It's well written but in the interests of balance (to the extent you care), wouldn't it be fair to mention some of the positive developments?:
- investment in infrastructure (pitch, stadium, training ground etc); - several good additive signings from outside the network (Gudmonsson, Vetokele, Henderson, Diarra, Kashi, Bauer....) to offset the dross you mention; - more inventive and good value ticket pricing.
It does mention the infrastructure in two places, as well as the cheap ticketing.
As for the decent signings, I think the fact we're still paying at leas some of Polish Pete's wages tells a greater story about Duchâtelet/Fraeye's skills at talent-spotting.
The trouble is, the positives will count for nothing if RD and KM break the club.
It's well written but in the interests of balance (to the extent you care), wouldn't it be fair to mention some of the positive developments?:
- investment in infrastructure (pitch, stadium, training ground etc); - several good additive signings from outside the network (Gudmonsson, Vetokele, Henderson, Diarra, Kashi, Bauer....) to offset the dross you mention; - more inventive and good value ticket pricing.
Ah yes. Gudmundson who has played poorly all season, because his heart does not seem to be in it.
Vetokele, who played a dozen games before 15 months of injuries, aggravated by playing him whilst unfit, because we only had Simon Church up front.
Henderson - good goalie who is injured as much as he plays.
Diarra - injured a lot as well, probably not helped by overplaying him ,through lack of alternatives.
Kashi - played about 6 games before out injured for the season.
Bauer- A good player at the start whose game fell to pieces, as he has to play alongside "kids" who are not up to it.
Yes Inspector, please do add these success stories.
It's well written but in the interests of balance (to the extent you care), wouldn't it be fair to mention some of the positive developments?:
- investment in infrastructure (pitch, stadium, training ground etc); - several good additive signings from outside the network (Gudmonsson, Vetokele, Henderson, Diarra, Kashi, Bauer....) to offset the dross you mention; - more inventive and good value ticket pricing.
Blimey Mate. Clutching at straws a bit there. He mentioned the infrastructure and the ticket pricing. Pricing of which has little significance when West Ham start flooding the market.
And as for the players, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on Gudmonsson and Hendy.
The rest have shown in time that they definitely are ' not up to much'.
Absolutely brilliant summary - will be a great, concise read for anyone wanting to know how and why we came to be so deep in the shit and why we need to get the Belgians out PDQ. The more people in football that read this, the better.
It's well written but in the interests of balance (to the extent you care), wouldn't it be fair to mention some of the positive developments?:
- investment in infrastructure (pitch, stadium, training ground etc); - several good additive signings from outside the network (Gudmonsson, Vetokele, Henderson, Diarra, Kashi, Bauer....) to offset the dross you mention; - more inventive and good value ticket pricing.
Ah yes. Gudmundson who has played poorly all season, because his heart does not seem to be in it.
Vetokele, who played a dozen games before 15 months of injuries, aggravated by playing him whilst unfit, because we only had Simon Church up front.
Henderson - good goalie who is injured as much as he plays.
Diarra - injured a lot as well, probably not helped by overplaying him ,through lack of alternatives.
Kashi - played about 6 games before out injured for the season.
Bauer- A good player at the start whose game fell to pieces, as he has to play alongside "kids" who are not up to it.
Yes Inspector, please do add these success stories.
Not really their fault they keep getting injured, but I must have missed Diarra's regular injuries....maybe he has a stand-in lookalike.
I'm no fan of the current administration but under Luzon from his appointment until injuries reached ludicrous proportions (beginning at Wolves), we were a solid top half side and to claim otherwise is unfair.
It was sacking Luzon in my view which was the catalyst for this mess, given the sudden drop in form had such an obvious and blameless explanation.
It's well written but in the interests of balance (to the extent you care), wouldn't it be fair to mention some of the positive developments?:
- investment in infrastructure (pitch, stadium, training ground etc); - several good additive signings from outside the network (Gudmonsson, Vetokele, Henderson, Diarra, Kashi, Bauer....) to offset the dross you mention; - more inventive and good value ticket pricing.
Ah yes. Gudmundson who has played poorly all season, because his heart does not seem to be in it.
Vetokele, who played a dozen games before 15 months of injuries, aggravated by playing him whilst unfit, because we only had Simon Church up front.
Henderson - good goalie who is injured as much as he plays.
Diarra - injured a lot as well, probably not helped by overplaying him ,through lack of alternatives.
Kashi - played about 6 games before out injured for the season.
Bauer- A good player at the start whose game fell to pieces, as he has to play alongside "kids" who are not up to it.
Yes Inspector, please do add these success stories.
Not really their fault they keep getting injured, but I must have missed Diarra's regular injuries....maybe he has a stand-in lookalike.
I'm no fan of the current administration but under Luzon from his appointment until injuries reached ludicrous proportions (beginning at Wolves), we were a solid top half side and to claim otherwise is unfair.
It was sacking Luzon in my view which was the catalyst for this mess, given the sudden drop in form had such an obvious and blameless explanation.
Luzon had lost about 7 in 9, the writing was on the wall even though I thought we should have stuck with him.
It's well written but in the interests of balance (to the extent you care), wouldn't it be fair to mention some of the positive developments?:
- investment in infrastructure (pitch, stadium, training ground etc); - several good additive signings from outside the network (Gudmonsson, Vetokele, Henderson, Diarra, Kashi, Bauer....) to offset the dross you mention; - more inventive and good value ticket pricing.
Ah yes. Gudmundson who has played poorly all season, because his heart does not seem to be in it.
Vetokele, who played a dozen games before 15 months of injuries, aggravated by playing him whilst unfit, because we only had Simon Church up front.
Henderson - good goalie who is injured as much as he plays.
Diarra - injured a lot as well, probably not helped by overplaying him ,through lack of alternatives.
Kashi - played about 6 games before out injured for the season.
Bauer- A good player at the start whose game fell to pieces, as he has to play alongside "kids" who are not up to it.
Yes Inspector, please do add these success stories.
Not really their fault they keep getting injured, but I must have missed Diarra's regular injuries....maybe he has a stand-in lookalike.
I'm no fan of the current administration but under Luzon from his appointment until injuries reached ludicrous proportions (beginning at Wolves), we were a solid top half side and to claim otherwise is unfair.
It was sacking Luzon in my view which was the catalyst for this mess, given the sudden drop in form had such an obvious and blameless explanation.
Luzon had lost about 7 in 9, the writing was on the wall even though I thought we should have stuck with him.
I know but the question is whether the sudden loss of so many key players was the reason....
It's well written but in the interests of balance (to the extent you care), wouldn't it be fair to mention some of the positive developments?:
- investment in infrastructure (pitch, stadium, training ground etc); - several good additive signings from outside the network (Gudmonsson, Vetokele, Henderson, Diarra, Kashi, Bauer....) to offset the dross you mention; - more inventive and good value ticket pricing.
Ah yes. Gudmundson who has played poorly all season, because his heart does not seem to be in it.
Vetokele, who played a dozen games before 15 months of injuries, aggravated by playing him whilst unfit, because we only had Simon Church up front.
Henderson - good goalie who is injured as much as he plays.
Diarra - injured a lot as well, probably not helped by overplaying him ,through lack of alternatives.
Kashi - played about 6 games before out injured for the season.
Bauer- A good player at the start whose game fell to pieces, as he has to play alongside "kids" who are not up to it.
Yes Inspector, please do add these success stories.
Not really their fault they keep getting injured, but I must have missed Diarra's regular injuries....maybe he has a stand-in lookalike.
I'm no fan of the current administration but under Luzon from his appointment until injuries reached ludicrous proportions (beginning at Wolves), we were a solid top half side and to claim otherwise is unfair.
It was sacking Luzon in my view which was the catalyst for this mess, given the sudden drop in form had such an obvious and blameless explanation.
Luzon had lost about 7 in 9, the writing was on the wall even though I thought we should have stuck with him.
I know but the question is whether the sudden loss of so many key players was the reason....
We have a poor collection of untried players who have played very few games in their careers, coupled with players who have a history of injuries.
Admittedly if you torture statistics enough then eventually they'll confess but here is an uncomfortable fact:
Between Riga's appointment in Mar 2014 (the true beginning of the Duchatelet era) and the Hull home game in Aug 2015, we accumulated 92 points from 66 games - this is equivalent to 64 points over a season, well ahead if what our say wage bill or attendances would suggest is our 'natural level'.
This represents approx 75% of the Duchatelet era and regardless of the dysfunctional process behind the scenes, must be declared a success in pure short term football terms.
The remaining 25% is of course the 20 games since Hull which have been an unmitigated disaster - my point simply is that it's hard to conclude in light of the above that the (initial) injuries weren't the key explanation.
Frustratingly RD/KM didn't recognised this themselves else they would have persevered with Luzon, made some temporary squad reinforcements and would not have gone down this crazy route which has become a vicious cycle.
Admittedly if you torture statistics enough then eventually they'll confess but here is an uncomfortable fact:
Between Riga's appointment in Mar 2014 (the true beginning of the Duchatelet era) and the Hull home game in Aug 2015, we accumulated 92 points from 66 games - this is equivalent to 64 points over a season, well ahead if what our say wage bill or attendances would suggest is our 'natural level'.
This represents 70% of the Duchatelet era and regardless of the dysfunctional process behind the scenes, must be declared a success in pure short term football terms.
The remaining 30% is of course the 20 games since Hull which have been an unmitigated disaster - my point simply is that it's hard to conclude in light of the above that the (initial) injuries weren't the key explanation.
Frustratingly RD/KM didn't recognised this themselves else they would have persevered with Luzon, made some temporary squad reinforcements and would not have gone down this crazy route which has become a vicious cycle.
I do think we need to start from day one with Duchatelet as he was bringing over players and playing them immediately.
Either way, it has been a total disaster from day one.
Admittedly if you torture statistics enough then eventually they'll confess but here is an uncomfortable fact:
Between Riga's appointment in Mar 2014 (the true beginning of the Duchatelet era) and the Hull home game in Aug 2015, we accumulated 92 points from 66 games - this is equivalent to 64 points over a season, well ahead if what our say wage bill or attendances would suggest is our 'natural level'.
This represents 70% of the Duchatelet era and regardless of the dysfunctional process behind the scenes, must be declared a success in pure short term football terms.
The remaining 30% is of course the 20 games since Hull which have been an unmitigated disaster - my point simply is that it's hard to conclude in light of the above that the (initial) injuries weren't the key explanation.
Frustratingly RD/KM didn't recognised this themselves else they would have persevered with Luzon, made some temporary squad reinforcements and would not have gone down this crazy route which has become a vicious cycle.
I do think we need to start from day one with Duchatelet as he was bringing over players and playing them immediately.
Either way, it has been a total disaster from day one.
It's been a disaster since Aug but it's simply not true to say it's been a disaster since day one.
Admittedly if you torture statistics enough then eventually they'll confess but here is an uncomfortable fact:
Between Riga's appointment in Mar 2014 (the true beginning of the Duchatelet era) and the Hull home game in Aug 2015, we accumulated 92 points from 66 games - this is equivalent to 64 points over a season, well ahead if what our say wage bill or attendances would suggest is our 'natural level'.
This represents 70% of the Duchatelet era and regardless of the dysfunctional process behind the scenes, must be declared a success in pure short term football terms.
The remaining 30% is of course the 20 games since Hull which have been an unmitigated disaster - my point simply is that it's hard to conclude in light of the above that the (initial) injuries weren't the key explanation.
Frustratingly RD/KM didn't recognised this themselves else they would have persevered with Luzon, made some temporary squad reinforcements and would not have gone down this crazy route which has become a vicious cycle.
I do think we need to start from day one with Duchatelet as he was bringing over players and playing them immediately.
Either way, it has been a total disaster from day one.
It's been a disaster since Aug but it's simply not true to say it's been a disaster since day one.
I do not think you'll have many people agree with you but we are at the stage we are due to a CONSISTENTLY FLAWED recruitment policy.
Admittedly if you torture statistics enough then eventually they'll confess but here is an uncomfortable fact:
Between Riga's appointment in Mar 2014 (the true beginning of the Duchatelet era) and the Hull home game in Aug 2015, we accumulated 92 points from 66 games - this is equivalent to 64 points over a season, well ahead if what our say wage bill or attendances would suggest is our 'natural level'.
This represents 70% of the Duchatelet era and regardless of the dysfunctional process behind the scenes, must be declared a success in pure short term football terms.
The remaining 30% is of course the 20 games since Hull which have been an unmitigated disaster - my point simply is that it's hard to conclude in light of the above that the (initial) injuries weren't the key explanation.
Frustratingly RD/KM didn't recognised this themselves else they would have persevered with Luzon, made some temporary squad reinforcements and would not have gone down this crazy route which has become a vicious cycle.
I do think we need to start from day one with Duchatelet as he was bringing over players and playing them immediately.
Either way, it has been a total disaster from day one.
It's been a disaster since Aug but it's simply not true to say it's been a disaster since day one.
At the risk of further turmoil in the ranks.....was "Polish Pete" really a disaster? He played once as a very late substitute about 2 years ago. Just looked at his stats on line and he's scored 3 in 10 for Danish Premier side Randers.
The argument that the RD era was a success up until the end of August 2015 is interesting. Statistically the case looks strong.
But whichever explanation is preferred Duchatelet is clearly too obstinate and fixated on his own football theories.
At the risk of further turmoil in the ranks.....was "Polish Pete" really a disaster? He played once as a very late substitute about 2 years ago. Just looked at his stats on line and he's scored 3 in 10 for Danish Premier side Randers.
The argument that the RD era was a success up until the end of August 2015 is interesting. Statistically the case looks strong.
But whichever explanation is preferred Duchatelet is clearly too obstinate and fixated on his own football theories.
Not sure but didn't @dickplumb see him play for the U21s a couple of times and he couldn't trap a bag of cement or lace Yann's boots let alone replace him like for like.
At the risk of further turmoil in the ranks.....was "Polish Pete" really a disaster? He played once as a very late substitute about 2 years ago. Just looked at his stats on line and he's scored 3 in 10 for Danish Premier side Randers.
The argument that the RD era was a success up until the end of August 2015 is interesting. Statistically the case looks strong.
But whichever explanation is preferred Duchatelet is clearly too obstinate and fixated on his own football theories.
Jeez. RD got rid of Kermorgant for about £400K, because he said he wasn't good enough and paid £750K for Polish Pete, who our coaches described as non league standard.
At the risk of further turmoil in the ranks.....was "Polish Pete" really a disaster? He played once as a very late substitute about 2 years ago. Just looked at his stats on line and he's scored 3 in 10 for Danish Premier side Randers.
The argument that the RD era was a success up until the end of August 2015 is interesting. Statistically the case looks strong.
But whichever explanation is preferred Duchatelet is clearly too obstinate and fixated on his own football theories.
The fact he only paid 5 minutes and we gave him under contract until 2018 due to the fact we cannot get anywhere near back what we bad for him makes him a disaster. We are probably still paying some or all his wages now whilst he is out on loan
What I have found 'weird' in all this is the lack of spin from KM. I mean, she could try to present the way the club is run in a positive way to fans and not insult them. Whether we believe her or not, just coming out with what she does often stokes the fire. Clearly, she has to be intelligent to have got a law degree, but some of her actions are those of an incompetent fool. Maybe it is her ego, as she likes to give interviews where she wants to present herself as a visionary and put down others, including supporters. Again though, she doesn't do it in the programme, she does it to foreign journalists. Does she think what she says won't get back to us, probably, and another example of her stupidity. Any fool in her position, wouldn't have got on the Watford train after that performance last season, but she did, so is she a bit lower than a fool? There seems so much compelling evidence to question her intelligence and we only have the law degree to counter that. But then, if you work so hard for a law degree, why would you want to be a puppet CEO of CAFC? Maybe she lacks the ability to be a lawyer. If I employed her, I wouldn't be doing so any longer. What she has to worry about, is if Roland decides it is time to part ways, who else will employ her?
What I have found 'weird' in all this is the lack of spin from KM. I mean, she could try to present the way the club is run in a positive way to fans and not insult them. Whether we believe her or not, just coming out with what she does often stokes the fire. Clearly, she has to be intelligent to have got a law degree, but some of her actions are those of an incompetent fool. Maybe it is her ego, as she likes to give interviews where she wants to present herself as a visionary and put down others, including supporters. Again though, she doesn't do it in the programme, she does it to foreign journalists. Does she think what she says won't get back to us, probably, and another example of her stupidity. Any fool in her position, wouldn't have got on the Watford train after that performance last season, but she did, so is she a bit lower than a fool? There seems so much compelling evidence to question her intelligence and we only have the law degree to counter that. But then, if you work so hard for a law degree, why would you want to be a puppet CEO of CAFC? Maybe she lacks the ability to be a lawyer. If I employed her, I wouldn't be doing so any longer. What she has to worry about, is if Roland decides it is time to part ways, who else will employ her?
Undoubtedly very intelligent but that does not ensure common sense.
My take on all this is that I can see Meire caving in to the criticism and leaving, another CEO coming in and Duchatelet carrying on his merry way.
Him abroad being detached from things over here I think is a problem for us, but a help for him.
Comments
- investment in infrastructure (pitch, stadium, training ground etc);
- several good additive signings from outside the network (Gudmonsson, Vetokele, Henderson, Diarra, Kashi, Bauer....) to offset the dross you mention;
- more inventive and good value ticket pricing.
As for the decent signings, I think the fact we're still paying at leas some of Polish Pete's wages tells a greater story about Duchâtelet/Fraeye's skills at talent-spotting.
The trouble is, the positives will count for nothing if RD and KM break the club.
Vetokele, who played a dozen games before 15 months of injuries, aggravated by playing him whilst unfit, because we only had Simon Church up front.
Henderson - good goalie who is injured as much as he plays.
Diarra - injured a lot as well, probably not helped by overplaying him ,through lack of alternatives.
Kashi - played about 6 games before out injured for the season.
Bauer- A good player at the start whose game fell to pieces, as he has to play alongside "kids" who are not up to it.
Yes Inspector, please do add these success stories.
And as for the players, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on Gudmonsson and Hendy.
The rest have shown in time that they definitely are ' not up to much'.
Embarassing enough for you, Roly?
I'm no fan of the current administration but under Luzon from his appointment until injuries reached ludicrous proportions (beginning at Wolves), we were a solid top half side and to claim otherwise is unfair.
It was sacking Luzon in my view which was the catalyst for this mess, given the sudden drop in form had such an obvious and blameless explanation.
Oh, I almost forget, a lot of them are s***.
Between Riga's appointment in Mar 2014 (the true beginning of the Duchatelet era) and the Hull home game in Aug 2015, we accumulated 92 points from 66 games - this is equivalent to 64 points over a season, well ahead if what our say wage bill or attendances would suggest is our 'natural level'.
This represents approx 75% of the Duchatelet era and regardless of the dysfunctional process behind the scenes, must be declared a success in pure short term football terms.
The remaining 25% is of course the 20 games since Hull which have been an unmitigated disaster - my point simply is that it's hard to conclude in light of the above that the (initial) injuries weren't the key explanation.
Frustratingly RD/KM didn't recognised this themselves else they would have persevered with Luzon, made some temporary squad reinforcements and would not have gone down this crazy route which has become a vicious cycle.
Either way, it has been a total disaster from day one.
That cannot be argued.
A wholistic approach to Duchatalet's reign suggests nothing but incompetence.
Jan 1st 2016 - 23rd in table with 19 pts
Hasn't really improved though no matter what stats you throw at it. On top of that you have a completely disengaged fanbase.
The argument that the RD era was a success up until the end of August 2015 is interesting. Statistically the case looks strong.
But whichever explanation is preferred Duchatelet is clearly too obstinate and fixated on his own football theories.
YES HE WAS A DISASTER !
My take on all this is that I can see Meire caving in to the criticism and leaving, another CEO coming in and Duchatelet carrying on his merry way.
Him abroad being detached from things over here I think is a problem for us, but a help for him.