Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2011 10:11:46 GMT 1
Heard a rumour that he is in helping out at Shedgar St.....anyone else heard the same?
|
|
|
Post by pughywasfree on Oct 1, 2011 10:15:42 GMT 1
could be just what they need
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Oct 1, 2011 12:18:22 GMT 1
I'd say any smaller side with limited resources struggling down the bottom of the table could do a lot worse than get Peters involved
Good organiser, knows lower league players well and keeps everyone in line. Still rate him keeping us in the league in our first season back in the league as one of the most important by a Town manager
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Oct 1, 2011 12:19:23 GMT 1
I'd say any smaller side with limited resources struggling down the bottom of the table could do a lot worse than get Peters involved
Good organiser, knows lower league players well and keeps everyone in line. Still rate him keeping us in the league in our first season back in the league as one of the most important by a Town manager
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 1, 2011 13:45:37 GMT 1
Heard a rumour that he is in helping out at Shedgar St.....anyone else heard the same? The only way that man can help out is to stay away.
|
|
|
Post by hooverfoxhat on Oct 1, 2011 14:07:56 GMT 1
Former Shrews and Bulls player on Twitter today......
bsmudger7Ben Smith
Just read @bullsnewsblog hope Gary Peters isn't going to 'help'. if you think things are bad now you haven't seen anything yet!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2011 15:16:31 GMT 1
I spotted Gary Peters at the Wolves v Wigan ressies match on Monday.
Another interesting observer I noticed was Geoff Horsfield.
|
|
|
Post by suttonshrew on Oct 1, 2011 18:25:17 GMT 1
Last I heard Gary had been signed up to work for a sports management company and was doing scouting on the side. Wouldn't be surprised to see him back in some capacity, Hereford would be very lucky to get him, knows how to galvanise a team and get the best out of them when there backs are to the wall.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 1, 2011 18:38:56 GMT 1
Former Shrews and Bulls player on Twitter today...... bsmudger7Ben Smith Just read @bullsnewsblog hope Gary Peters isn't going to 'help'. if you think things are bad now you haven't seen anything yet! A comment that says more about Ben Smith than it does Gary Peters
|
|
|
Post by GrizzlyShrew on Oct 1, 2011 19:03:01 GMT 1
Heard a rumour that he is in helping out at Shedgar St.....anyone else heard the same? The only way that man can help out is to stay away. well we are all entitled to an opinion - however wrong the rest of us might feel
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 1, 2011 19:12:52 GMT 1
Why do many people think highly of Gary Peters but slate Paul Simpson?
|
|
|
Post by Throbbing Gristle on Oct 1, 2011 21:03:55 GMT 1
"Why do many people think highly of Gary Peters but slate Paul Simpson"
Good question, I think possibly tactics.
Under Turner we clearly play 4-2-4 with wingers used as much as possible.
Peters was 4-4-2 direct ball with big man little man up front.
Fans can clearly see these tactics and so discussions tend to be mostly about which players we can improve on. Simpson though we had no idea. When we scored 7 past both wycombe and.gillingham we played 4-2-3-1, but as soon as he could we went back to 4-4-2. To this day I can't tell people what particular kind of tactics Simpson plyed. I could tell people 4-4-2, but the style i honesty can't say.
This is of course just a theory though.
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on Oct 1, 2011 21:06:53 GMT 1
Why do many people think highly of Gary Peters but slate Paul Simpson? Because under Quinn we were going back down and Peters kept us up. Made us hard to beat and got the fans to start believing in the club again. Yes the football wasn't pretty but you always felt the team would be up for a battle apart from the last few months of his reign. Could we ever say the same about Simpson and the football despite him having a bigger budget was worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2011 22:13:05 GMT 1
Yes, Peters may have saved us from relegation, but then again most teams seem to "improve" following the appointment of a new manager. Peters was responsible for maybe one of the worst decisions in the clubs history, and due to his pigheaded attitude concerning Dave Edwards, we lost our first good chance of promotion. Peters was all about Peters, thats why his man management skills were so poor. In the end it seems he lost the players respect, and that of most of the supporters. Glad to see the back of him and would love to see him re-surface at Hereford to send them to their doom.
Peters and Simpson both from the same egg, friggin s**te.
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on Oct 1, 2011 23:30:26 GMT 1
Lets not forget Edwards was playing s**te before the final anyway. Peters did far more good things in his tenure than bad and that for me means i will always look back on him in a more favourable light than i ever will Simpson. This from someone who was happy to see the back of peters at the time he left and thought it was too late for him to go anyway.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Oct 1, 2011 23:35:33 GMT 1
Peters is in my view a better Shrewsbury manager as he a poor side and the club forward during his time in charge. Simpson over a club in a good position and didn't improve it.
The one link between both managers is they should have left after unsuccessful play-off final defeats, they would both be thought of more fondly had they left then.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 2, 2011 0:33:11 GMT 1
Simpson signed Holt didn't he, that was a positive contribution. Got us a good profit. Guess profit must equal hores**t nowadays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2011 1:16:34 GMT 1
Dave Edwards did not deserve to play at Wembley.
Peters was right, and Simpson was s**te.
|
|
|
Post by Ned on Oct 2, 2011 2:39:37 GMT 1
Peters first task was to keep us up.
Simpson's first task was to take us up.
One achieved, one failed. That's all there is to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2011 8:27:23 GMT 1
I think Peters brought the pride back into playing for and supporting STFC... we lost that for a while beforehand. Despite some dull performances, look at how the players used to react when we got results
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on Oct 2, 2011 9:44:47 GMT 1
Simpson signed Holt didn't he, that was a positive contribution. Got us a good profit. Guess profit must equal hores**t nowadays. Signed a good player who is now in Premier League yet failed to take us up when 3 teams were deducted points. Should have gone up that season with the squad we had. Simpson failed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2011 9:49:46 GMT 1
I think Peters brought the pride back into playing for and supporting STFC... we lost that for a while beforehand. Despite some dull performances, look at how the players used to react when we got results Agreed with this. I also agree that it was a mistake to leave Edwards out of the squad vs. Bristol Rovers but let's not forget that he was the manager that turned the player from someone who had been loaned out and ignored by Jimmy Quinn into a player we sold for the best part of half a million pounds. I certainly rate him above Paul Simpson as a manager.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2011 11:14:40 GMT 1
Peters first task was to keep us up. Simpson's first task was to take us up. One achieved, one failed. That's all there is to it. However it is a lot easier to finish 22nd in the table rather than in the top 3.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 2, 2011 11:29:34 GMT 1
Peters first task was to keep us up. Simpson's first task was to take us up. One achieved, one failed. That's all there is to it. Far too simplistic. As the poster says, a lot easier to stay up than go up. By that reasoning Turner has also failed then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2011 11:54:39 GMT 1
Holt was the only player brought in by Simpson who made money for the club. That is off-set by players he let go for nowt and subsequently moved on to better things (Pugh, Symes, Ryan), Numerous players that were brought in by Peters netted the club money and the club also managed to cock-up the Davies contract negotiations under Simpson who was too busy having his own contract extended.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2011 14:36:03 GMT 1
Ah the old Peters v Simpson debate, if your talking about their spell at STFC then there surely has to be only winner
Despite Peters losing it at the end, and me getting annoyed with his hero like status from one poster on here, I was a big fan of Peters and was genuinley disapointed with the way things turned out. Considering he had no connections to the club, I think we will struggle to find such a hard working manager and someone so dedicated to the club. I think he had hopes of turning is into the next Crazy Gang being an unfashionable, smaller club however what I could never get my head around was his dislike of the old ground when it was clear that went hand in hand of us being a unfashionable club. As soon as we moved grounds, the whole outlook of the club changed and I think thats is where it all went wrong for him
As for Simpson, i have to say that overall it was a big major disapointment. Towards the end of Peters tenrure we were a fairly direct side with little pace, creativity or width in the side. When Simpson joined I expected us to have a complete change of footballing style but it was so similar and that is what disapointed me the most. By the end it was clear that he was simply a chequebook manager and he could not accept responsbility for any failings.
For me when I look back I will say that Peters transformed a club and gave us some self respect back but ultimately it turned sour. But I will see Paul Simpson as someone who was given the task of getting us promoted in very good circumstances but failed.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 2, 2011 17:00:53 GMT 1
Why do many people think highly of Gary Peters but slate Paul Simpson? You are joking?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 2, 2011 17:51:17 GMT 1
No, out of two managers who did pretty bum jobs, I don't see why one is thought of more highly.
Peters was as much of a joke as Simpson...in my opinion of course.
|
|
|
Post by elmundo on Oct 2, 2011 17:55:46 GMT 1
Peters' contribution to the club was a lot more valuable than Simpson's.
Having said that, neither set the world on fire.
But, ultimately, had GP not kept us up in his first season, I dread to think where the club may be today.
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Oct 2, 2011 18:19:11 GMT 1
Why do many people think highly of Gary Peters but slate Paul Simpson? You are joking? You beat me to it Sean. I find it incredible that anyone should even consider asking that question. When Gary Peters joined we were heading back to the Conference in a hurry. If that had happened who knows where we might be now, quite possibly still trying to get back out like so many other league clubs who have gone the same way since. His place in the history of STFC is a very important one in the scheme of things and we should be grateful and thankful we had the right man at the right time during those difficult seasons. For three and a half of his four seasons at the club Gary Peters did a good to excellent job. We progressed season on season and he left the club in a good state when he went after a disastrous final few months. Despite what people said about the squad at the time and despite Paul Simpson's attempts to publicly undermine it almost from the off. He made a small fortune for the club in the transfer market too. As Ant pointed out without Gary Peters joining the club Dave Edwards wouldn't be where his is now with Jimmy Quinn deeming him surplus to requirements and looking to offload. Look at who Paul Simpson inherited from Gary Peters and where they are now. Jimmy Ryan, Marc Pugh, Marc Tierney, James Constable, Chris Humphrey to name a few. Paul Simpson was given a huge budget to build on this squad, club record fee for Grant Holt, plus Graham Coughlan, Mike Jackson, Shane Sherriff and Paul Murray all big earners. He then managed to scrape 7th on the last day in the weakest League 2 for years wth four clubs having points deductions, without which he would have finished 9th. The least said about his record after that season the better! Gary Peters had his faults for sure, and plenty of them, but to even suggest that Paul Simpson is in any way on a comparable level in terms of his time in charge of STFC and the respective legacies they left behind is laughable.
|
|