Most liked posts in thread: Players under contract after 1/7/2020

You dont rate anybody, I can't remember the last time you made a positive comment on this forum.

 

I almost pressed like to one of your posts Fordy.

 

Oh come on MH! You know you want to press like on my post. Do it! Do it!

 

Same to you RT. Just press the like as you know I am right.

 

In his defence he was a victim of circumstances in how little of the budget he had to work with. That said, some of the performances under him will go down in my top ten of worst games i've ever seen. The performances away against Mansfield and Oldham are in my top five. By the end the players were completely demotivated, they had no idea what they were being sent out to do and it was evident very early on that the demeanour of players, Vaughan especially, had changed. Name me another manager who could bring back the the leading scorer in the country and not create a single chance for him in 4 games?

 

I think "disgrace" is a bit harsh. Some weird strings were being pulled above his head, and I think this affected his managing, turning him from an ok manager to an over cautious one. Playing players in wrong positions and picking the wrong players was 100% his fault though. As mentioned, I wish we were brave enough earlier on in the season to part company with him. Would have been in the playoffs, largely due to Vaughan not buggering off. Definitely a forgettable manager.

 

Yes, squad sizes have certainly increased dramatically since the days of my youth... This made me look back at some of those great 80s sides: 24 players in 84/5, of whom 9 appeared in 10 or fewer matches, 21 in 87/8 (and 5), and then the 90s: 95/6 had 28 (and 7), 98/9 had 24 (and 6). In comparison, our most recent successful sides had 32 (and 12) in 2012/13, 30 (and 8) in 15/16, and 35 (and 14) in 16/17. This past season's 39 really is indicative of a team in trouble, even if not relegation-level trouble.

I'd agree with a squad size in the lower to mid 20s: established starters with backups in most positions (a few generalists so not exactly starter + backup everywhere), and a few youngsters to be blooded each season, with the expectation that they will graduate, in due course, to backup and then starter. These to be augmented, when needed, by short-term emergency loans, to cover injuries and/or suspensions.

RCB

 

They would presumably be 20 senior players allowed and unlimited U21s or homegrown players.

There would also need to be an allowance for players currently under contract for a salary cap to be brought in. If say Salford have say four players on pre Covid contracts of £4k a week each, there’s two thirds of their cap gone, it’s unworkable.

 

If nothing else Club's like ours will now be forced to live within their means to survive. All in all new beginnings to look forward to imo. Just need to do our homework, polish up the contacts, call in a few favours Stuart and make lean and mean the recipe for success.

 

One possible factor in bloated squad sizes is the changes in substitutes rules.
In 84/5 there was a single named substitute allowed. No choice element - you named one player and he was your only option. That changed in 87 to one outfield player and one keeper, so the 'nearly team' of 87/8 played to those rules. By the 96 promotion you could name and use three subs, one of which had to be a keeper.
Nowadays there are seven on the bench. The expectation being that you can cover keeper, defence, midfield and attack with options to change or save a game. In the 70s and 80s teams mostly named a single striker or a utility player, depending on how they expected the game to pan out. The modern expectation that managers can influence all aspects of the game from the bench must surely have resulted in bigger squads to cover all options.

 

Maybe. I don't have a problem with three subs and a bench comprising one each of keeper, defender, midfielder and attacker. But having a bench of seven is daft.

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11985236/five-substitutions-per-team-permitted-by-ifab-to-help-aid-players-return

 

Hopefully with reduced squads the loan system will remain open throughout the season the way it used to be

 

Add Donaldson to the list. Automatic year if he wants to stay.

Vaughan has 2 years left and will be hard to move on.

Wood I think we will sell. Too good for us now.
Pritchard I don't think McCall rates

 

Plus Donaldson.

I agree with you and @Faithful Bantam but this is why I was extremely disappointed with Ryan's comments about the 500k cost for the play off.

Keep on saying no better season to get promoted this as as it's it a buyers market next year and you can build a squad with low fan expectations.

 

Yes it's an automatic extension if he wants to stay

 

Yes, if... though I would expect any player to pick up their options, especially if their previous pay level is guaranteed! I think he showed this season that he can't be relied upon as an everyday starter anymore, but spot starts and impact sub apps might work. If only he wouldn't miss the target so much I'd feel a bit differently -- he does do some good things for the side.

RCB

 

Ah, I was wrong -- I see from that article that Staunton is mentioned as LB, not RB. So RB still required, and Staunton moves to the subs bench.

RCB