Somemightsay7

No, Bennett has taken on those responsibilities.

What you seem to be missing is that they are the CEO's employees. They are responsible for them and everything they do. Managing a team that size is very time consuming. This isn't a 10,000+ person company where the CEO can have less of a day to day impact, it's a rather small 200+ employee business where they will be far more hands on and things will move much quicker.

Yeah I don't know if he was the right person or not, but to say the CEO is only there to give updates to the board clearly isn't true. As you said, they're responsible for ensuring everyone under them is performing and making strategic decisions on areas across the business. That's not a walk in the park.

I don't think you understand how much goes into running a business. There are a thousand things going on at any one time. If they do so little why do companies have them?

That's not even close to being true.

I don't think you understand what CEO's do. There's a reason they are so well paid.

He took over 10 months ago - in what way can he be held responsible for all of that? Beale and the wage bill were both there when he took over. One of the early things he did as CEO was get rid of Beale and it's clear we're planning to ship out a lot of high earners starting tomorrow.

I would image he either actually resigned a while back or they just don't see the point in him being in charge for the 3 month summer period when he's about to leave.

On the commercial side he actually did a pretty good job. As a CEO 10 months or so isn't much time to make an impact so hard to comment.

I don't think there's a problem with the stats as long as you take them in addition to actually watching someone. They're also good as a comparison of players as they're obviously not perfect, but they're not perfect for everyone so on the whole it should average out. Some people use them too much and base someone's entire performance on them though.

This page is good: https://www.fotmob.com/en-GB/leagues/64/stats/premiership/players Says Dessers should have scored 3 more league goals. Although a good striker can obvious exceed his xG so maybe that should be 4-5 more. I'm not one to use expected stats as a benchmark - but when you include a number of different stats it gives you an idea. A lot of the guys below him are skewed because of penalties though - there isn't one I could see excluding penalties.

I do agree he feels like one of these players where it's always someone else's fault. I remember thinking when he had his season the EPL 4-5 years ago he was decent, but looking back he only scored 6 goals and got 2 assists and didn't get a single G/A between 1st January and the end of the season - which was 16 games. He was then rubbish at Bournemouth and his last couple seasons as Norwich. Clearly talented but don't think he has the mentality for it. One of your classics where he seems to have thought he made it at an early age then just coasted.

The numbers show that isn't true. 5.68 expected assists, 5 actual assists. If people weren't finishing off the chances he created then there would be a big gap between that. Big Chances Created he's 25th in the league. Chances created he's 16th. Expected Assists 13th. For one of the main creative players at one of the top two in this league that is really poor.

I think you need to factor in starts and minutes to those stats. The likes of Wright, Lawrence, Dowell, Matondo, McCausland were mainly subs. It's also worth noting Hoilet only had 1 assist in his first 8 games when Aberdeen actually needed him to perform, he only became good after the split when he was playing teams in the bottom 6 and 7 of his G/A came in the last 3 games when there was no pressure at all.

So it's hard to find much solid analysis but generally a 2% conversion rate from a corner seems to be about the norm. We should probably be higher given we're playing lesser teams but realistically it's probably not quite as big an issue as we like to make out. There is a good (but long) analysis here - https://github.com/hesussavas/corners_stats But the high level is: 11,234 matches analysed 115,199 corners played 30,812 goals scored 1,459 goals came from corners 57.3% of corners lead to nothing (team loses the ball) 26.0% of corners are not crosses (short pass) 15.4% of corners lead to chance creation 8.25% chances created from corners lead to goal 4.74% goals scored from corners 1.27% of corners lead to goal

Yeah they're bad. I'm fine if they want to do something like Ultimate Team as you can just ignore that if you want to and you can still play it without paying, even if it will be harder. I played eFootball the other week for the first time and it was an absolute clusterfuck. Every other page and every game mode is covered in microtransactions, including offline single player campaigns. I know it's free to play and that is how they make their money, but it was almost unplayable how bad it was, even though the actual gameplay was decent. If 2K go anywhere near that it will be a disaster.

2k can pay for those licences though, it's not exclusive. They're paying a huge amount for the fifa licence so they're not then going to skimp on player and team licences. I'd imagine they'll get at least the major leagues.

The fact his contract runs until he's 18 means there's a good chance if he ever does become good enough for the first team, he'll already be gone. I don't know the answer but given clubs down south wouldn't bat an eye at paying a 15/16 year old £5-10k a week for the 1% chance they might make the first team one day means it's becoming impossible to hold on to any of our decent youth.

If you thought micro transactions were bad in Fifa, just wait until 2k. Good to have some proper competition though, given PES has shat the bed.

Leeds first team wage bill is around £42m vs our £31m. Leicesters is about £60m and Southampton £52m. Im assuming you're comparing our £60m staff costs in our annual reports, that includes significantly more than first team wages. For context Leeds total staff costs last season were £145m. Even a club like Norwich had staff costs of £60m.

All of those 3 teams have noticeably higher wage bills than us. You're in dream land if you think our wages are higher than them. They have players on £70k+ per week.

What does that have to do with a foul '80 yards back in an earlier match'?

What foul was that?

Yes easily. Leeds spent £30m+, Leicester spent £40m+, Southampton £20m+. Even Stoke spent £20m+. Not even starting on wages. Leeds and Leicester spend not far off double what we do.

I was wondering if anyone here would actually make this comment. If it was the other way around I would be furious if that was given. I think some people try and use refereeing decisions to overshadow how poor we've been at times. The focus has to be on the team and the players who clearly aren't good enough. Blaming ref's just takes the pressure off the board doing a dogshit job.