Adver News: The search is on for new boss as MacDonald quits

[Nomoreheroes]

As the likelihood of Sir Les increases, it is possible to see the logic here. Power's mate Sherwood fires Les a stream of kids for them to get experience, and a safety net for those not good enough at the ends of contracts. We get a guaranteed source of players relatively cheaply....finders fees etc can be included all round. Of course all this has to be conducted within the rules, as Watford did last season.

Sir Les gets a break in management, so may be prepared to put up with the interference....if it works out his CV is enhanced and he gets a bigger club.

It hasn't happened yet, but will make for an interesting debate if it does, so let's see.

That's what I thought.

There seems to be lots of negativity about us becoming 'Swindon Hotspurs'. To be honest, that doesn't bother me.

I realised years ago that Swindon weren't ever going to get into the Premier League and win it. I came to the conclusion that we would bounce around the lower leagues with the potential for the odd Championship flirtation once in a blue moon.

That being the case, all I want from the club is for it to field a team on a Saturday. I'd like that team to win more than it loses, so that it gives me a buzz going into work on a Monday.

I'd also like us to unearth a gem every now and again that does wonders for us, nets us a few quid and goes on to bigger and better things in the Premier League.

So, whether we do that as Spurs Reserves or not makes no odds to me.

As for Sir Les - Why not? (Especially after seeing the 009 video!!)

[Peter Venkman]

As the likelihood of Sir Les increases, it is possible to see the logic here. Power's mate Sherwood fires Les a stream of kids for them to get experience, and a safety net for those not good enough at the ends of contracts. We get a guaranteed source of players relatively cheaply....finders fees etc can be included all round. Of course all this has to be conducted within the rules, as Watford did last season.

Sir Les gets a break in management, so may be prepared to put up with the interference....if it works out his CV is enhanced and he gets a bigger club.

It hasn't happened yet, but will make for an interesting debate if it does, so let's see.

Can't disagree with any of that TBH.

I am also in agreement with NMH just about word for word too.

[wheretherealredsare]

The pendulum swings between harmony and attrition ...

[DRS]

As the likelihood of Sir Les increases, it is possible to see the logic here. Power's mate Sherwood fires Les a stream of kids for them to get experience, and a safety net for those not good enough at the ends of contracts. We get a guaranteed source of players relatively cheaply....finders fees etc can be included all round. Of course all this has to be conducted within the rules, as Watford did last season.

Sir Les gets a break in management, so may be prepared to put up with the interference....if it works out his CV is enhanced and he gets a bigger club.

It hasn't happened yet, but will make for an interesting debate if it does, so let's see.

I would look at the appointment of Ferdinand differently to that but see where you are coming from.Ferdinand is highly thought of at Spurs and has had a fair few offers of management already. If the manger is being told who to play who to sign like many think then I really can’t see why he would want to risk taking Swindon on as a first job if he is being told what to do. Les Ferdinand does not strike me as a yes man and I would think Power will know that

I think we will see one of two scenarios.

1)   We won’t employ Ferdinand
2)   We may see a change of strategy regarding the recruitment


The board have made some massive fuck ups from when they took over but one thing I have noticed is that they do seem to be learning from their mistakes,well I think so anyway 

[Batch]

just to understand, is everyone who is against the spurs players joining on loan against having ferdinand/sherwood as manager? at what point is the tipping point and would you stop going?

That was what I was trying to find out earlier in the thread. An official Spurs B would be a no (even if it was still called Swindon).

I don't feel comfortable with the arrangement Reg suggests either to be honest. It would depend on how the arrangement worked.

If we HAD to take the youngster and HAD play them that would be a no from me, though its not as simple as not going as I wouldn't want my son to miss out due to my pigheadedness.

If we took them with a view to seeing if they are good enough, but brought players in from other sources and played who we want then it seems like a good arrangement provided its affordable (given we may need additional players)

[Honkytonk]

That was what I was trying to find out earlier in the thread. An official Spurs B would be a no (even if it was still called Swindon).

I don't feel comfortable with the arrangement Reg suggests either to be honest. It would depend on how the arrangement worked.

If we HAD to take the youngster and HAD play them that would be a no from me, though its not as simple as not going as I wouldn't want my son to miss out due to my pigheadedness.

If we took them with a view to seeing if they are good enough, but brought players in from other sources and played who we want then it seems like a good arrangement provided its affordable (given we may need additional players)

I too would feel uneasy with us becoming the reserve team. If they want to strike up a relationship where they send us exciting young prospects to be included in the first team on merit, at our manager's discretion, then fine, it's a good partnership for all involved. If they arrive with loads of strings attached "must play x amount of minutes per match, must get x caps over the course of the season", then we stop being our own club with our own boss and start being Spurs' bitch.

We are not Spurs' Bitch, we're Swindon fucking Town and shit though we may be we're our own club with our own traditions and our own way of repeatedly getting close to something resembling glory and then pissing it away at the last moment. Any club trying to come in and take away our autonomy and our history, or even diluting it in the slightest can fuck right off.

This whole situation is interesting, because I posited an idea a while back about all Premier League clubs being forced to take on lower league clubs as 'partners', with a share of players, funds etc. for the benefit of both involved. I do not pretend to have Chang-like sauces or prescience, but it'll be good to see how this works for us so I can see how it evolves my theory down the pub.

[Bob's Orange]

That's what I thought.

There seems to be lots of negativity about us becoming 'Swindon Hotspurs'. To be honest, that doesn't bother me.

I realised years ago that Swindon weren't ever going to get into the Premier League and win it. I came to the conclusion that we would bounce around the lower leagues with the potential for the odd Championship flirtation once in a blue moon.

That being the case, all I want from the club is for it to field a team on a Saturday. I'd like that team to win more than it loses, so that it gives me a buzz going into work on a Monday.

I'd also like us to unearth a gem every now and again that does wonders for us, nets us a few quid and goes on to bigger and better things in the Premier League.

So, whether we do that as Spurs Reserves or not makes no odds to me.

As for Sir Les - Why not? (Especially after seeing the 009 video!!)

I'm agreed on this point as well. Last season we took 3 spurs kids, 1 was good, 1 was promising and 1 was kicked back as soon as he stepped out of line. Hopefully the 3 loanees we have brought in are good enough to compliment the team/squad. Hall sounds like a solid football playing centre back, Pritchard an exciting attacking midfielder and Luongo, we already know is a good midfielder.

As I see it, having a link up with Spurs, one of the best teams in England with a bloody good youth system can only be a good thing. If we had a link up with Wantage Town and they were sending us their reserves to get first team experience, then we could have a proper moan, but surely getting these calibre of players can only be positive?

[PetsWinPrizes]

Though, like many others,  I don't have a problem with a link up as long as the club doesn't surrender it's autonomy there is one aspect of this that is really troubling me, namely selling on our good young players for a decent profit.

Though we all hate it when a top player leaves, being a  'selling club' is the reality for teams our size, after a few lean years since the Fitton take over we've done quite well in the transfer market. Cox, Austin and Morrison all went for cash, on top of fees for the likes of Flint and a few youth players, even with various sell ons they should have bought us a healthy return.

 If we are operating at a budget of 2.4 million each year, a large transfer every few years represents a very healthy top up on our income. If our young players are all loanees or signings with 'buy back' clauses, this revenue stream will dry up.

[london_red]

Though, like many others,  I don't have a problem with a link up as long as the club doesn't surrender it's autonomy there is one aspect of this that is really troubling me, namely selling on our good young players for a decent profit.

Though we all hate it when a top player leaves, being a  'selling club' is the reality for teams our size, after a few lean years since the Fitton take over we've done quite well in the transfer market. Cox, Austin and Morrison all went for cash, on top of fees for the likes of Flint and a few youth players, even with various sell ons they should have bought us a healthy return.

 If we are operating at a budget of 2.4 million each year, a large transfer every few years represents a very healthy top up on our income. If our young players are all loanees or signings with 'buy back' clauses, this revenue stream will dry up.

We do still have our own youth players in the squad though. Oakley, Storey etc may yet continue that run. We have also signed two other young players not from Spurs who presumably don't have any buy back clauses or anything either.

As you and others have said though, as long as it isn't taken too far and our club/mananager/DoF are in control of who we sign and play the link could be a positive and we should hope to make the most out of it.

[PetsWinPrizes]

Without knowing the small print on the Byrne deal it's difficult to judge.

On the subject of making money off players, we've just accepted a bid for Caddis for Blackpool.

[Nomoreheroes]

Though, like many others,  I don't have a problem with a link up as long as the club doesn't surrender it's autonomy there is one aspect of this that is really troubling me, namely selling on our good young players for a decent profit.

Though we all hate it when a top player leaves, being a  'selling club' is the reality for teams our size, after a few lean years since the Fitton take over we've done quite well in the transfer market. Cox, Austin and Morrison all went for cash, on top of fees for the likes of Flint and a few youth players, even with various sell ons they should have bought us a healthy return.

 If we are operating at a budget of 2.4 million each year, a large transfer every few years represents a very healthy top up on our income. If our young players are all loanees or signings with 'buy back' clauses, this revenue stream will dry up.

'Theoretically' we wouldn't necessarily need big sales as we would be provided with a 'free' replacement from Spurs. Also 'theoretically', the 2.4 million wages might be paid by Spurs to run their 'reserve team'? Furthermore, players wouldn't automatically play, as the manager (who would also be a Spurs employee) would have a squad at his disposal. If the players weren't good enough, the manager would tell Spurs to go and buy him a better youth at a certain position.

So, back to the point. Going for Ferdinand, Sherwood or Rambo (who could be paid by Spurs still) could be a good move (to run Swindon Town Spurs NextGen)

[Bob's Orange]

Without knowing the small print on the Byrne deal it's difficult to judge.

On the subject of making money off players, we've just accepted a bid for Caddis for Blackpool.

Really?

[donkey]

As you and others have said though, as long as it isn't taken too far and our club/mananager/DoF are in control of who we sign and play the link could be a positive and we should hope to make the most out of it.

I think this is crucial.  Our club must have final say on who we sign, and the manager on who he picks to play.  Any interference here is wrong.

Any link (formal or otherwise) will only last as long as the parties on both sides want it to.  Once there's a change of leadership here or at Spurs, they'll go in a different direction if that's what they chose.

Oh, and to go back to the Celtic link, JPM was formerly Celt.  So that's about 5, I think.

[bassett boy]

People mention Swindon Hotspurs we have had a close link with Tottenham or Ex tottenham people for years at least 4 managers have played for Tottenham

[PetsWinPrizes]

Really?

According to BBC Sport on Twitter.