Following the last couple of subpar results, and forgetting the fact we are in the top 6 and going along quite nicely, it appears everyone this week is a better expert than the actual management on the club about what best to do.
This has varied from people deciding who is any good, what formation we should play and right down to who we should or should not sign.
This is all natural of course; this has been the same with football forever. Why else do we go, why else do programmes like MOTD exist? It’s to discuss where things go right and wrong and to assess the bigger picture. Journalists make a career of it. Ex players try their hand at punditry. We in the stands all like to think know what best to do. I welcome I applaud it and I know its part of the game.
Where it starts to get me is in the modern era of Social media. Whereas people vocalising one opinion in a wide sea of voices disappeared, there are some on these platforms who think, maybe rightly, that their voice is louder.
Whereas usually with these things you talk with your friends on these subjects you know their opinions, in the deep ocean of social media your exposed to all sorts of crack pot ideas (which I have in the past openly laughed at and mocked) Maybe it is a rich tapestry of life, but it’s when things haven’t quite gone right that it annoys me. Everyone with an opinion that is gospel.
But what really I find odd and the advent of social media has helped this is directly broaching these subjects with the stake holders. I.e. telling Fawaz in a tweet who you believe he should sign. This is frankly ridiculous. Yeah the club are going to listen to random bloke on Twitter ahead of all the scouts and staff they employ, Fawaz will go above the head of Billy and sign someone that Joe King from Hucknall thinks would be a top addition.
I’m as guilty as some at times for perhaps lambasting people I think with an opinion different from mine. People are entitled to opinions, but again where I draw the line where I think people are stopping stressing an opinion and just outright talking utter rubbish.
For instance, those people writing off the season already despite being in a perfectly good position. Of course these are the ones that are never happy. The first to defend their right to boo, or deride players, because it’s a cathartic process for many or simply because they do believe we should be doing better.
And maybe we should, but that doesn’t make you an expert. People who deride the managers decisions make me laugh, you aren’t paid to do his job. You can perhaps comment or whatnot but this guys the most successful Forest manager since Frank Clark. Thats quite a stretch of time.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Friday, October 25, 2013
The Season So Far
I have decided this morning to look at how far we have come this season and where we might be looking at going to.
One of the main things about considering the season so far seems to be dependent on your viewpoint. A ridiculously straightforward thing to say but it’s true. There are the ones who seem constantly down on the club. They are the ones who think we will be mid table at best, that without a killer striker we can’t possibly finish high up, despite the evidence of past seasons where clubs have done perfectly well without one main goal scorer. I mean let’s be clear, do you really want reliance on one main goal scorer? That’s incredibly dangerous to be reliant on that player remaining injury free. Had Murray been injured for Palace for a long long period last season then who else would have scored? I feel it’s incredibly myopic to think you have to have that one goal scorer rather than the team sharing the goal scoring duties.
There are those who are incredibly optimistic. These same ones think Billy can do no wrong. They kind of take an opposite view to the dismal view crowd. They think we’re on the cusp of a 20 game unbeaten run, that the strikers will find their form and that will ride the crest of a Garibaldi coloured wave all the way to the Promised Land that is the Premiership.
Both are legit views. Both though are incredibly simplistic.
We are in 4th place. Let’s not make any illusion here, that’s exactly the kind of position we would want and expect to be. QPR for their budget and players will be expected to run off. I’ve always thought we will be looking at a best of the rest deal. We have a decent sized squad with cover in most positions, save for maybe someone to cover for Chalobah in the deep lying role. Up front we have options to rotate and try things even if people decide who do have aren’t good enough.
Considering that in early June, some of the more tightly sprung of our clubs fans were reacting angrily. We hadn’t signed anyone, the kit was released, we had no sponsor etc. What we have bought in have been quality additions in the guises of Hobbs, Abdoun, Lichaj etc. We have extremely capable cover in the likes of Jara and Paterson. Overall we are better than we were last season. We have enough depth to completely ignore and keep in the reserves players like Miller, and Gillett. That wasn’t an option last season.
So things are way better than they were. The only reason everyone seems down on everything is the constant barrage of negative press from a media angry that we have decided to ignore them. Otherwise then surely we’d be all signing from the rooftops about how great this is all going. I mentioned it before after the Bournemouth game, but Colin fray had said it. If we had held on against Bournemouth, the whole mindset and reaction would have been different. Yes people would have moaned about missing chances, but not the level of frustration I have seen spill out onto social media. The suggestions that this could cost us promotion, and don’t get me wrong I do see that a possibility, but to write off a season in October because your strikers failed in a game is a little bit premature to say the least.
If you had offered me that in late October we’d be 4th, having beat Derby and the result of that was them sacking their manager and employing McClaren I’d thought that Carlsberg were doing Football Seasons. The only reason for the frustrations is that you’ve seen what might have been in a few places. A goal here or there and we could be even higher up. And that’s football. What might have been, it’s what drags us back time and time again. The season’s aims are still possible folks. It’s on.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Staff Member Has Day Off – Media Create Storm
In what is potentially one of the weirdest evolutions of the media vs. Forest war is the slight aside at the end of the Daily Mail column by Charles Sale, who seems to be developing a bit of a thing for Jim Price.
Whereas it’s all gone quiet from the Guardian, the Mail has twice in a few days mentioned Forest, both times by Sale about essentially Jim Price role. Wow, keeping up to date with the news there Daily Mail.
So whereas before they beefed out a piece by re hashing the same old stuff we know what Price is ain a position some regard as being essentially a de facto Director when he shouldn’t be, negating the fact that his job title isn’t director or anything suchlike. It’s tired and hardly new ground.
Well they have no tried to further create a storm of controversy by suggesting a member of staff Jane Carnelly, who is the Football Administrator, who essentially makes sure the club basically fit within the rules, amongst things has quit. Based on the fact the mail must have tried to contact her and was told she wasn’t at work that day.
This was spun out into another anti Jim Price thing, sort of attributing her role and suggesting Jim price is taking over, as if one by one everyone is being fired and Jim price assumes their roles. Wait till he’s in the club shop!!
Even if she has left, and why would the club cover up such a departure, then is it a problem? People change jobs; it’s not as if it’s a core job role or an integral board member jumping ship. It’s an administrator. No doubt very good at her job and respected, but to start making out there are huge ruffles at Forest based on this is ridiculous.
A club spokesman said she just wasn’t at work today, unless that guys the Iraqi Information Minister, the Mail are probably being their good old hateful selves. It’s already clear lately they don’t care too much about reality and making leaps of imagination from the whole Milliband thing.
Remember it’s the Mail who suggested that the al-Hasawis were going to employ cheap Middle Eastern players, buying players themselves and we should be worried. Nothing to see here folks.
Whereas it’s all gone quiet from the Guardian, the Mail has twice in a few days mentioned Forest, both times by Sale about essentially Jim Price role. Wow, keeping up to date with the news there Daily Mail.
So whereas before they beefed out a piece by re hashing the same old stuff we know what Price is ain a position some regard as being essentially a de facto Director when he shouldn’t be, negating the fact that his job title isn’t director or anything suchlike. It’s tired and hardly new ground.
Well they have no tried to further create a storm of controversy by suggesting a member of staff Jane Carnelly, who is the Football Administrator, who essentially makes sure the club basically fit within the rules, amongst things has quit. Based on the fact the mail must have tried to contact her and was told she wasn’t at work that day.
This was spun out into another anti Jim Price thing, sort of attributing her role and suggesting Jim price is taking over, as if one by one everyone is being fired and Jim price assumes their roles. Wait till he’s in the club shop!!
Even if she has left, and why would the club cover up such a departure, then is it a problem? People change jobs; it’s not as if it’s a core job role or an integral board member jumping ship. It’s an administrator. No doubt very good at her job and respected, but to start making out there are huge ruffles at Forest based on this is ridiculous.
A club spokesman said she just wasn’t at work today, unless that guys the Iraqi Information Minister, the Mail are probably being their good old hateful selves. It’s already clear lately they don’t care too much about reality and making leaps of imagination from the whole Milliband thing.
Remember it’s the Mail who suggested that the al-Hasawis were going to employ cheap Middle Eastern players, buying players themselves and we should be worried. Nothing to see here folks.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Bournemouth Match Report
Cherry’s Pip At The Last
Well I said it. I said that ridiculous Post piece could haunt us. And it truly did. I hope the author, the now infamous True Red and the Post can look at themselves for knowing that did play a part in rallying the Bournemouth fans and players into performing. They have admitted as much in a piece in Bournemouths local paper. I know one person was protesting (a little too) loudly that it was a joke, but even so, it gave Bournemouth a focus.
My friend turned to me during the game and said we’re going to be punished for these missed chances and truly we were. Although some have suggested the ref was bad, any decision he made didn’t truely affect the game for me, but merely added to frustrations of the fans at our incompetence in front of goal.
The match stats speak loudly. We had 21 shots to their 14, but had the same amount on target. We had the lionshare of possession. But the one stat that matters is that bounrmeouth “lowly little Bournemouth” left the City Ground with a point.
To be fair Bourneouth looked very good on the attack, hitting the post in the first half. I was extremely worried when Pugh and Pittman lined up a free kick, thinking yes they are going to score. When the Cherries did equalise I wasn’t as much shock and surprised as just frustrated that we had failed to kill them off.
This said I whole heartedly agree with the sentiments of Colin Fray post match when asked about the mis firing striker.s He said that two weeks ago no-one was suggested the team lacked firepower when Henderson had scored in a few games succession. As usual with the fans the last result is the only in mind, and we forget he bigger picture, you just see we toiled in that game and so we need new players.
I felt a little sorry for Cox, he was obviously trying, and looked exhausted when took off. He was taking shots when passes wre better because hes desperate to score and desperate to be that man we turn to for goals. But Saturday, and a lot of the last 6 months it just wasn’t his day.
Bournemouths offside trap worked wonders. It frustrated Henderson and Cox. Constantly catching us offside, again returning to the views of my friend, he was watching Cox at one stage when we had possession deeper and noticed for around 10-12 seconds Cox remained in an offside position had the ball been played long to him. I’m all for playing on the shoulder, and using that, but remaining offside and trying to step back at the last minute to be onside just sn’t effective for me.
Not with the high line Bournemouth put out, obviously looking at how we play, with
teams usually standing a bit deeper at the City Ground, allowing those balls to be played, they riskily wielded a high line that stopped us. I have no idea if this is their normal game.
To be honest had they not scored that late goal this debate wouldn't exist. We'd be talking about a professional win with a glorious goal by Lansbury. Instead we focus as always with Forest on the negatives. And yes thats what sticks in the mind, but at the end of the day had we held on 90% of peoples moaning and perception of this game would change.
Is the Post to blame? They didn't help, but at the end of the day they weren't missing the chances. It contributed in a sense that it focussed Bournemouths mind pre game. It enthused their fans. It's been pointed out since the game by penty that it was a rallying cry. But that said, had we been able to finish it'd be completely irrelevant. Whats to blame is a collective failing to score enough goals. But move on, these games happen and theres no need to beat ourselves up as much as some fans have been
Well I said it. I said that ridiculous Post piece could haunt us. And it truly did. I hope the author, the now infamous True Red and the Post can look at themselves for knowing that did play a part in rallying the Bournemouth fans and players into performing. They have admitted as much in a piece in Bournemouths local paper. I know one person was protesting (a little too) loudly that it was a joke, but even so, it gave Bournemouth a focus.
My friend turned to me during the game and said we’re going to be punished for these missed chances and truly we were. Although some have suggested the ref was bad, any decision he made didn’t truely affect the game for me, but merely added to frustrations of the fans at our incompetence in front of goal.
The match stats speak loudly. We had 21 shots to their 14, but had the same amount on target. We had the lionshare of possession. But the one stat that matters is that bounrmeouth “lowly little Bournemouth” left the City Ground with a point.
To be fair Bourneouth looked very good on the attack, hitting the post in the first half. I was extremely worried when Pugh and Pittman lined up a free kick, thinking yes they are going to score. When the Cherries did equalise I wasn’t as much shock and surprised as just frustrated that we had failed to kill them off.
This said I whole heartedly agree with the sentiments of Colin Fray post match when asked about the mis firing striker.s He said that two weeks ago no-one was suggested the team lacked firepower when Henderson had scored in a few games succession. As usual with the fans the last result is the only in mind, and we forget he bigger picture, you just see we toiled in that game and so we need new players.
I felt a little sorry for Cox, he was obviously trying, and looked exhausted when took off. He was taking shots when passes wre better because hes desperate to score and desperate to be that man we turn to for goals. But Saturday, and a lot of the last 6 months it just wasn’t his day.
Bournemouths offside trap worked wonders. It frustrated Henderson and Cox. Constantly catching us offside, again returning to the views of my friend, he was watching Cox at one stage when we had possession deeper and noticed for around 10-12 seconds Cox remained in an offside position had the ball been played long to him. I’m all for playing on the shoulder, and using that, but remaining offside and trying to step back at the last minute to be onside just sn’t effective for me.
Not with the high line Bournemouth put out, obviously looking at how we play, with
teams usually standing a bit deeper at the City Ground, allowing those balls to be played, they riskily wielded a high line that stopped us. I have no idea if this is their normal game.
To be honest had they not scored that late goal this debate wouldn't exist. We'd be talking about a professional win with a glorious goal by Lansbury. Instead we focus as always with Forest on the negatives. And yes thats what sticks in the mind, but at the end of the day had we held on 90% of peoples moaning and perception of this game would change.
Is the Post to blame? They didn't help, but at the end of the day they weren't missing the chances. It contributed in a sense that it focussed Bournemouths mind pre game. It enthused their fans. It's been pointed out since the game by penty that it was a rallying cry. But that said, had we been able to finish it'd be completely irrelevant. Whats to blame is a collective failing to score enough goals. But move on, these games happen and theres no need to beat ourselves up as much as some fans have been
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
The Ever Increasing Dumbing Down of the Post
I genuinely had to cringe today at an article that the Post put out on its website and one assumes in Print too. And increasingly so these days. Badly thought out, hobbled together and just completely ridiculously written. And worse of all I have to thank a Bournemouth fan for pointing it out to me, because it shows us in a bad light against our next opponents.
The article, admittedly not an actual journalistic one, but one of the ever increasing ly used Post bloggers, basically all but suggested Saturday is a foregone conclusion, Bournemouth are basically a pub team showing up to be beaten at a glorious magnificent stadium that will make their lowly fans cower in disbelief at the history.
It’s the kind of opinion pieces that make me cringe.
Yes we have had a wonderful history. Yes Bournemouth don’t, and yes they have smaller attendance figures than us. But to basically point out that this is as good as it gets its horrendously arrogant and utterly obnoxious.
Bournemouth has earned their chance to be in the Championship. They started the season as equals and in Eddie Howe have a good young manager. That piece suggested that seemed to be holding Burnley back. Bournemouth are on the rise.
This small time Bournemouth are in 8th place 6 points behind the Reds. Not a horrendous place to be. The making out that Howe is a failed Burnley manager though not entirely incorrect isn’t really looking at facts. Howe left there a year ago. It’s not like they immediately became world beaters after he left. He took over the Cherries after they finished mid table, and took them up. He knows what he’s doing.
Then there’s the embarrassing part where their history is described as basically being all about Harry Redknapp and that’s it. Ok, so he played a huge part and their famous victory over Manchester United, and is the reason most people will have heard of the club, but it completely smacked of someone knowing this fact about Bournemouth and completely padding a childish piece of writing about the club. The attendance thing also negates Bournemouth is a smaller town than Nottingham.
What the hell the Post think they are doing these days make me wonder. I get in this day of cost cutting that this will be seen as a cheap way to expand their product. Using bloggers to write pieces means less journalists on a retainer, the fans think they have an input and its encourages people to read as they might get published. Overall cheaper and clearly must have felt a great idea to the new operators. But just putting out any old thing that appears in their submitted list isn’t going to make people read what was once a revered source of news and debate.
This will sound somewhat bizarre from a fellow blogger though. I don’t want the Post to have that service. It’s a newspaper and its website. You expect or at least would like journalists with journalistic integrity. Ex player pieces though widely criticised at least offer a different insight. This felt more like a drawn out Facebook status that seemed like a good idea at the time. If the writer is older than 20 I’ll be amazed.
I don’t like arrogance in football fans. The idea we shouldn’t even bother having to face you, and that’s a mere triviality is silly. That isn’t what makes football, football. Anyone on any day can and does beat their opponent.
I just wish that the Post would at least consider filtering some of the more dross pieces submitted to it. Maybe it’s that bad writing that is stopping people buying their paper. It’s a new site. Not a trumped up blog site. It hardly makes you think Forest have made a bad decision by shunning the paper if it employs such cheap shoddy ways of adding content. Leave the badly written blogs to us, and stick to actual trained Journalism please.
The article, admittedly not an actual journalistic one, but one of the ever increasing ly used Post bloggers, basically all but suggested Saturday is a foregone conclusion, Bournemouth are basically a pub team showing up to be beaten at a glorious magnificent stadium that will make their lowly fans cower in disbelief at the history.
It’s the kind of opinion pieces that make me cringe.
Yes we have had a wonderful history. Yes Bournemouth don’t, and yes they have smaller attendance figures than us. But to basically point out that this is as good as it gets its horrendously arrogant and utterly obnoxious.
Bournemouth has earned their chance to be in the Championship. They started the season as equals and in Eddie Howe have a good young manager. That piece suggested that seemed to be holding Burnley back. Bournemouth are on the rise.
This small time Bournemouth are in 8th place 6 points behind the Reds. Not a horrendous place to be. The making out that Howe is a failed Burnley manager though not entirely incorrect isn’t really looking at facts. Howe left there a year ago. It’s not like they immediately became world beaters after he left. He took over the Cherries after they finished mid table, and took them up. He knows what he’s doing.
Then there’s the embarrassing part where their history is described as basically being all about Harry Redknapp and that’s it. Ok, so he played a huge part and their famous victory over Manchester United, and is the reason most people will have heard of the club, but it completely smacked of someone knowing this fact about Bournemouth and completely padding a childish piece of writing about the club. The attendance thing also negates Bournemouth is a smaller town than Nottingham.
What the hell the Post think they are doing these days make me wonder. I get in this day of cost cutting that this will be seen as a cheap way to expand their product. Using bloggers to write pieces means less journalists on a retainer, the fans think they have an input and its encourages people to read as they might get published. Overall cheaper and clearly must have felt a great idea to the new operators. But just putting out any old thing that appears in their submitted list isn’t going to make people read what was once a revered source of news and debate.
This will sound somewhat bizarre from a fellow blogger though. I don’t want the Post to have that service. It’s a newspaper and its website. You expect or at least would like journalists with journalistic integrity. Ex player pieces though widely criticised at least offer a different insight. This felt more like a drawn out Facebook status that seemed like a good idea at the time. If the writer is older than 20 I’ll be amazed.
I don’t like arrogance in football fans. The idea we shouldn’t even bother having to face you, and that’s a mere triviality is silly. That isn’t what makes football, football. Anyone on any day can and does beat their opponent.
I just wish that the Post would at least consider filtering some of the more dross pieces submitted to it. Maybe it’s that bad writing that is stopping people buying their paper. It’s a new site. Not a trumped up blog site. It hardly makes you think Forest have made a bad decision by shunning the paper if it employs such cheap shoddy ways of adding content. Leave the badly written blogs to us, and stick to actual trained Journalism please.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Sako....Again
Today came the suggestion that transfer target Bakary Sako has gone on strike after Wolves blocked his move to Forest. Some Forest fans have atken to the usual social media platforms to laugh at this, and suggest we redouble efforts to sign him.
But hang on. If one of our players did this, and at the moment Wolves are suggesting he isn’t on strike, then we’d be asking for him to be hung drawn and quartered. We’d want to the board to leave him to rot and call him a money chasing judas and all the rest. You know like everyone did with Guedioura when it turns he wanted to leave.
What it would mean is that they want a player who doesn’t honour a contract he signed. Who doesn’t deem that its worth the paoer its written on. Whats to stop them doing it again at some juncture?
Additonally it indicates a “moody” player. A player who will sulk if things not going their way. Everbody loves to hate the moody player. We’ve had a few of those in the past too, and fans get on their backs.
I find it amusing again the double standards. I explored that last week in the way we accused Wolves of greed, of holding for larger sums, whereas if we did it it would be the “right” thing to do. This week we applaud a player trying to force through a move to us. Seeing it as a player wanting to play for us. Whereas if any of our current crop did the same and went on strike no-one would support him.
I’m of the opinion that you have to honour Wolves opinion if you’re the chasing club. If they value him at x price, then you have to pay it. I don’t agree with their vlautation, and the way they keep chopping and changing their demands, BUT they won the player. Therefore you have to pay what they want. And as iI said, turn it round then we’d be the ones applauding the club for trying to maximise revenue. In this day and age thats vital.
I also lament player power taking over, whereby players can force through something like this through their own sheer bull headedness. Remember Pierre van Hooijdon? H went on strike and would anyone welcome him back? Ok his reasoning for striking isn;t the same exactly, but prinicipal is the same. A player trying to take action into his own hands and force the clubs hand into selling them. You neither want a bad apple in the bowl, nor do you want to pay them wages (even if you fine them) Sako is too valuable to them to rot in reserves when his value would just depreciate.
But we forget that when its a player at another club. Apparently to some it even shows ambition. To me it signals trouble. A player with no lyalty, and no qualms about screwing their club over to benefit themselves. Do Not Want.
But hang on. If one of our players did this, and at the moment Wolves are suggesting he isn’t on strike, then we’d be asking for him to be hung drawn and quartered. We’d want to the board to leave him to rot and call him a money chasing judas and all the rest. You know like everyone did with Guedioura when it turns he wanted to leave.
What it would mean is that they want a player who doesn’t honour a contract he signed. Who doesn’t deem that its worth the paoer its written on. Whats to stop them doing it again at some juncture?
Additonally it indicates a “moody” player. A player who will sulk if things not going their way. Everbody loves to hate the moody player. We’ve had a few of those in the past too, and fans get on their backs.
I find it amusing again the double standards. I explored that last week in the way we accused Wolves of greed, of holding for larger sums, whereas if we did it it would be the “right” thing to do. This week we applaud a player trying to force through a move to us. Seeing it as a player wanting to play for us. Whereas if any of our current crop did the same and went on strike no-one would support him.
I’m of the opinion that you have to honour Wolves opinion if you’re the chasing club. If they value him at x price, then you have to pay it. I don’t agree with their vlautation, and the way they keep chopping and changing their demands, BUT they won the player. Therefore you have to pay what they want. And as iI said, turn it round then we’d be the ones applauding the club for trying to maximise revenue. In this day and age thats vital.
I also lament player power taking over, whereby players can force through something like this through their own sheer bull headedness. Remember Pierre van Hooijdon? H went on strike and would anyone welcome him back? Ok his reasoning for striking isn;t the same exactly, but prinicipal is the same. A player trying to take action into his own hands and force the clubs hand into selling them. You neither want a bad apple in the bowl, nor do you want to pay them wages (even if you fine them) Sako is too valuable to them to rot in reserves when his value would just depreciate.
But we forget that when its a player at another club. Apparently to some it even shows ambition. To me it signals trouble. A player with no lyalty, and no qualms about screwing their club over to benefit themselves. Do Not Want.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Two Sides to Bakary Story
The Bakary Sako saga has been entertaining as it reached a close today with the new he won’t be leaving. What’s entertaining is the fall out on either side of the debate about this almost transfer.
Forest fans are aghast that a League One club is demanding such high fees for a player. This of course has its merits. It’s not like it'd be for a promising up and coming player either to embellish the fee. No he’s at his best right now. Wolves paid £3mill for him when as a Championship club entertaining notions of promotion to the Premier League, before plummeting through the Championship trap door. They apparently in the summer wanted to make a profit on him, which for me is a strange situation when they aren’t the same club with the same turnover as before. If the situation changes then surely the market rates do? Do I still think a house bought before the banking crisis is worth the same just because I think it is? No the market dictates value.
Wolves’ fans are suggesting we are stupid and mucking around and that if we really want him why not pay the price they are demanding or shut up. Which is a valid point if you just fail to ignore something called common sense.
Say I have an apple. It’ a very nice apple. Apples aren’t in season anymore and we wanted that apple at that time but decided not to pay the price for the apple. Apples have a value as does everything, and sometimes they go for more or less, but generally people what they think that apple is worth. The apple we wanted is now suddenly more expensive and they wanted an Orange in return for it too. Would you buy the apple? No. No-one would. It’s the same apple, nothing’s changed, just now they seem to think it is worth more because... well I’m not sure why.
It’s completely laughable and borderline retarded to say we clearly aren’t that rich if we are unwilling to spend a figure we deem too much for something. If you blindly just go and pay what a vendor demands for a price without first checking whether what you’re buying is worth it your stupid.
Wolves clearly think Sako is key to getting promote. And he must be if we want him, but a League One club valuing a player so highly? We aren’t poor because we refuse to pay too much for something. That’s such a stupid statement. I’m clearly poor because I’d refuse to pay £5 for a can of coke.
And now I get to frankly the most ridiculous part of this whole silly charade. Where each clubs fans start proclaiming each other’s clubs joke. Wolves fans (Wolves are in league One, that’s below the Championship) that they are better placed club for Sako and are a bigger club. That’s a kind of logic you don’t argue with, because the purveyor of it is as stupid as to not bother wasting your time on.
We aren’t blameless here of course. Forest fans have suggested Wolves are holding the player to ransom. Wolves of course don’t have to sell us Sako, as if a Premiership club came in for one of our boys (like with Guedioura) we’d cry foul of any low bids. Sako has a contract with Wolves. And if the boot was on other foot then we’d be demanding the club don’t sell. How it’d signal a lack of ambition.
Also all week when he looked like he was off Wolves fans were laughing, saying Sako is over rated and not worth that much. Now they keeping him, we were miserly and cheap and should go away and leave the best player ever to walk the earth alone.
Now I made the point that we laugh at Wolves fans saying Sako is better off there? I remember some Forest fans (and some who have claimed that comment is stupid) saying exactly the same thing when Guedioura went to Palace. What’s the difference here at the end of the day?
The problem for me is that Wolves fans are saying the player isn’t for sale, yet Wolves were clearly in negotiations with us about the right place. If he isn’t for sale then none of this would have happened. Clearly he is for sale, but bizarrely for a price that’s going up. In August he was available for around £3mill. Now it appears to be £5mill AND Jamie Paterson on loan (ha ha fucking ha) The West Midlands clearly is a hot bed for hilarity if that’s Sako’s worth. It isn’t. Not even slightly. Wolf’s board clearly thought we’d offer them the stupid money and they could run to the bank.
Sako isn’t worth that much. There are other players available for less money. The problem is will Wolves regret not taking this larger offer when they had the chance. It’s happened to us a few times, and you end meekly selling for cheaper later on.
Forest fans are aghast that a League One club is demanding such high fees for a player. This of course has its merits. It’s not like it'd be for a promising up and coming player either to embellish the fee. No he’s at his best right now. Wolves paid £3mill for him when as a Championship club entertaining notions of promotion to the Premier League, before plummeting through the Championship trap door. They apparently in the summer wanted to make a profit on him, which for me is a strange situation when they aren’t the same club with the same turnover as before. If the situation changes then surely the market rates do? Do I still think a house bought before the banking crisis is worth the same just because I think it is? No the market dictates value.
Wolves’ fans are suggesting we are stupid and mucking around and that if we really want him why not pay the price they are demanding or shut up. Which is a valid point if you just fail to ignore something called common sense.
Say I have an apple. It’ a very nice apple. Apples aren’t in season anymore and we wanted that apple at that time but decided not to pay the price for the apple. Apples have a value as does everything, and sometimes they go for more or less, but generally people what they think that apple is worth. The apple we wanted is now suddenly more expensive and they wanted an Orange in return for it too. Would you buy the apple? No. No-one would. It’s the same apple, nothing’s changed, just now they seem to think it is worth more because... well I’m not sure why.
It’s completely laughable and borderline retarded to say we clearly aren’t that rich if we are unwilling to spend a figure we deem too much for something. If you blindly just go and pay what a vendor demands for a price without first checking whether what you’re buying is worth it your stupid.
Wolves clearly think Sako is key to getting promote. And he must be if we want him, but a League One club valuing a player so highly? We aren’t poor because we refuse to pay too much for something. That’s such a stupid statement. I’m clearly poor because I’d refuse to pay £5 for a can of coke.
And now I get to frankly the most ridiculous part of this whole silly charade. Where each clubs fans start proclaiming each other’s clubs joke. Wolves fans (Wolves are in league One, that’s below the Championship) that they are better placed club for Sako and are a bigger club. That’s a kind of logic you don’t argue with, because the purveyor of it is as stupid as to not bother wasting your time on.
We aren’t blameless here of course. Forest fans have suggested Wolves are holding the player to ransom. Wolves of course don’t have to sell us Sako, as if a Premiership club came in for one of our boys (like with Guedioura) we’d cry foul of any low bids. Sako has a contract with Wolves. And if the boot was on other foot then we’d be demanding the club don’t sell. How it’d signal a lack of ambition.
Also all week when he looked like he was off Wolves fans were laughing, saying Sako is over rated and not worth that much. Now they keeping him, we were miserly and cheap and should go away and leave the best player ever to walk the earth alone.
Now I made the point that we laugh at Wolves fans saying Sako is better off there? I remember some Forest fans (and some who have claimed that comment is stupid) saying exactly the same thing when Guedioura went to Palace. What’s the difference here at the end of the day?
The problem for me is that Wolves fans are saying the player isn’t for sale, yet Wolves were clearly in negotiations with us about the right place. If he isn’t for sale then none of this would have happened. Clearly he is for sale, but bizarrely for a price that’s going up. In August he was available for around £3mill. Now it appears to be £5mill AND Jamie Paterson on loan (ha ha fucking ha) The West Midlands clearly is a hot bed for hilarity if that’s Sako’s worth. It isn’t. Not even slightly. Wolf’s board clearly thought we’d offer them the stupid money and they could run to the bank.
Sako isn’t worth that much. There are other players available for less money. The problem is will Wolves regret not taking this larger offer when they had the chance. It’s happened to us a few times, and you end meekly selling for cheaper later on.
The Guardian Hit Back
The Guardian through an article by David Conn have hit back at Forest this week. With an ongoing spat between the club and the Newspaper, following Daniel Taylors supposed incorrect use of press passes, the Guardian were banned from the City Ground. Taylor followed this with a piece that largely pointed the finger of blame at Jim Price.
Well now the Guardian has now followed up by basically suggesting that Jim Price, who is rapidly becoming the infamous Jim Price, would not pass the fit an able person test to be a director of a club. This is following his suspension from law following the collapse of the Scottish law Firm Ross Harper.Now that’s as maybe, by the letter of the law then therefore he wouldn’t be allowed to be a director that much is apparent. But the thing is he is not a director but an advisor. Now this is possibly a mere technicality of his job title, but the fact remains he is not a director.
Therefore it doesn’t directly apply to him.
Now maybe the lines blur and there are a great many shades of grey here, the role he plays s very much a middle man between Fawaz and the various parties they negotiate with. He isn’t the money man, and it’s not as if he’s a Munto Finance esque character, or any other of the various nefarious characters to infest football in the past. He’s just a mid management guy.
He plays active roles in negotiations and has enough jurisdictions within the club to apparently have signed contracts on behalf of Nottingham Forest, but at the end of the day what does it matter?
Ok people will point out the Ross Harper's demise and suspension as being factors which should have us worried. The practices that allegedly occurred there aren’t really directly related to his Forest role. The main element of this report just seems to be muck raking by (much respected) reporters and a Newspaper reacting to its slight.
Which is laughable. We aren’t going to sell a lot of papers for the Guardian. We aren’t big news. The world cares about the Premier League and the Championship is pretty much a side show, so why the Guardian should be doing this? Well for one maybe they do actually have grievances and want to bring up that that all isn’t glorious at the head of Forest. Coupled with the post match press conference in which Billy Davies alluded to and was angry with the “carry on Kuwait” headlines and wouldn’t answer some questions, one asks why the club would put this out on their official YouTube channel. Well probably because it can and does now, as practice, but also in part so fans can see that post match the journo’s all wanted to ask off the pitch questions. The "Carry On Kuwait" thing of course refers back to a sub heading that came from Daniel Taylor in an Observer column where he was pretty much suggested the whole Fawaz – Billy thing was doomed, Davies was a “belligerent” presence and that we should watch this one closely”. Essentially it’s this kind of thing that is being punished by Forest and now the Guardian are playing a tit for tat game of trying to point out why they are in the right.
Again neither side is looking exceptionally good in all of this, but with Forest beating Derby on Sunday and potentially with another win tonight’s it’s just badly timed as Forest look set to be flying high again.
Maybe it has been said, but watch this one closely.
Well now the Guardian has now followed up by basically suggesting that Jim Price, who is rapidly becoming the infamous Jim Price, would not pass the fit an able person test to be a director of a club. This is following his suspension from law following the collapse of the Scottish law Firm Ross Harper.Now that’s as maybe, by the letter of the law then therefore he wouldn’t be allowed to be a director that much is apparent. But the thing is he is not a director but an advisor. Now this is possibly a mere technicality of his job title, but the fact remains he is not a director.
Therefore it doesn’t directly apply to him.
Now maybe the lines blur and there are a great many shades of grey here, the role he plays s very much a middle man between Fawaz and the various parties they negotiate with. He isn’t the money man, and it’s not as if he’s a Munto Finance esque character, or any other of the various nefarious characters to infest football in the past. He’s just a mid management guy.
He plays active roles in negotiations and has enough jurisdictions within the club to apparently have signed contracts on behalf of Nottingham Forest, but at the end of the day what does it matter?
Ok people will point out the Ross Harper's demise and suspension as being factors which should have us worried. The practices that allegedly occurred there aren’t really directly related to his Forest role. The main element of this report just seems to be muck raking by (much respected) reporters and a Newspaper reacting to its slight.
Which is laughable. We aren’t going to sell a lot of papers for the Guardian. We aren’t big news. The world cares about the Premier League and the Championship is pretty much a side show, so why the Guardian should be doing this? Well for one maybe they do actually have grievances and want to bring up that that all isn’t glorious at the head of Forest. Coupled with the post match press conference in which Billy Davies alluded to and was angry with the “carry on Kuwait” headlines and wouldn’t answer some questions, one asks why the club would put this out on their official YouTube channel. Well probably because it can and does now, as practice, but also in part so fans can see that post match the journo’s all wanted to ask off the pitch questions. The "Carry On Kuwait" thing of course refers back to a sub heading that came from Daniel Taylor in an Observer column where he was pretty much suggested the whole Fawaz – Billy thing was doomed, Davies was a “belligerent” presence and that we should watch this one closely”. Essentially it’s this kind of thing that is being punished by Forest and now the Guardian are playing a tit for tat game of trying to point out why they are in the right.
Again neither side is looking exceptionally good in all of this, but with Forest beating Derby on Sunday and potentially with another win tonight’s it’s just badly timed as Forest look set to be flying high again.
Maybe it has been said, but watch this one closely.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Derby Day Delight
After 2 seasons of, well, I admit it, failure against Derby, Forest have turned it round to result in a victory in a game that always feels like it comes at vital moments in a season.
For instance this game came on the back of a run of games where we had toiled to get draws. Losing in the Capital One Cup, although no exactly painful still sits on the mind. Had we lost this game, form would start to look questionable. And with the prospect of two long away trips before the international break, it had all the possibility to turn the season the wrong way. Last season’s defeat felt like a big setback and 2 years under McClaren, well it took the wind from the sails of what might have been another kind of season.
So for me, this game felt higher stakes.
We all know the result, all know the scorer, I’m not going to break ground there, but hat surprised me, is that although Derby often looked dangerous on the attack, the seemed to almost go out of this game with a whimper. I’ve only ever seen Hughes against Forest and each time he has flattered to deceive.
We made changes, enforced changes. Moussi in the midfield, Chalobah out through injury. This both worried me and gave a new sense of what would happen as Moussi does have awful distribution and is prone to terrible errors of judgement. That said, with him in place the midfield had shape. The dynamic down the left with Reid, Majewski and Cohen was in place. With Moussi out and Cohen into midfield, and Harding on the left, it was still there at times, but just not quite firing in the same way. Collins was in for Wilson (and ultimately for Halford)
What was apparent is at set pieces Derby had clearly set their stall out defend against Henderson as the aerial threat. That’s the only way I can begin to describe the way that they completely ignored Hobbs, who despite his large frame went through the area unmarked and headed home with what would be the only goal of the game. It was absolutely criminal defending, and had they not being so obsessed with pulling Henderson’s shirt all over and stop him jumping they may have remembered other aerial threats exist.
The penalty was an interesting incident as from my seat I have near the back of the Trent End, anything that happens like that at the other end is hard to pick out and I haven’t seen the goals back. But Derby going down to 10 men is not always the best plan. I of course refer to 2 years ago and the whole “we only had 10 men” game. The resulting penalty was saved, and at this point I was worried. We should have buried the game there and then, instead there was this outside chance of hope, buoyed by the penalty save.
Indeed Derby had chances. Hughes with a free kick, and Sammon as their human battering ram. But their main worry all game for me, and always is when we play them was Jamie Ward, he’s just that hateful little figure of a player who antagonises and I could see him doing something. So I was delighted when they withdrew him.
Reid had a glorious one on one right at the death, and 2-0 would have been probably the right result, but it was saved. Henderson had earlier missed a glorious headed opportunity to finish, but his header went way off target.
A word on a number of players. Collins was superb, and it’s that kind of showing we bought him for. Henderson toiled as the target man, and for much was an aerial target after we shifted dynamic with Moussi out. Although he missed a gilt edge header and the penalty he worried Derby. Harding did his job when he came on, but Abdoun didn’t seem as confident when he came into action. Lansbury in the deeper role had a quieter game.
The win of course has since seen Nigel Clough dismissed and hilarious McClaren bought in. Maybe it will work out, but evidence from his last Championship job suggests otherwise. With Middlesbrough where he had success he had cash to spend. We know what he did with us, failed at Wolfsburg, Twente (in his second spell) and of curse England. This could be his last chance of a vestige of saving face in England.
For instance this game came on the back of a run of games where we had toiled to get draws. Losing in the Capital One Cup, although no exactly painful still sits on the mind. Had we lost this game, form would start to look questionable. And with the prospect of two long away trips before the international break, it had all the possibility to turn the season the wrong way. Last season’s defeat felt like a big setback and 2 years under McClaren, well it took the wind from the sails of what might have been another kind of season.
So for me, this game felt higher stakes.
We all know the result, all know the scorer, I’m not going to break ground there, but hat surprised me, is that although Derby often looked dangerous on the attack, the seemed to almost go out of this game with a whimper. I’ve only ever seen Hughes against Forest and each time he has flattered to deceive.
We made changes, enforced changes. Moussi in the midfield, Chalobah out through injury. This both worried me and gave a new sense of what would happen as Moussi does have awful distribution and is prone to terrible errors of judgement. That said, with him in place the midfield had shape. The dynamic down the left with Reid, Majewski and Cohen was in place. With Moussi out and Cohen into midfield, and Harding on the left, it was still there at times, but just not quite firing in the same way. Collins was in for Wilson (and ultimately for Halford)
What was apparent is at set pieces Derby had clearly set their stall out defend against Henderson as the aerial threat. That’s the only way I can begin to describe the way that they completely ignored Hobbs, who despite his large frame went through the area unmarked and headed home with what would be the only goal of the game. It was absolutely criminal defending, and had they not being so obsessed with pulling Henderson’s shirt all over and stop him jumping they may have remembered other aerial threats exist.
The penalty was an interesting incident as from my seat I have near the back of the Trent End, anything that happens like that at the other end is hard to pick out and I haven’t seen the goals back. But Derby going down to 10 men is not always the best plan. I of course refer to 2 years ago and the whole “we only had 10 men” game. The resulting penalty was saved, and at this point I was worried. We should have buried the game there and then, instead there was this outside chance of hope, buoyed by the penalty save.
Indeed Derby had chances. Hughes with a free kick, and Sammon as their human battering ram. But their main worry all game for me, and always is when we play them was Jamie Ward, he’s just that hateful little figure of a player who antagonises and I could see him doing something. So I was delighted when they withdrew him.
Reid had a glorious one on one right at the death, and 2-0 would have been probably the right result, but it was saved. Henderson had earlier missed a glorious headed opportunity to finish, but his header went way off target.
A word on a number of players. Collins was superb, and it’s that kind of showing we bought him for. Henderson toiled as the target man, and for much was an aerial target after we shifted dynamic with Moussi out. Although he missed a gilt edge header and the penalty he worried Derby. Harding did his job when he came on, but Abdoun didn’t seem as confident when he came into action. Lansbury in the deeper role had a quieter game.
The win of course has since seen Nigel Clough dismissed and hilarious McClaren bought in. Maybe it will work out, but evidence from his last Championship job suggests otherwise. With Middlesbrough where he had success he had cash to spend. We know what he did with us, failed at Wolfsburg, Twente (in his second spell) and of curse England. This could be his last chance of a vestige of saving face in England.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)