| With hindsight 09:56 - Jan 15 with 3211 views | Dalenet |
Letting COG go so that we could cash in on his value rather than let him walk for free at the end of this season will look like a poor decision come May. Surely our decline this season will cost us far more than £300k. Never mind our defence, we can't score goals to save our life (averaging less than 1 a game) and he was a great play maker/holder of the ball. I know I shouldn't cry over spilt milk, but that decision will cost us far more than the current managerial cock up |  | | |  |
| With hindsight on 15:58 - Jan 15 with 814 views | RAFCBLUE |
| With hindsight on 15:27 - Jan 15 by D_Alien |
I really don't get what point you're trying to make here?
What exactly do you mean by "we did not/could not identify at least five decent football league centre halfs and then recruit one of them?"
Who is "we" ??
When Hilly moved to Barnsley (and signed his lined-up replacement for Dawson) who exactly, do you think should have been "identifying at least five decent centre halfs?"
Dunphy? Jack the kitman? Ahead of the new manager who would want to sign his own players? (Lets leave aside the actuality of what happened there!!)
Come on, who are you talking about then? [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
Ok, for context, my comments come from a working experience with a Scouse Premier League club where I worked for a year doing two pieces of project work in 2005. Its manager and chairman today is who it was when I worked with them.
At the time (and I'm sure this is no different today), that club have piles of notes on all the players in relevant leagues, possible targets, hopeful signings, scouting updates on those being watched, estimates on wages and other personal terms, Bosman dates and at least monthly their manager and chairman meet regularly to discuss who they are signing and who they might have to sell in forthcoming transfer windows to balance the books.
But essentially their transfer policy is that of a production line where someone leaves and need replacing. Whilst I worked with them I saw lists of 30-40 player targets for all positions in the squad - some who ended up there, and some who didn't. Those who left the club did so in a controlled manner and the playing squad was replenished from that list. Accordingly those who didn't sign for them now play (or played) Premier League football for other clubs.
So, "We" in my context is RAFC. Hopefully, Hill would have had his targets - my five (or more) decent football league centre halfs - who he would have wanted to sign knowing that Dawson was leaving, all scouted and known what terms they were on (or wanted) and what they were capable of.
When he left Rochdale all of that knowledge should not have left with him. He worked with the Board and the Board should have known who he was after and on what terms those players were available.
We might have lost out to Barnsley on the personal terms we could offer - but the second to fifth choices should have been there and ready to be accessed. Hill would not have signed all of his shortlist.
That's the type of planning that I think is lacking for our squad. Substitute the same logic for a goalkeeper or centre forward and the gaps are plain to see and hence I believe the reliance on the loan market to plug holes quickly.
On and off the pitch we are simply not run like a business. Clubs that are successful are and if we want to be successful then we need to be. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  |
| |
| With hindsight on 16:06 - Jan 15 with 792 views | electricblue |
| With hindsight on 15:58 - Jan 15 by RAFCBLUE |
Ok, for context, my comments come from a working experience with a Scouse Premier League club where I worked for a year doing two pieces of project work in 2005. Its manager and chairman today is who it was when I worked with them.
At the time (and I'm sure this is no different today), that club have piles of notes on all the players in relevant leagues, possible targets, hopeful signings, scouting updates on those being watched, estimates on wages and other personal terms, Bosman dates and at least monthly their manager and chairman meet regularly to discuss who they are signing and who they might have to sell in forthcoming transfer windows to balance the books.
But essentially their transfer policy is that of a production line where someone leaves and need replacing. Whilst I worked with them I saw lists of 30-40 player targets for all positions in the squad - some who ended up there, and some who didn't. Those who left the club did so in a controlled manner and the playing squad was replenished from that list. Accordingly those who didn't sign for them now play (or played) Premier League football for other clubs.
So, "We" in my context is RAFC. Hopefully, Hill would have had his targets - my five (or more) decent football league centre halfs - who he would have wanted to sign knowing that Dawson was leaving, all scouted and known what terms they were on (or wanted) and what they were capable of.
When he left Rochdale all of that knowledge should not have left with him. He worked with the Board and the Board should have known who he was after and on what terms those players were available.
We might have lost out to Barnsley on the personal terms we could offer - but the second to fifth choices should have been there and ready to be accessed. Hill would not have signed all of his shortlist.
That's the type of planning that I think is lacking for our squad. Substitute the same logic for a goalkeeper or centre forward and the gaps are plain to see and hence I believe the reliance on the loan market to plug holes quickly.
On and off the pitch we are simply not run like a business. Clubs that are successful are and if we want to be successful then we need to be. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
Perhaps Eyre should spend 12months at that club..he would learn how to run a club. |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| With hindsight on 16:14 - Jan 15 with 771 views | borodale4 |
| With hindsight on 13:29 - Jan 15 by electricblue |
If hill stayed would Dale be in this position? I like to think not.
Im also led to believe that hillcroft intended dale signings went to barnsley with him..
|
This is indeed true, Craig Davies had verbally agreed to join dale. |  | | |
| With hindsight on 16:40 - Jan 15 with 739 views | mikehunt |
This thing about Dale being a business and should be run as such: if you look at the RAFC van, in small letters on the back it says something like "RAFC. Part of the Chris Dunphy group of companies". |  |
| The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance. |
| |
| With hindsight on 17:29 - Jan 15 with 715 views | rafc1984 |
Sick of this topic but here goes the facts as I know them from both sides of the border.
Chris o grady to swfc for £375k + furry bits, inc them getting promotion this season.
Cog was offered a new 3yr deal at Dale worth 3k a week, swfc 2nd offer to him was 8k a week.
Cog was happy to see his contract out at Dale, but made it clear that he wasnt going to sign a new contract at that time, therefore the board decided to sell rather than get nothing in the summer.
By chris's own admission his head was turned at wednesday's 2nd offer and who can blame him. Total deal was worth 1.4 million over 3 years inc his agents fee.
On a side note iv heard hilly will blow all his budget next summer trying to pair daggers & cog! [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  | | |
| With hindsight on 17:29 - Jan 15 with 715 views | mandale |
| With hindsight on 15:33 - Jan 15 by RAFCBLUE |
Bizarrely though, I'm at a loss in an attempt to explain why that is.
The Board are fans first and foremost, but their position is because they are successful businessmen second. So to see them preside over this debacle time after time amazes me. Yes I guess that there is some element of running a football club that is distracting to seeing it as a business but that's ultimately what it is.
Equally, the commercial and office folk aren't bad human beings, some if not all are also Dale fans, so I've no doubts that ultimately their hearts are in the right place even if it's evident that we are not getting the basics right every time.
If you trawl LinkedIn or some other business related forum, you can see and find clear examples of turnaround business people, troubleshooters - and I'd wager that we have fans amongst that group too, but what we need to succeed is to get that individual in and run the club like it is a breakeven business.
They should scrutinise every nook and cranny of the club and pull apart off field performance in the same way we criticise Eyre/Beech/AN Other for the on the field element.
As a really simple comparison, next Saturday we play at Wycombe and if you look at their website ( http://www.wycombewanderers.co.uk/page/WhosWho/0,,10430,00.html) they have 34 individuals listed who are responsible for commercial, HR, Recruitment, Administration, Club Shop, Conferences, Community, Media and PR, Finance, Marketing, Promotions, Sales and Sponsorship.
I'd wager - knowing that their owner (Steve Hayes who is behind Dreams beds) - runs them like a business in the terms of how they are set up off the field and if anyone is not delivering then the relevant appraisals/feedback/coaching/action are taken.
So who are our 34 at Rochdale? Are we getting value for money? Do we need to invest to get more out of what we have?
We're a business that is in the game to win and business ultimately is a game. Just like football.
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
Excellent posts RAFCBLUE
"I hold no confidence in the wider structures at the club properly supporting a successful commercial organisation."
I think the board have been found out at this level. Heart in the right place. Put it this way: we've aimed in recent years for a blend of youth/experience on the pitch. We've had a 'youthful', modern thinking management team in Hillcroft who made our training and fitness regime fit for modern football.
Sadly we have a board that runs a commercial operation stuck in the 1970s. We don't even collect email addresses and mobile numbers from season ticket holders - which we should never been doing for a decade - never mind use them. They have no concept of how to promote the the club in a digital age, no understanding that most people under 30 (and many above) manage their social calendar through mobile phones and social networking sites and that most of these tools are free.
And you have to assume there is no understanding, because they have been told and there were discussions on here earlier this year that were emailed to the club. So it was depressing when the season ticket forms came out and hadn't been changed at all from the previous year. We got away with this in League 2, the cracks were showing as soon as we were promoted and they just watched them grow. We can't afford traditional means of advertising. A third of 12-15 year olds own smartphones. Try writing to your 14 year old nephew, see if he even reads it. Try texting him, or messaging him on Facebook. You'll have an response in seconds, probably cost you nothing. That's not a trend, that's a cultural shift we ignore at our peril - though we have managed to do just that for a decade.
The thread about how far people travel to see Dale was interesting, if only because the commercial operation still assumes we all walk past the ground each day.
The news for the commercial arm is that there isn't a Pink on a Saturday night any more. But what has really changed at the club? And as for the premium content on the website - hiding your advertising behind a paywall: hmm, clever. | | | |
| With hindsight on 17:44 - Jan 15 with 694 views | mandale |
| With hindsight on 17:29 - Jan 15 by mandale |
Excellent posts RAFCBLUE
"I hold no confidence in the wider structures at the club properly supporting a successful commercial organisation."
I think the board have been found out at this level. Heart in the right place. Put it this way: we've aimed in recent years for a blend of youth/experience on the pitch. We've had a 'youthful', modern thinking management team in Hillcroft who made our training and fitness regime fit for modern football.
Sadly we have a board that runs a commercial operation stuck in the 1970s. We don't even collect email addresses and mobile numbers from season ticket holders - which we should never been doing for a decade - never mind use them. They have no concept of how to promote the the club in a digital age, no understanding that most people under 30 (and many above) manage their social calendar through mobile phones and social networking sites and that most of these tools are free.
And you have to assume there is no understanding, because they have been told and there were discussions on here earlier this year that were emailed to the club. So it was depressing when the season ticket forms came out and hadn't been changed at all from the previous year. We got away with this in League 2, the cracks were showing as soon as we were promoted and they just watched them grow. We can't afford traditional means of advertising. A third of 12-15 year olds own smartphones. Try writing to your 14 year old nephew, see if he even reads it. Try texting him, or messaging him on Facebook. You'll have an response in seconds, probably cost you nothing. That's not a trend, that's a cultural shift we ignore at our peril - though we have managed to do just that for a decade.
The thread about how far people travel to see Dale was interesting, if only because the commercial operation still assumes we all walk past the ground each day.
The news for the commercial arm is that there isn't a Pink on a Saturday night any more. But what has really changed at the club? And as for the premium content on the website - hiding your advertising behind a paywall: hmm, clever. |
And a quick example
You mail 1000 season ticket holders it costs £500. Half of them don't respond, another £250.
But if you ask everyone for email and mobile numbers (and permission to use them) the year before, you don't waste £750 posting out forms the next year. When 100 still haven't renewed, then you mail them: cost £50.
And during the year you've exploited that database to the full, because you can use it over and over again for negligible cost. And, if they're successful businessmen, I don't understand why that needs pointing out. | | | |
| With hindsight on 18:24 - Jan 15 with 654 views | PassmondsBlue |
I can't help think we would still got £300k for COG now in the Jan transfer window and had more points on the board that would have given us a chance to stay up
All we have done now is spent the family jewels on not interested sub standard loan players | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| With hindsight on 18:39 - Jan 15 with 628 views | maybee |
| With hindsight on 18:24 - Jan 15 by PassmondsBlue |
I can't help think we would still got £300k for COG now in the Jan transfer window and had more points on the board that would have given us a chance to stay up
All we have done now is spent the family jewels on not interested sub standard loan players |
Nail head on the hit.
Apart from most of the loanees have had some or all of their wage paid by their parent club. |  | | |
| With hindsight on 18:45 - Jan 15 with 614 views | PassmondsBlue |
| With hindsight on 18:39 - Jan 15 by maybee |
Nail head on the hit.
Apart from most of the loanees have had some or all of their wage paid by their parent club. |
All have been/are sub standard | |
| |
| With hindsight on 18:51 - Jan 15 with 603 views | D_Alien |
| With hindsight on 15:58 - Jan 15 by RAFCBLUE |
Ok, for context, my comments come from a working experience with a Scouse Premier League club where I worked for a year doing two pieces of project work in 2005. Its manager and chairman today is who it was when I worked with them.
At the time (and I'm sure this is no different today), that club have piles of notes on all the players in relevant leagues, possible targets, hopeful signings, scouting updates on those being watched, estimates on wages and other personal terms, Bosman dates and at least monthly their manager and chairman meet regularly to discuss who they are signing and who they might have to sell in forthcoming transfer windows to balance the books.
But essentially their transfer policy is that of a production line where someone leaves and need replacing. Whilst I worked with them I saw lists of 30-40 player targets for all positions in the squad - some who ended up there, and some who didn't. Those who left the club did so in a controlled manner and the playing squad was replenished from that list. Accordingly those who didn't sign for them now play (or played) Premier League football for other clubs.
So, "We" in my context is RAFC. Hopefully, Hill would have had his targets - my five (or more) decent football league centre halfs - who he would have wanted to sign knowing that Dawson was leaving, all scouted and known what terms they were on (or wanted) and what they were capable of.
When he left Rochdale all of that knowledge should not have left with him. He worked with the Board and the Board should have known who he was after and on what terms those players were available.
We might have lost out to Barnsley on the personal terms we could offer - but the second to fifth choices should have been there and ready to be accessed. Hill would not have signed all of his shortlist.
That's the type of planning that I think is lacking for our squad. Substitute the same logic for a goalkeeper or centre forward and the gaps are plain to see and hence I believe the reliance on the loan market to plug holes quickly.
On and off the pitch we are simply not run like a business. Clubs that are successful are and if we want to be successful then we need to be. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
Thanks for the reply, and much of it makes good sense - given sufficient scouting resources, etc. - but why would an incumbent manager go along with the list of remaining players?
That's not intended as a counter-argument, since I agree with the policy in the right context, simply an observation that most new managers look to their own lists/contacts, not the lists developed by their predecessor
In Dale's case of course, there were no lists of likely players for recruitment whatsoever |  |
| |
| With hindsight on 19:19 - Jan 15 with 581 views | RAFCBLUE |
| With hindsight on 18:51 - Jan 15 by D_Alien |
Thanks for the reply, and much of it makes good sense - given sufficient scouting resources, etc. - but why would an incumbent manager go along with the list of remaining players?
That's not intended as a counter-argument, since I agree with the policy in the right context, simply an observation that most new managers look to their own lists/contacts, not the lists developed by their predecessor
In Dale's case of course, there were no lists of likely players for recruitment whatsoever |
I think because the gist of relevant meetings was "if you have to sell this time then sell here - but in return I want to buy here"
I don't think it is resource constrained - of course we will never have as much resource as a major Premiership club - but principle led.
"Try and be the best you can in the pool you operate in"
For us, I'd like to think we have every local (North West and West Yorks) club scouted in League 1 and below - so that when we divest a player we then know where we are going to replace him.
But other than Dawson (who is a Dale fan), we've not seen that ethos demonstrated since probably Steve Parkin was here for signings and sale of Grant Holt, replaced immediately with a kid from Tranmere called Chris Dagnall.
Buy, develop, sell on at a profit, with add ons, buy again. It's a simple model, however we are only decent at the middle parts.
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
