Our injury woes.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I am not anti the club being sustainably run either. You'll have to look long and hard to find a post I've made where I have advocated anything of the sort and once you've undertaken a few hours of fruitless search you'll give up and realise you've wasted your time.

That's a classic Straw Man argument on your part: focus on something of your own invention and then rubbish it.

And why would adhering to the rules and regs by spending all of the permissable 55% of turnover be unsustainable anyway?

And if there's nothing to hide regarding that 55% then why not publish proper accounts so that we could have a much better, more informed debate?

The absence of evidence regarding chicanery is not the same thing as evidence of the absence of chicanery.

As for a financial "black hole" (your phrase not mine) if there is no variant of such a thing then why could we not afford to pay for the iconic art deco facade to be painted, to buy the youth team a video camera, to have competent groundsmen, a planned ground maintenance programme and so on... Are these things not entirely predictable and justifiable things that a well-run, properly resourced club should easily be able to settle without pleading poverty?

And neither is it evidence of the existence of chicanary.

I agree with you completely on the accounts observation.

On your black hole/pleading poverty question, as per my earlier observation, maybe every last penny has been spent on the quality required to see us in the promotion places all season?

Like I say, it's either we agree to disagree over our financial suspicions or otherwise or we're going to have to arrange some sort of 'shirts off justice/duel on the Hoe'...and we're both old enough and wise enough than to consider the latter

X Isle wrote:

....whilst yourself being entirely predictable you didn't mention X Throbber, brown nose or 'Newell's mate' once? wasssssuppp

Did i need to? your arse licking of the Brent Regime is well known. Five years you've been blindly supporting Brent and for what? the ground is in a shit state so is the pitch so is the youth system and for a supposedly big promotion game Argyle cant fill the bench! none of this is about sustainability its all about Brent holding on to his prize, stick to what you do best coaching the fans on the internet to be loyal and grateful to Jimmy.

Lord Biro wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

X Isle wrote:

To do so would not be even handed, but then the lack of even handedness comes as no surprise to me on either website.

As compared, no doubt, with your legendary even handedness and faux conciliatory stone stepping.

Debate is debate. There's more of it here than across the river. And uncensored too.

WTF, what exactly would be the point of trying to be conciliatory?  

An instrument of debate. Which is what you do. It doesn't have to be effective or believable, it just has to be offered as evidence of evenhandedness beyond comparison. One can only hope to come close to 7th place in the UK evenhandedness league two to such overwhelming balance. In the end, you do no more than Newell, you follow the wind that fills your own sails, with scant to no regard to the community project itself.

I happen to have always been a fan of small squads. However, I believe that a full sub bench is an absolute minimum. There is such a thing as an emergency loan. The owner has obviously seen fit to allow such an unprofessional situation to develop. Just what effect do you think that will have on the thoughts of the rest of the players ?

(I'll respond to the bold bit because I understand that point. I know i've just had a couple of Tributes with my Sunday roast but the first bit lost me).

Might I dare to suggest the possibility of a galvanising effect?...that the manager trusts them to do a job for him and backs them to deliver.

The effect of bringing in short term emergency loans could be to say to the squad "I don't trust you to step up and fill the gaps" which would be a weakening and undermining effect.

There's a massive assumption being made that the lack of any quick loans to replace the 'crocked' is the doing of the evil hand wringing miser who owns the club. Might it not be that the manager hasn't asked?...for the reason as outlined above?

I don't know, but I'm damned sure you don't know either.

Not to mention giving grief to people who don't go while he resides in Brighton and attends probably about 2 games a season.

One of the most sanctimonious individuals ever to grace (or disgrace) Argyle forums.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

X Isle wrote:

....whilst yourself being entirely predictable you didn't mention X Throbber, brown nose or 'Newell's mate' once? wasssssuppp

Did i need to? your arse licking of the Brent Regime is well known. Five years you've been blindly supporting Brent and for what? the ground is in a shit state so is the pitch so is the youth system and for a supposedly big promotion game Argyle cant fill the bench! none of this is about sustainability its all about Brent holding on to his prize, stick to what you do best coaching the fans on the internet to be loyal and grateful to Jimmy.

Wehey, and thus equilibrium was restored to the universe

I guess the usual dance step is that I now refer you to my signature...and you then don't read it

Punchdrunk wrote:

Not to mention giving grief to people who don't go while he resides in Brighton and attends probably about 2 games a season.

One of the most sanctimonious individuals ever to grace (or disgrace) Argyle forums.

See above

Brighton indeed, makes a change from Crawley

Anyone else wanna try and get a rise?

No-one's ever managed it but you've got about half an hour before my film starts....

X Isle wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I am not anti the club being sustainably run either. You'll have to look long and hard to find a post I've made where I have advocated anything of the sort and once you've undertaken a few hours of fruitless search you'll give up and realise you've wasted your time.

That's a classic Straw Man argument on your part: focus on something of your own invention and then rubbish it.

And why would adhering to the rules and regs by spending all of the permissable 55% of turnover be unsustainable anyway?

And if there's nothing to hide regarding that 55% then why not publish proper accounts so that we could have a much better, more informed debate?

The absence of evidence regarding chicanery is not the same thing as evidence of the absence of chicanery.

As for a financial "black hole" (your phrase not mine) if there is no variant of such a thing then why could we not afford to pay for the iconic art deco facade to be painted, to buy the youth team a video camera, to have competent groundsmen, a planned ground maintenance programme and so on... Are these things not entirely predictable and justifiable things that a well-run, properly resourced club should easily be able to settle without pleading poverty?

And neither is it evidence of the existence of chicanary.

I agree with you completely on the accounts observation.

On your black hole/pleading poverty question, as per my earlier observation, maybe every last penny has been spent on the quality required to see us in the promotion places all season?    

Like I say, it's either we agree to disagree over our financial suspicions or otherwise or we're going to have to arrange some sort of 'shirts off justice/duel on the Hoe'...and we're both old enough and wise enough than to consider the latter  

If it was to emerge that, say, Argyle had funded the HHP planning how would you feel about that?

And if it did and if that was all above board then should that money have come from the 45% or the 55%?

Punchdrunk wrote:

Not to mention giving grief to people who don't go while he resides in Brighton and attends probably about 2 games a season.

One of the most sanctimonious individuals ever to grace (or disgrace) Argyle forums.

In my humble opinon its Xthrobber and his ilk who keep the club backward and village, just blind acceptance that the posh master knows best.

X Isle wrote:

Anyone else wanna try and get a rise?

No-one's ever managed it but you've got about half an hour before my film starts....

What is it, the history of the grateful dead?

I'll form an opinion on impropriety/chicanery if and when evidence of impropriety/chicanery is forthcoming.

It hasn't so I don't have one for you. It may never.

Les Miserable wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Anyone else wanna try and get a rise?

No-one's ever managed it but you've got about half an hour before my film starts....

What is it, the history of the grateful dead?

Jimmy does Dallas.

Les Miserable wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Anyone else wanna try and get a rise?

No-one's ever managed it but you've got about half an hour before my film starts....

What is it, the history of the grateful dead?

No, Dom Hemingway actually.

I say that simply because you got your knickers in such a twist about supposedly not answering a question earlier...but in truth we both know that wasn't a question

X Isle wrote:

There's a massive assumption being made that the lack of any quick loans to replace the 'crocked' is the doing of the evil hand wringing miser who owns the club. Might it not be that the manager hasn't asked?...for the reason as outlined above?

I don't know, but I'm damned sure you don't know either.  

Oh I think I do. NO football manager would ever go through the professional embarrassment of a short subs bench. Not one.  I would suggest you look back through Argyle history.

X Isle wrote:

If you need it spelt out then... YES, IT HAPPENED BEFORE.

Thanks, wasn't that difficult was it?

Lord Biro wrote:

X Isle wrote:

There's a massive assumption being made that the lack of any quick loans to replace the 'crocked' is the doing of the evil hand wringing miser who owns the club. Might it not be that the manager hasn't asked?...for the reason as outlined above?

I don't know, but I'm damned sure you don't know either.  

Oh I think I do. NO football manager would ever go through the professional embarrassment of a short subs bench. Not one.  I would suggest you look back through Argyle history.

We disagree, and I rather suspect you are not privy to any conversations between or thought processes of the manager or the owner. Until an article/interview appears saying Derek Adams request for a play were knocked back, my suggested reason is every bit as your suggested reason.

Les Miserable wrote:

X Isle wrote:

If you need it spelt out then... YES, IT HAPPENED BEFORE.

 Thanks, wasn't that difficult was it?

No, not nearly as difficult as your efforts to see the answer was already there

X Isle wrote:

I'll form an opinion on impropriety/chicanery if and when evidence of impropriety/chicanery is forthcoming.

It hasn't so I don't have one for you. It may never.    

That's real head in the sand stuff.

Perhaps that evidence would emerge were the club to publish full accounts? Perhaps that is why they do not.

Here's the real question: who would ever know and how could anybody ever find out one way or the other?

Obviously they can't.

Now this begs the question of trust. You seem to have 100% faith in Mr Brent despite there being no evidence in any of his actions since he's been here that he has deserved it as the stadium decays, the pitch is fecked, the new grandstand is at least as distant as it ever has been and Brent sits on a pocket of land he has asset stripped from the club while making money by lending the club money at commercial rates because his own feckin budget was so wank the books were unbalanceable.

For my part when somebody stands up and promises "openness and transparency" and then delivers nothing of the sort I have to wonder whether or not I am being scammed. I can't help it. Not after all that went before. Now Brent might be whiter than white and your almost religious fervour for his integrity may be entirely justified but we just don't know, do we? Because there's no evidence of anything one way or the other, is there? And no intention of ever providing any. Now that doesn't strike me as open or transparent at all. Quite the reverse in fact.

I couldn't afford anybody the level of devotion you seem to display for James Brent without them laying it all out in front of me so that I could assess whether or not he was deserving of it.

What was once the mantra of our club president? "Never again", wasn't it? He was quite right to say that too. How does blind acceptance of everything we are told help to achieve never againness? It does not. It makes it far more likely.

The person possessing the deepest and most profound personal integrity that I can think of is the Dalai Lama and even if he was Argyle's owner I'd be a real pain in the ass and be asking all of the same questions because if we don't, if we exhibit blind faith and just hope for the best, despite all the signs being that we were going to hell in a handcart, then we're heading blindly, faithfully, bravely into yet another New World, aren't we?

And how could any genuine Argyle fan want that?

So, that's that for the night then. All very fractious and testy...just as it's always been, wouldn't have it any other way

You'll never admit mutual respect but I know you guys really enjoy trying to bait me, it's the gift that keeps giving for you. And if nothing else while I've entertained you at least the Samaritans switchboard has had a break from Argyles 'suicidal of Swilly' brigade

Genuinely, keep up the good work.

EDIT TO ADD - not ducking a response Franny, i'll pop back IDC. It's just I have a life and family too.

X Isle wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Problem one, when you have a small budget you have to take a chance on injury prone players or players returning from injury, always a gamble.
Problem two, our squad has been too small all season, it was predicted that by January we would struggle with injuries by our more senior posters and come to pass. WTF do we know though?
Problem three, we are too reliant on loan players, their parent clubs and no doubt the players themselves are reticent to be injured hence taking the safe route maybe with a slight knock instead of playing through it.
Problem four, short contracts, Brent has made all contracts as short as possible, players then think if he isn't making a 100% commitment to me and my career why should I commit to Brent?
One name is responsible, Brent, the buck stops with Brent, it's Brent's fault, we need Brunt replaed, we need McHugh replaced we need a full bench FFS, 10k at HP yesterday and the squad was the thinnest it's been since we were literally weeks post admin, for that Brent is to blame, it's Brent's fault.
Blame Brent, nobody else, just Brent.
Brent out.

But what if, by running a small squad, with loanees and short contracts we were able to bring in better quality players than we would otherwise have been able to within the context of a self sufficient ethos?

What if we had a manager who could work comfortably within the framework of the cards he's dealt and get the maximum possible out of them?

And what if that policy, I dunno, got us to the promotion places for months on end?

Compare and contrast to the previous seasons when we had more players, of lesser quality. Did we do any better?

Flippant devils advocatism there because clearly we're doing better under Adams.

Looked at pragmatically therefore there's really no need to start pointing fingers. By all means bemoan the bad luck of the injury pile up, but that's all it is, bad luck. It's not the fault of the squad size, loanee or contract policies which has done us very well to date...unless one retains an underlying agenda for 'anti this/that/other' of course.  

   

Give me strength. Whilst your here and as we know you have the ear of the open, honest and oozing integrity JB could you find out the actual financial viability of the club? The progress on the debts? Or his plans for the new supporters bar?

Anyway Throbby the main gist of my beef could be summed up thus, Crimbo five points clear at top of table. Boateng has left. Boateng still not replaced. Jan couple of loan players shed. McHugh injured, not replaced, Brunt injured (I'll be amazed if he's replaced). We are now in third and a couple points off the playoffs if results go against us, with the loss of the person who scored most of the goals since Crimbo out for rest of the season. The guy that stopped most of the goals going in is crocked. Score less goals and let more in and we have a slide. We are sliding and Brent is fiddling whilst HP burns. He is the boss, it's his club, think about when your in Amsterdam having your dick sucked by GA and the gang.

X Isle wrote:

I think so Angry.

I don't recall five first team starters being crocked at once last season.

I also don't recall us falling out of the automatic places, this season or last season. Last season because we never got there, this season because we're still a healthy points margin above 4th.

Then there's the difference in general form. Last season it was feast then famine, this season the squad gets back on the horse quickly. We've not lost two on the bounce (league) all season so there's no evidence of a lack of players/quality causing the rug to be pulled out from under us.

As much as you'd like to if you're desperately seeking an underlying villain to blame, you can't compare the seasons, their paths are very different and this season is undeniably better.

Either way, fundamentally, the policies being attacked have been in place all season. So the bottom line is that one can't bemoan policies now that have seen us massively out perform last season up to now. To do so would not be even handed, but then the lack of even handedness comes as no surprise to me on either website.

so last january when all the loanees went back to their own clubs we didn't suffer once then? or when Bobby Reid kept coming and going our midfield was to pot because we had no one of our own or on loan to slot in?

you can check if you like but if you went top any games you would have seen it for yourself how bad we were when any player dropped out of our starting 11. You can see the simulates today with del bheys squad.

Amsterdamage wrote:

Problem one, when you have a small budget you have to take a chance on injury prone players or players returning from injury, always a gamble.
Problem two, our squad has been too small all season, it was predicted that by January we would struggle with injuries by our more senior posters and come to pass. WTF do we know though?
Problem three, we are too reliant on loan players, their parent clubs and no doubt the players themselves are reticent to be injured hence taking the safe route maybe with a slight knock instead of playing through it.
Problem four, short contracts, Brent has made all contracts as short as possible, players then think if he isn't making a 100% commitment to me and my career why should I commit to Brent?
One name is responsible, Brent, the buck stops with Brent, it's Brent's fault, we need Brunt replaed, we need McHugh replaced we need a full bench FFS, 10k at HP yesterday and the squad was the thinnest it's been since we were literally weeks post admin, for that Brent is to blame, it's Brent's fault.
Blame Brent, nobody else, just Brent.
Brent out.

Bleedy Hell you're boring!!!

Les Miserable wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Problem one, when you have a small budget you have to take a chance on injury prone players or players returning from injury, always a gamble.
Problem two, our squad has been too small all season, it was predicted that by January we would struggle with injuries by our more senior posters and come to pass. WTF do we know though?
Problem three, we are too reliant on loan players, their parent clubs and no doubt the players themselves are reticent to be injured hence taking the safe route maybe with a slight knock instead of playing through it.
Problem four, short contracts, Brent has made all contracts as short as possible, players then think if he isn't making a 100% commitment to me and my career why should I commit to Brent?
One name is responsible, Brent, the buck stops with Brent, it's Brent's fault, we need Brunt replaed, we need McHugh replaced we need a full bench FFS, 10k at HP yesterday and the squad was the thinnest it's been since we were literally weeks post admin, for that Brent is to blame, it's Brent's fault.
Blame Brent, nobody else, just Brent.
Brent out.

But what if, by running a small squad, with loanees and short contracts we were able to bring in better quality players than we would otherwise have been able to within the context of a self sufficient ethos?

What if we had a manager who could work comfortably within the framework of the cards he's dealt and get the maximum possible out of them?

And what if that policy, I dunno, got us to the promotion places for months on end?

Compare and contrast to the previous seasons when we had more players, of lesser quality. Did we do any better?

Flippant devils advocatism there because clearly we're doing better under Adams.

Looked at pragmatically therefore there's really no need to start pointing fingers. By all means bemoan the bad luck of the injury pile up, but that's all it is, bad luck. It's not the fault of the squad size, loanee or contract policies which has done us very well to date...unless one retains an underlying agenda for 'anti this/that/other' of course.  

   

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there a period of matches last season where we had insufficient players available to fill our bench? In fact, iirc we  could only muster 3 or 4 subs for one match. Clearly lessons weren't learnt and the same lack of strengthening in January and short term loans strategy has been deployed again by the reluctant spender.

You are right Les...

There were 7 occasions where we had less than the permitted subs in the league and FA cup in which, 6 of them we had 6 subs and 1, January 17 at home to Luton we had 4 subs.

There were 2 games in the paint pot cup where we had 5 subs but I'm not sure if that is the limit for subs.

All the information found on the excellent Green on Screens site.

The other pertinent point is that these five players weren't injured on Saturday this is a problem that has been building and evident for months. It's so pasoti to suggest that Adams somehow didn't want the players or asked for them. Complete priaprsmtastic Brent loving wank. We have been warning about brentanomics for five years now and we are right you couple can't admit it. If brent had at least KEPT the strength of the team that got us top and we had a fighting chance of beating the likes of the mighty Northampton we would be seeing crowds well in excess of what we are seeing now which would pay for the extra end of season contracts/loanees we would need.
You were wrong about Brent, you are wrong about Brent, he's a Buffoon, he's running the club into the ground he threw away our chance of promotion last Jaunary and he looks to be doing it again. Why keep apologising for him?