Amberexile wrote:The two year contracts situation was explained at the last open meeting.

As I understood it, Flynn found himself last Summer having to recruit almost an entire squad either through negotiating contract extensions or finding new players.

As a result of this he decided to implement a two year rolling approach to recruitment so that each Summer he would only need to recruit half a squad.

I guess the hope being that there would be a proportion of players retained at the end of their 2 year contracts and a proportion of new players brought in each year going forward and a gradual improvement in the squad overall.

I guess we can't really judge whether this strategy works out until the start of the 2021/22 season but I can't see many of the new hires that were given 2 year contracts this season being retained for 21/22 so not looking promising in my view so far.

2 year deals were given to a player who admitted he couldn’t stay fit and players who hadn’t played at this level. That’s sounds like a terrible strategy which was probably influenced by an agency who’s clients and themselves benefited from such a strategy. As I said few years back allowing an agency this close to our club and academy would always come back to bite us in the @rse. Where’s Alan Bryant these days?

Bush wrote:Where’s Alan Bryant these days?

Off considering his position.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Bush wrote:Where’s Alan Bryant these days?

Off considering his position.

Will under another name any moment now to point out how much we made the Lee Evans and Connor Washington deals while failing to mention day, Butler, Byrne and tiger all left for nothing after running down their contracts.

But Bush,surely the manager makes the decisions on length of contracts.The agents talk up their clients turning them into world beaters and the manager says yes or no,if yes,he discusses the details with the Chairman who backs the manager.The fact that we signed a crock and two CB's who had never played at this standard,was down to the manager.Call it gullible or risky but,two year deals agreed by Flynny with possible input from Hats and Lennie,that's where the blame lies.

Percy plunkett wrote:But Bush,surely the manager makes the decisions on length of contracts.The agents talk up their clients turning them into world beaters and the manager says yes or no,if yes,he discusses the details with the Chairman who backs the manager.The fact that we signed a crock and two CB's who had never played at this standard,was down to the manager.Call it gullible or risky but,two year deals agreed by Flynny with possible input from Hats and Lennie,that's where the blame lies.

The manager doesn’t offer the contracts. That’s where the lack of football experience on the board resulted in us bringing in elite management anyway! Lennie Lawrence’s role should have been director of football not advisor to the first team or whatever it is.

Signing the rovers right back wasn’t a bad decision. He had plenty of experience at this level and if he was fit we probably would have struggled to sign him. We have to take risks but he should have had a one year deal. If he didn’t want it then tough he doesn’t join. There’s only about 1000 more right backs in the country!

Corey whitely never played at this level. He was 28 and I think he had a few games in the conference few years ago. He should have been on trial never mind 2 year deal! Similar to the Lamar Reynolds deal from a few years ago. Two signings to help out elite management. The board is not fit for purpose if it just agrees with everything the manager wants.

The board give the manager a budget,it isn't their role to say who the manager signs,they back his judgment.He may then go to the board for extra funds if injuries need replacing.I don't understand how an agency can force a manager to sign their player,if they say two year deal,we say one year or move on to another player.

Percy plunkett wrote:The board give the manager a budget,it isn't their role to say who the manager signs,they back his judgment.He may then go to the board for extra funds if injuries need replacing.I don't understand how an agency can force a manager to sign their player,if they say two year deal,we say one year or move on to another player.

We have given 2 year deals to their players who haven’t played at this level yet somehow given a one year deal to one of their players who was our player of the season and walked out on a free at the end of the season. It’s the boards job to manage the budget not the manager. This is where we needed a director of football and not have the chairman as part of negotiations.

Bush wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote:The board give the manager a budget,it isn't their role to say who the manager signs,they back his judgment.He may then go to the board for extra funds if injuries need replacing.I don't understand how an agency can force a manager to sign their player,if they say two year deal,we say one year or move on to another player.

We have given 2 year deals to their players who haven’t played at this level yet somehow given a one year deal to one of their players who was our player of the season and walked out on a free at the end of the season. It’s the boards job to manage the budget not the manager. This is where we needed a director of football and not have the chairman as part of negotiations.

I spoke to Dan at the start of last season.He only wanted a one year deal because his family were in Portsmouth and he was concerned about the traveling.I am sure that he also thought of getting a better deal elsewhere if he had a good season so insisted on one year only.Flynny would obviously have tried to persuade him for two but,one was better than nothing.Directors should not and do not tell the manager who to sign,for how much or for how long a contract.The manager manages his budget,that is part of his job.

People need to realise that, unless you are from Newport - it's a shithole to everyone else and will only attract managers in urgent need of employment so will generally be a stepping stone stone to other, more attractive jobs and locations - Holdsworth and Edinburgh both used the place as such and moved on a soon as their stock was high enough. To have a manager that grew up and still lives here and knows/understands the people and the place is virtually unique. That's not to say he has a lifetime guarantee of employment, but I don't think you can put a value on it from a club perspective.

Bush wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Bush wrote:Where’s Alan Bryant these days?

Off considering his position.

Will under another name any moment now to point out how much we made the Lee Evans and Connor Washington deals while failing to mention day, Butler, Byrne and tiger all left for nothing after running down their contracts.

Is our club the only place that happens then?

Does anyone else think that the state of our pitch may put some managers off applying for our job? If Flynny were to go, one of the managers I would be keen to go after would be Paul Tisdale. He has traditionally liked to have his teams playing good football on the floor not hoofball. Would he or anyone else who likes to get the ball down, be able to play good football on that pitch?

rdh2210 wrote:Does anyone else think that the state of our pitch may put some managers off applying for our job? If Flynny were to go, one of the managers I would be keen to go after would be Paul Tisdale. He has traditionally liked to have his teams playing good football on the floor not hoofball. Would he or anyone else who likes to get the ball down, be able to play good football on that pitch?

Yes , it also puts players off joining and it affects the way we have to try and play.

Is it known yet if artificial surfaces will be back on the agenda at the League AGM?

Spiderman wrote:

rdh2210 wrote:Does anyone else think that the state of our pitch may put some managers off applying for our job? If Flynny were to go, one of the managers I would be keen to go after would be Paul Tisdale. He has traditionally liked to have his teams playing good football on the floor not hoofball. Would he or anyone else who likes to get the ball down, be able to play good football on that pitch?

Yes , it also puts players off joining and it affects the way we have to try and play.

Before the season when players are being signed up it looked like First day at Wimbledon.
Hoof ball does no more suit our awful pitch anymore than trying to play on the ground.
Especially with a player who can hardly get off the ground and when on the odd occasion he does there is nobody to feed off him as for example Padraig is wandering around out on the wing somewhere or back in midfield.
Tactics of course are nothing to do with our manager.
I say its all young Collins fault Saturday.

George Street-Bridge wrote:Is it known yet if artificial surfaces will be back on the agenda at the League AGM?

As I understand it, the current pitch is as artificial as it’s allowed to be under Football League regulations.

During the great escape I remember a few anti-County Dragons fans saying they hope we get relegated so they’d be allowed a fully artificial pitch (which I assume is allowed in the conference?)