Anyone that still needs proof of the miracles Simon Grayson has performed in getting us this far need only look at the transfer efficiency table below.

The table uses the original purchase cost of each player in the current side and divides it by how many points we’ve accumulated so far. The calculations show Simon Grayson’s squad has cost him just £56,320 per point so far this season.

To put that figure into context, the lowest amount spent per point of any team in the current top six is Crystal Palace who at £113,168 have spent double what Simon Grayson has on their current team.

Leeds’ 25 points this season and the incredibly low £1.4m total cost of our team (less than any other team in the league) means it has cost Simon Grayson less per point than any other manager in the division – by quite some distance too.

I brought these statistics up because I feel it’s worth nothing how little Simon Grayson has had to work with compared to the clubs we’re competing with.

The figures do add some weight to Ken Bates’ argument that money doesn’t necessarily buy success, but the bigger clubs above us have spent significantly more on their squads.

What we have at Leeds is a manager who is getting an unprecedented amount of value from relatively tiny sums of cash – which is just as well considering Ken Bates’ fascination with corporate accommodation.

UPDATE: A few of you have complained that the above stats don’t take wages into consideration. This wasn’t actually about wages, but since it’s been brought up I thought the below table may be of interest, showing Leeds United spend a much lower percentage of their turnover on wages than every team in the division except Burnley.

For more, visit the The Swiss Ramble.

62 Responses

  1. Ronnie

    A Great article the doubters should look at this and then keep their mouths closed.Simon is doing a fantastic job with no money.Everybody get behind him like most of us already do anyway,Remember marching on TOGETHER.repeat TOGETHER.Come on Leeds.

  2. Andrew

    I’ve said all along that Grayson is doing the job with one arm tied behind his back. This table emphasises the point. I wonder how it would look with incoming transfer monies factored in.

  3. Craig

    I hate to say it, and there’ll be much flak coming my way as a result, but Ken Bates has got a point when he says that money doesn’t guarantee success. The only weak point in his argument is that it is sometimes worth shelling out for that special player or players around which a team can be built. But once these are in place the key ingredients are a settled squad, tactics, fitness, playing for each other, inventiveness and sheer hard graft. Having lots of money to splash around will tend to compromise at least three of these ingredients unless expensive players are happy to sit on the bench for match after match. And if you want proof of this just look at the last squad we had that won something: All hail the master at winning something with nothing – HOWARD WILKINSON.

  4. Miggywhite

    Are you the bitch graysons been shaggin? Or do you have a man crush on him. This site has turned in to a bates/grayson propaganda machine. SG is incompetent-ask blackpool fans if they’d take him back over mad ian holloway? None of them would. Time to go, infact he should have gone years ago

    • Andybarx

      Congratulations Miggywhite, the fact you can actually type is a miracle.

      However Bates is a crook who uses half arsed propoganda to put his point across. Spending money does not promise success – but Mr Bates, Spending no money nearly always ensures you don’t get the success. Anyone seen the film ‘Horrible Bosses’

    • Craig

      It may be true that Blackpool fans prefer Holloway but that is because he’s done so well for them and built wisely on Grayson’s foundations. I like Ian Holloway too – as a man and a manager – and I’m sure I’d do anything to keep him if I were the Blackpool chairman but that doesn’t make Grayson crap. They were very pissed off when we stole him.

    • JamieJ

      So he should have gone years ago should he, and what, kept Scum boy Wise and still be in league one?! Wake up, without SG we would be knowhere, would have lost more of our top players and have nothing to play for. How can you even put the word white in your name, red would suit better, or maybe yellow. Real fans back their team through thick and thin, if we were top of the league idiots like you would still be complaining. Go and support man city. MOT

  5. Loose Lips

    All that table shows me is that Simon Grayson is doing well for Ken Bates.

    Even more of a slap n the face when we pay top money to go and watch him manage.

    I’m all for fiscal responsibility but I pay my money to see football, not solely a tightly run ship.

    That table will be irrelevant if we finish 7th again. what it will say then is that if we miss out by a point, we only need to spend 52K more for playoffs. Then how happy will we all be about Grayson only costing peanuts pre point?

    • Craig

      Rubbish. The majority of the team that won the League title were bought or grown whilst in the second division. The players we bought were prepared to come to us and work hard.

  6. jamie

    You cant take these figures serious when they been taken off a site that puts Obrien’s current value at £1.8m.

    A poor article by the TSS

    • TSS

      Why’s that then, because you said so? A player is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for him, and OB played in the Prem for a lot of his career.

      Regardless, we’re not talking about how much they value players at – that will always be an impossible task open to scrutiny because there’s no way to value a player other than what clubs bid. We’re talking about how much we’ve paid for the team, information that is widely available from a variety of sources.

      I assume you used statistics that had absolutely no bearing on the article because you couldn’t find anything wrong with those above? Very clever of you.

  7. 5_quid

    Looks good, however it doesn’t include wages. Free transfer and loan players (if they are any good) generally demand considerably higher wages. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti Grayson, he’s done a good job, however looking at some of his loan and free transfers I think it would be a risk giving him too much money to spend. He has built a reasonable team more by trial and error rather sound decisions. When we get to the Premiership and 5-10 million is being spent on a player that will really show how good Grayson is.

    • Craig

      This comment about Grayson’s loans and freebies is made often but once you make a list (as TSS did in the forum some time ago) it becomes clear that there were actually very few players who were complete duffers. Grayson has found a host of players who put in a good shift for us and some real gems amongst them.

      That said, I live too far from Leeds to attend matches regularly and if I were doing so it would probably shift the balance of my opinion somewhat.

  8. Snowjoke

    Miggywhite. Unfunny, unhelpful, unhinged – in fact any “un” you care to mention. I’ve often thought that, if I was a potential signing and knew I was on LUFC’s radar, I’d be tempted to scan a few fans’ forums. Just to sniff the atmosphere. What I found might even influence me, at some point, in some small way. And, if I was a sensitive soul (albeit brilliant on the pitch), I might just come across your poison and decide “No Thanks”. Chill out, Man. It’s only a game.

  9. CJ

    Good article but it’s ridiculous to judge the true cost of a transfer solely on the transfer fee involved. Wages often out-size any fee. There have been lots of examples of this at Leeds United in recent years. Loan players like George McCartney or Gary McSheffry arrived here on Premier League wages for no fee. Billy Paynter who we signed on a “free” will have been on big wages.
    I remember Harry Redknapp saying he hadn’t spent anything on players when he got Portsmouth promoted a few seasons ago. His team was made up of Premier League players who were signed for “free”. I can’t imagine players like Paul Merson, Steve Stone, Tim Sherwood, Patrik Berger, Yakubu ect playing for nothing!
    That said, there’s no doubt Simon Grayson is having to work on a very tight budget. As a Leeds fan, I do feel short-changed by our lack of investment in the team.

  10. Colin

    Agree with 5_quid, I don’t think the data tells the full story. Not that that’s a criticism of TSS’s numbers, because I don’t think you can find out the full story because the info isn’t available.

    How do they know what our team cost? I thought most of our fees were undisclosed.

    Which players does it include? First team, youth team? In which case, our Academy has a lot of players who will appear on the balance sheet as £0. In the first team alone, Howson, White and Lees count as £0.

    Wages kill football teams, not purchase fees. Doesn’t include agent fees either.

    And it certainly isn’t a statistic to prove Bates’ methods right. A better understanding of price per point, would be money spent by the club. In which case you can add £7m for the redevelopment & £2m for the rental payments of ER & TA and the losses with Yorkshire Radio/LUTV make, which come out of LUFC’s profits. That paints a very different picture on LUFC’s price per point.

    And I don’t think there’s too much plaudits out of this for Grayson either. We all know Shaun Harvey buys the players, so he’s the one who should get the credit not Grayson.

    I don’t think any manager can take credit or be berated for the price per point based on the amount spent on players, as I’d guess that 70% of the players in Championship teams were bought by managers that are no longer at those clubs. The current managers inherited most of their players.

    And last but not least, price per point means nothing if you’re not promoted. West Ham’s £680,000 per point is much more impressive than Leeds’ if that guarantees West Ham promotion and £50m next season.

    • TSS

      It’s about what the original purchase cost of the players in the team was Colin, and whether they’re undisclosed or not. We both know it always gets out. Whether that’s due to public accounts, an agent letting it slip, the player itself or the club actually telling us (imagine that?) no transfer ever goes through without the fee being revealed sooner or later.

      Why should Shaun Harvey get the credit exactly? My point was that Simon Grayson is making things work despite not being able to spend money on his squad. Shaun Harvey doesn’t manage the team. Bit of a daft statement that mate.

  11. challers

    Also shows that if the Chairman encouraged careful investment in a couple of key players our manager would acquire even more points as the aim must be promotion surely? More accurate to take current squad values perhaps too?

  12. Robin Brooksbank

    wages are being ignored, the stats are worthless. I would have expected better.

    • TSS

      What absolute nonsense Robin. Contrary to popular belief, Leeds aren’t the only team in this division that pay wages, and contrary to what Bates tells you – we don’t pay more than other clubs. That’s why Keith Andrews went to Ipswich (because we wouldn’t meet his demands) and why we spend a lower percentage of our turnover on players than any other team in the division. It’s also why we can never tie a contract up.

      Wages are relative to the division. Everybody pays them, not just Leeds. It’s an absolutely stupid excuse used by Bates that makes no sense whatsoever. I’m sure some of you think footballers work for free at other clubs.

      • Colin

        Surely the wages are extremely important? For example, Kevin Nolan would appear as £4.5m (cost price) in these stats, but it doesn’t take into account the £3m (£55k a week) he gets paid. Carlton Cole’s £3m a year also isn’t counted in these stats.

        West Ham’s stats are certainly useless in this instance. Their ‘Player Purchase price’ is £21m, but that counts for nothing when just 2 players also account for a further £6m, which isn’t even taken into account in these stats. That would (negatively but correctly) push West Ham’s stats right out of the window.

        Likewise, Leeds’ stats are also inaccurate, because there are so many players counted as £0 on Leeds’ Purchase price. Any stats that say that Howson, Aidy White, Tom Lees’ ‘price’ is £0 is ridiculous. Grayson can’t take credit for the Academy, and can’t take credit for Howson.

      • TSS

        They’re counted as £0 because we didn’t pay for them Colin. If we’d spent money on them, that would be reflected. That’s kind of the point – that we’re still accumulating points despite no money spent. How are you missing that?

        Howson, Lees, White et al cost us nothing. We produced ourselves where other teams bought. I don’t understand what you’re struggling to get your head around here Colin, this isn’t player valuation, it’s how much the squad cost to assemble.

        Do other teams not have academies? Would Simon Grayson not be playing the likes of Carlton Cole over Jonny Howson if he was able to purchase such quality? I don’t know of many clubs that go through the hassle of blooding their own when they can buy a ready-made version with plenty of experience, do you?

        We spend a lower percentage of our turnover on wages than any other club in the division. Even Ken Bates said we’d be the only team that came in under the proposed 50-60% ruling.

      • Colin

        TSS – I know we didn’t pay for them. That’s not the point. My point is that Grayson hasn’t assembled a team for £56,000 a point.

        5 of the team that played the last match cost ‘£56,000 a point.’

        6 of them cost £0.

        And remember, Lees and O’Dea would normally have played and they are ‘£0′ too.

        Loans do not cost £0.
        Academy players do not cost £0.
        Free transfers do not cost £0.

        Your stats say that they do cost £0.

        All it suggests is that Grayson prefers to spend his budget (with Harvey’s direction) on loans and contracts for free transfers, rather than buying players outright.

        Let’s say that Keogh, Pugh and McCarthy are on £10k each a week. That’s £1.5m a year that’s he’s spending right there. On your list it’s zero.

        vs Leicester:

        McCarthy £0
        Kisnorbo £0
        White £0
        Howson £0
        Pugh £0
        Keogh £0

      • TSS

        I’ve added the wages statistics Colin, but you’re still missing the point entirely. This is about how much cash he’s had to spend on transfers, and as such, it is £56k per point. That’s how much it’s cost to assemble that team.

        Every other club uses loans, frees and academy products too. It’s about the balance of how much they are (forced in my opinion) to use them. No one bloods a youngster when they can buy an already experienced, quality player. We’re left relying on frees, loans and academy products, and despite that, we’re still competing. No other manager is doing that – not as successfully anyway.

        I still don’t understand what your point is. Do you think other teams don’t pay wages after paying a transfer fee? They do, and even after paying transfer fees the majority are still spending more on wages.

        SG is operating on a shoestring mate – that’s the point.

  13. JHR

    What an absolute nonsensical article. What exactly does it prove only that Lees have achieved nothing by spending nothing. What we need is results, I don’t care if Simon never spends a penny or alternatively if he spends a fortune provided we get promoted. If he cannot get us pomoted, his way which is on the cheap then it time to move over and let someone else have a go. to folow your line of thought if we finish mid-table that will be a good season because we spent nothing. I’m not a glory hunter as was suggested yesterday but I want my Leeds to be where we should be. Can you do a similar article pased on points achieved relative to income? Its a sorry day when Leeds fans are prepared to accept mid-table second division mediocrity. Don where are you when we need you.

    • TSS

      “His way” – Simon Grayson’s way is accumulating points despite having no money to spend. He isn’t doing it “on the cheap” because he has a choice, he’s doing it on the cheap because that’s how this club is run at present by the loveable bearded bloke above.

      • Matthew

        Pretty much summed up as SG has achieved a lot despite the restrictions in place.

  14. Dave

    To be fair, we can’t compare Holloway and Grayson really can we? Who is to say Grayson wouldn’t have got Blackpool promoted and kept them there? We don’t know do we. I agree, no Blackpool fan would swap Holloway for Grayson, but the flip side of that is I wouldn’t swap Grayson for Holloway. If uncle ken were to sack Grayson, then Holloway would be right at the top of my list of replacements, but that’s not the point, I’m going off track there really.

    Anyway, this article is very interesting. I accept the argument that it is probably not 100% accurate, but surely it gives a decent reflection. Put into context, bates comments that 7th isn’t good enough is unreasonable to say the least. If we really are amongst the lowest spenders (both transfer and wages) in the division, then 7th is a hell of an achievement. Suppose you could say its like Blackpool being 7th In The prem last season.

  15. number1inyorkshire

    you get what you pay for is my opinion i will remember this table long into the season and beyond if we do not go up !!

    if you add players sold to the equation we must be getting payed by the league ..

    and finally do we know the wages really ?

    • TSS

      The Swiss Ramble is brilliant with all this financial stuff, you should read the post I linked to.

      But to answer your question, we do to an extent because of published accounts. If anything, we’re overestimating Leeds’ because our accounts don’t differentiate between playing staff and other staff – something I believe the majority do.

  16. mattb1

    what about bates’comments about Leeds position not being acceptable in the table and the `heart searching’ going on – surely hes not about to press the eject button?

      • mattbb1

        well graysons i was thinking, though we’d all love to press a big f**king ejector button to power the gas cylinders placed under Bates seat.

        I agree with you, Grayson is a value for money manager, and has got a decent performance out of a squad for peanuts. 7th os marvellous, but of course Bates will start pointing at the likes of Crystal Palace (theres always one minnow that peaks early on in the season) and ask why we arent up there… Southampton have spent, as we know, so have West Ham, bates has p*ssed away £7m on the east stand and now he has the brass neck to question why we are only 7th..

        I’m sorry to use such childish language – but what a total tw@t. If my manager started behaving like that in front of my peers and my staff i would either resign or complain to their superior.

        Sure, grayson screws up from time to time, but we arent Olympique Marseilles – we arent even St Etienne, or Birstol City when it comes to salaries. What the hell does he expect if he doesnt reinvext his profits into the team?

        Its up to him if he has a 25 year lease on the ground whether he invests in redeveloping it, Bates thinks we’re all too stupid to eealise this, what he doesnt credit us with is that we all know if he spent some dough on the team we’d get prkmoted and not only fill the ground, but also the corporate boxes. What businessman on the phone to hong kong tells his colleague – treat for you this weekend if youre over in the UK – Barnsley – saturday 12 o clock kick off…. really.

  17. Benny66

    I don’t usually leave comments, I just tend to read the comments and despair!!! But on this occasion felt I must comment – this is a very clear and easily understood article, it’s also unfortunately blindingly obvious that to some people out there even if SG managed us to the Premier League title it wouldn’t be good enough – they’d still be calling for his head. Don’t know who the hell they think is going to takeover and do a better job with the money he has to spend!!!

  18. RJ

    Great article TSS, but on the turnover figures, is it right that Burnley have a turnover of more than 50% more than us?

    • TSS

      The problem we have with turnover figures is they’re from 2009/10 (last published accounts) so Burnley were in the Premiership, but they’ll still be higher than us with parachute payments I suspect. Won’t affect Leeds’ too much as we’ve offloaded a few high earners and not really thrown any serious cash at players wages since those accounts, plus our turnover will now be higher.

      They’re just a rough guide basically, but Shaun Harvey did say Leeds would quite easily come in under the proposed maximum of 60% turnover spent on wages idea, so there’s no reason to suggest the percentage would be higher. If anything, it’ll be lower.

  19. Colin

    TSS – i think we’re discussing seperate points so I’ll leave the stats chat at that.

    My only point would be that although Grayson has done a GOOD job with the resources available, I don’t believe that he’s some sort of messiah. A shoestring budget perhaps, but one that the likes of Barnsley, Doncaster, Watford etc would have loved to have had.

    • TSS

      The teams you mention have spent more Colin, and are those really the class of team you think we should be comparable with? No hope clubs that simply make the numbers up?

      • Colin

        TSS – Yes, I think they’ve spent more on permanent players, but they haven’t spent more when you include free transfers, wage spend and loans.

        Leeds have an advantage – they can attract decent players on loan and get players on free contracts, purely, because it’s Leeds. Lots of players at Leeds would not have joined if the club was Barnsley.

        Leeds have an advantage – we are a big club, we have an academy, we have a decent training ground, the England U-21’s spent a day here. Leeds are a ‘big’ club. And that’s how we can do business in the way we do.

        Now, the big question, is it fair? Is it a level playing field? Probably not. But we can use it and we do. Statistically speaking, we’ll always be out of kilter with most of the Championship because they can’t play the same game that we do. It’s like a poker game, and in this league, we’re holding Aces.

  20. LeedsForLife

    Good article again. It shows that SG is doing far better for the money spent, on both transfers and wages, than any other manager in the division.

    This suggests that spending a mere £400,000 on transer fees would put us in 2nd place. Soul searching, Ken?

    If you take the £14M wage bill for 2009-10, that was about £300K per game. This season we’ve played 16 games, so we’ve spent pro rata about £5M on wages so far (assuming the wages are at the same level), which is about £195K per point. With the £56K, wages and transfers have cost about £250K per point.

    For comparison, Boro have spent £360K per point on wages and £552K per point on transfers, a total of £912K per point – nearly four times as much per point as Leeds.

  21. barneywhite

    this reinforces what the enlightened among is already know – Grayson is doing a wonderfull job in extremely difficult circumstances. Trouble is what he is doing is not nearly good enough for Leeds. I don’t agree with Bates argument money does not buy success – It does if it is spent wisely.
    We have a decent squad but not good enough for the club or to make us serious promotion contenders – we need additional quality in two or three key areas to storm this league. BATES OUT

  22. Tyler75

    I think its blindingly obvious that Larry is doing a remarkably good job on a shoestring. He’s not the only one, Dougie Freedman comes to mind this season and Paul Lambert last season did even better with not much more in the way of resources. That said its not obvious that giving Larry, say 2m, to spend in January would guarantee success. He’s never had any money to spend and is unproven in that area, he is just maybe one of those Managers (like Warnock for example) who thrives on building teams from scratch without the headache of having to accommodate big time charlies (which may go some way to explain Schmeichel’s swift departure !)

  23. leedshippriest

    Bates will love this, I’d be surprised if the old fucker doesn’t use it in his next match day programme as proof that HE is right and all others wrong.
    As has been said though, so called freebies do not exist, in some cases it means they get higher wages.
    One set of statistics like this in isolation prove nothing, other than the fact Bates is a tight arse.
    It would be interesting to see these figures, along with wages etc at the end of the season though, perhaps with some adjustment for final League Position ?

  24. chelpa

    going on these stats considering we are 11 points behind leaders southampton times this by our price per point 11 x £56,320 if we had spent another £619,520 we would be joint top!!!!!!!!MOT!!!

    • LeedsForLife

      The quoted stats are probably quite reliable, but how they’ve been used here is very approximate, especially in ignoring other factors. Nobody’s been claiming much accuracy.

      However, the shown difference in cost-effectiveness seems big enough to significantly outweigh the approximation.

      • Gryff

        “probably quite reliable.”

        Where did they come from is the bottom line. The club is not in the habit of releasing details of transfer expenditure so I really don’t see how anybody can hope to put together a league of all clubs’ spending on transfers and call that even vaguely accurate.

        Worse still is comparing clubs as they stand now when we’ve only played 16 games which will leave certain teams still to play 3-4 top-6 clubs and certain teams still to play 3-4 bottom-6 clubs.

        Add to that the fact that Birmingham have only played 13 matches, any of those games in hands they’d move up to 4 places…

        Really, what is the point in these kinds of statistics until the end of the season when everyone’s had the same number of games against the same opposition?

      • LeedsForLife

        They give a very approximate indication that the club, and SG in particular, is achieving a very high efficiency in terms of expenditure per point gained, compared with other clubs in the division.

        Nobody is claiming any degree of accuracy.

      • Gryff

        Yeah, you’re right… Oh no wait, the article says the complete opposite:

        “The table uses the original purchase cost of each player in the current side and divides it by how many points we’ve accumulated so far. The calculations show Simon Grayson’s squad has cost him just £56,320 per point so far this season.

        To put that figure into context, the lowest amount spent per point of any team in the current top six is Crystal Palace who at £113,168 have spent double what Simon Grayson has on their current team.

        Leeds’ 25 points this season and the incredibly low £1.4m total cost of our team (less than any other team in the league) means it has cost Simon Grayson less per point than any other manager in the division – by quite some distance too.”

      • TSS

        Did us it Gryff? You’ve just quoted half the article and at no point did it claim to be accurate down to the last penny.

        The transfer fees they’re using are the ones reported nationally in the press – the same ones every site and news organisation use which no one seems to have a problem with until they’re used to make a case for something they disagree with.

        Let’s say we accept a huge 10% margin for error, does it actually change anything? No.

        You know as well as I do that transfer fees get out one way or another. Always have, always will. Even Bates can’t control that. And if they were so far wide of the mark, we both know Bates would take great pleasure in taunting the press with their inaccuracies.

  25. WhiteDubai

    Certainly it is nice to be table-toppers but I rather had it to be the Chanpionship league table than points per invested pound. The table clearly identify our problem, we do not invest enough to strengthen the team and consequently we will remain a mid-table championship team.
    It is funny to see how SG supporters take this table to prove how good SG is, to me it clearly shows his weakness, the non-footballing side of management, to create enough funding to enable him to build a strong team.

    If we are happy with the position we are in then we shall be proud of being first in the displayed table. Although I rather see us slip in that table by investing more and get promoted. I hope I am wrong but I can not see that happen in the way we today.

  26. Will23

    Analyses with explicit confirmation bias are prevalent throughout the scientific world (for example, the so-called “proof” of global warming uses disputable data manipulated to give the required outcome).

    The above player cost analysis only considers the asset cost, not the operational cost of owning players as others note above.

    But, given that most transfer fees are undisclosed even the asset cost stated above is unreliable at best.

    Sadly, the table therefore proves zilch given the incompleteness of the data. As reliable as a Gordon Brown economic forecast.

    To no ones surprise, the words, straws and clutching, spring to my mind.

    • Gryff

      Agree totally.

      I don’t think I’ve ever criticised a TSS article before and I left it at a simple short sentence at the start, but LeedsforLife illustrates the danger of people using uncertain figues and passing them as fact. A lot of people will take this guesswork as fact and that’s a dangerous level to sink to (sadly one many mainstream media outlets sink to on a daily basis).

  27. Gryff

    TSS: take for example the Schmeichel fee, where national press quoted 750k-1mil. A few months later members of the national press where quoting 250k. This article has basically taken the outcome of guesswork and used it as accurate figures.

    In terms of the part I quoted:
    “the original purchase cost” (no, you just said it was the generally guessed at purchase cost by journos)
    “the calculations show” (the guesswork suggests)
    “To put that figure into context, the lowest amount spent per point of any team in the current top six is Crystal palace who at £113,168 have spent double what Simon Grayson has on their current team.” (erm – what the media says. You’re taking two completely uncertain figures based on several uncertain figures each and presenting it as fact)
    “the incredibly low cost of our team” (… probably.)

  28. Getgonenowlarry

    LIES, DAMN LIES and bloody statistics.
    Doesn’t alter the fact Larry is not up to getting us into automatic or even playoffs, and all the bullshit from his family and fans will not change that FACT.

  29. Arthur Graham

    Simples, Grayson will not last much longer. Bates is ready to fire the gun. He has seen the unrest amongst our growing number of fans that know he isnt good enough to get our great club where it belongs. Grayson your time is up. Sorry you are not the man for the job, local boy or not. No room to be sentimental in this game! Now on your way!

  30. Jonathan Ketteridge

    If only that were the criteria that promotion were decided. Unfortunately it is not.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.