McCall IN/OUT (with new Poll)

I know that he signed them for the new signing.

I've said that.

But saying they are Stuart McCall signings is only popular on this forum because it's used as a criticism.

I'm heading out, but if I were to compile a list of 'signings' completed elsewhere under similar circumstances, you wouldn't find many fan bases agreeing with this assessment of who signed who. It's lacks, it's lazy, and it doesn't hold up.

What's more, though, Stuart McCall told us all that he wanted to extend those contracts, but due to the exceptional circumstances regarding the cancelled end to the season, and the uncertainty regarding the start date to the new season, those contracts lapsed due to technical issues and NOT for any other reason.

Note: "contract extension" https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53470279

"No position to negotiate" https://whiterosetv.wordpress.com/2020/05/29/bantams-keen-to-keep-richard-odonnell/

Sorry, but it's a delusional argument.

 

The players Stuart chose to re-sign this summer were free agents once the season had ended. They were chosen above other free agents by Stuart to be given contract offers - whether they were previously at the club or not is of little relevance. The signing of DMH was the same as the signing of Sutton. The only reason they may have been labelled as contract extensions is because they had been here the previous season, when in reality, they were signed up like every other 'new' free agent signing. Those deals are not in any way comparable to an actual contract extension of Wells whose contract was extended whilst actually under contract already.

 

They had extensions in their favour in their contracts

 

Only Donaldson and Ismail did. DMH and O'Donnell didn't.

 

I see both sides to this argument and think it’s a splitting hairs one, these players (eg ROD) were originally someone else’s signings but McCall chose to keep them at the club. Does it really matter who originally signed them, no, could we have had a different goalie for 2020/2021 , yes, but the manager decided to keep what we had. If judging him I think they class as his players now (Clayton and that bloke that never plays is different)

 

When you're considering who built a squad there is no difference.

If Stuart had resigned every player in the squad then he would have chosen those players over other options. Therefore it would be a representation of the choices he had made in building it. In that scenario whose squad would it be? Who takes responsibility for DMH for example still being here?

 

good post mate, and I agree with your positivity in this respect, although you perhaps haven't realised that this forum is essentially dedicated to arguing about whether re-signing someone means they count as Stuart's player or not. 44 pages and still going strong. I predict it will outlast Brexit

 

In football, no manager has ever been credited for 'signing' a player who has remained at the club, whether or not we want to pretend an enforced and very short period where a player was 'out of contract' (due to a global pandemic forcing a premature end to the season) means that the re-signing player is no longer 'extending his contract' (which EVERY media outlet in the country has reported it as).

This is why this is a delusional, nonsensical argument that Stuart 'signed' O'Donnell and DMH and they are both 'his' players. It's also ludicrous to say Stuart 'signed' the young players any more than it is to say Sir Alex Ferguson 'signed' the class of '92. Every manager will have an EXTREMELY low good:bad signing ratio if we're including every kid who signs a professional contract in their tenure.

If we want to become revisionists just so we can say that Stuart has 'signed' 60 % or whatever of the squad, then crack on, but here are the actual facts:

Stuart has 'signed' five new players to permanent contracts.
Stuart has 'signed' two new players on loan contracts.

Stuart continues to work with 21 players that were at Bradford City last season on permanent (first team or youth) contracts.

That's not over 60%. That's not close to 50%. It's not even 33%.

25% of this squad is new to the club, brought in by McCall, signed under McCall.

Less than 18% of this squad is new to the club, brought in by McCall, signed under McCall, on permanent contracts.

In a season where it has been expressly stated that financial prudence is taking priority over success on the pitch, it is an utter nonsense to suggest anything other than Stuart McCall is working with a squad of players where the vast, vast majority were signed by other managers (or in the case of the kids, other staff).

 

Anyway, in other news.....Reeves should be back in 2 weeks.....oh, hang on..!!

 

All good but too complex.

Is DMH part of "McCall's squad"? Is he a representation of the choices he made in building this team?

 

McCall's squad & McCall's signings are different things altogether.

If you asked McCall, they are ALL his players whether he signed them or not - and whether he would want to keep them or not.

His signings are the players he's brought into the club from another club.

That's pretty much universally accepted, except for some reason, on this forum at this particular moment in time.

 

I think you're conflicting two separate idea's that come down to a use of language rather than anything else. The discussion generally comes from the idea which runs along the lines of 'the squad is so poor that McCall can't be judged on results'

So while some people talk incorrectly about signings that's not what is really meant - as my post below it's about how the squad is built.

Which was answered as below.

So the poor quality of the signings is one element in a larger picture of the choices that are made in building the squad, which doesn't just include signings but includes those who have returned (DMH) and also those that were not allowed to leave despite interest (Guthrie).

So while people who mention purely the signings are wrong, the wider idea that this isn't Stuart's squad seems far from the mark.

 

Here's a factoid for you:

We have more players in this current squad that were involved in the 2018-19 horror season (6) than we do new Stuart McCall signings on permanent deals (5).

@Aaron Baker, if you asked Stuart he'd say it's his squad, for sure, but the extenuating circumstances are massive. He wasn't asked to rebuild or even to build a promotion chasing side, he was asked to be financially prudent and consolidate.

In conclusion: Stuart's transfer business has been a roaring success, as we won't be going down (this being the equal and opposite extreme end of the argument, which is also equally ludicrous.).

 

so if a manager signs 9 players and 4 are in his match day squad, is it really his squad?

also @JonButterfield makes another good point. we are all assuming that everyone signed is a top target, when looking at the lineups they are not in the team. Some on here are pointing to poor recruitment. We saw at the start of the season many top transfer targets go elsewhere. People here saying its because he scouts on "an ipad". lord have mercy.

 

Any manager would say that even if they'd been at the club a week.

Lovely factoid but it doesn't change the underlying idea, in fact it completely ignores what I said. Signings are only part of the bigger picture.

Well I'm not sure anyone actually knows what he was asked to achieve. it just seems like the standard way of pushing down expectations so McCall can't fail. Wonder if there's another manager in the world where the bar would be set as a success if Bradford stay in the football league. Can't imagine that being said for Bowyer, Hopkin or Collins.

 

Yeah because a squad includes all the players not just the 16 on a matchday.

On a similar note if you sign 9 players and only 4 of them can make the matchday squad is that supposed to be a positive?

 

I think with everything going on at the moment they would have the same remit that Stuart whatever that may be.

 

I talk about your last point in my comment. not every signing can be a top signing that will walk a squad. Antoni Sarcevic, Jordy and Danny Rowe all would been top tier signings that stuart scouted. But what else can he personally do if they don't want to come here? in this case this season he cant get any blame.

 

That's just standard isn't it? Especially in league 2.

If we're only judging managers when they get all of their top targets then no manager will ever get judged in the world! It's a nonsense.

Is having 4 signings in a match day squad a positive sign of good recruitment?