hector wrote:I feel that Ling's signings so far have been very mixed. I am hopeful that the keeper and Saah will be adequate signings but it is going to take time for me to be won over by the re-signing of McPhee. I don't think he would have been a first-team regular in last season's team and if he is is to be a key player it sort of demonstrates we better get used to the prospect of a hard season.
Hopefully, Leadbitter is full of potential but the re-signing of Martin Rice is a shocker.
It is amazing how many people want to re-write history, simply because Rice and McPhee have returned. This nonsense that Rice is a bit old so is bound to be better is ridiculous. He was out of Truro's team for a while last season.
As for Ling's role in this...well it sounds as though Rice, himself, engineered the move. Has Ling even seen him play?
Sign poor players and it means only one thing. Ling's signings for me so far are probably 4 or 5 out of 10 .
In fairness that is actually quite a high score for you hector so I find that quite encouraging!
It's really not a difficult thing to understand. We don't have much money to spend, so the manager is doing the best he can with the budget at his disposal. I doubt Olejnik was cheap, and perhaps Saah wasn't either. But these are vital positions on the field. Ling obviously considered it important to invest well in those positions - even if it meant saving money elsewhere. Would people rather he signed two 'reasonable' keepers, on reasonable money - bearing in mind only one will play? Or is it in fact more sensible to spend a little more and get a good one (who will play) and a bit less on an average one, who will warm the bench? I'm struggling to see what is so difficult for people to comprehend about this? Martin Ling can't pluck money from the tree behind the Grandstand. He's been told how much he has to spend, and he's using it as sensibly as he can - by creating a strong first team, with the best back-up he can entice. I don't think Ling is an idiot. If he had more money, he'd probably have spent it differently. But he doesn't, so we're all going to have to make the best of it. I'm as happy as the next man to moan when i think things are being done badly (as everyone knows), but don't see the point in whining about things that due to circumstances, can't be changed.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something."
Fonda wrote:It's really not a difficult thing to understand. We don't have much money to spend, so the manager is doing the best he can with the budget at his disposal. I doubt Olejnik was cheap, and perhaps Saah wasn't either. But these are vital positions on the field. Ling obviously considered it important to invest well in those positions - even if it meant saving money elsewhere. Would people rather he signed two 'reasonable' keepers, on reasonable money - bearing in mind only one will play? Or is it in fact more sensible to spend a little more and get a good one (who will play) and a bit less on an average one, who will warm the bench? I'm struggling to see what is so difficult for people to comprehend about this? Martin Ling can't pluck money from the tree behind the Grandstand. He's been told how much he has to spend, and he's using it as sensibly as he can - by creating a strong first team, with the best back-up he can entice. I don't think Ling is an idiot. If he had more money, he'd probably have spent it differently. But he doesn't, so we're all going to have to make the best of it. I'm as happy as the next man to moan when i think things are being done badly (as everyone knows), but don't see the point in whining about things that due to circumstances, can't be changed.
Good post Fonda, some people need to look up SUPPORTER in the dictionary.
Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just dont have film.
hector - what do you mean by 'Sign poor players and it means only thing'? Are you referring to the 'prospect of a hard season'?
My relative positivity (in avoiding a real relegation scrap) is fuelled by what we've retained - O'Kane is a class act at this level, and our defence looks decent - but I'm also cautiously optimistic about Howe. Why are you judging Ling's signings on a sub keeper whose playing time will be, in all likelihood, restricted to the JPT, and not on the man who will be our main striker in the coming campaign? Baffling.
In am expecting a season of struggles in honesty. A finish of anything above halfway will be a real bonus. I believe we have signed a very good gk has we expect him to be a very busy man. The other signings so far I am ok with considering the budget we have. I don't think Ling is the right man but he has my full support. Maybe the board saw Ling as the right man to keep us up rather than appointing a manager that wants to try drive us up the league but could end up taking us down. Sadly this is Torquay as wee know it always flirting in the bottom half, I think we have just been spoiled in the last 3 or so years with near promotion and promotions. I think we have just got carried away and now we are back to reality.
Fonda wrote:It's really not a difficult thing to understand. We don't have much money to spend, so the manager is doing the best he can with the budget at his disposal. I doubt Olejnik was cheap, and perhaps Saah wasn't either. But these are vital positions on the field. Ling obviously considered it important to invest well in those positions - even if it meant saving money elsewhere. Would people rather he signed two 'reasonable' keepers, on reasonable money - bearing in mind only one will play? Or is it in fact more sensible to spend a little more and get a good one (who will play) and a bit less on an average one, who will warm the bench? I'm struggling to see what is so difficult for people to comprehend about this? Martin Ling can't pluck money from the tree behind the Grandstand. He's been told how much he has to spend, and he's using it as sensibly as he can - by creating a strong first team, with the best back-up he can entice. I don't think Ling is an idiot. If he had more money, he'd probably have spent it differently. But he doesn't, so we're all going to have to make the best of it. I'm as happy as the next man to moan when i think things are being done badly (as everyone knows), but don't see the point in whining about things that due to circumstances, can't be changed.
It's rare that Shane and I agree, we have very different views on everything football related, but this post is bang on the money, a right hole-in-one.
Andygullagain - Plain fact is that the team which played in the second half against Tiverton actually LOST the game 1-0. Ok its only a friendly but that is hardly an encouraging sign. Believe me the standard of Tivertons second half team was absolutely terrible. They had a player who was playing amateur football in the North Devon League last year. That is the standard of what we were up against. Our second half "peformance" was inexcusable.
As Hector says it is just plainly ridiculous to suggest that the likes of Mcphee and Rice have improved because they are older.
How many other football league clubs would have signed Rice? - the answer in none - it is even more absurd to suggest that it is ok to sign him because he is "cheap" and is happy to sit on the bench.
Ling was puported to have plenty of contacts. However the writing was firmly on the wall when he signed carthorse Chhris Mcphee on a two year contract.
On his Tiverton showing he is actually worse than when he was here before and that took some doing.
Whether we get relegated or not will ultimately depend I think on how well Ling can utilise the loan market. In my opinion we probably have a reasonable enough defence- Saah and the keeper look the best two signings. But in wide positions and forward wise we look completely threadbare and not up to standard.
League 2 is most definately stronger than last year so its going to be harder to pick up points and against stronger opposition with a considerably weaker squad.
Whatever way you want to swing it we look set right up for a relegation battle. It won't take long to guage where we are. if we have one point on the board after four games I will be suprised.
It's very simple to criticise the way the manager has gone about his business without offering any ideas of how he might have done it differently. With this 'anti-Rice' criticism, would people honeslt have preferred it if Ling had signed a better back-up keeper - even if it meant bringing in a worse first-choice keeper? Seriously, with a budget like ours it's impossible to tick all boxes - it becomes a case of prioritising the boxes and ticking the most important ones.
As for Mcphee, he's actually spent a pretty small percentage of his career so far at Plainmoor. He was poor here (for a year or so) and has proven pretty useful everywhere else (for about 6 or 7 years in total?) With that in mind, is it most likely that he's a reasonable player, that due to circumstances played badly for us, or that he's a bad player who due to (6 or 7 years worth of) luck has played well everywhere else?
Oh and forgot to mention, cheers Matt, makes a pleasant change to be in agreement.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something."
hector - you still haven't answered my query as to why you're judging Ling's signings on a keeper who won't play over a striker who will (yes, we have signed the man who'll be leading the line next season)? I don't even mind if you suggest Howe is terrible, but please acknowledge in your assessments that we've signed him! Fair enough if you're waiting to see him play before commenting, but in that case your 4 or 5/10 rating for other signings is contradictorily uninformed.
Where I would agree with Brucie is in the need to use the loan system wisely. When Robinson's loan expired I met his departure with a shrug, but I think we could really do with a player similar to him - someone who would play predominantly on the wing, but will chip in with goals and could offer a pacy option up front.
hector wrote:
That sort of statement really pi55es me off. Being a supporter does not mean you have to approve of, or agree with, everything the club does.
I dont agree with everything the club does! I simply cannot see why some people choose to portray their opinion as fact in what seems to be a mission to constantly critisise/moan and bash the club for just about everything they do, BEFORE a ball is even kicked in anger. Its one thing to give opinion on signings etc, great, thats fine its all about opinion.
Why come on here and start threads such as this one insulting our new manager who has been in the job for only a few weeks, his team is not even assembled yet, and we have had one warm up run around against Tivvy which was also after a training session. Some of you lot are just bloody pathetic.
Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just dont have film.
I've been as critical as many with Ling's signings but people seem to think he's deliberately making poor signings with some of the things they've been saying. I reckon this is his last chance in League management, he's failed at Cambridge, and if he does so here, then really it is game over for his career. He signed players with points to prove. McPhee, Rice and Howe all have tried and failed before, and if he can get them motivated and determined, they could prove to be good signings. I'm not judging Ling until the first couple of proper games, although a timely win against Bristol City could appease some of the posters on here.
"We are now so far up sh*t creek our boat is actually poking out the end of someones toilet bowl."
Brucie. 27/02/14
Chris B wrote:hector - what do you mean by 'Sign poor players and it means only thing'? Are you referring to the 'prospect of a hard season'?
My relative positivity (in avoiding a real relegation scrap) is fuelled by what we've retained - O'Kane is a class act at this level, and our defence looks decent - but I'm also cautiously optimistic about Howe. Why are you judging Ling's signings on a sub keeper whose playing time will be, in all likelihood, restricted to the JPT, and not on the man who will be our main striker in the coming campaign? Baffling.
Rice and McPhee are not great signings.
Howe's record does not promise a lot of hope but you never know. Saah and the keeper are the more positive ones. Add to that mix Danny Stevens and I do not feel overly excited about the players signed, hence by 4/5 out of 10. Not quite sure why you are so confused.
Chris B wrote:hector - you still haven't answered my query as to why you're judging Ling's signings on a keeper who won't play over a striker who will (yes, we have signed the man who'll be leading the line next season)? I don't even mind if you suggest Howe is terrible, but please acknowledge in your assessments that we've signed him! Fair enough if you're waiting to see him play before commenting, but in that case your 4 or 5/10 rating for other signings is contradictorily uninformed.
Where I would agree with Brucie is in the need to use the loan system wisely. When Robinson's loan expired I met his departure with a shrug, but I think we could really do with a player similar to him - someone who would play predominantly on the wing, but will chip in with goals and could offer a pacy option up front.
I have not judge it in that way at all. Regardless of whether I mention Howe or not, it does not change my score. Really not sure why you are getting so hot under the collar. That is my opinion based on these players previous records.
Borh are excellent signings. Both are local, both are fully committed and full of desire, McPhee scored 17 goals in the division below us last year and if he had a different name you'd be excited about it. They both fit nicely into our budget so yes, both excellent acquisitions, well that is to anyone with open eyes, which seems to exclude you and brucie.
