You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Ultras Issue Letter & Banner at Training Ground
February 28 2021 12.04pm

Ultras Issue Letter & Banner at Training Ground

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 15 of 17 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

This forum is sponsored by

Football Index

Sponsor a forum or Advertise on the HOL!

 

View HKOwen's Profile HKOwen Flag Hong Kong 20 Feb 21 1.33am Send a Private Message to HKOwen Add HKOwen as a friend

This

Originally posted by Rachid Rachid Rachid

I find it absolute cringe. Pandemic of Apathy ?

 


Let's see SP and the board trying to line up for a piss in the AW toilets at half time before peddling the new stand. We're the Arthur over here and the facilities are a disgrace

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheBigToePunt's Profile TheBigToePunt Online Flag 20 Feb 21 11.48am Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by Mstrobez

Where I suggest that people are categorically wrong is where they make out that the club hasn't progressed under his leadership. That's just factually incorrect.

Edited by Mstrobez (19 Feb 2021 2.08pm)

If the godforsaken Roy Out/In and Parish Out/In threads (into which most other threads seem to mutate given long enough) have taught me anything, it's that fact checking is not everyone's strong suit.

It amazes me what published, publicly available information people either choose to ignore, can't be bothered to read, or perhaps just don't understand.

Parish has recited the long term strategy so many times now I might soon begin to hear it in my sleep. If it remains unclear just search for his interviews.

Our spending on the team is at, or near, the maximum the club can afford without breaching regulations, and that includes the owners putting a lot of their own money in as a loan. If that remains unclear just search for the club's financial report, which they publish every year. Nobody has to 'reckon' this or that. It's all written down.

How our spending on wages and transfer fees compare to the rest of the league is all publicly available on several websites. No estimations or guesswork required.

You can, in about five minutes, work out the sum total of expenditure on players during Hodgsons time. Then compare it to others, whether at Palace or elsewhere. Again, no guesswork required, and no need to use individual examples to suggest the overall picture. The overall picture is clearly available.

The extent to which youth footballers ever got into our first team is easy to trace. Clue: not often.

All the terms of the planning permission and legal agreement for the new stand are literally on the council website. You can probably attach weight to that, I'd have thought.

And so on, and so forth.

Passion, different opinions, and debate are all excellent parts of football, but the facts create the setting for those things, they are not the subject matter.

Unfortunately it's not just the HF who have demonstrated why their opinions (or are they demands now?) should be ignored by the club.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View southnorwoodhill's Profile southnorwoodhill Flag 20 Feb 21 12.17pm Send a Private Message to southnorwoodhill Add southnorwoodhill as a friend

Pandemic of Apathy - hotly tipped nu-nihilist grindcore thrash quintet from Warlingham. Watch out for the forthcoming single "Roy Out", released on 22/2/2021, it's going to be a smash pop pickers!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View General's Profile General Flag 20 Feb 21 2.17pm Send a Private Message to General Add General as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

If the godforsaken Roy Out/In and Parish Out/In threads (into which most other threads seem to mutate given long enough) have taught me anything, it's that fact checking is not everyone's strong suit.

It amazes me what published, publicly available information people either choose to ignore, can't be bothered to read, or perhaps just don't understand.

Parish has recited the long term strategy so many times now I might soon begin to hear it in my sleep. If it remains unclear just search for his interviews.

Our spending on the team is at, or near, the maximum the club can afford without breaching regulations, and that includes the owners putting a lot of their own money in as a loan. If that remains unclear just search for the club's financial report, which they publish every year. Nobody has to 'reckon' this or that. It's all written down.

How our spending on wages and transfer fees compare to the rest of the league is all publicly available on several websites. No estimations or guesswork required.

You can, in about five minutes, work out the sum total of expenditure on players during Hodgsons time. Then compare it to others, whether at Palace or elsewhere. Again, no guesswork required, and no need to use individual examples to suggest the overall picture. The overall picture is clearly available.

The extent to which youth footballers ever got into our first team is easy to trace. Clue: not often.

All the terms of the planning permission and legal agreement for the new stand are literally on the council website. You can probably attach weight to that, I'd have thought.

And so on, and so forth.

Passion, different opinions, and debate are all excellent parts of football, but the facts create the setting for those things, they are not the subject matter.

Unfortunately it's not just the HF who have demonstrated why their opinions (or are they demands now?) should be ignored by the club.

When you say not often I am confused a little
Previously we have had what I think is a pretty good amount:

Soares, Moses, Watson, Routledge, Williams, Borrowdale, AWB, Clyne, Mitchell, Hills (without injury would be as good as others), Mullins, Zaha, Morrison, Scannell,

Maybe a few more. Maybe a few of the above will be talked about as being not very good..

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheBigToePunt's Profile TheBigToePunt Online Flag 20 Feb 21 3.24pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by General

When you say not often I am confused a little
Previously we have had what I think is a pretty good amount:

Soares, Moses, Watson, Routledge, Williams, Borrowdale, AWB, Clyne, Mitchell, Hills (without injury would be as good as others), Mullins, Zaha, Morrison, Scannell,

Maybe a few more. Maybe a few of the above will be talked about as being not very good..

Over what period of time though, and how many were suitable for the Premier league? I did do a count before commenting on another thread a while ago, I'll try and find the figures but I think your list is about right.

The 14 players you list cover the last 20 years, giving us an average of less than one player making it to the first team per season, which seems about right even before you do the sums.

Filter it down further by focusing on those who were good enough for the Premier league and the number reduces by half at least, meaning we produce a top flight player every three years or so.

Hence my observation that the HF and others are speaking in willful ignorance of the facts when accusing the club of failing to uphold some established tradition of promoting youth.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (20 Feb 2021 3.48pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Eaglecoops's Profile Eaglecoops Flag CR3 20 Feb 21 3.53pm Send a Private Message to Eaglecoops Add Eaglecoops as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

If the godforsaken Roy Out/In and Parish Out/In threads (into which most other threads seem to mutate given long enough) have taught me anything, it's that fact checking is not everyone's strong suit.

It amazes me what published, publicly available information people either choose to ignore, can't be bothered to read, or perhaps just don't understand.

Parish has recited the long term strategy so many times now I might soon begin to hear it in my sleep. If it remains unclear just search for his interviews.

Our spending on the team is at, or near, the maximum the club can afford without breaching regulations, and that includes the owners putting a lot of their own money in as a loan. If that remains unclear just search for the club's financial report, which they publish every year. Nobody has to 'reckon' this or that. It's all written down.

How our spending on wages and transfer fees compare to the rest of the league is all publicly available on several websites. No estimations or guesswork required.

You can, in about five minutes, work out the sum total of expenditure on players during Hodgsons time. Then compare it to others, whether at Palace or elsewhere. Again, no guesswork required, and no need to use individual examples to suggest the overall picture. The overall picture is clearly available.

The extent to which youth footballers ever got into our first team is easy to trace. Clue: not often.

All the terms of the planning permission and legal agreement for the new stand are literally on the council website. You can probably attach weight to that, I'd have thought.

And so on, and so forth.

Passion, different opinions, and debate are all excellent parts of football, but the facts create the setting for those things, they are not the subject matter.

Unfortunately it's not just the HF who have demonstrated why their opinions (or are they demands now?) should be ignored by the club.

You can keep posting the same stuff as well but none of it takes account of our poor transfer windows year after year under Roy. Opportunity after opportunity missed to bring in perhaps one youthful player and one experienced player each window which would have made a massive difference.

Please donít blame lack of money because a carefully selected youngster and a free transfer old head doesnít need to cost a fortune.

We have just showed no forward thinking in the transfer market, so you can bang on about SPís long term plan and how it is going to be implemented however the last 4 years have seen the team stagnate and inevitably start to fall off the edge of a cliff. Some will say understandable for a team made up of mostly 30 plus year olds.

I am also of the opinion that another manager could have done better with the existing players. Now that is just supposition so it is my opinion against someone elseís and I see no point in arguing this, however not bringing in players, for example (months and months without a right back , left back and centre forward), but as SP would say, ďthe sun will rise tomorrowĒ.

I believe we are in as precarious a state as we have since the administration period from a player perspective. No money, elderly squad, manager who doesnít like utilising youth. Not a great combination.

So what is your answer. You are saying we cannot spend because we donít have any money and we know our current players are too old to carry on at this level, so do we just give up?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheBigToePunt's Profile TheBigToePunt Online Flag 20 Feb 21 4.15pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

You can keep posting the same stuff as well but none of it takes account of our poor transfer windows year after year under Roy. Opportunity after opportunity missed to bring in perhaps one youthful player and one experienced player each window which would have made a massive difference.

Please donít blame lack of money because a carefully selected youngster and a free transfer old head doesnít need to cost a fortune.

We have just showed no forward thinking in the transfer market, so you can bang on about SPís long term plan and how it is going to be implemented however the last 4 years have seen the team stagnate and inevitably start to fall off the edge of a cliff. Some will say understandable for a team made up of mostly 30 plus year olds.

I am also of the opinion that another manager could have done better with the existing players. Now that is just supposition so it is my opinion against someone elseís and I see no point in arguing this, however not bringing in players, for example (months and months without a right back , left back and centre forward), but as SP would say, ďthe sun will rise tomorrowĒ.

I believe we are in as precarious a state as we have since the administration period from a player perspective. No money, elderly squad, manager who doesnít like utilising youth. Not a great combination.

So what is your answer. You are saying we cannot spend because we donít have any money and we know our current players are too old to carry on at this level, so do we just give up?

My entire point is to distinguish between differing opinions on one hand, and ignorance of the plain facts on the other.

If you feel our transfer business has been poor then that's your opinion. It's a bit different to mine but fair enough.

If you think there is a correlation between Roy being manager and our transfer business then I'd ask you to explain further. We know we have a director of football, and we know Roy tells the press every year that it's up to the club if signings are made, not him. Neither of us is privy to the inner workings of course, but my presumption that Roy has no role in transfers is based on the evidence I list above.

If you think we should have spent significantly more money in previous windows then I would ask you how exactly, given the published financial report and the FFP regs, both of which are facts, and both of which show the club at its financial limit.

I'd also ask you how you know that we haven't tried to get the one good, but reasonably priced youngster per season you envisage?

I'm really not trying to attack anyone unnecessarily here, but let's look at the facts re transfers. This season we brought in Eze, ferguson, Mateta and Butland. All 19-23 apart from the goalie, who is 27, young for a keeper. We also got batshuyi on loan with an option (27) and Clyne on a free at 29.

Season before we got cahill, who was old but good and a last minute deal when injuries hit, plus Ayew and Mccarthy both 27/28. Hardly ancient.

Before that we went for Meyer and sorloth.

In other words, exactly the approach you wish for.

As to what I'd suggest the club does, well that's a very different discussion to the one about supporters ignoring the facts, but I'd suggest they continue with the current plan, and stick to a conservative style of football as its the most likely to work.


Edited by TheBigToePunt (20 Feb 2021 5.04pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Eaglecoops's Profile Eaglecoops Flag CR3 20 Feb 21 4.54pm Send a Private Message to Eaglecoops Add Eaglecoops as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

My entire point is to distinguish between differing opinions on one hand, and ignorance of the plain facts on the other.

If you feel our transfer business has been poor then that's your opinion. It's a bit different to mine but fair enough.

If you think there is a correlation between Roy being manager and our transfer business then I'd ask you to explain further. We know we have a director of football, and we know Roy tells the press every year that it's up to the club if signings are made, not him. Neither of us is privy to the inner workings of course, but my presumption that Roy has no role in transfers is based on the evidence I list above.

If you think we should have spent significantly more money in previous windows then I would ask you how exactly, given the published financial report and the FFP regs, both of which are facts, and both of which show the club at its financial limit.

Finally, I'd ask you how you know that we haven't tried to get the one good, but reasonably priced youngster per season you envisage?

Edited by TheBigToePunt (20 Feb 2021 4.17pm)

If we have a manager (who by his own admission can be arrogant), who turns around each window and says, ďno we donít need anyone thereĒ, or ďI can manage with the players I haveĒ, then he is just as culpable for our current position as if he was fully responsible for transfers. No one on here knows for sure how transfers work with our team as Roy will never say what the machinations of our club are.

I did not say spend lavishly, I said invest in a decent youngster each window. That would have cost say £5m per window and then we could have upgraded one of the other elderly players with an out of contract or free transfer which would have been for salary cost only.

We keep renewing contracts on elderly players on high salaries and then say we canít spend because of ffp.

With regard to ignoring ffp, there appear to be several PL clubs happy to pay fines so itís a moot point whether we can afford. I think itís got more to do with whether we are willing to spend. I have no problem with the club for being prudent in that respect, but players such as Benteke and Sakho should have been got rid of as soon as possible as their salaries alone would have made a massive difference.

So in summary over the period of Roy being in charge we could have bought in say 8 decent youngsters at an average of say £5m so £40m which compared to other clubs is minimal spend. Now you do go onto say that maybe we were trying to do that and my answer to that is simple. We have failed miserably. Only this year for the first time have we started to acknowledge the issue with age by bringing in Eze, Ferguson, Mateta, but it feels a little bit late in coming and in the case of Eze and Mateta they are more marquee signings than squad youngsters with potential.

I suppose what we are not seeing are the trademark Freedman signings that he used to be able to come up with and was probably the reason he was made D of F. Other teams seem to be able to find them and I just feel we are poor in this area.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheBigToePunt's Profile TheBigToePunt Online Flag 20 Feb 21 5.06pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

If we have a manager (who by his own admission can be arrogant), who turns around each window and says, ďno we donít need anyone thereĒ, or ďI can manage with the players I haveĒ, then he is just as culpable for our current position as if he was fully responsible for transfers. No one on here knows for sure how transfers work with our team as Roy will never say what the machinations of our club are.

I did not say spend lavishly, I said invest in a decent youngster each window. That would have cost say £5m per window and then we could have upgraded one of the other elderly players with an out of contract or free transfer which would have been for salary cost only.

We keep renewing contracts on elderly players on high salaries and then say we canít spend because of ffp.

With regard to ignoring ffp, there appear to be several PL clubs happy to pay fines so itís a moot point whether we can afford. I think itís got more to do with whether we are willing to spend. I have no problem with the club for being prudent in that respect, but players such as Benteke and Sakho should have been got rid of as soon as possible as their salaries alone would have made a massive difference.

So in summary over the period of Roy being in charge we could have bought in say 8 decent youngsters at an average of say £5m so £40m which compared to other clubs is minimal spend. Now you do go onto say that maybe we were trying to do that and my answer to that is simple. We have failed miserably. Only this year for the first time have we started to acknowledge the issue with age by bringing in Eze, Ferguson, Mateta, but it feels a little bit late in coming and in the case of Eze and Mateta they are more marquee signings than squad youngsters with potential.

I suppose what we are not seeing are the trademark Freedman signings that he used to be able to come up with and was probably the reason he was made D of F. Other teams seem to be able to find them and I just feel we are poor in this area.

Sorry, was editing my last post while yours was posted.

We have signed younger players. See above.

Which clubs ignore FFP and pay the fine?

Hodgson tells the press every window that he wants signings.

How many £5m youngsters that could play in the Premier league do you think there are?

Edited by TheBigToePunt (20 Feb 2021 5.13pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Eaglecoops's Profile Eaglecoops Flag CR3 20 Feb 21 6.10pm Send a Private Message to Eaglecoops Add Eaglecoops as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

My entire point is to distinguish between differing opinions on one hand, and ignorance of the plain facts on the other.

If you feel our transfer business has been poor then that's your opinion. It's a bit different to mine but fair enough.

If you think there is a correlation between Roy being manager and our transfer business then I'd ask you to explain further. We know we have a director of football, and we know Roy tells the press every year that it's up to the club if signings are made, not him. Neither of us is privy to the inner workings of course, but my presumption that Roy has no role in transfers is based on the evidence I list above.

If you think we should have spent significantly more money in previous windows then I would ask you how exactly, given the published financial report and the FFP regs, both of which are facts, and both of which show the club at its financial limit.

I'd also ask you how you know that we haven't tried to get the one good, but reasonably priced youngster per season you envisage?

I'm really not trying to attack anyone unnecessarily here, but let's look at the facts re transfers. This season we brought in Eze, ferguson, Mateta and Butland. All 19-23 apart from the goalie, who is 27, young for a keeper. We also got batshuyi on loan with an option (27) and Clyne on a free at 29.

Season before we got cahill, who was old but good and a last minute deal when injuries hit, plus Ayew and Mccarthy both 27/28. Hardly ancient.

Before that we went for Meyer and sorloth.

In other words, exactly the approach you wish for.

As to what I'd suggest the club does, well that's a very different discussion to the one about supporters ignoring the facts, but I'd suggest they continue with the current plan, and stick to a conservative style of football as its the most likely to work.


Edited by TheBigToePunt (20 Feb 2021 5.04pm)

Ok, letís look at this a different way then. Why is everyone saying we have an ageing squad that is uncompetitive because they are not young enough then?

I would add that Mateta is a loan, Batshuyai is a loan, Sorloth was a disaster, Iím not worried about age with goal keepers, Meyer wasnít liked by the manager, Ferguson is hopefully a decent signing, but not sure of the long term injury problems he may have, which leaves Clyne, Ayew and McCarthy who are all late 20s and 2 of which have had terrible career threatening injuries at times during their careers.

This leaves Eze. Good signing. Not much else to say really. These are the facts as I see them.

With regard FFP breaches, Chelsea, Man City and Bournemouth spring to mind, Iím sure there must be others.

Edited by Eaglecoops (20 Feb 2021 6.13pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheBigToePunt's Profile TheBigToePunt Online Flag 20 Feb 21 6.44pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

Ok, letís look at this a different way then. Why is everyone saying we have an ageing squad that is uncompetitive because they are not young enough then?

I would add that Mateta is a loan, Batshuyai is a loan, Sorloth was a disaster, Iím not worried about age with goal keepers, Meyer wasnít liked by the manager, Ferguson is hopefully a decent signing, but not sure of the long term injury problems he may have, which leaves Clyne, Ayew and McCarthy who are all late 20s and 2 of which have had terrible career threatening injuries at times during their careers.

This leaves Eze. Good signing. Not much else to say really. These are the facts as I see them.

With regard FFP breaches, Chelsea, Man City and Bournemouth spring to mind, Iím sure there must be others.

Edited by Eaglecoops (20 Feb 2021 6.13pm)[/quote


Mateta and batshuyi were loans but with an option to buy, which is a significant difference to a loan c like RLC, hence me not including him as an example of a young signing.

We have an old team because the younger players we have signed over the course of several windows have failed to replace older players in their positions. That doesn't mean the club haven't signed young players. Not to labour the point but as a matter of fact we have, and that's without knowing how many the club looked at, or went for but didn't get.

Chelsea were done for transferring youth players they shouldn't have, not for FFP. Man City were found not guilty (rightly or not). Bournemouth were done for FFP when getting promoted from the championship eight years ago, never in the Premier league. FFP is in force and is complied with overwhelmingly, including by us.

All a matter of record, not opinion.

I'm all for a healthy discussion about subjective matters like whether Roy is the right man for us, whether we can change direction tactically, what our line up should be etc, and you might talk me round to a different position on all that stuff and more, but the facts are the facts I'm afraid, and I've no time for those who ignore them.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (20 Feb 2021 6.46pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 20 Feb 21 6.46pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

If the godforsaken Roy Out/In and Parish Out/In threads (into which most other threads seem to mutate given long enough) have taught me anything, it's that fact checking is not everyone's strong suit.

It amazes me what published, publicly available information people either choose to ignore, can't be bothered to read, or perhaps just don't understand.

Parish has recited the long term strategy so many times now I might soon begin to hear it in my sleep. If it remains unclear just search for his interviews.

Our spending on the team is at, or near, the maximum the club can afford without breaching regulations, and that includes the owners putting a lot of their own money in as a loan. If that remains unclear just search for the club's financial report, which they publish every year. Nobody has to 'reckon' this or that. It's all written down.

How our spending on wages and transfer fees compare to the rest of the league is all publicly available on several websites. No estimations or guesswork required.

You can, in about five minutes, work out the sum total of expenditure on players during Hodgsons time. Then compare it to others, whether at Palace or elsewhere. Again, no guesswork required, and no need to use individual examples to suggest the overall picture. The overall picture is clearly available.

The extent to which youth footballers ever got into our first team is easy to trace. Clue: not often.

All the terms of the planning permission and legal agreement for the new stand are literally on the council website. You can probably attach weight to that, I'd have thought.

And so on, and so forth.

Passion, different opinions, and debate are all excellent parts of football, but the facts create the setting for those things, they are not the subject matter.

Unfortunately it's not just the HF who have demonstrated why their opinions (or are they demands now?) should be ignored by the club.

Nailed it

 


said the rabid giraffe whilst brandishing his throbbing member of reason, and twas ever thus.

Did you know? 95% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 15 of 17 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Ultras Issue Letter & Banner at Training Ground