Nesty wrote:if they are such brilliant players then why arent they professional enough to dig in and play to their potential?? maybe I for one am not saying much as there isnt much left to say !!
There's a petulant, flippant, response if ever I've seen one!
From the games I've watched, the players have dug in and it's obvious they are professional. However, as we all know, there's more to it than just going out on the pitch; e.g. tactics, team selection, injuries, etc. I was careful to avoid attributing blame to Michael Duff because it was always going to be difficult trying to mould a newly assembled squad into his own ethos and style of play. Also, some players that were brought in as part of the squad (e.g. Duku) have been dispensed with, presumably to balance the books. I normally hate blame culture but I feel the way the Board, rather than Gary Johnson, the players or Michael Duff, have messed up so badly that they warranted my critical comments on this occasion.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Interesting and accurate imo.
The squad we have now I maintain is the best, in terms of league experience and quality, since the second play-off season under Yates, Hundred only by losing Duku and Kalala May costing us some pace and excitement.
Writing off the squad after three or four games - when Hussey and Long were absent, and new faces were still growing into a cohesive team was an error made by many fans, blinkered by the previous season perhaps.
The exciting first half vs Carlisle and the rallying point at Macclesfield showed the squad was improving and Russ continued that with good victories.
That has been replaced with slow attacking play and a lack of clarity over the starting eleven and formation. So starting from square one to a degree and we need to kick-on.
Quite so. Much of what's been said on this thread was posted by 'Johnson supporters' before and after he was unceremoniously sacked; me included.
It still beggars belief that, having entrusted Gary to build a squad for 2018/19, the Board saw fit to capitulate to a few disgruntled, noisy, fans and show him the door after just four games. FOUR GAMES! The Board is culpable for that crass decision, along with allowing Eisa to go with two years left on his contract.
I hope the Johnson detractors are happy now. Their growing silence has been conspicuously deafening as the reality of the folly has really started to sink in. The petulant retort from these people now is that Gary assembled a cr*p squad. Utter, desperate, nonsense. As others have pointed out, it was one of the strongest squads we've had for years - it simply hadn't been given the chance to gell properly. Even our Champions failed to win their first three games before storming to 101 points.
Of course, it's too late to warn people what to wish for. All we can do now is hope that, come season's end, at least two teams have amassed fewer points than us.
Since when does a strong squad have no decent central midfielders? Absolute codswallop.
I will agree that the manner of GJ’s sacking was disgraceful, and after being given a vote of confidence he should have been given longer to get the squad to gel. However, let’s not paint a picture that all was rosy before the sacking. The three 1-0 defeats may look like close games, but the only reason they weren’t complete hammerings was due to the ineptitude of Crawley, Tranmere and Carlisle to really put us to the sword. We then got a draw against the worst team to play in the Football League for some time – a team that are still somehow worse than us.
There’s no doubt in my mind that Johnson should have gone in the summer. Don’t be fooled by his performance at Torquay currently, it had gone stale here and I genuinely believe his heart wasn’t in it anymore – especially after last season’s, deserved, criticisms.
I’m not going to sit here and portray Duff as the saviour, but to say we would be in a better position with absolutely nothing to back it up is crass in the extreme. Who can say whether we would have beat Cambridge with GJ in the dugout or not? I genuinely didn’t see the win coming, and the goal came from a player who was seemingly not on GJ’s radar. It’s all ifs and buts.
There’s no cause for sacking Duff either, but then I’m old school in that I believe managers require time to turn things around. He hasn’t even had a transfer window yet.
We have a decent defence and we have some talent (Maddox and Broom) and experience (Varney and Barnett) going forward. However, we’re seriously lacking in the middle of the pitch and a player, like a Finnigan, Yates, McCann, Penn, who can boss the middle of the pitch. Atangana can’t do it, Tozer is playing better as a centre back and neither Clements nor Thomas strike me as that sort of player. This type of player has to be top of Duff’s wishlist in January.
In the meantime it’s a case of holding on, nicking points where we can and doing enough to be in touch come then.
Nesty wrote:if they are such brilliant players then why arent they professional enough to dig in and play to their potential?? maybe I for one am not saying much as there isnt much left to say !!
There's a petulant, flippant, response if ever I've seen one!
From the games I've watched, the players have dug in and it's obvious they are professional. However, as we all know, there's more to it than just going out on the pitch; e.g. tactics, team selection, injuries, etc. I was careful to avoid attributing blame to Michael Duff because it was always going to be difficult trying to mould a newly assembled squad into his own ethos and style of play. Also, some players that were brought in as part of the squad (e.g. Duku) have been dispensed with, presumably to balance the books. I normally hate blame culture but I feel the way the Board, rather than Gary Johnson, the players or Michael Duff, have messed up so badly that they warranted my critical comments on this occasion.
oops sorry didnt mean it to sound flippant - thats the problem with message boards you cant get inclination over. To be honest I am confused by all the blame and counter blame going on. somewhere we have messed up. Should GJ have been sacked earlier/later/not at all.... the hand over from Baker to Wilcox should have been phased/done earlier/later etc ... etc etc
the only thing that is irrefutable is that even though we didnt know for sure Eisa would go we needed strikers, we had got rid of Wright, Graham, Holman etc, and Johnson had not signed replacements. By the time Eisa money hit the bank GJ had gone/ the widow had shut. There was an attempt at signing Shaw, but even had we signed him we were still light.
There are so many other unknowns........ was it a mistake to release Kalala? ditto Duku and also young Lloyd
so............ again I apologise for the flippant/sarcastic tone it was not meant to come across like that - I hope the above goes to explain the rationale.
what we need to do is get behind MD and the players. Let us not forget that over the last 6 weeks or so we have played against several sides in the top 6 - at a time MD tries to instil his own work ethic etc etc
Si Robin - You’ve been selective and deviated from the thrust of my post. However, in answer to your retort, yes, I agree that central midfield is clearly our biggest weakness. Nigel’s inexplicable loss of form this term hasn’t helped in that regard. Maybe it speaks volumes about the generally low quality of squads over a number of years – especially defence - that led me to agree with other posters that this was arguably the strongest squad we’ve assembled for years. The good performance of our defence was why we only lost 1-0 against Crawley and Carlisle rather the ineptitude of the opposition), so we disagree there (I can’t comment on the Tranmere game).
We all know there are reasons why past squads have been weak, notably comparative lack of resources to invest in players. Let’s be realistic, we are a small club without a big investor. I know Accrington have worked miracles, but they’re more the exception than the rule. Not all blame for lack of success should be dumped on managers, who are many fans’ favourite scapegoat for poor results.
Maybe Johnson should’ve gone at the end of last season. However, the Board decided to allow him to build a squad for 2018/19 then knee-jerked into sacking him four games into the new season; hence, my criticism of the Board. Like you, I’m old school and believe that managers require time to turn things around – not sacked after 4 games.
And who suggested there’s cause for sacking Duff? I didn’t.
Other than that, I don’t disagree too much with what you said.
vickeryc wrote:Si Robin - You’ve been selective and deviated from the thrust of my post. However, in answer to your retort, yes, I agree that central midfield is clearly our biggest weakness. Nigel’s inexplicable loss of form this term hasn’t helped in that regard. Maybe it speaks volumes about the generally low quality of squads over a number of years – especially defence - that led me to agree with other posters that this was arguably the strongest squad we’ve assembled for years. The good performance of our defence was why we only lost 1-0 against Crawley and Carlisle rather the ineptitude of the opposition), so we disagree there (I can’t comment on the Tranmere game).
We all know there are reasons why past squads have been weak, notably comparative lack of resources to invest in players. Let’s be realistic, we are a small club without a big investor. I know Accrington have worked miracles, but they’re more the exception than the rule. Not all blame for lack of success should be dumped on managers, who are many fans’ favourite scapegoat for poor results.
Maybe Johnson should’ve gone at the end of last season. However, the Board decided to allow him to build a squad for 2018/19 then knee-jerked into sacking him four games into the new season; hence, my criticism of the Board. Like you, I’m old school and believe that managers require time to turn things around – not sacked after 4 games.
And who suggested there’s cause for sacking Duff? I didn’t.
Other than that, I don’t disagree too much with what you said.
vickeryc wrote:Let’s be realistic, we are a small club without a big investor. I know Accrington have worked miracles, but they’re more the exception than the rule. Not all blame for lack of success should be dumped on managers, who are many fans’ favourite scapegoat for poor results.
Unfortunately that is what a lot of posters here fail to grasp. For whatever reason, despite not having the money or gates that warrant a perennial playoff/title contender, many posters on here seem to think that we are better/bigger than we really are. Perhaps bottom half of League 2, or even further below, is where we are meant to be, given the resources. But hey ho, let's just sack the manager in hope that the next person to take over is going to be able to perform miracles and boost us into League 1, or beyond, despite there being no legitimate reason why we should be playing at a higher level than we are.
And for the "GJ should have been sacked in the summer, or earlier" posters, any new manager would still inherit the same problems, i.e. low attendances and low resources. Unless we suddenly gain a big investor, or thousands more start turning up to watch us each Saturday/Tuesday, then get used to it, because this is where we are bound to stay, i.e. bottom half of League 2 or lower. Anything above that would be good fortune.
Nesty wrote:if they are such brilliant players then why arent they professional enough to dig in and play to their potential?? maybe I for one am not saying much as there isnt much left to say !!
There's a petulant, flippant, response if ever I've seen one!
From the games I've watched, the players have dug in and it's obvious they are professional. However, as we all know, there's more to it than just going out on the pitch; e.g. tactics, team selection, injuries, etc. I was careful to avoid attributing blame to Michael Duff because it was always going to be difficult trying to mould a newly assembled squad into his own ethos and style of play. Also, some players that were brought in as part of the squad (e.g. Duku) have been dispensed with, presumably to balance the books. I normally hate blame culture but I feel the way the Board, rather than Gary Johnson, the players or Michael Duff, have messed up so badly that they warranted my critical comments on this occasion.
oops sorry didnt mean it to sound flippant - thats the problem with message boards you cant get inclination over. To be honest I am confused by all the blame and counter blame going on. somewhere we have messed up. Should GJ have been sacked earlier/later/not at all.... the hand over from Baker to Wilcox should have been phased/done earlier/later etc ... etc etc
the only thing that is irrefutable is that even though we didnt know for sure Eisa would go we needed strikers, we had got rid of Wright, Graham, Holman etc, and Johnson had not signed replacements. By the time Eisa money hit the bank GJ had gone/ the widow had shut. There was an attempt at signing Shaw, but even had we signed him we were still light.
There are so many other unknowns........ was it a mistake to release Kalala? ditto Duku and also young Lloyd
so............ again I apologise for the flippant/sarcastic tone it was not meant to come across like that - I hope the above goes to explain the rationale.
what we need to do is get behind MD and the players. Let us not forget that over the last 6 weeks or so we have played against several sides in the top 6 - at a time MD tries to instil his own work ethic etc etc
vickeryc wrote:Let’s be realistic, we are a small club without a big investor. I know Accrington have worked miracles, but they’re more the exception than the rule. Not all blame for lack of success should be dumped on managers, who are many fans’ favourite scapegoat for poor results.
Unfortunately that is what a lot of posters here fail to grasp. For whatever reason, despite not having the money or gates that warrant a perennial playoff/title contender, many posters on here seem to think that we are better/bigger than we really are. Perhaps bottom half of League 2, or even further below, is where we are meant to be, given the resources. But hey ho, let's just sack the manager in hope that the next person to take over is going to be able to perform miracles and boost us into League 1, or beyond, despite there being no legitimate reason why we should be playing at a higher level than we are.
And for the "GJ should have been sacked in the summer, or earlier" posters, any new manager would still inherit the same problems, i.e. low attendances and low resources. Unless we suddenly gain a big investor, or thousands more start turning up to watch us each Saturday/Tuesday, then get used to it, because this is where we are bound to stay, i.e. bottom half of League 2 or lower. Anything above that would be good fortune.
Agree JRA, that's a realistic assessment of CTFC's standing. It's not a slight to the club; it's simple honesty based on the facts. We are a poorly supported club without a rich benefactor that has done pretty well to flirt with L1 a couple of times avoid being a yo-yo club for as long as it did. Some people will hate hearing it, but if they accept the reality, it is far easier to adjust one's expectations accordingly!
vickeryc wrote:Let’s be realistic, we are a small club without a big investor. I know Accrington have worked miracles, but they’re more the exception than the rule. Not all blame for lack of success should be dumped on managers, who are many fans’ favourite scapegoat for poor results.
Unfortunately that is what a lot of posters here fail to grasp. For whatever reason, despite not having the money or gates that warrant a perennial playoff/title contender, many posters on here seem to think that we are better/bigger than we really are. Perhaps bottom half of League 2, or even further below, is where we are meant to be, given the resources. But hey ho, let's just sack the manager in hope that the next person to take over is going to be able to perform miracles and boost us into League 1, or beyond, despite there being no legitimate reason why we should be playing at a higher level than we are.
And for the "GJ should have been sacked in the summer, or earlier" posters, any new manager would still inherit the same problems, i.e. low attendances and low resources. Unless we suddenly gain a big investor, or thousands more start turning up to watch us each Saturday/Tuesday, then get used to it, because this is where we are bound to stay, i.e. bottom half of League 2 or lower. Anything above that would be good fortune.
Agree JRA, that's a realistic assessment of CTFC's standing. It's not a slight to the club; it's simple honesty based on the facts. We are a poorly supported club without a rich benefactor that has done pretty well to flirt with L1 a couple of times avoid being a yo-yo club for as long as it did. Some people will hate hearing it, but if they accept the reality, it is far easier to adjust one's expectations accordingly!
This maybe the case but two issues for me.
Firstly, given our realistic position, let’s at least try and liven the atmosphere with fast direct play and better off the pitch comms and marketing.
Secondly, we must capitalise on good fortune when we get it. This means not selling 25 goal strikers when you don’t need to and can’t replace them.
Like Ward and Yates, it won’t be long until another summer of high player turnover produces a group who perform much better than expected or imagined. But equally, we will face seasons when players just as good on paper underperform. That’s the way of the lower leagues.
Artemis wrote:But with Macclesfield in all kinds of trouble, we only need to be marginally better than one other club. I'd take 22nd right now.
I am looking at Cambridge, Morecambe, Grimsby and thinking their squads are no better than ours and I would hope we have more funds than them come January in order to strengthen. The key is not being too far adrift.
Artemis wrote:But with Macclesfield in all kinds of trouble, we only need to be marginally better than one other club. I'd take 22nd right now.
I am looking at Cambridge, Morecambe, Grimsby and thinking their squads are no better than ours and I would hope we have more funds than them come January in order to strengthen. The key is not being too far adrift.
Morecambe have just got new owners, fingers crossed for us there are no extra funds.
Artemis wrote:But with Macclesfield in all kinds of trouble, we only need to be marginally better than one other club. I'd take 22nd right now.
I am looking at Cambridge, Morecambe, Grimsby and thinking their squads are no better than ours and I would hope we have more funds than them come January in order to strengthen. The key is not being too far adrift.
Morecambe have just got new owners, fingers crossed for us there are no extra funds.
Grimsby are the main target imo. Relying on Fenty’s hapless Chairmanship being more damaging than AW’s sticky start!
vickeryc wrote:Let’s be realistic, we are a small club without a big investor. I know Accrington have worked miracles, but they’re more the exception than the rule. Not all blame for lack of success should be dumped on managers, who are many fans’ favourite scapegoat for poor results.
Unfortunately that is what a lot of posters here fail to grasp. For whatever reason, despite not having the money or gates that warrant a perennial playoff/title contender, many posters on here seem to think that we are better/bigger than we really are. Perhaps bottom half of League 2, or even further below, is where we are meant to be, given the resources. But hey ho, let's just sack the manager in hope that the next person to take over is going to be able to perform miracles and boost us into League 1, or beyond, despite there being no legitimate reason why we should be playing at a higher level than we are.
And for the "GJ should have been sacked in the summer, or earlier" posters, any new manager would still inherit the same problems, i.e. low attendances and low resources. Unless we suddenly gain a big investor, or thousands more start turning up to watch us each Saturday/Tuesday, then get used to it, because this is where we are bound to stay, i.e. bottom half of League 2 or lower. Anything above that would be good fortune.
You argument would make sense except our wage budget is thought to be top half for league two.
vickeryc wrote:Let’s be realistic, we are a small club without a big investor. I know Accrington have worked miracles, but they’re more the exception than the rule. Not all blame for lack of success should be dumped on managers, who are many fans’ favourite scapegoat for poor results.
Unfortunately that is what a lot of posters here fail to grasp. For whatever reason, despite not having the money or gates that warrant a perennial playoff/title contender, many posters on here seem to think that we are better/bigger than we really are. Perhaps bottom half of League 2, or even further below, is where we are meant to be, given the resources. But hey ho, let's just sack the manager in hope that the next person to take over is going to be able to perform miracles and boost us into League 1, or beyond, despite there being no legitimate reason why we should be playing at a higher level than we are.
And for the "GJ should have been sacked in the summer, or earlier" posters, any new manager would still inherit the same problems, i.e. low attendances and low resources. Unless we suddenly gain a big investor, or thousands more start turning up to watch us each Saturday/Tuesday, then get used to it, because this is where we are bound to stay, i.e. bottom half of League 2 or lower. Anything above that would be good fortune.
You argument would make sense except our wage budget is thought to be top half for league two.
No doubt we are burning through money but I highly doubt our wage bill will drop to some of the smaller clubs level not when you have the likes of Morecambe and Macclesfield in this league.
Robin wrote:No doubt we are burning through money but I highly doubt our wage bill will drop to some of the smaller clubs level not when you have the likes of Morecambe and Macclesfield in this league.
They could both go down and replaced with Wrexham and Salford. That would up the wage bill average!
And you say Morecambe, but quick look at Companies House shows they had turnover of £2.7million in 2017, but an operating loss of £350,000. So they spending over £3m on wages, operating costs, debt repayments etc. Is our revenue as much as that?
Plus, out latest statement of capital (8th November) shows the value of shares in CTFC to be £942,876. Morecambe’s shares total over £4.77million.
I assume they have had much more share investment because their stadium is a much better asset than ours.
This reinforces my point that we are a relatively small club, even for league two. That's not a bad thing; it's a fact. I'd rather be a small fish punching above than a big one massively under-achieving, like Notts County.
vickeryc wrote:This reinforces my point that we are a relatively small club, even for league two. That's not a bad thing; it's a fact. I'd rather be a small fish punching above than a big one massively under-achieving, like Notts County.
Notts County share capital over £12.6m. In fact, almost £1m invested in shares between June and August 2018 - more than the total value of CTFC shares.
County’s balance sheet (assets minus liabilities) is £6.2m in the red - but like CTFC, turnover not reported.
CTFC’s balance sheet £500k to the good. The accounts do show a profit and loss account of negative £2.3million.
vickeryc wrote:This reinforces my point that we are a relatively small club, even for league two. That's not a bad thing; it's a fact. I'd rather be a small fish punching above than a big one massively under-achieving, like Notts County.
I disagree, we are not a small club punching above our weight at this level, more a middle of the road side underachieving whilst near the bottom. Our natural position is probably mid-table league two right now but we have the potential to progress higher if someone can unlock it (look at Lincoln or even Exeter as example of a similar club).
vickeryc wrote:This reinforces my point that we are a relatively small club, even for league two. That's not a bad thing; it's a fact. I'd rather be a small fish punching above than a big one massively under-achieving, like Notts County.
I disagree, we are not a small club punching above our weight at this level, more a middle of the road side underachieving whilst near the bottom. Our natural position is probably mid-table league two right now but we have the potential to progress higher if someone can unlock it (look at Lincoln or even Exeter as example of a similar club).
We'll have to agree to disagree, Robin.
I consider Lincoln and Exeter to be 'bigger' clubs than us even before Lincoln's recent rise. The only L2 clubs that stand out to me as being significantly 'smaller' than us are FGR, Macclesfield and Morecambe; whereas Yeovil, Crawley, Stevenage and Newport are similar. The likes of Northampton, Colchester, Mansfield, Bury, and Cambridge seem a bit bigger than us and have significantly more FL history behind them. It is, of course, very subjective, but part of the perception comes down to level of support. On that measure, only five clubs currently have worse attendances than us: Morecambe; Crawley; Macc; Stevenage and FGR; then there's a significant leap up to Yeovil, whose attendances are about 15% more than ours.
vickeryc wrote:This reinforces my point that we are a relatively small club, even for league two. That's not a bad thing; it's a fact. I'd rather be a small fish punching above than a big one massively under-achieving, like Notts County.
I disagree, we are not a small club punching above our weight at this level, more a middle of the road side underachieving whilst near the bottom. Our natural position is probably mid-table league two right now but we have the potential to progress higher if someone can unlock it (look at Lincoln or even Exeter as example of a similar club).
We'll have to agree to disagree, Robin.
I consider Lincoln and Exeter to be 'bigger' clubs than us even before Lincoln's recent rise. The only L2 clubs that stand out to me as being significantly 'smaller' than us are FGR, Macclesfield and Morecambe; whereas Yeovil, Crawley, Stevenage and Newport are similar. The likes of Northampton, Colchester, Mansfield, Bury, and Cambridge seem a bit bigger than us and have significantly more FL history behind them. It is, of course, very subjective, but part of the perception comes down to level of support. On that measure, only five clubs currently have worse attendances than us: Morecambe; Crawley; Macc; Stevenage and FGR; then there's a significant leap up to Yeovil, whose attendances are about 15% more than ours.
Lincoln’s net assets about five times the value of ours, and their share capital value about five times ours as well.
I fear that CTFC is a very under capitalised business, which is why we are so vulnerable to shocks like relegation and falling crowds. This also limits the extent to which we can speculate to accumulate.
If you look at attendances then you need to look over a reasonable period (ten years or so). Take away the last two years and I doubt Exeter, Lincoln have significantly different attendances to ours. Bury I would have thought operate on lower attendances than us over the last twenty years but they've likely spent more time in league one than we have.
Robin wrote:If you look at attendances then you need to look over a reasonable period (ten years or so). Take away the last two years and I doubt Exeter, Lincoln have significantly different attendances to ours. Bury I would have thought operate on lower attendances than us over the last twenty years but they've likely spent more time in league one than we have.
But attendances mean little if the balance sheet and turnover are larger than ours by a magnitude.
Clearly, balance sheets and 'injections' of resources skew one's perception of clubs (e.g. Fleetwood), though the reality is usually temporary. All things being equal, attendances and period of tenure in a league give a broad perspective (over a sustained period) as to the 'status' of a club. For example, I cannot yet consider Bournemouth, Swansea, Wigan or Hull as 'big' clubs despite current and recent flirtations with the Premiership.
vickeryc wrote:Clearly, balance sheets and 'injections' of resources skew one's perception of clubs (e.g. Fleetwood), though the reality is usually temporary. All things being equal, attendances and period of tenure in a league give a broad perspective (over a sustained period) as to the 'status' of a club. For example, I cannot yet consider Bournemouth, Swansea, Wigan or Hull as 'big' clubs despite current and recent flirtations with the Premiership.
Unfortunately we are lacking in both. We have a below average attendance and low capitalisation.
A minnow.
If Robin thinks we are a bigger club than half of L2 then I invite him to explain where the increase in attendance and investment is going to come from.
vickeryc wrote:Clearly, balance sheets and 'injections' of resources skew one's perception of clubs (e.g. Fleetwood), though the reality is usually temporary. All things being equal, attendances and period of tenure in a league give a broad perspective (over a sustained period) as to the 'status' of a club. For example, I cannot yet consider Bournemouth, Swansea, Wigan or Hull as 'big' clubs despite current and recent flirtations with the Premiership.
Unfortunately we are lacking in both. We have a below average attendance and low capitalisation.
A minnow.
If Robin thinks we are a bigger club than half of L2 then I invite him to explain where the increase in attendance and investment is going to come from.
That's the thrust of what I've been saying.
Imagining that CTFC is bigger than it is, besides being fallacious, simply raises unrealistic expectations and maximises frustration at the perceived under-achievement. It is no bad thing to support a smaller club, embrace the fact, and adjust expectations accordingly. For example, within our customary budgetary constraints, we are unlikely to ever establish ourselves as a Championship club, even though you can't rule out the possibility of getting there, like Yeovil did (under Gary Johnson!) Indeed, managing expectations makes the pain of dealing with inevitable disappointments much easier to bear!
The likes of Rushden and Diamonds, Gretna and Darlington give a clue as to what can happen when a small club strives to over-extend itself (watch out FGR, Fleetwood, Salford and Fylde!) If we happen to over-achieve within our resources, then great - that's a massive bonus to be celebrated in full. I would reiterate that, by accepting we are one of the smaller fish in the L2 pond and being prepared to deal with it accordingly, does not mean we have to stifle realistic expectation and cautious optimism.
Supporters of Cheltenham clearly aren't glory-hunters. Yet, over the last 20-odd years, we have enjoyed more success than clubs like Rochdale have over the last century! Hope we get as far as we can in the FA Cup, don't expect to win it! Expectation management.
vickeryc wrote:
That's the thrust of what I've been saying.
Imagining that CTFC is bigger than it is, besides being fallacious, simply raises unrealistic expectations and maximises frustration at the perceived under-achievement. It is no bad thing to support a smaller club, embrace the fact, and adjust expectations accordingly. For example, within our customary budgetary constraints, we are unlikely to ever establish ourselves as a Championship club, even though you can't rule out the possibility of getting there, like Yeovil did (under Gary Johnson!) Indeed, managing expectations makes the pain of dealing with inevitable disappointments much easier to bear!
The likes of Rushden and Diamonds, Gretna and Darlington give a clue as to what can happen when a small club strives to over-extend itself (watch out FGR, Fleetwood, Salford and Fylde!) If we happen to over-achieve within our resources, then great - that's a massive bonus to be celebrated in full. I would reiterate that, by accepting we are one of the smaller fish in the L2 pond and being prepared to deal with it accordingly, does not mean we have to stifle realistic expectation and cautious optimism.
Supporters of Cheltenham clearly aren't glory-hunters. Yet, over the last 20-odd years, we have enjoyed more success than clubs like Rochdale have over the last century! Hope we get as far as we can in the FA Cup, don't expect to win it! Expectation management.
vickeryc wrote:Clearly, balance sheets and 'injections' of resources skew one's perception of clubs (e.g. Fleetwood), though the reality is usually temporary. All things being equal, attendances and period of tenure in a league give a broad perspective (over a sustained period) as to the 'status' of a club. For example, I cannot yet consider Bournemouth, Swansea, Wigan or Hull as 'big' clubs despite current and recent flirtations with the Premiership.
Yes this is what I am saying to you only from the opposite angle. You have to consider that for most of the last five years we've endured absolutely horrible results and football that's why our attendances have dropped so low. Lincoln on the other hand have had amazing success, coupled with great marketing and fan engagement but if you look over twenty years I bet our attendances are fairly similar. Ergo when using attendances you have to look over a decent period for it to be meaningful.
Balance sheets and cash flow don't really define a big club, for example are Man City bigger than Liverpool? FGR/Fleetwood clearly not bigger than CTFC etc. Likewise clubs like Bournemouth are punching well above their weight in the prem but I bet they are better financed than historically big clubs like Leeds and Villa.
That all said if a club plays at a level for a sustained period of time then you clearly have to acknowledge that they are not punching above their weight. That's my point our natural weight is probbaly league two another comparison is Oxford who were once a top flight team, winning hte league cup yet they are now a widely perceived to be a small lower league team.
