You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Ultras Issue Letter & Banner at Training Ground
February 28 2021 7.20am

Ultras Issue Letter & Banner at Training Ground

Previous Topic | Next Topic


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

This forum is sponsored by

Football Index

Sponsor a forum or Advertise on the HOL!

 

View Helmet46's Profile Helmet46 Flag Caterham 21 Feb 21 8.25am Send a Private Message to Helmet46 Add Helmet46 as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

Ok, let’s 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, I’m not worried about age with goal keepers, Meyer wasn’t 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, I’m 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)

I agree with you here, in most respects. We cannot spend oodles of cash due to FFP. Also some signings work, some don’t, that’s the same with all clubs and that’s why a club like Palace - where there has to be financial caution - have to be very careful. However, the point of the HF letter was, I suspect, more to do with an expression of tactics and frustration than anything else. At what point, for example, do the club recognise, consider and reflect that the tactics employed by the manager do not appear to be playing to the strengths of the players we have (young or old)? At what point does someone suggest to him that maybe we’ve been figured out? Not scoring and conceding lots of goals does rather seem to me to point to something being slightly broken in the chain. (Remember the long ball game? Took a while but eventually teams realised that there were obvious tactical flaws and worked out how to beat it. To me, this is the same. How much success is Big Sam having, has Pulis had and now, perhaps, Roy? Are there parallels)?

It is and has been obvious, for all to see, where there are gaps in the team. We have tried to cover those gaps - for example Kouyate in midfield - but we play him as a centre back. We drafted in Meyer (lightweight or not) and Eze and play(ed) them as wingers. We brought Ferguson in who hasn’t played for over a year and never for us. (Pointless signing? Beginning to feel like it).

We (fans) get excited about the youngsters - the club itself regularly loves to boast on social media and other platforms about their success - but even with long term injuries, we don’t sit them on the bench for a taster. (Not sure about the ‘bubble’ reason either. Our loanees appear to go straight into the team they’re loaned to and other clubs manage to put youngsters on the bench, I believe, without 10 days isolation).

And it’s a fact, only a very few Academy players actually make it through (but we’ve spent all that money - I assume to change that - otherwise what’s the point)?

This would appear to be a decent group of talented young academy players and I refuse to believe there are not 1 or 2 that would do any worse than some of the seemingly uninspired senior players I keep seeing, if given a 15 minute cameo towards the end of another game where we’re getting smashed. Burnley WAS a disgrace. They failed to score and almost lost at home to a 10 man West Brom side yesterday. They smashed us. Freak result? Possibly but then we shipped in a load from Villa and 7 from Liverpool. I am supportive of the club and always will be, and my knowledge of the game can be written on the back of a postage stamp compared to Roy’s but I’d like to think that he and SP have witnessed the last few games, looked long and hard at their players, kicked some over-hyped, over-compensated arse and we will see a different set up and different performance against Brighton. If nothing changes (not win, lose or draw but performance and heart) then I personally think Roy has to go as, being a Croydon boy, he’ll appreciate the meaning of this one. If he cannot motivate this bunch of Jessie’s to get up for this game, hope is lost in my opinion.

Edited by Helmet46 (21 Feb 2021 8.48am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 21 Feb 21 8.43am Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Helmet46

I agree with you here, in most respects. We cannot spend oodles of cash due to FFP. Also some signings work, some don’t, that’s the same with all clubs and that’s why a club like Palace - where there has to be financial caution - have to be very careful. However, the point of the HF letter was, I suspect, more to do with an expression of tactics and frustration than anything else. At what point, for example, do the club recognise, consider and reflect that the tactics employed by the manager do not appear to be playing to the strengths of the players we have (young or old)? At what point does someone suggest to him that maybe we’ve been figured out? Not scoring and conceding lots of goals does rather seem to me to point to something being slightly broken in the chain. (Remember the long ball game? Took a while but eventually teams realised that there were obvious tactical flaws and worked out how to beat it. To me, this is the same. How much success is Big Sam having, has Pulis had and now, perhaps, Roy? Are there parallels)?

It is and has been obvious, for all to see, where there are gaps in the team. We have tried to cover those gaps - for example Kouyate in midfield - but we play him as a centre back. We drafted in Meyer (lightweight or not) and Eze and play(ed) them as wingers. We brought Ferguson in who hasn’t played for over a year and never for us. (Pointless signing? Beginning to feel like it).

We (fans) get excited about the youngsters - the club itself regularly loves to boast on social media and other platforms about their success - but even with long term injuries, we don’t sit them on the bench for a taster. (Not sure about the ‘bubble’ reason either. Our loanees appear to go straight into the team they’re loaned to and other clubs manage to put youngsters on the bench, I believe, without 10 days isolation).

And it’s a fact, only a very few Academy players actually make it through (but we’ve spent all that money - I assume to change that - otherwise what’s the point)?

This would appear to be a decent group of talented young academy players and I refuse to believe there are not 1 or 2 that would do any worse than some of the seemingly uninspired senior players I keep seeing, if given a 15 minute cameo towards the end of another game where we’re getting smashed. Burnley WAS a disgrace. They failed to score and almost lost at home to a 10 man West Brom side yesterday. They smashed us. Freak result? Possibly but then we shipped in a load from Villa and 7 from Liverpool. I am supportive of the club and always will be, and my knowledge of the game can be written on the back of a postage stamp compared to Roy’s but I’d like to think that he and SP have witnessed the last few games, looked long and hard at their players, kicked some over-hyped, over-compensated arse and we will see a different set up and different performance against Brighton. If nothing changes (not win, lose or draw but performance and heart) then I personally think Roy has to go as, being a Croydon boy, he’ll appreciate the meaning of this one. If he cannot motivate this bunch of Jessie’s to get up for this game, hope is lost in my opinion.


Edited by Helmet46 (21 Feb 2021 8.37am)

Kerching!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheBigToePunt's Profile TheBigToePunt Flag 21 Feb 21 12.50pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by Helmet46

I agree with you here, in most respects. We cannot spend oodles of cash due to FFP. Also some signings work, some don’t, that’s the same with all clubs and that’s why a club like Palace - where there has to be financial caution - have to be very careful. However, the point of the HF letter was, I suspect, more to do with an expression of tactics and frustration than anything else. At what point, for example, do the club recognise, consider and reflect that the tactics employed by the manager do not appear to be playing to the strengths of the players we have (young or old)? At what point does someone suggest to him that maybe we’ve been figured out? Not scoring and conceding lots of goals does rather seem to me to point to something being slightly broken in the chain. (Remember the long ball game? Took a while but eventually teams realised that there were obvious tactical flaws and worked out how to beat it. To me, this is the same. How much success is Big Sam having, has Pulis had and now, perhaps, Roy? Are there parallels)?

It is and has been obvious, for all to see, where there are gaps in the team. We have tried to cover those gaps - for example Kouyate in midfield - but we play him as a centre back. We drafted in Meyer (lightweight or not) and Eze and play(ed) them as wingers. We brought Ferguson in who hasn’t played for over a year and never for us. (Pointless signing? Beginning to feel like it).

We (fans) get excited about the youngsters - the club itself regularly loves to boast on social media and other platforms about their success - but even with long term injuries, we don’t sit them on the bench for a taster. (Not sure about the ‘bubble’ reason either. Our loanees appear to go straight into the team they’re loaned to and other clubs manage to put youngsters on the bench, I believe, without 10 days isolation).

And it’s a fact, only a very few Academy players actually make it through (but we’ve spent all that money - I assume to change that - otherwise what’s the point)?

This would appear to be a decent group of talented young academy players and I refuse to believe there are not 1 or 2 that would do any worse than some of the seemingly uninspired senior players I keep seeing, if given a 15 minute cameo towards the end of another game where we’re getting smashed. Burnley WAS a disgrace. They failed to score and almost lost at home to a 10 man West Brom side yesterday. They smashed us. Freak result? Possibly but then we shipped in a load from Villa and 7 from Liverpool. I am supportive of the club and always will be, and my knowledge of the game can be written on the back of a postage stamp compared to Roy’s but I’d like to think that he and SP have witnessed the last few games, looked long and hard at their players, kicked some over-hyped, over-compensated arse and we will see a different set up and different performance against Brighton. If nothing changes (not win, lose or draw but performance and heart) then I personally think Roy has to go as, being a Croydon boy, he’ll appreciate the meaning of this one. If he cannot motivate this bunch of Jessie’s to get up for this game, hope is lost in my opinion.

Edited by Helmet46 (21 Feb 2021 8.48am)

Gotcha, you are not happy with the managers team selection (including who he puts on the bench as back up) and tactics, particularly in light of several crap performances and results this season. Add in poor effort and output from a couple of well paid older players and you might conclude that change is needed in the dugout and on the pitch.

You're not exactly on your own, as I'm sure you appreciate, but even if you were you'd be well within your rights to form your own view on those issues, as are we all.

My point was, and remains, that it's wrong to conflate one's opinions on tactics, selection and performance with one's assessment of the wider state of the club. They are not the same thing.

Let's say one of us thinks Eze should play behind the striker, whilst the other thinks he is better coming in off the left. One of us thinks Meyer was useless, the other that he was misused. We agree to disagree because these are matters of opinion, and neither of us is wrong.

If, however, one of us says the club has no long term strategy, or that FFP can be ignored, or that there is an established tradition of Palace playing positive football, or promoting a higher than average amount of youth players, or that we have neglected to sign young players, all despite the facts clearly proving otherwise... Well, that's not a difference of opinion. One of us is demonstrably, evidently wrong.

I just think the difference between the two is important.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Midlands Eagle's Profile Midlands Eagle Online Flag 21 Feb 21 1.08pm Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Helmet46


I agree with you here, in most respects. We cannot spend oodles of cash due to FFP.

How come FFP only applies to Palace?

West Ham never seem to have any problems with FFP

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Eaglecoops's Profile Eaglecoops Flag CR3 21 Feb 21 2.05pm Send a Private Message to Eaglecoops Add Eaglecoops as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

Gotcha, you are not happy with the managers team selection (including who he puts on the bench as back up) and tactics, particularly in light of several crap performances and results this season. Add in poor effort and output from a couple of well paid older players and you might conclude that change is needed in the dugout and on the pitch.

You're not exactly on your own, as I'm sure you appreciate, but even if you were you'd be well within your rights to form your own view on those issues, as are we all.

My point was, and remains, that it's wrong to conflate one's opinions on tactics, selection and performance with one's assessment of the wider state of the club. They are not the same thing.

Let's say one of us thinks Eze should play behind the striker, whilst the other thinks he is better coming in off the left. One of us thinks Meyer was useless, the other that he was misused. We agree to disagree because these are matters of opinion, and neither of us is wrong.

If, however, one of us says the club has no long term strategy, or that FFP can be ignored, or that there is an established tradition of Palace playing positive football, or promoting a higher than average amount of youth players, or that we have neglected to sign young players, all despite the facts clearly proving otherwise... Well, that's not a difference of opinion. One of us is demonstrably, evidently wrong.

I just think the difference between the two is important.

So you think that signing a goalkeeper where age doesn’t matter, a full back who has not kicked a football in anger and Eze in 4 years exhibits a policy of signing decent young players? If that is one of your facts then I have to accept that I am wrong and we obviously do have a wonderful policy attracting and buying decent young players that have slotted seamlessly into the side.

Mateta is a loan with an option to buy, so he is not yet our player and is still an unknown quantity. Batshuyai is a loan with an option to buy which we will not be going through with as he is not good enough.

So, effectively, one player in 4 years, but I’ll grant you that is a fact.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheBigToePunt's Profile TheBigToePunt Flag 21 Feb 21 2.14pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

How come FFP only applies to Palace?

West Ham never seem to have any problems with FFP

West Ham have greater revenue than us, so will have more to spend, but FFP applies to everyone. It's a core rule for membership of the premier league, and everyone's finances are not only checked by the Premier league but also published in line with company law.

This is taken so seriously that the Premier league used high flying lawyers when formally investigating whether Man City had breached Premier league FFP regulations at the time they were charged with breaching uefa FFP regs, which are slightly more stringent than Premier league ffp, but only apply to those clubs in European competition.

The City case shows the extent to which all the clubs watch each other like hawks. Half the league, led by Liverpool, demanded that the Premier league investigate city's finances urgently in light of the uefa charge, and the league did so. There's just no way West Ham would get away with breaching Premier league ffp rules.

Where there is a bit of wriggle room is in investment in bricks and mortar like the training ground, academy and stadium (all immune to FFP) and in owners underwriting loses to a certain point, so long as they are good for the money. It's not much though, something like 100m over three seasons max, but even then the club has to pay it back in the end, and cannot allow wages to exceed a certain percentage of turnover if they hope to reach Europe, where the uefa regs kick in.

Palace took loans from owners to cover losses, and were one of eight premier league clubs warned that they were past the uefa wages to turnover threshold. Hence my observation that the club has maxed out under ffp in the recent past, and the only way to increase the effective budget is to significantly increase income. That's where the new stand comes in, as well as the academy if it can churn out another Zaha or Wan Bissaka that we can sell.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheBigToePunt's Profile TheBigToePunt Flag 21 Feb 21 2.18pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

So you think that signing a goalkeeper where age doesn’t matter, a full back who has not kicked a football in anger and Eze in 4 years exhibits a policy of signing decent young players? If that is one of your facts then I have to accept that I am wrong and we obviously do have a wonderful policy attracting and buying decent young players that have slotted seamlessly into the side.

Mateta is a loan with an option to buy, so he is not yet our player and is still an unknown quantity. Batshuyai is a loan with an option to buy which we will not be going through with as he is not good enough.

So, effectively, one player in 4 years, but I’ll grant you that is a fact.

Sorry but I really don't get your point.

We signed, or set up deals to sign after borrowing, young players regularly over the last few years. They were all signed in the hope they would be first team players immediately. The fact that some of them got injured, or failed to make the grade doesn't change the fact that the club signed young players for the first team.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Helmet46's Profile Helmet46 Flag Caterham 21 Feb 21 2.35pm Send a Private Message to Helmet46 Add Helmet46 as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

Gotcha, you are not happy with the managers team selection (including who he puts on the bench as back up) and tactics, particularly in light of several crap performances and results this season. Add in poor effort and output from a couple of well paid older players and you might conclude that change is needed in the dugout and on the pitch.

You're not exactly on your own, as I'm sure you appreciate, but even if you were you'd be well within your rights to form your own view on those issues, as are we all.

My point was, and remains, that it's wrong to conflate one's opinions on tactics, selection and performance with one's assessment of the wider state of the club. They are not the same thing.

Let's say one of us thinks Eze should play behind the striker, whilst the other thinks he is better coming in off the left. One of us thinks Meyer was useless, the other that he was misused. We agree to disagree because these are matters of opinion, and neither of us is wrong.

If, however, one of us says the club has no long term strategy, or that FFP can be ignored, or that there is an established tradition of Palace playing positive football, or promoting a higher than average amount of youth players, or that we have neglected to sign young players, all despite the facts clearly proving otherwise... Well, that's not a difference of opinion. One of us is demonstrably, evidently wrong.

I just think the difference between the two is important.

Yea, I agree with this. One of the things that differentiates lower league players from premier leagues ones tends to be the amount of times you have to give an instruction, before they get it, and their decision making. Off the field it is the clubs decision making that causes consternation as the fans are not armed with all of the relevant facts and details (for obvious reasons) and when the on field performances dwindle they look at this and put two and two together and make five. The trouble being, of course, is that it is then those off-field decisions that they suggest are questionable - eg why did we sign a crocked young right back, extend contracts of other crocked players etc and this magnifies itself and conspiracy type theories develop as fans take a swipe at the whole piece out of frustration. All in my opinion, of course.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Terry Ven's Profile Terry Ven Flag 21 Feb 21 5.21pm Send a Private Message to Terry Ven Add Terry Ven as a friend

The Ultras are getting very big ideas about themselves. I mean who are they other than paying fans the same as the rest of us, the only difference being that they wear black hoodies and want to be the centre of attention all the time. We used to sing and support the team before they elected themselves to be more Palace than anyone else. Do they reckon that the club want to be in our current situation? We haven't got the money or the players they seem to think we have!


Originally posted by dazza

Just the point I was making in my email to club glad to see others feel the same way:

The group hung a banner outside the training ground that read: "Palace pandemic of apathy. Change this mentality. Restore the pride, ambition and vision."

The banner was accompanied by an open letter, published on Twitter, that criticised the club's "safety first" approach to games.

The statement read: "Losing games without a fight, flair players shackled in negative formations, a lack of leadership and pride on the pitch. This is not the Palace way.

"Our 'safety first' approach is being exposed and our spineless defensive tactics show no ambition or vision. Unused spaces on the subs bench instead of adding youth players to the first team bubble highlights the lack of inspiration.


"'Consolidating' just above the relegation zone with no plan for progress is not sustainable and breeds a negative atmosphere. This and the continued for cup competitions shows a lack of respect towards supporters.

"We must re-evaluate our long-term vision and use this opportunity with so many expiring contracts to make substantial changes across the club to rebuild with the spirit and mentality of the promotion squad."

"Committed winners fighting for the shirt, attacking football and youth put front and centre - at the very least given a genuine chance. A transfer policy based around young, Championship players and others desperate to make an impact, not overpaid 'marquee signings'."

"Restore the positive values and together we will push forward. Anyone not aligned with these should not be involved.

"The committed supporters deserve better. The club is sitting on huge potential but apathy is limiting ambition.

"Brighton next Monday will expose those who care and those who don't."

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PatrickA's Profile PatrickA Flag London 22 Feb 21 3.13pm Send a Private Message to PatrickA Add PatrickA as a friend

There’s an interesting piece in The Telegraph about the club, including a summary of the proposed recruitment plan for the summer.
It states that it is intended to extend the contracts of four players, sign another four and loan two more (I.e 6 new players).
No further details and may be guesswork rather than hard facts.
But it has a ring of truth.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 22 Feb 21 3.54pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by PatrickA

There’s an interesting piece in The Telegraph about the club, including a summary of the proposed recruitment plan for the summer.
It states that it is intended to extend the contracts of four players, sign another four and loan two more (I.e 6 new players).
No further details and may be guesswork rather than hard facts.
But it has a ring of truth.

The difficulty with us is, which Summer? Look at anything we do. We'll be found in a geological strata on the Jurassic Coast at this rate.

 


I used to put the manager's name in front of Red and Blue but got fed up with changing it. If someone cool becomes our manager then maybe..

Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheBigToePunt's Profile TheBigToePunt Flag 22 Feb 21 4.38pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by PatrickA

There’s an interesting piece in The Telegraph about the club, including a summary of the proposed recruitment plan for the summer.
It states that it is intended to extend the contracts of four players, sign another four and loan two more (I.e 6 new players).
No further details and may be guesswork rather than hard facts.
But it has a ring of truth.

Thanks for that, very interesting. The Telegraph is behind a paywall so I can't see the report, but as you say, it seems different to the usual baseless speculation.

It would be a bigger cull than I expected, and a far bigger recruitment drive than I thought possible, but it might fit with the clubs finances and FFP.

I am very far from being an accountant, but I believe CPFC is entering a fresh debt/finance/FFP cycle this summer. Not only might we greatly reduce the wage bill by releasing players, we will also have finished paying the transfer fee installments for the big deals we did circa 2017, many of which were spread over the course of their contracts.

So we will be free of not one, but two financial millstones, which is great. The difficult thing is understanding how much we will actually have to spend.

We have no external debt (AWB paid that off), but we do owe the Americans about £50m which they've loaned us already, half of which was to cover covid losses. FFP treats that differently to external debt, but its still got its limits (up to £100m I think) and must be paid back. No matter how rich they are, the Americans simply aren't allowed to do more than lend us the money if its' for players. The business has to pay for it all in the end.

The last reports showed a 5m profit after AWB was sold. We've bought Eze since then, and done the Mateta deal, so I doubt we have any money in the bank, but we may well have the option of going into further debt to the Americans, and/or of buying players and paying their transfer fees off over the coming FFP cycle (usually three years).

We would be building a new squad on credit, paying it all off over the next three years or so, like we did when we bought Benteke, Sakho, Luka, PVA, Schlupp etc fairly close to each other. It left us with little or no money to spend in following windows, and is a bit 'eggs in one basket', but might be viable?

The only big change in the finances would of course be from selling Zaha, but that's another matter altogether.

 

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

 

Page 16 of 17 < 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