Wigan Athletic vs Brighton & Hove Albion *** Official Match Thread ***

[Triggaaar]

You justify every players departure with 'facts' .... And some of your facts are wrong regarding the departures of Murray and Barnes.

Feel free to correct my statements where they're wrong.

In addition, the vast majority of fans liked them both - I remember discussions on NSC for example, where a minority slagged them off, but they were vastly outnumbered by fans with positive views.

My recollection is that most fans were disappointed that Murray left (although satisfied with his replacement) and a lot of fans (not sure if most or not) thought it was a reasonable decision to let Barnes go (ie, not increase his offer, and accept the fee).

But the bottom line is that the squad quality now is shocking compared to that at April 2013. Only a fool would deny that. Look at a program circa April 2015. That squad included about 15 players, possibly more, far far better than we have now.

No one is arguing against that. What I'm disagreeing with is how easy it is to have a squad that good. With hindsight it's obvious that a lot of our transfer dealings have been poor, but we didn't all think that at the time.

The Board and/or Burke hadn't to tighten the financial belt due to FFP, but we now know from the dross on the pitch, that this was done in an over the top manner and with awful recruitment.

Poor recruitment, yes, and so Burke was sacked. But I don't agree that the belt was tightened in an over the top manner. Who are we to say how much TB should be losing every year? If he's willing to lose £2m a year to fund us, then so be it. If it's £8m, great. But until some billionaire offers more, I don't think it's right to complain.

Only due to the schedule. After three of the five match days in January they were third, but that's splitting hairs.

It's worse than splitting hairs. Firstly, it doesn't matter what the bloody reason, they were in the top two for most of the month, and secondly, he left us on the 10th Jan (when Burnley were 2nd), so when he made his decision it looked like there was more chance of Burnley being promoted than us.

The point is that it was January and their promotion was not settled, and our failure to get promoted wasn't set.

No, the point is that Burnley had a better chance of getting promoted. It doesn't matter that it wasn't set in stone, it was still a better chance.

How is it not the same? "If we offered him more [than them] he would stay" "he wouldn't go there for less money [than we offer]". That's not moving the goal post.

What you've put in quotes there is not what you said (certainly now what I replied to). You said "just as Barnes would have stayed if the club were willing to match what was offered by Burnley" and I asked how you knew that he'd stay if offered the same, and you said "why move for less money?" - That's clearly different, I agree he wouldn't move for less money, but he might move for the same money with a better chance of promotion.

Not that I have any reason to think he wasn't offered more, I just wanted to know how you knew he'd stay if offered the same, and the answer is that you don't.

I will expand to counter your point with 'why take less money, have to move almost 300miles away from where you have settled with your family, for only a fraction more chance of promotion to a division where a lot of people expected you to rarely, if ever, play? (Even as one of his defenders I didn't expect him to have as much game time as he's had).

As I said, I don't think he went for less money, and haven't ever suggested that. I think Burnley had a lot more chance of promotion than us. You may not have expected him to get much game time, but perhaps he thought he would - perhaps he believes in himself.

Logic says he was offered more at Burnley than we offered him to stay.

Maybe he was, but it's not a definite.

I think you are confusing the vocal minority with general fan opinion. But, again, this isn't something that people are just saying now. People said it at the time and as the season wore on.

Maybe I am. I think a number of fans thought we should hold onto him, and a number thought we shouldn't have to pay too much to keep him, and that £750k was a lot of money for what was left of his contract. If you can show me that the vast majority of us wanted to match Burnley's wages, and that those wages were reasonable, then I will concede that the fans got it right and the board got it wrong.

Lingard's season average rating on NSC was lower than Barnes's.

Oh please tell me you're joking? You have lots of useful stats that I'm sure many of us enjoy seeing, but noting the average ratings posted on NSC is taking it too far.

 

[Triggaaar]

Considering our current 3 recognised 'strikers' have the combined worst league goalscoring record this season of any of the 92 football league clubs I'm amazed we weren't relegated weeks ago! Rather than a summer clearout, keep what we have in defence and midfield and spunk our entire transfer budget on two decent forwards.

I agree. Yes we could have better defenders, but what we've got is about enough if we could also score goals. The board should look at our budget, and be prepared to spend all of it on strikers if necessary. If there's some left for the odd improvement elsewhere, so be it.

 

[GT49er]

Rather than a summer clearout, keep what we have in defence and midfield and spunk our entire transfer budget on two decent forwards.

But that's not the be-all and end-all of it, is it? The midfield isn't linking up with the attack, and the midfielders aren't scoring goals. I agree the strikers have been poor, although Baldock was starting to look as if he was settling in before he got injured, but it's not just the strikers that are wholly to blame. They get no support from midfield - how often do we see Brighton players bombing into the penalty areas art speed and in numbers? The set up needs overhauling, as well as the playing staff.
We need to be starting to think about replacements for our ageing defenders too.

 

[Beach Hut]

For around 15 minutes in the 2nd half we had a go but apart from that it was the usual anal dirge.

 

[Acker79]

It's worse than splitting hairs. Firstly, it doesn't matter what the bloody reason, they were in the top two for most of the month,

So, you think staying top for two weeks when you have a game on the 1st, then no one plays again until the 15th because of an international break is as impressive as staying top for two weeks when everyone play Friday, Monday, Saturday Tuesday? Of course you're going to "stay in the top two for a most of the month" if there's ten days between the first and second game in that month.

and secondly, he left us on the 10th Jan (when Burnley were 2nd), so when he made his decision it looked like there was more chance of Burnley being promoted than us.

No, the point is that Burnley had a better chance of getting promoted. It doesn't matter that it wasn't set in stone, it was still a better chance.

What you've put in quotes there is not what you said (certainly now what I replied to). You said "just as Barnes would have stayed if the club were willing to match what was offered by Burnley" and I asked how you knew that he'd stay if offered the same, and you said "why move for less money?" - That's clearly different, I agree he wouldn't move for less money, but he might move for the same money with a better chance of promotion.

Not that I have any reason to think he wasn't offered more, I just wanted to know how you knew he'd stay if offered the same, and the answer is that you don't.

As I said, I don't think he went for less money, and haven't ever suggested that. I think Burnley had a lot more chance of promotion than us. You may not have expected him to get much game time, but perhaps he thought he would - perhaps he believes in himself.

Maybe he was, but it's not a definite.

My belief that he would have stayed if he offered the same is a combination of things:
1) People on here who claimed to be in the know
2) The interview he gave and other articles in the argus at the time.
3) Logic. You can minimise the point all you want, it was January, there were still 20 odd games to go until the end of the season (10th of January this season, Derby were second, now 5th, and Watford were 6th, now 1st). That they slipped out of the top two shows that they weren't running away from the chasing pack and as such their chances of promotion, in January, were not that much greater than ours. Certainly not 'take a pay cut and up root the family 300miles' sort of difference in chances.

You can take any one of those and put some doubt into them, I'm sure. But the combination of all three makes me very confident that he would have stayed if offered the same, a bit more, whatever, something that is comparative to what Burnley offered. It may not be definitive, but on the balance of probability, I am extremely confident in saying he was offered more by Burnley than we offered. Certainly more to support than the claim that Murray would have stayed for less.

Maybe I am. I think a number of fans thought we should hold onto him, and a number thought we shouldn't have to pay too much to keep him, and that £750k was a lot of money for what was left of his contract. If you can show me that the vast majority of us wanted to match Burnley's wages, and that those wages were reasonable, then I will concede that the fans got it right and the board got it wrong.

I'm not arguing everyone wanted to keep him. I'm saying not everyone wanted to get rid. That your opinion that "To now blame the club for letting him go is ridiculous" ignores that not everyone was so eager to get rid, and that some people were critical at the time. This isn't all hindsight being 20/20 as your opinion suggests.

Oh please tell me you're joking? You have lots of useful stats that I'm sure many of us enjoy seeing, but noting the average ratings posted on NSC is taking it too far.

Firstly, why remove where I preface that stat with the acknowledgement that it isn't worth a lot?

Secondly, why is it ok for you to take fan opinion to defend letting Barnes go, but the me using it to show the fans thought more of Barnes's performances than Lingaard's is laughable?

Is it the same reason you're so willing to accept what people on here have said regarding Murray, but with Barnes you refuse to accept what people on here have said, backed up by articles from the Argus, and reasonable logic? Why not knowing the the figures involved with Murray is fine (maybe the 'less than palace offered' was still more than we could reasonably afford), but not knowing them with Barnes makes the argument flawed?

 

[Triggaaar]

So, you think staying top for two weeks when you have a game on the 1st, then no one plays again until the 15th because of an international break is as impressive as staying top for two weeks when everyone play Friday, Monday, Saturday Tuesday?

Have you been taking stupid pills? It's not about being impressive, it's about the information Barnes had to go on when he was deciding whether or not to go. Burnley were top 2 for most of December, 1st for some of it, and 2nd for all of January prior to his move. So what happened at the end of January and how many game there were before he moved are not relevant. I don't know what the odds on them being promoted were, but I imagine they were a lot shorter than ours, not just a bit.

My belief that he would have stayed if he offered the same is a combination of things:

Ok, fair enough.

3) Logic. You can minimise the point all you want, it was January, there were still 20 odd games to go until the end of the season (10th of January this season, Derby were second, now 5th, and Watford were 6th, now 1st). That they slipped out of the top two shows that they weren't running away from the chasing pack and as such their chances of promotion, in January, were not that much greater than ours. Certainly not 'take a pay cut and up root the family 300miles' sort of difference in chances.

You've brought up pay cut again, and no one here is suggesting he was taking a pay cut. And we'll have to agree to disagree about the chances of being promoted.

You can take any one of those and put some doubt into them, I'm sure. But the combination of all three makes me very confident that he would have stayed if offered the same, a bit more, whatever, something that is comparative to what Burnley offered. It may not be definitive, but on the balance of probability, I am extremely confident in saying he was offered more by Burnley than we offered.

Fair enough.

That your opinion that "To now blame the club for letting him go is ridiculous" ignores that not everyone was so eager to get rid, and that some people were critical at the time. This isn't all hindsight being 20/20 as your opinion suggests.

I'm not suggesting that no one wanted him to stay, but I don't think many thought it was a terrible decision. We hoped to replace him with better.

Firstly, why remove where I preface that stat with the acknowledgement that it isn't worth a lot?

Because your preface that it's not worth a lot wasn't relevant to the point I was making because I wasn't being overly serious (what you do with your spare time and collecting stats is up to you) and I think collecting those particular stats is funny (regardless of the fact you realise they're not worth a lot).

Secondly, why is it ok for you to take fan opinion to defend letting Barnes go, but the me using it to show the fans thought more of Barnes's performances than Lingaard's is laughable?

I think the player ratings are too volatile based on how the fans have felt after a long trip, the result having a big say on the ratings of players that may have performed well or badly regardless of the result, whether a player is a loanee or permanent player, who is giving the ratings, etc.

Is it the same reason you're so willing to accept what people on here have said regarding Murray, but with Barnes you refuse to accept what people on here have said, backed up by articles from the Argus, and reasonable logic? Why not knowing the the figures involved with Murray is fine (maybe the 'less than palace offered' was still more than we could reasonably afford), but not knowing them with Barnes makes the argument flawed?

There are a few differences. I have had information that I believe from a Palace fan about what they offered Murray and I think we could have afforded to keep him - but even given that, I did not blame the club for letting him go, as I thought we had a better player in CMS. I believe there were a number of fans who were more critical of the decision at the time. More than there were of fans complaining about letting Barnes go. And I'm not saying Barnes wasn't offered more, you said that he would have stayed if offered the same here, and I simply asked you how you know.