Shrimpsvoices

As a constructive criticiser I have to admit the forum was a first class professional presentation. After listening to Jim I can’t believe anyone who was there can be in any doubt that he deserves the job and is the right man at the right time. He epitomises the type of modern day manager essential for club’s of our stature and his approach is not dissimilar to Coley. I believe he will be a more pro-active manager than Sammy which fans appreciate. I also believe if the new signings/results don’t materialise the fans are more likely to stick by him. I am also looking forward to his assistant’s contribution who from what I have heard is no stranger to success from his time with TNS albeit in the hillbilly league. From the club’s point of view Jim’s presentation was just the tonic to convince season ticket holders to renew.
Behind the scenes I suspect PM has been schooling Jim on the importance of balancing his management style within the boards guidelines. An example was his explanation of the benefits of a reduced squad of 20 when in truth most people are aware this was a non-negotiable cost saving directive from the board. On reflection there was one item concerning players still on contract which I am unclear on. I recall Jim going through a list of names of those players still on contract which is ok as there is not much he can do about them if he wanted to. However my colleague insisted that Jim stated these players would form the nucleus of his team. If true I find that hard to believe because several of those players had a very poor season and contributed to our final position, another was out on loan struggling to get in a non league side and yet anther never played all season due to injury (and from memory was only average when he last played). Oh well I am sure JIM WILL FIX IT!

Simply Ned wrote:If true I find that hard to believe because several of those players had a very poor season and contributed to our final position, another was out on loan struggling to get in a non league side and yet anther never played all season due to injury (and from memory was only average when he last played).!

That is a fair enough opinion Ned and well constructed. but Jim will have seen these lads in training week by week and must believe they are still good enough to play for our club. Maybe he will give these players a new lease of life and they come good this season.

Simply Ned wrote:As a constructive criticiser I have to admit the forum was a first class professional presentation. After listening to Jim I can’t believe anyone who was there can be in any doubt that he deserves the job and is the right man at the right time. He epitomises the type of modern day manager essential for club’s of our stature and his approach is not dissimilar to Coley. I believe he will be a more pro-active manager than Sammy which fans appreciate. I also believe if the new signings/results don’t materialise the fans are more likely to stick by him. I am also looking forward to his assistant’s contribution who from what I have heard is no stranger to success from his time with TNS albeit in the hillbilly league. From the club’s point of view Jim’s presentation was just the tonic to convince season ticket holders to renew.
Behind the scenes I suspect PM has been schooling Jim on the importance of balancing his management style within the boards guidelines. An example was his explanation of the benefits of a reduced squad of 20 when in truth most people are aware this was a non-negotiable cost saving directive from the board. On reflection there was one item concerning players still on contract which I am unclear on. I recall Jim going through a list of names of those players still on contract which is ok as there is not much he can do about them if he wanted to. However my colleague insisted that Jim stated these players would form the nucleus of his team. If true I find that hard to believe because several of those players had a very poor season and contributed to our final position, another was out on loan struggling to get in a non league side and yet anther never played all season due to injury (and from memory was only average when he last played). Oh well I am sure JIM WILL FIX IT!

Think someones stolen your log in details!

Curly wrote:

Simply Ned wrote:As a constructive criticiser I have to admit the forum was a first class professional presentation. After listening to Jim I can’t believe anyone who was there can be in any doubt that he deserves the job and is the right man at the right time. He epitomises the type of modern day manager essential for club’s of our stature and his approach is not dissimilar to Coley. I believe he will be a more pro-active manager than Sammy which fans appreciate. I also believe if the new signings/results don’t materialise the fans are more likely to stick by him. I am also looking forward to his assistant’s contribution who from what I have heard is no stranger to success from his time with TNS albeit in the hillbilly league. From the club’s point of view Jim’s presentation was just the tonic to convince season ticket holders to renew.
Behind the scenes I suspect PM has been schooling Jim on the importance of balancing his management style within the boards guidelines. An example was his explanation of the benefits of a reduced squad of 20 when in truth most people are aware this was a non-negotiable cost saving directive from the board. On reflection there was one item concerning players still on contract which I am unclear on. I recall Jim going through a list of names of those players still on contract which is ok as there is not much he can do about them if he wanted to. However my colleague insisted that Jim stated these players would form the nucleus of his team. If true I find that hard to believe because several of those players had a very poor season and contributed to our final position, another was out on loan struggling to get in a non league side and yet anther never played all season due to injury (and from memory was only average when he last played). Oh well I am sure JIM WILL FIX IT!

Think someones stolen your log in details!

Now come on lads. Ned's turned into an optimist.....he deserves a round of applause.

Is that a silver lining around your avatar, Ned???

I was thinking the same, when everyone was happy with the players on contract and the ones he offered new ones too, technically the same nucleus that had us in the bottom half all season. Obviously we just need to hope that they are the good parts and the players who leave are the ones who were letting us and themselves down.

im assuming Haining Wilson and Stanley are the three that contract talks are being held with
good post CB1

Simply Ned wrote: I recall Jim going through a list of names of those players still on contract which is ok as there is not much he can do about them if he wanted to. However my colleague insisted that Jim stated these players would form the nucleus of his team. !

I didn't see it that way, Ned. I think he was asked to name the players who would still be with us next season, so just listed them. Then my recollection is that he made a throwaway comment like 'so there's a nucleus of a team there'. I took that to mean there are a few players in that list who could form a decent 'start'.

He later went on, for example, to say that he wanted two new strikers in. He also hinted that someone might be brought in who could assume the role of captain. Also he said he wanted at least one new wide player and players with pace.

Once you've factored in those newcomers, you'd only be left with half a side from last year's regular first team.

If those included Roche, Parrish, McCready, a rejuvenated Wilson and Haining, plus Fleming, I don't think many of us would complain (I certainly wouldn't). Stanners would be in the mix as well, for me, if he could be persuaded to re-sign.

Players like Drummy, Hunter, Cowperthwaite, Carlton, Jevons and Charnock would be decent cover IF we're able to bring in better players than them for our regular starting eleven - which must be Jim's aim.

That's how I read it, anyway.

And, on the player budget. Maybe he has been told to cut costs. Or perhaps he's been given a very similar budget to Sammy and prefers to keep the size of the squad down - but invest money in a few 'key' new additions who may require a bit more dosh.

Came away feeling that the season can't come quickly enough. I also got the feeling that team spirit and acting as one unit was sadly lacking last season. Something that Jimbo appears keen to develop and a squad size of circa 20 would certainly help although I still think that members of the Board would prefer 18.

He was understandably nervous to start with. After all who wouldn't be in front of some of us who can be over critical. But as the nerves went he got into a rytham and certainly impressed me and I bet the vast majority.

It's going to be a roller coaster that's for sure, but we're in this together so let's enjoy the ride!

I dont think Sammy wanted a big squad but the players he brought in initially wernt good enough so he had to bring more in.I think Jim wants to keep a manageable squad with the loan market an option to cover injuries.At least if you bring in a player on a months loan and he isnt up to scratch you can always send him back.

Christies Child wrote: After all who wouldn't be in front of some of us who can be over critical.

PAH!

Bare Ben wrote:

Christies Child wrote: After all who wouldn't be in front of some of us who can be over critical.

PAH!

Isnt that toy a little big to be putting it in ya bathwater..........

Christies Child wrote: although I still think that members of the Board would prefer 18.

Have you got substance to these thoughts c.c?

I' don't understand this only having a squad of 18. it makes no sense to me. isn't it 18 players in a matchday squad, (or am i thinking premier league rules). at least 20 to 21 first team squad players are required. can you imagine getting 4 or 5 injuries at one point in the season with 18 first team players? again 18 just does not make sense.

others will disagree i know but this is just my opinion.

stevanshrimp wrote:

Christies Child wrote: although I still think that members of the Board would prefer 18.

Have you got substance to these thoughts c.c?

Yes

shrimpinho wrote:I' don't understand this only having a squad of 18. it makes no sense to me. isn't it 18 players in a matchday squad, (or am i thinking premier league rules). at least 20 to 21 first team squad players are required. can you imagine getting 4 or 5 injuries at one point in the season with 18 first team players? again 18 just does not make sense.

others will disagree i know but this is just my opinion.

I quite agree. A squad of 30 is far too big. A squad of 19 or 20 is too small over a season of 49+ games. I'm rather hoping it will be 19 or 20 plus Jim Bentley and Stewart Drummond.

we have around 14 players now, jim, stuart and two or 3 youth players brings us up to 18, jim says he is looking to bring in 4 or 5 new players, so a squad of 18 is a non starter, more like 21

I know something you don't know posts are my favourite.

too be fair we have forgotten an important factor.

Jim's yoga sessions. maybe 18 will be enough

the clubs first signing is giggs.....dvd.

shrimpinho wrote:too be fair we have forgotten an important factor.

Jim's yoga sessions. maybe 18 will be enough

the clubs first signing is giggs.....dvd.

I'd pay good money to watch some of our players trying to do Yoga and pilates.

If they have to try and do the positions like the ones on the Wii Fit good luck to them.

morecambegeek wrote:I know something you don't know posts are my favourite.

In that case you will appreciate this one

ockers wrote:27th will be a good friendly too for Stew

Agree with Marky, its likely to be 19 or 20 plus drummie and jimbo as back up. If we only had a squad of 18 we wouldn't be able to fill a bench most weeks when you take into account inevitable injuries.

Suppose we have reserves as well.

Christies Child wrote:

stevanshrimp wrote:

Christies Child wrote: although I still think that members of the Board would prefer 18.

Have you got substance to these thoughts c.c?

Yes

Bolloxx

Morecambe Jack wrote:Agree with Marky, its likely to be 19 or 20 plus drummie and jimbo as back up. If we only had a squad of 18 we wouldn't be able to fill a bench most weeks when you take into account inevitable injuries.

That'll be about it.

Though Jim did say that injuries could be covered by loans - rather than having a gang of five or six ALWAYS sitting up in the stands, while taking a wage. He didn't want that.