I think you have got that totally wrong.
Have enjoyed watching the two V’s play.
Valentin unfortunately injured but think he will come back strongly.
-
You're viewing a limited version of PNE Online. Only the PNE Discussions forum is open to guests.
Sign Up – It’s Free!
Already a member? Log in here.
After registering, you can also become a Patron to unlock even more features and help keep the forum ad-free.Poll Peter Ridsdale
- Thread starter JK
- Start date
Poll Peter Ridsdale
Have enjoyed watching the two V’s play.
Valentin unfortunately injured but think he will come back strongly.- Joined
- Aug 16, 2022
- Messages
- 4,841
If we are going to blame him for previous recruitment then can not we not give him some credit for when we get it right. Or does it not count for the good players we sign only the bad ones?
He has got a lot of things wrong. They can not be forgotten.
You’re right but it would be interesting to see why we got it so wrong previously and now it’s going much better - and to see how it correlates with our parting of the ways from that company (MKI?). Our sticking with trainers bloke for much longer than we should have done (bearing in mind who tried to get him to stay) has cost us massively in many different ways.
The point I was making is that far to many contracts ended simultaneously, that is seriously bad planning. The poor recruitment meant we had no interest in attempting to renew any of those players OOC. I'm convinced that had we only had 4/5 contracts ending Lindsay and Brady would not have been given new contracts. The problem was poor recruitment enabled by allowing MRKT to lead scouting which Ridsdale had to have final say on. Without doubt Lowe has to be partially responsible also.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 30,598
Yep, the summer's transfer window was good, for a club's first or second season in the Championship.
But for a club embarking on its eleventh Championship season to still be making peanuts in the transfer market, to still be scratching around for free transfers and hoping to make up the difference with Prem loans, points to exactly what you suggest - the lack of any long-term plan from the club owners and its CEO over the last decade.
Except to treat every season in the Championship like it's our first.
The current league table makes a mockery of the constant parachute payment excuses constantly peddled by Riddler. Not saying it will continue but not a team in the top nine in receipt of parachute payments.
Cant Imagine the current positions will be the final standings, early days.
One thing that tricky Pete is definitely right about is that parachute payments create an unlevel playing field. It's not even a debate.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2012
- Messages
- 25,802
He should know, he voted them in while at Cardiff.
I thought it was just Premier League teams that voted them in years ago.- Joined
- Sep 16, 2025
- Messages
- 46
Because all 20 Premier League clubs voted in favor of the new system, every team that played during the 2006-07 season approved its introduction.
The teams were:
Arsenal
Aston Villa
Blackburn Rovers
Bolton Wanderers
Charlton Athletic
Chelsea
Everton
Fulham
Liverpool
Manchester City
Manchester United
Middlesbrough
Newcastle United
Portsmouth
Reading
Sheffield United
Tottenham Hotspur
Watford
West Ham United
Wigan Athletic
Yet 9 of the 20 clubs (45%) are no longer in the PL with 4 (20%) now in League 1.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 30,598
Looks like an AI answer.
The parachute payment system has undergone many changes (and votes) since then.
For example, EFL clubs had to agree on the changes in 2010 (expanding payments from 2 to 4).
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2012
- Messages
- 25,802
Nope. See Thracia's post above.
Sorry, I meant the 2006 one above, the original vote. 2010 seems to have been take it or leave it from the premier league teams. I think Peter wanted it at the time he was at Cardiff but not sure if he had a vote on the matter or he was just spouting on Talksport, as is his want 😁
