Quote: Pickering Red " I view it as constructive and perceptive criticism in the absence of a formal face to face club to fans forum, regarding on field matters.'"
That, I'm all for. Some stuff seems
IMO, to be too determinedly negative. The reality is likely more nuanced than some are presenting it.
At least one-eye optimism gives us (probably false) hope. Negativity for its own sake makes no sense to me.
I admit that we're in the poop a bit, but I don't think picking it up and chucking at the board, managers, coaches or players to the degree that some are is justified. They're absolutely entitled if that is their view, but personally, I don't agree with some of the criticism.
Quote: Pickering Red "
I would much rather us lose an Allgood and develop an attractive player pathway for kids, wherever they're from.'"
Are those necessarily equivalent costs? On the other hand, do they have to be alternatives - can an attractive that is affordable and offers value to the club be built? I dunno. It's easy to select an antipodean whose contribution has been limited, but we've had plenty of value from Down Under too. And you still need somebody to fill that place in the squad who'd need paying a chunk of whatever Allgood is on.
Quote: Pickering Red "Slightly off track but as you mentioned it in your opening post I'll bring up the vanity statement Rob C mentioned.
He said him and Hudge were driven by vanity in the first 5 years, sorry but I don't understand. This is what I see
We were obviously up to cap, apparently we still are (ish),
We had a high number of overseas, we still have
We didn't pay transfers then, i think we have this year albeit small a one
We were defensively dodgy but good in attack, seems fimailar
I assume our targets are to finish up the league and back then we improved year on year and finished 4th.
Now I understand we need to improve off the field and if we were cutting costs to do so I could understand the drop in quality, similar with youth if we were blooding a lot of kids to cut the O/S contingent then again I could accept that but what I don't get is why IF we are planning on running full cap then why is having a good team classed as a vanity thing?
am i missing something???'"
I've often felt NH and RC understate or undervalue what they achieved back then. Perhaps it wasn't sustainable - referencing spending against the cap, has the potential to be a little misleading IMO, and I suspect they've been trying to do similar for less since the end of the Morgan era, and it's proved to be difficult. A concern relating to my second possible goal of the plan is that a sustainable model may not be achievable in an environment where some clubs are money-pit vanity projects and others have bigger fanbases. The alternative to trying to do it is giving up though, so I'm happy to 'give' them another 5 years. Good of me, I know.
Quote: Pickering Red "If you have this magical 5 year plan I fail to see why it can't be shared with the fans. Surely any goals and objectives rovers have will be broadly similar to every other club in the league so why the big secret? Obviously there may be some commercially sensitive stuff in there but that can be left out or glossed over but some headline objectives such as improvement in facilities, where they see you capable of consistently being league position wise, external investment requirements, squad make up etc. At least if you understood what they're trying to achieve and how then you'll put up with some short term pain on the journey. The current situation seems like borlox to me and is alienating fans more than bringing them closer to your club.
Maybe they're just worried it will be a damp squib like hudge's 5 year plan of survival, consolidation, challenging when you first entered SL'"
I broadly agree and I guess my OP abhors the vacuum. I guess they're concerned it could become a stick to beat them with when we hit bumps. For that reason I wouldn't expect detail, but a general vision or philosophy with caveats about being flexible couldn't hurt IMO.
The 'survive, consolidate, challenge' plan was clear and ultimately had the glorious virtue of succeeding, or at very least exceeding most expectations. I wouldn't see that as a damp squib at all. 'Building for future' was coherent in conception, for all that it unravelled and with hindsight could be called a damp squib. The next plan might stall too, but I think it only reasonable to entertain the possibility it might work out. Darkest before the dawn and all that, and look at the change in mood for Hull fans since a few months ago. But yeah, 'we have a 5-year plan' begs more questions than it answers.
