Please go now, Artell

[AlexLeicester]

I remain sceptical. The team have been playing invigorating football, but we have still looked dire at times. The management team seem to have hit on a formula that encourages team spirit. Excellent.
We have (and I hope this doesn't bite me back) escaped relegation from the League, which I fear would have been catastrophic, but it was the management team that took us so close. Dave Artell spent far too many games screaming and swearing at the players, then turning on the 4th official, and realised - or maybe he was told - that he'd be better off in the stands for most of the game.
If, as I hope, this has been a season of education for him and his management team, then with a strong squad (and he gets to choose) we fight for at least a play-off spot all next season, then I'll happily swallow my negativity. Events off the pitch have not favoured Artell or Steve Davis, so that must be tough, but that is history. From August I want to see football that excites fans, brings points and includes passion tempered with responsibility.
We are stuck with Dave Artell, as we were with Steve Davis - so he will, as with all managers, get my support.

[MikeSB]

I remain sceptical. The team have been playing invigorating football, but we have still looked dire at times. The management team seem to have hit on a formula that encourages team spirit. Excellent.
We have (and I hope this doesn't bite me back) escaped relegation from the League, which I fear would have been catastrophic, but it was the management team that took us so close. Dave Artell spent far too many games screaming and swearing at the players, then turning on the 4th official, and realised - or maybe he was told - that he'd be better off in the stands for most of the game.
If, as I hope, this has been a season of education for him and his management team, then with a strong squad (and he gets to choose) we fight for at least a play-off spot all next season, then I'll happily swallow my negativity. Events off the pitch have not favoured Artell or Steve Davis, so that must be tough, but that is history. From August I want to see football that excites fans, brings points and includes passion tempered with responsibility.
We are stuck with Dave Artell, as we were with Steve Davis - so he will, as with all managers, get my support.

Good post that if I may say so..

Re the 3 players out of contract? I didn't know Kirk was one too?

I think it all depends on their agents first, parents second or equal and the club comes last only because signing contract extensions doesn't always mean a rise in their pay unless we break the guidelines we have and if agents have clubs lined up with a good size sign on fee, then we can say goodbye to them signing.... but how come we allowed players to get to this situation or have they just refused to sign them anyway even at the last season close? And if the going rate is around 300K in a tribunal that in some ways is not a bad return but falls far short of the millions required to keep a Cat 2 academy going. Put in perspective, if all three go, that doesn't cover even ONE year's finance required! That surely means a rethink which they should have thought about when the new rules came in...

Of course the benefits could come later in sell on clauses but not sure the tribunals can include or enforce that like they can when under contract?

[Timmy58]

[QUOTE=MikeSB;38856595]Good post that if I may say so..

Re the 3 players out of contract? I didn't know Kirk was one too?

I think it all depends on their agents first, parents second or equal and the club comes last only because signing contract extensions doesn't always mean a rise in their pay unless we break the guidelines we have and if agents have clubs lined up with a good size sign on fee, then we can say goodbye to them signing.... but how come we allowed players to get to this situation or have they just refused to sign them anyway even at the last season close? And if the going rate is around 300K in a tribunal that in some ways is not a bad return but falls far short of the millions required to keep a Cat 2 academy going. Put in perspective, if all three go, that doesn't cover even ONE year's finance required! That surely means a rethink which they should have thought about when the new rules came in...

Of course the benefits could come later in sell on clauses but not sure the tribunals can include or enforce that like they can when under contract

I am not sure if add ons can be built into the sale either. Artell has been manager for a little over a year so his (or the clubs) new policy of trying to tie players down on longer contracts has only really just begun. I am not expecting Ainley or Jones to be here next season. However, Kirk has a long way to go and there shouldn't be too much doubt that he will sign up again.
I think the old chestnut about "should we have an Academy" or "should it be down graded" can be put to bed once and for all because without the level of coaching (and I know Mike doesn't believe in coaching, but I suspect he is in a minority of one on that topic) that these players who have dug us out of the hole we were heading towards have been receiving over the last 10 years or so we might be in a spot more bother than we were.

[out0lunch]

I believe at youth level we have to offer more money than they were on with their last contract, otherwise they can leave for free.

I think there are possible 2 answers, either give them a 2 year contract and after 1 year ask them to sign another 2 year contract and it if they won't put them on the transfer list or a 3 year contract and after 2 years ask them to sign again or put on the transfer list.

It's all about agents influencing parents and youngsters saying they will get them more money (ie more for the agent and a quick percentage cut.) The agent is not bothered about their players future careers.
We are going to have the same problem with NG in a years time so he should be given a new contract this Summer.

Of course all this depends on the coffers

[MikeSB]

[QUOTE=Timmy58;38856715]

Good post that if I may say so..

Re the 3 players out of contract? I didn't know Kirk was one too?

I think it all depends on their agents first, parents second or equal and the club comes last only because signing contract extensions doesn't always mean a rise in their pay unless we break the guidelines we have and if agents have clubs lined up with a good size sign on fee, then we can say goodbye to them signing.... but how come we allowed players to get to this situation or have they just refused to sign them anyway even at the last season close? And if the going rate is around 300K in a tribunal that in some ways is not a bad return but falls far short of the millions required to keep a Cat 2 academy going. Put in perspective, if all three go, that doesn't cover even ONE year's finance required! That surely means a rethink which they should have thought about when the new rules came in...

Of course the benefits could come later in sell on clauses but not sure the tribunals can include or enforce that like they can when under contract

I am not sure if add ons can be built into the sale either. Artell has been manager for a little over a year so his (or the clubs) new policy of trying to tie players down on longer contracts has only really just begun. I am not expecting Ainley or Jones to be here next season. However, Kirk has a long way to go and there shouldn't be too much doubt that he will sign up again.
I think the old chestnut about "should we have an Academy" or "should it be down graded" can be put to bed once and for all because without the level of coaching (and I know Mike doesn't believe in coaching, but I suspect he is in a minority of one on that topic) that these players who have dug us out of the hole we were heading towards have been receiving over the last 10 years or so we might be in a spot more bother than we were.

Timmy. Its not that I'm against 'coaching' per se but the evidence can be twisted to suit opinions. In my day there was none and so how did we produce a world cup winning team? How did we produce a Frank Lord or thousands of others? It was because they had talent or natural ability. The PL have hundreds of youngsters in academies and the evidence so far is what was it less than 1% reach the required level? That is my evidence. Others will say that years of coaching will produce the goods and 'our' academy proves it...doesn't it? Well, you would need to check how many youngsters made the grade over the years vs the cost of the coaching and how many Dario brought in like Ashton, Jack and Brammer that brought us success? Platt was another and that was BEFORE the academy idea of 'coaching' kids from 5 years old.

I prefer to use the term 'development' of players that WILL take place irrespective of coaching because I know, I was a better player at 21 than I was at 18 and better than I was at 15 as I developed physically and played more competitive games with better players and that is all our players do and why most are not up to league standard until they get to those ages with games under their belt. How much did it cost the club in those early days and how many coaches did we employ compared with now? We have had the EPPP 5 years and we have struggled for the last few years irrespective and so doesn't that tell us something? I keep providing the same evidence over and over that most kids almost all kids will go to their local academy irrespective of how good they think they are. NONE of ours have gone to PL academies being that Cat1 is better than Cat2 etc. Some move on when they are 16 like one has just done with Chelsea. But most won't as working parents can't afford the time to take them 3 times a week to Liverpool or Manchester at peak times and how many have gone up the road to Stoke even? So my case is kids will go local no matter the level of the academy as indeed they do in the Conference too...Ours could be cat4 at it won't make any difference. All it is is having say one coach per 15 kids instead of one in ten or one in eight or even less...

Progress comes with games, not coaching! I don't mind being in a minority and against the flavour of the month. The evidence is with me and not the majority and no coach is going to vote for Christmas are they...We may get some decent talent coming through but over ten years that costs ten million and selling three in one season who are the cream isn't good business or sensible forward planning and why I still believe our academy will be downgraded sooner rarther than later. It also allows us to look at more non league players when that is difficult if we have so many of our own to look after...Needing loan players is another nail in academy structures and coaching philosophy.

Managers and tactics for winning matches has NOTHING to do with coaching kids and why ours need time and experience to win matches.

[somersetcrewe]

Timmy. Its not that I'm against 'coaching' per se but the evidence can be twisted to suit opinions. In my day there was none and so how did we produce a world cup winning team? How did we produce a Frank Lord or thousands of others? It was because they had talent or natural ability.

And people talk about the academy being an out-dated concept.
Harping back to the 60s definitely is.
We won the World Cup in 66 with a large slice of luck, home advantage, some world class players of their time and the fact that other countries were no better at developing their players than we were. It wasn't just England who didn't run academies, it wasn't just England who (allegedly) did not focus as much on coaching. It was everyone else too. So that cancels that one out.

That World Cup winning team wouldn't have a sniff against the best of today. The only "high press" they were aware of would be those journalists in the expensive seats!!

How did we produce a Frank Lord? (and are you really sure there were "thousands" of others?). We probably didn't. We just got lucky that he played for us at the time. Could he do the same in today's game? The old romantics would like to think so but we will never know. Chances are if he were THAT good, he'd either be tightly marked and less effective OR sold on to a team in a higher league. How come he never was?

And AL, do you really think we are "stuck" with Artell? Do you not see the progress that others see? Do you not think it is fair to give him time to develop a team of his own? I tell you what, if he retains the core of the present side next season that he has put together (although I fear Jones and Ainley may not be part of it), I can see us in the top 10 and challenging. There's a lot of natural talent in that squad. I hope to god it isn't coached out of them!

[MikeSB]

And people talk about the academy being an out-dated concept.
Harping back to the 60s definitely is.
We won the World Cup in 66 with a large slice of luck, home advantage, some world class players of their time and the fact that other countries were no better at developing their players than we were. It wasn't just England who didn't run academies, it wasn't just England who (allegedly) did not focus as much on coaching. It was everyone else too. So that cancels that one out.

That World Cup winning team wouldn't have a sniff against the best of today. The only "high press" they were aware of would be those journalists in the expensive seats!!

How did we produce a Frank Lord? (and are you really sure there were "thousands" of others?). We probably didn't. We just got lucky that he played for us at the time. Could he do the same in today's game? The old romantics would like to think so but we will never know. Chances are if he were THAT good, he'd either be tightly marked and less effective OR sold on to a team in a higher league. How come he never was?

And AL, do you really think we are "stuck" with Artell? Do you not see the progress that others see? Do you not think it is fair to give him time to develop a team of his own? I tell you what, if he retains the core of the present side next season that he has put together (although I fear Jones and Ainley may not be part of it), I can see us in the top 10 and challenging. There's a lot of natural talent in that squad. I hope to god it isn't coached out of them!

Its all relative. The fact that Frank Lord didn't play much higher is testament to how good many many footballers were in that day and there was no point moving on that often as the wages were capped. Frank Blunstone the ex Alex Player who played for Chelsea and England got just ten pounds a week and worked in a newsagent before he went to training. He told me that personally when we played golf together.

People argue that football and other sports have moved on for the better? I say not because being fitter or faster does not in itself produce 'better' visual enjoyment. Packed defences suppress individual skills and probably true that Jimmy Greaves or Bobby Charlton would not have scored the goals they did. So people then say that is improvement? Nah, its the opposite imo. I used to love watching tennis with the likes of Illie Nastasi flicking his wrist to dip the ball over the net and the excitement of players moving around the court and now what we see is men and women staying on the base line bashing the ball over the net with 20 rallies etc...Boring boring boring and so is that an improvement? Its not supposed to be a sport of who can hit the ball the hardest, again imo.

Its probably why football was far more enjoyable to watch as a spectator sport back then and like tennis, its now boring because defensive tactics dictate so that sometime we see only one or two attempts at goal in 90 minutes. Is that progress? Over to you!

[somersetcrewe]

Its probably why football was far more enjoyable to watch as a spectator sport back then ............

On that we can agree ......although I can only go back as far as the 70s!

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, I have never said football is more enjoyable nowadays - indeed , I say quite the reverse!!
The advent of the Premier League and the huge influx of foreign players saw to that!
And are Man City that great to watch? Where's the fun in watching a team retain possession for 80% of the game?
They slowly but surely stifle the opposition into submission.
Give me high tempo, end-to-end any day.

My point though was things change, it happens, it's unavoidable - not necessarily for the better, not necessarily progress but what used to work then doesn't always work now. And just because we won the World Cup in our back yard with no (or little) coaching and no academies, it doesn't mean we could do the same now. Not unless every other footballing nation does the same. Can't see that happening!