By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
My impression is the BoD, led by Chris Dunphy, didn't believe we were viable as a Championship club and therefore guided us in the direction of trying to sustain our success in L1 without ever getting into a situation where we'd take that next step
It would've been good to have given it a proper crack during Hill's second period, but i also suspect he knew what their thinking was and his motivation waned accordingly
That doesn't detract from Chris Dunphy's achievement in both appointing, trying to sustain and then re-recruiting Hill but the additional factor (already mentioned) was the limitations of the club's failure to increase commercial revenue with no significant rise in gates
The difference in our average gates this past season and those we were achieving at the top end of L1 was just 500
When Hill first mentioned the term 'managed relegation' it was always regarding being in the Championship. Had we ever been promoted there under him obviously he'd try his damned hardest to keep us there but he wanted us to go up, reap the financial rewards, and almost maintain our League 1 budget for the first season at least. We will never know.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
Possibly our 'sliding doors' game. Had we won at Oldham we'd have gone into the final home game in the play off positions. In our own hands. Peter Clarke equalised and the rest is history. That was our last season of winning league football. Obviously we had the next 'great escape' season but that was memorable for other reasons.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
We'll never know (we died wondering, as it were...) but when we made it to Wembley for the playoff final in 2008 we took (i believe) 17000
That's the number who sat up and took notice then, so it really shouldn't have been beyond our capabilities to add a couple of thousand on a regular basis. The trouble is, for a club in the Championship an extra couple of thousand wouldn't have made that much difference
The Multi-millions from the EFL would have made a difference though.
For a club like ours , getting to the Championship would have been like Blackpool getting to the Prem. An experience to be enjoyed and loads cash in the bank.
The Multi-millions from the EFL would have made a difference though.
For a club like ours , getting to the Championship would have been like Blackpool getting to the Prem. An experience to be enjoyed and loads cash in the bank.
That is true, but I am beginning to see on here and other threads that people would prefer us to spend lots of money we don't have to show 'ambition' and would have preferred us to have done that in the past. When we were near the top of L1 there were people on here criticising the board for lack of ambition and no doubt if we had got to the Championship there would have been people criticising them for not spending excessively to stay there. I remember Burton fans criticising their board when they were up there and wanting Clough sacked because they weren't doing well. Yeovil tried that, got relegated and have never recovered. Almost all clubs in the Championship are completely financially compromised dreaming of the Premiership in the hope they get there and win the lottery (and even that isn't enough sometimes).
I thought our mantra was being run sustainably on a financial basis and not be like Bury, who showed 'ambition' and actually did die wondering or rather knowing. We used to criticise them for their arrogance when they went on about their distant history and how that made them blind to their 'ambition' being funded by a financial house built on sand. Our stay near the top of L1 did not bring large home crowds in material terms yet other local clubs can bring out many more out of the woodwork when they do well and keep them (eg Stockport/Wrexham). That to me is what has constrained us for a long time and it is possible to debate why we can't do it and, say, Oldham can.
The club could have shown more 'ambition' in being proactive in all sorts of ways to try and generate more income and more regular fans and should definitely show more of it now by taking advantage of all the suggestions and offers help put out at the trust meetings for example, but if 'ambition' means saddling us with millions of pounds of debt to try and buy our way out of the NL into the EFL (and we have seen many bigger clubs than us fail to do the equivalent to us in recent history) then we are just like everyone else.
When people on here talk about 'ambition' what exactly do you mean? Spending large sums of non-existing money or having a proactive vision to transform the club in a positive way? I am all for the latter but the former worries me a lot.
That is true, but I am beginning to see on here and other threads that people would prefer us to spend lots of money we don't have to show 'ambition' and would have preferred us to have done that in the past. When we were near the top of L1 there were people on here criticising the board for lack of ambition and no doubt if we had got to the Championship there would have been people criticising them for not spending excessively to stay there. I remember Burton fans criticising their board when they were up there and wanting Clough sacked because they weren't doing well. Yeovil tried that, got relegated and have never recovered. Almost all clubs in the Championship are completely financially compromised dreaming of the Premiership in the hope they get there and win the lottery (and even that isn't enough sometimes).
I thought our mantra was being run sustainably on a financial basis and not be like Bury, who showed 'ambition' and actually did die wondering or rather knowing. We used to criticise them for their arrogance when they went on about their distant history and how that made them blind to their 'ambition' being funded by a financial house built on sand. Our stay near the top of L1 did not bring large home crowds in material terms yet other local clubs can bring out many more out of the woodwork when they do well and keep them (eg Stockport/Wrexham). That to me is what has constrained us for a long time and it is possible to debate why we can't do it and, say, Oldham can.
The club could have shown more 'ambition' in being proactive in all sorts of ways to try and generate more income and more regular fans and should definitely show more of it now by taking advantage of all the suggestions and offers help put out at the trust meetings for example, but if 'ambition' means saddling us with millions of pounds of debt to try and buy our way out of the NL into the EFL (and we have seen many bigger clubs than us fail to do the equivalent to us in recent history) then we are just like everyone else.
When people on here talk about 'ambition' what exactly do you mean? Spending large sums of non-existing money or having a proactive vision to transform the club in a positive way? I am all for the latter but the former worries me a lot.
I'm not even sure it's possible these days to be self sustainable and successful in football? Certainly not with 2500 home fans. Players wages even in the lower leagues have increased that much its impossible without going into debt or having a very rich backer. We got lucky with Hill/Dunphy during our purple patch with a few good sales and Academy players coming through. Some great sell on fees and a few cup runs. Once that well runs dry you end up where we are now - skint and non league.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
That is true, but I am beginning to see on here and other threads that people would prefer us to spend lots of money we don't have to show 'ambition' and would have preferred us to have done that in the past. When we were near the top of L1 there were people on here criticising the board for lack of ambition and no doubt if we had got to the Championship there would have been people criticising them for not spending excessively to stay there. I remember Burton fans criticising their board when they were up there and wanting Clough sacked because they weren't doing well. Yeovil tried that, got relegated and have never recovered. Almost all clubs in the Championship are completely financially compromised dreaming of the Premiership in the hope they get there and win the lottery (and even that isn't enough sometimes).
I thought our mantra was being run sustainably on a financial basis and not be like Bury, who showed 'ambition' and actually did die wondering or rather knowing. We used to criticise them for their arrogance when they went on about their distant history and how that made them blind to their 'ambition' being funded by a financial house built on sand. Our stay near the top of L1 did not bring large home crowds in material terms yet other local clubs can bring out many more out of the woodwork when they do well and keep them (eg Stockport/Wrexham). That to me is what has constrained us for a long time and it is possible to debate why we can't do it and, say, Oldham can.
The club could have shown more 'ambition' in being proactive in all sorts of ways to try and generate more income and more regular fans and should definitely show more of it now by taking advantage of all the suggestions and offers help put out at the trust meetings for example, but if 'ambition' means saddling us with millions of pounds of debt to try and buy our way out of the NL into the EFL (and we have seen many bigger clubs than us fail to do the equivalent to us in recent history) then we are just like everyone else.
When people on here talk about 'ambition' what exactly do you mean? Spending large sums of non-existing money or having a proactive vision to transform the club in a positive way? I am all for the latter but the former worries me a lot.
Ambition is not selling one of your best players to a promotion rival at the business end of the season.
All hopes of going up were Done when we did tha
Take the money and run.
Plenty iof teams have been up in the championship without ending up financially screwed.
Ambition is not selling one of your best players to a promotion rival at the business end of the season.
All hopes of going up were Done when we did tha
Take the money and run.
Plenty iof teams have been up in the championship without ending up financially screwed.
I think the truth of that situation is its difficult to keep a player who has had a much better offer especially when the coffers are bare. If you have a pile of cash in the bank, you can say NO , and therein lies the source of our current situation. in 102 years we have never had what you could describe as "good times", periods of relative success perhaps but never winning a trophy, never being champions at any level is no way to build a financially secure club with a strong fanbase. we have been the butt of local jokes for almost all of those 102 years, the miracle is that we lasted so long. The challenge is that we rebuild better and stronger and that means putting the finances on a sustainable footing.
I think the truth of that situation is its difficult to keep a player who has had a much better offer especially when the coffers are bare. If you have a pile of cash in the bank, you can say NO , and therein lies the source of our current situation. in 102 years we have never had what you could describe as "good times", periods of relative success perhaps but never winning a trophy, never being champions at any level is no way to build a financially secure club with a strong fanbase. we have been the butt of local jokes for almost all of those 102 years, the miracle is that we lasted so long. The challenge is that we rebuild better and stronger and that means putting the finances on a sustainable footing.
That's true. If we had held on to Glenn Murray for the whole of the Wembley play-off season, would we have needed the play-offs at all? Sliding-doors.
That's true. If we had held on to Glenn Murray for the whole of the Wembley play-off season, would we have needed the play-offs at all? Sliding-doors.
Murray was in a great run of form when he left for Brighton, but a couple of months earlier fans were calling for Lee McEvilly to replace him in the side.
We got 41 points from 24 games with Murray, 39 from 22 without him - almost identical form and still finished eight points off automatic promotion. Also Rene Howe scored nine goals after Murray left.
I think the truth of that situation is its difficult to keep a player who has had a much better offer especially when the coffers are bare. If you have a pile of cash in the bank, you can say NO , and therein lies the source of our current situation. in 102 years we have never had what you could describe as "good times", periods of relative success perhaps but never winning a trophy, never being champions at any level is no way to build a financially secure club with a strong fanbase. we have been the butt of local jokes for almost all of those 102 years, the miracle is that we lasted so long. The challenge is that we rebuild better and stronger and that means putting the finances on a sustainable footing.
They could have kept him for a couple of months before cashing in. I struggle to find examples ofotherclubsselling their assets to. a direct rival.Its a Rochdale thing.â·x
They could have kept him for a couple of months before cashing in. I struggle to find examples ofotherclubsselling their assets to. a direct rival.Its a Rochdale thing.â·x
indeed, having sold Murray, Howe would have been an excellent replacement based on the games he played for us. and apparently at the end of the season Peterborough turned down £150k for him from an "un-named club (according to wiki)". But he didn't want to move!
We sold Murray too cheaply and didn't put enough into a replacement, the story of Rochdale... and the price you pay for not developing bigger crowds and better off-pitch business propositions.
There is perhaps a case to be made that Holt, Lambert, Le Fondre, Done and Murray were all sold cheaper than their real market value although I believe that the former had a release clause in his contract.
There is perhaps a case to be made that Holt, Lambert, Le Fondre, Done and Murray were all sold cheaper than their real market value although I believe that the former had a release clause in his contract.
Weren't players sold basically to prevent defaulting on bills that could have led to administration and likely points deduction?
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
indeed, having sold Murray, Howe would have been an excellent replacement based on the games he played for us. and apparently at the end of the season Peterborough turned down £150k for him from an "un-named club (according to wiki)". But he didn't want to move!
We sold Murray too cheaply and didn't put enough into a replacement, the story of Rochdale... and the price you pay for not developing bigger crowds and better off-pitch business propositions.
We spent money on Jon Shaw that summer. It didn’t work out. We then made the play-offs again, sold Le Fondre and signed O’Grady.
It was the Rochdale way of doing business and it worked. We might not have been done at exactly the right time for supporters or for the amount we’d wanted but it was a model that worked.
What didn’t work, as you mention,, was getting the off the field business right.
Who did we sell for £300k to pay a tax bill? Was there any realistic alternative? Could we have raised the funds through a share issue in time, or would the EFL or finance company loaned us the money.
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
Who did we sell for £300k to pay a tax bill? Was there any realistic alternative? Could we have raised the funds through a share issue in time, or would the EFL or finance company loaned us the money.
Le Fondre.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
We spent money on Jon Shaw that summer. It didn’t work out. We then made the play-offs again, sold Le Fondre and signed O’Grady.
It was the Rochdale way of doing business and it worked. We might not have been done at exactly the right time for supporters or for the amount we’d wanted but it was a model that worked.
What didn’t work, as you mention,, was getting the off the field business right.
Not to mention clauses in players' contracts that made some of those transfers inevitable when they reached certain thresholds.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
Who did we sell for £300k to pay a tax bill? Was there any realistic alternative? Could we have raised the funds through a share issue in time, or would the EFL or finance company loaned us the money.
I don't think it was that much James - think Le Fondre went for around 120 grand. Although we did get promoted without him he scored an incredible 30 goals for Rotherham that season.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
I don't think it was that much James - think Le Fondre went for around 120 grand. Although we did get promoted without him he scored an incredible 30 goals for Rotherham that season.
Most likely have got my wires crossed or misremembered. Whether they were needed to cover costs or just to provide some cash reserves in the event of loss making years. What would have been the alternative to the player sales?
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
I don't think it was that much James - think Le Fondre went for around 120 grand. Although we did get promoted without him he scored an incredible 30 goals for Rotherham that season.
And then went on to make something of a mark in the Premier League
The odd thing about ALF was the reluctance of Hill to start him. I can well remember the debates on here about it, with the marginal agreement that he was probably better coming off the bench due to his general work rate
And then went on to make something of a mark in the Premier League
The odd thing about ALF was the reluctance of Hill to start him. I can well remember the debates on here about it, with the marginal agreement that he was probably better coming off the bench due to his general work rate
Yes Hill definitely preferred Dagnall's workrate + goals to LeFondre's goals. There probably wasn't room for them both to start although funnily enough they both started at Wembley. Rotherham definitely got more out of him, whether that was because they were a bit more direct than us and got lots of balls into the box? Dagnall was great for us and certainly that season with O'Grady was something else - probably the best forward partnership we'll ever see in a season at Dale - just a shame we didn't see them both together in Lge 1.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
sad for jamie vut congrats to gabe osho who we had on loan
Agree with that. Not sure either team looked good enough to compete to stay in the Premiership. But Luton can now spend a kings ransom trying to improve things. Given their fall from grace not that long ago, Luton are a good example of a non league club transforming their fortunes. Good luck to them and Osho
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
