play-off  game, but started the match with two strikers who couldn't hit a barn door with an entire country music festival of banjos.

If he has stayed, we would most likely have kept at least some of the loanees, especially the Chelsea ones, we would have been able to recruit properly, and had a full pre-season of training, and continuity of style of play. Remember, Cocu's playing style was totally different, so he even had to put them to sleep before he could work on tactics. There is a fair chance we would have had a much better season, maybe even challenging for promotion again.

Being angry at Lampard for leaving is one thing, which I understand, but to suggest he intentionally lost the play-off final is totally far-fetched. Do you have any proof? How would it be possibly to have that much control over a league as unpredictable as the Championship?

I agree that if he had stayed we would be in a better position but there was no way we would have been able to re-sign Mount and Tomori, they were too good.