|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 14, 2018 13:49:39 GMT
Every thing any manager comes out with is immediately discounted by you - all of the transfer team, Rowett and Hughes have basically said the same thing about how the transfer process works and you dismiss it each and every time. It’ll take a bit more than what someone’s mate whispers in their ear or what Clive Clarke says on the radio to convince me otherwise, absolutely. Call me Mr Picky... Fair enough Mr Picky but no-ones mate whispers in my ear. I haven't discounted anything the manager has said about the transfer team. They've each said that they work with the transfer team and make collective decisions on players. That has often resulted in the transfer team failing to get the managers no1 choices and the manager then accepting options 3,4 or even 5 presented to him by the transfer team. Why have we consistently failed to get the managers actual targets and why do we so often end up with the compromise bought about by the transfer team? Is that not a valid question? Some will say the manager has loftier ambitions than the club can support. Others would say that it is a strange coincidence, indicative of where the balance of power lies. Whether I'm right and it is a complete dogs dinner or you are right and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the process, the sum total is the same. The current manager is useless. The previous manager was useless and the one before that became increasingly useless over a period of time. The chuckle brothers, when it comes to ascertaining the qualities of footballers are useless and those are the key individuals who collaborate on signing new players, retaining existing players, and getting shut of players. Each of the managers will ultimately pay for their incompetence with their jobs whilst the chuckle brothers escape unscathed. Dave, again, you're putting words in my mouth. The process in theory should work. It works elsewhere. You need competent personnel to make it work. We don't have that. I've never said otherwise at any stage. I'd get rid of the pizza boys tomorrow. With someone with better contacts in Carto's job and a more visionary CV than Ratty, I think things would be a lot better. As far as missing out on targets goes, I think there are a mixture of reasons. Some due to the CEO's dicking about. Some because certain rival clubs were seen, understandably, as better options. Some where the 'selling' club wasn't actually prepared to sell. What I've taken issue with is your continual insistence that the manager is having myriad players foisted on him and isn't one driving our transfer dealings, something most of the evidence really doesn't point to.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Sept 14, 2018 13:59:23 GMT
First I'm not disputing what you say but I didn't realise managers now come with their own Director of Football? Their own coaching team yes but not a Director of Football. When you say Director of Football do you mean a Cartwright equivalent ? Is he not Technical Director, or is that basically the same thing? Second is Tony Scholes really an accountant? Yes. Technical Director/Director of Football...one in the same in my language but one that would have seen Cartwright either demoted or outed. I'm not saying he didn't get it because of that condition but by all accounts he thought he had a very good chance of getting it once the chase for QSF fell through. He didn't expect to lose out to Lambert. I'd love to know who that was!
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 14, 2018 14:06:21 GMT
Fair enough Mr Picky but no-ones mate whispers in my ear. I haven't discounted anything the manager has said about the transfer team. They've each said that they work with the transfer team and make collective decisions on players. That has often resulted in the transfer team failing to get the managers no1 choices and the manager then accepting options 3,4 or even 5 presented to him by the transfer team. Why have we consistently failed to get the managers actual targets and why do we so often end up with the compromise bought about by the transfer team? Is that not a valid question? Some will say the manager has loftier ambitions than the club can support. Others would say that it is a strange coincidence, indicative of where the balance of power lies. Whether I'm right and it is a complete dogs dinner or you are right and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the process, the sum total is the same. The current manager is useless. The previous manager was useless and the one before that became increasingly useless over a period of time. The chuckle brothers, when it comes to ascertaining the qualities of footballers are useless and those are the key individuals who collaborate on signing new players, retaining existing players, and getting shut of players. Each of the managers will ultimately pay for their incompetence with their jobs whilst the chuckle brothers escape unscathed. Dave, again, you're putting words in my mouth. The process in theory should work. It works elsewhere. You need competent personnel to make it work. We don't have that. I've never said otherwise at any stage. I'd get rid of the pizza boys tomorrow. With someone with better contacts in Carto's job and a more visionary CV than Ratty, I think things would be a lot better. As far as missing out on targets goes, I think there are a mixture of reasons. Some due to the CEO's dicking about. Some because certain rival clubs were seen, understandably, as better options. Some where the 'selling' club wasn't actually prepared to sell. What I've taken issue with is your continual insistence that the manager is having myriad players foisted on him and isn't one driving our transfer dealings, something most of the evidence really doesn't point to. We've already identified that Etebo, Bauer, Badou, Staflydis, Butland, and Shea weren't the managers signings. Does that not constitute myriad players? Why would a CEO dick about when trying to get the players the manager wants if the manager is driving our transfer dealings? Surely, as part of a team, he'd be trying his utmost to get the manager the players the manager wants? Or am I being naïve?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 14, 2018 14:07:01 GMT
Yes. Technical Director/Director of Football...one in the same in my language but one that would have seen Cartwright either demoted or outed. I'm not saying he didn't get it because of that condition but by all accounts he thought he had a very good chance of getting it once the chase for QSF fell through. He didn't expect to lose out to Lambert. I'd love to know who that was! You really wouldn't. It is almost as unimaginable as Gordon Strachan being in the running for the job.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 14:08:24 GMT
It was Pardew and Nicky Hammond*
*Haven't got a clue.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 14, 2018 14:27:17 GMT
Dave, again, you're putting words in my mouth. The process in theory should work. It works elsewhere. You need competent personnel to make it work. We don't have that. I've never said otherwise at any stage. I'd get rid of the pizza boys tomorrow. With someone with better contacts in Carto's job and a more visionary CV than Ratty, I think things would be a lot better. As far as missing out on targets goes, I think there are a mixture of reasons. Some due to the CEO's dicking about. Some because certain rival clubs were seen, understandably, as better options. Some where the 'selling' club wasn't actually prepared to sell. What I've taken issue with is your continual insistence that the manager is having myriad players foisted on him and isn't one driving our transfer dealings, something most of the evidence really doesn't point to. We've already identified that Etebo, Bauer, Badou, Staflydis, Butland, and Shea weren't the managers signings. Does that not constitute myriad players? Why would a CEO dick about when trying to get the players the manager wants if the manager is driving our transfer dealings? Surely, as part of a team, he'd be trying his utmost to get the manager the players the manager wants? Or am I being naïve? Well we haven't established that, no. Bauer and Badou were Hughes signings, were they not? We just had to press on or end up signing nobody because we cocked up the timing of getting rid. Were these players foisted on the manager? I can imagine Shea was. I can't imagine Pulis not wanting Butland nor Lambert not wanting Stafylidis nor Rowett not wanting Etebo. The transfer team identifying players to the manager isn't the same as them being imposed on him, Triggy and Ziggy style. Were Afobe, McClean, Ince, Woods, Clucas foisted on the manager? The CEO might dick about because 1) He's an oily weasel who considers himself the second coming of Gordon Gekko and thinks he's the king of the deal 2) He's doing his masters' bidding 3) Both
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 14, 2018 14:29:31 GMT
We've already identified that Etebo, Bauer, Badou, Staflydis, Butland, and Shea weren't the managers signings. Does that not constitute myriad players? Why would a CEO dick about when trying to get the players the manager wants if the manager is driving our transfer dealings? Surely, as part of a team, he'd be trying his utmost to get the manager the players the manager wants? Or am I being naïve? Well we haven't established that, no. Bauer and Badou were Hughes signings, were they not? We just had to press on or end up signing nobody because we cocked up the timing of getting rid. Were these players foisted on the manager? I can imagine Shea was. I can't imagine Pulis not wanting Butland nor Lambert not wanting Stafylidis nor Rowett not wanting Etebo. The transfer team identifying players to the manager isn't the same as them being imposed on him, Triggy and Ziggy style. Were Afobe, McClean, Ince, Woods, Clucas foisted on the manager? The CEO might dick about because 1) He's an oily weasel who considers himself the second coming of Gordon Gekko and thinks he's the king of the deal 2) He's doing his masters' bidding 3) Both A bit like rowett had to press on with etebo yes?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 14, 2018 14:37:07 GMT
We've already identified that Etebo, Bauer, Badou, Staflydis, Butland, and Shea weren't the managers signings. Does that not constitute myriad players? Why would a CEO dick about when trying to get the players the manager wants if the manager is driving our transfer dealings? Surely, as part of a team, he'd be trying his utmost to get the manager the players the manager wants? Or am I being naïve? Well we haven't established that, no. Bauer and Badou were Hughes signings, were they not? We just had to press on or end up signing nobody because we cocked up the timing of getting rid. Were these players foisted on the manager? I can imagine Shea was. I can't imagine Pulis not wanting Butland nor Lambert not wanting Stafylidis nor Rowett not wanting Etebo. The transfer team identifying players to the manager isn't the same as them being imposed on him, Triggy and Ziggy style. Were Afobe, McClean, Ince, Woods, Clucas foisted on the manager? The CEO might dick about because 1) He's an oily weasel who considers himself the second coming of Gordon Gekko and thinks he's the king of the deal 2) He's doing his masters' bidding 3) Both Ince is a really interesting one given rowett didn't want him at derby. If rowett wanted woods, a player brentford were happy to sell, why did it take so long to get him here? Strange that isn't it? Afobe was clearly led by Kevin phillips and he's shit as well. Maybe we should leave the chuckle brothers to it
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 14, 2018 14:40:49 GMT
Well we haven't established that, no. Bauer and Badou were Hughes signings, were they not? We just had to press on or end up signing nobody because we cocked up the timing of getting rid. Were these players foisted on the manager? I can imagine Shea was. I can't imagine Pulis not wanting Butland nor Lambert not wanting Stafylidis nor Rowett not wanting Etebo. The transfer team identifying players to the manager isn't the same as them being imposed on him, Triggy and Ziggy style. Were Afobe, McClean, Ince, Woods, Clucas foisted on the manager? The CEO might dick about because 1) He's an oily weasel who considers himself the second coming of Gordon Gekko and thinks he's the king of the deal 2) He's doing his masters' bidding 3) Both A bit like rowett had to press on with etebo yes? No, the circumstances are entirely different. And Rowett didn't 'have' to do anything with Etebo, as the Bauer situation makes clear. If he didn't want him, he wouldn't be in the team.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 14, 2018 14:50:26 GMT
Well we haven't established that, no. Bauer and Badou were Hughes signings, were they not? We just had to press on or end up signing nobody because we cocked up the timing of getting rid. Were these players foisted on the manager? I can imagine Shea was. I can't imagine Pulis not wanting Butland nor Lambert not wanting Stafylidis nor Rowett not wanting Etebo. The transfer team identifying players to the manager isn't the same as them being imposed on him, Triggy and Ziggy style. Were Afobe, McClean, Ince, Woods, Clucas foisted on the manager? The CEO might dick about because 1) He's an oily weasel who considers himself the second coming of Gordon Gekko and thinks he's the king of the deal 2) He's doing his masters' bidding 3) Both Ince is a really interesting one given rowett didn't want him at derby. If rowett wanted woods, a player brentford were happy to sell, why did it take so long to get him here? Strange that isn't it? Afobe was clearly led by Kevin phillips and he's shit as well. Maybe we should leave the chuckle brothers to it Yes, that's Kevin Phillips, valued member of Rowett's team. Not one he's had foisted on him. With Woods, maybe he wanted to sit tight and see who else was interested? Maybe Scholes dicked about with the fee again. Maybe it took Rowett that long to realise none of the 37 central midfielders on the books were holding players? Who knows? It is curious that he went for Ince after not using him at Derby - I guess he panicked after the Ritchie thing fell through. Players and managers do mend fences sometimes. If the pizza boys are driving things it's quite the turnaround in the type of player we're going for, isn't it? From European dogs' home jobs to experienced British dogs of war, several of whom the manager has either worked with or wanted to sign in the past?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 14, 2018 15:05:24 GMT
A bit like rowett had to press on with etebo yes? No, the circumstances are entirely different. And Rowett didn't 'have' to do anything with Etebo, as the Bauer situation makes clear. If he didn't want him, he wouldn't be in the team. How are they different? Lambert came in and had to press ahead with Badou and Stafylidis as they were so far down the line in exactly the same way that Rowett had to press ahead with Etebo.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 14, 2018 15:11:49 GMT
No, the circumstances are entirely different. And Rowett didn't 'have' to do anything with Etebo, as the Bauer situation makes clear. If he didn't want him, he wouldn't be in the team. How are they different? Lambert came in and had to press ahead with Badou and Stafylidis as they were so far down the line in exactly the same way that Rowett had to press ahead with Etebo. If the club didn't press ahead with those signings, there was a very real chance we'd end up signing nobody at all, and we desperately needed some bodies in as we geared up for a relegation battle. The fact that the club dithered over Hughes until we were slap bang in the middle of a transfer window meant a new manager's time to draw up his own plans and get his own players through the door was dramatically reduced. So it was essentially them or risk signing nobody. Slightly different from Rowett having a full pre-season and one of the biggest budgets in the Championship, and, again, a considerable about turn in the places we're shopping and the type of player we're targeting.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 14, 2018 15:22:00 GMT
Ince is a really interesting one given rowett didn't want him at derby. If rowett wanted woods, a player brentford were happy to sell, why did it take so long to get him here? Strange that isn't it? Afobe was clearly led by Kevin phillips and he's shit as well. Maybe we should leave the chuckle brothers to it Yes, that's Kevin Phillips, valued member of Rowett's team. Not one he's had foisted on him. With Woods, maybe he wanted to sit tight and see who else was interested? Maybe Scholes dicked about with the fee again. Maybe it took Rowett that long to realise none of the 37 central midfielders on the books were holding players? Who knows? It is curious that he went for Ince after not using him at Derby - I guess he panicked after the Ritchie thing fell through. Players and managers do mend fences sometimes. If the pizza boys are driving things it's quite the turnaround in the type of player we're going for, isn't it? From European dogs' home jobs to experienced British dogs of war, several of whom the manager has either worked with or wanted to sign in the past? It is you who uses the phrase "driving things". I've not used that phrase. They are tasked, presumably, with identifying players in positions and of a type that the manager wants. Hughes wanted a centre half capable of playing in a back 3 and wanted Keane, then McGuire and ended up with Wimmer. Hughes didn't identify Wimmer. He was bought to the manager and on signing, as well as trotting out his usual "he's one that has been on our radar for some time line", he noticeably said that "he is one for the future". 18m on "one for the future". We consistently fail to sign the managers first choice (Rowett seemingly alluding to the fact that Gayle was his first choice forward option in the summer) and when that then brings into play the pizza boys, targets D, E and F that the manager can sanction are not particularly good either. Would any manager say "do you know what, he's shit. If I've got to have him I'll have no-one"? My point remains a consistent one. The influence of the pizza boys, given their capabilities, knowledge and skill set, is far too great and ultimately it is damaging to the club because the manager isn't the one with the power to influence the owners. Even Pulis, when he had the temerity to challenge the chuckle brothers, found himself out of the door. He thought he held sway with old father Coates but clearly he didn't. Rowett will go the same way as Hughes and Pulis before him. Until we get a strong manager, a real figurehead who can put these guys into the box in which they belong, we'll continue to go from one shit player crisis to another. Rowett wouldn't know a decent player if one came and smacked him in the face whilst the Pizza boys success rate is not high enough either and for every Etebo, there are 3 or 4 Imbula's.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 14, 2018 15:22:42 GMT
How are they different? Lambert came in and had to press ahead with Badou and Stafylidis as they were so far down the line in exactly the same way that Rowett had to press ahead with Etebo. If the club didn't press ahead with those signings, there was a very real chance we'd end up signing nobody at all, and we desperately needed some bodies in as we geared up for a relegation battle. The fact that the club dithered over Hughes until we were slap bang in the middle of a transfer window meant a new manager's time to draw up his own plans and get his own players through the door was dramatically reduced. So it was essentially them or risk signing nobody. Slightly different from Rowett having a full pre-season and one of the biggest budgets in the Championship, and, again, a considerable about turn in the places we're shopping and the type of player we're targeting. But the new manager was only appointed because he knew exactly what we needed wasn't he?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 14, 2018 15:42:10 GMT
Yes, that's Kevin Phillips, valued member of Rowett's team. Not one he's had foisted on him. With Woods, maybe he wanted to sit tight and see who else was interested? Maybe Scholes dicked about with the fee again. Maybe it took Rowett that long to realise none of the 37 central midfielders on the books were holding players? Who knows? It is curious that he went for Ince after not using him at Derby - I guess he panicked after the Ritchie thing fell through. Players and managers do mend fences sometimes. If the pizza boys are driving things it's quite the turnaround in the type of player we're going for, isn't it? From European dogs' home jobs to experienced British dogs of war, several of whom the manager has either worked with or wanted to sign in the past? It is you who uses the phrase "driving things". I've not used that phrase. They are tasked, presumably, with identifying players in positions and of a type that the manager wants. Hughes wanted a centre half capable of playing in a back 3 and wanted Keane, then McGuire and ended up with Wimmer. Hughes didn't identify Wimmer. He was bought to the manager and on signing, as well as trotting out his usual "he's one that has been on our radar for some time line", he noticeably said that "he is one for the future". 18m on "one for the future". We consistently fail to sign the managers first choice (Rowett seemingly alluding to the fact that Gayle was his first choice forward option in the summer) and when that then brings into play the pizza boys, targets D, E and F that the manager can sanction are not particularly good either. Would any manager say "do you know what, he's shit. If I've got to have him I'll have no-one"? My point remains a consistent one. The influence of the pizza boys, given their capabilities, knowledge and skill set, is far too great and ultimately it is damaging to the club because the manager isn't the one with the power to influence the owners. Even Pulis, when he had the temerity to challenge the chuckle brothers, found himself out of the door. He thought he held sway with old father Coates but clearly he didn't. Rowett will go the same way as Hughes and Pulis before him. Until we get a strong manager, a real figurehead who can put these guys into the box in which they belong, we'll continue to go from one shit player crisis to another. Rowett wouldn't know a decent player if one came and smacked him in the face whilst the Pizza boys success rate is not high enough either and for every Etebo, there are 3 or 4 Imbula's. Keane went to Everton for £30-odd million the year we signed Wimmer. We wanted Maguire, who chose Leicester, presumably their relatively recent title win had at least some bearing on that. Do we know Hughes didn't identify Wimmer? Hughes could easily have said it was nothing to do with him and has actually said the opposite about the club's signings in general (and again, it'd surely be easier for him to lie and point the finger at the pizza boys?). Wimmer fits the Hughes profile - another player with a Bundesliga past, reasonably high profile at a big club. With Gayle, we were quoted a huge fee. West Brom weren't, because they had a striker Newcastle wanted. Recruitment generally has been shocking in terms of who we've got through the door and we've definitely missed out on a few targets, but no manager gets all their top targets, equally. Doubt Imbula was not a Hughes signing - or at least one he was happy with - either? Can't imagine Coates sanctioning a record fee for a bloke the manager didn't want...
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 14, 2018 15:43:07 GMT
If the club didn't press ahead with those signings, there was a very real chance we'd end up signing nobody at all, and we desperately needed some bodies in as we geared up for a relegation battle. The fact that the club dithered over Hughes until we were slap bang in the middle of a transfer window meant a new manager's time to draw up his own plans and get his own players through the door was dramatically reduced. So it was essentially them or risk signing nobody. Slightly different from Rowett having a full pre-season and one of the biggest budgets in the Championship, and, again, a considerable about turn in the places we're shopping and the type of player we're targeting. But the new manager was only appointed because he knew exactly what we needed wasn't he? I'm not sure what your point is here?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 14, 2018 15:47:27 GMT
But the new manager was only appointed because he knew exactly what we needed wasn't he? I'm not sure what your point is here? Paul Lambert joined the club on the 7th January allegedly because he knew exactly what we needed to turn things around. There was 20+ days left in the transfer window. Your guess that we had to sign these players for Lambert otherwise we'd have ended up with no-one simply doesn't stack up.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 14, 2018 15:51:06 GMT
I'm not sure what your point is here? Paul Lambert joined the club on the 7th January allegedly because he knew exactly what we needed to turn things around. There was 20+ days left in the transfer window. Your guess that we had to sign these players for Lambert otherwise we'd have ended up with no-one simply doesn't stack up. Lambert was appointed on 15th January Dave. He had just over two weeks.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 14, 2018 15:56:04 GMT
It is you who uses the phrase "driving things". I've not used that phrase. They are tasked, presumably, with identifying players in positions and of a type that the manager wants. Hughes wanted a centre half capable of playing in a back 3 and wanted Keane, then McGuire and ended up with Wimmer. Hughes didn't identify Wimmer. He was bought to the manager and on signing, as well as trotting out his usual "he's one that has been on our radar for some time line", he noticeably said that "he is one for the future". 18m on "one for the future". We consistently fail to sign the managers first choice (Rowett seemingly alluding to the fact that Gayle was his first choice forward option in the summer) and when that then brings into play the pizza boys, targets D, E and F that the manager can sanction are not particularly good either. Would any manager say "do you know what, he's shit. If I've got to have him I'll have no-one"? My point remains a consistent one. The influence of the pizza boys, given their capabilities, knowledge and skill set, is far too great and ultimately it is damaging to the club because the manager isn't the one with the power to influence the owners. Even Pulis, when he had the temerity to challenge the chuckle brothers, found himself out of the door. He thought he held sway with old father Coates but clearly he didn't. Rowett will go the same way as Hughes and Pulis before him. Until we get a strong manager, a real figurehead who can put these guys into the box in which they belong, we'll continue to go from one shit player crisis to another. Rowett wouldn't know a decent player if one came and smacked him in the face whilst the Pizza boys success rate is not high enough either and for every Etebo, there are 3 or 4 Imbula's. Keane went to Everton for £30-odd million the year we signed Wimmer. We wanted Maguire, who chose Leicester, presumably their relatively recent title win had at least some bearing on that. Do we know Hughes didn't identify Wimmer? Hughes could easily have said it was nothing to do with him and has actually said the opposite about the club's signings in general (and again, it'd surely be easier for him to lie and point the finger at the pizza boys?). Wimmer fits the Hughes profile - another player with a Bundesliga past, reasonably high profile at a big club. With Gayle, we were quoted a huge fee. West Brom weren't, because they had a striker Newcastle wanted. Recruitment generally has been shocking in terms of who we've got through the door and we've definitely missed out on a few targets, but no manager gets all their top targets, equally. Doubt Imbula was not a Hughes signing - or at least one he was happy with - either? Can't imagine Coates sanctioning a record fee for a bloke the manager didn't want... Imbula signed because one of our players eulogised about him following a pre-season friendly where he impressed all who saw him. Wouldn't the transfer team have been involved in doing the relevant checks on a player? If not, why not? Or isn't that part of their role in following through the managers desires? We could have signed Keane for 17m. We only offered, 7m, then 8m, then 12m and wouldn't go any further. We didn't match the Leicester bid for Maguire so he never had a choice over whether to come to us or not. Anyhow, this has nothing to do with who looks better than us so I'll let you have the final word or let others bring the thread back on track.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 14, 2018 16:00:26 GMT
Paul Lambert joined the club on the 7th January allegedly because he knew exactly what we needed to turn things around. There was 20+ days left in the transfer window. Your guess that we had to sign these players for Lambert otherwise we'd have ended up with no-one simply doesn't stack up. Lambert was appointed on 15th January Dave. He had just over two weeks. 14 days then. Plenty enough time for a manager who knew exactly what we needed surely? If we were signing Mark Hughes targets for a new manager who wasn't Mark Hughes then that shows us in an even worse light. We were prepared to sanction the best part of 20m on two players on the whim of a manager deemed not good enough to be our manager. Surely, if we were finally signing players he wanted, we would have been better off letting him manage those players?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 14, 2018 16:08:30 GMT
Keane went to Everton for £30-odd million the year we signed Wimmer. We wanted Maguire, who chose Leicester, presumably their relatively recent title win had at least some bearing on that. Do we know Hughes didn't identify Wimmer? Hughes could easily have said it was nothing to do with him and has actually said the opposite about the club's signings in general (and again, it'd surely be easier for him to lie and point the finger at the pizza boys?). Wimmer fits the Hughes profile - another player with a Bundesliga past, reasonably high profile at a big club. With Gayle, we were quoted a huge fee. West Brom weren't, because they had a striker Newcastle wanted. Recruitment generally has been shocking in terms of who we've got through the door and we've definitely missed out on a few targets, but no manager gets all their top targets, equally. Doubt Imbula was not a Hughes signing - or at least one he was happy with - either? Can't imagine Coates sanctioning a record fee for a bloke the manager didn't want... Imbula signed because one of our players eulogised about him following a pre-season friendly where he impressed all who saw him. Wouldn't the transfer team have been involved in doing the relevant checks on a player? If not, why not? Or isn't that part of their role in following through the managers desires? We could have signed Keane for 17m. We only offered, 7m, then 8m, then 12m and wouldn't go any further. We didn't match the Leicester bid for Maguire so he never had a choice over whether to come to us or not. Anyhow, this has nothing to do with who looks better than us so I'll let you have the final word or let others bring the thread back on track. Of course Dave, the transfer team will be involved heavily in all our dealings. I thought your implication was that he was their man and nothing to do with Hughes? Would that have been the season before Everton paid over double that for him, presumably?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 14, 2018 16:11:25 GMT
Lambert was appointed on 15th January Dave. He had just over two weeks. 14 days then. Plenty enough time for a manager who knew exactly what we needed surely? If we were signing Mark Hughes targets for a new manager who wasn't Mark Hughes then that shows us in an even worse light. We were prepared to sanction the best part of 20m on two players on the whim of a manager deemed not good enough to be our manager. Surely, if we were finally signing players he wanted, we would have been better off letting him manage those players? 14 days isn't plenty, no, not to know what you want, find out who you want who's available and sell the club to them from nowhere. The 'exactly what was needed' thing was always fluff. Of course it shows us in a terrible light, we nadled the whole thing horrendously. We weren't 'finally' signing players Hughes wanted, we were continuing to sign players he wanted. Maybe if he'd signed some wing backs in the summer or decided not to play a system that relied on them when we didn't have any he wouldn't have been sacked? He'd well and truly lost the plot by that point regardless, he should have gone months before.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 14, 2018 16:27:02 GMT
14 days then. Plenty enough time for a manager who knew exactly what we needed surely? If we were signing Mark Hughes targets for a new manager who wasn't Mark Hughes then that shows us in an even worse light. We were prepared to sanction the best part of 20m on two players on the whim of a manager deemed not good enough to be our manager. Surely, if we were finally signing players he wanted, we would have been better off letting him manage those players? 14 days isn't plenty, no, not to know what you want, find out who you want who's available and sell the club to them from nowhere. The 'exactly what was needed' thing was always fluff. Of course it shows us in a terrible light, we nadled the whole thing horrendously. We weren't 'finally' signing players Hughes wanted, we were continuing to sign players he wanted. Maybe if he'd signed some wing backs in the summer or decided not to play a system that relied on them when we didn't have any he wouldn't have been sacked? He'd well and truly lost the plot by that point regardless, he should have gone months before. Hughes wanted a right wing back in the summer and spoke regularly about January bringing the help the boys needed. Presumably the 3 that arrived after he was sacked was the help the boys needed? Whichever way you dress it up it doesn't reflect well on the transfer gurus does It? They failed 2 bring the two positional options the original manager wanted in the summer and then, having got rid of a manager because he was crap, they were so bloody useless, the best their extensive contacts could muster, was to bring in 3 players the previous crap manager had identified. What a glowing endorsement it is of what they bring to the party. Superb. No wonder we can't attract a decent manager.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 14, 2018 16:31:34 GMT
14 days isn't plenty, no, not to know what you want, find out who you want who's available and sell the club to them from nowhere. The 'exactly what was needed' thing was always fluff. Of course it shows us in a terrible light, we nadled the whole thing horrendously. We weren't 'finally' signing players Hughes wanted, we were continuing to sign players he wanted. Maybe if he'd signed some wing backs in the summer or decided not to play a system that relied on them when we didn't have any he wouldn't have been sacked? He'd well and truly lost the plot by that point regardless, he should have gone months before. Hughes wanted a right wing back in the summer and spoke regularly about January bringing the help the boys needed. Presumably the 3 that arrived after he was sacked was the help the boys needed? Whichever way you dress it up it doesn't reflect well on the transfer gurus does It? They failed 2 bring the two positional options the original manager wanted in the summer and then, having got rid of a manager because he was crap, they were so bloody useless, the best their extensive contacts could muster, was to bring in 3 players the previous crap manager had identified. What a glowing endorsement it is of what they bring to the party. Superb. No wonder we can't attract a decent manager. It doesn't speak well of any of them Dave, no. Hughes included.
|
|
|
Post by ilfracoombestokie3 on Sept 14, 2018 16:33:37 GMT
The thing is how long has Scholes and Cartwright been at the club? Everyone is saying get shot of them but the real question is if they were that bad at their jobs they would have been sacked already which leads me to believe someone or some people at the clubs thinks they are doing a good job and the only people that could be is the Coates family, that in my opinion is where the buck stops! Scholes is a fantastic accountant who looks after the family's money just the way the owners want and expect him to. Scholes is going nowhere. Cartwright is Coates Jnr's best friend. He too is going nowhere anytime soon. We were interested in a manager in January who wanted to bring his own Director of Football to the club. He didn't get the job and it went to Lambert instead, much to this candidates surprise. This particular managerial candidate was never mentioned on here and I myself had no idea about it until last weekend.A succession of crap managers is a major issue but add in a crack crap transfer team to the succession of crap managers and nothing is likely to change anytime soon in my opinion. So is this not the same manager you were banging on about earlier in the year, if you only heard about it last weekend?
|
|
|
Post by ilfracoombestokie3 on Sept 14, 2018 16:36:10 GMT
Bolton avoiding administration is a huge blow still looking for two more teams who are worse Hull are one but everyone we have played so far will get more than 50 points except hull Will you ever give up?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 14, 2018 17:19:11 GMT
Scholes is a fantastic accountant who looks after the family's money just the way the owners want and expect him to. Scholes is going nowhere. Cartwright is Coates Jnr's best friend. He too is going nowhere anytime soon. We were interested in a manager in January who wanted to bring his own Director of Football to the club. He didn't get the job and it went to Lambert instead, much to this candidates surprise. This particular managerial candidate was never mentioned on here and I myself had no idea about it until last weekend.A succession of crap managers is a major issue but add in a crack crap transfer team to the succession of crap managers and nothing is likely to change anytime soon in my opinion. So is this not the same manager you were banging on about earlier in the year, if you only heard about it last weekend? No. It was a different person entirely. The managerial chase, as far as I was aware was Candidate no1 at BET 365 offices on 8th January. He pointed us in the direction of QSF. Candidate no2 was QSF. After QSF, I was aware of only 2 people being in the frame, 1 of which was Martin O'Neil and a 2nd, which was so far out of the realms of possibility that I didn't think it could possibly be true. Clearly, there was also a 3rd candidate who from what I was told, thought he stood a very good chance of getting the job and was disappointed not to get it when he found out that Lambert was the boards choice of manager.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Sept 14, 2018 17:53:47 GMT
So is this not the same manager you were banging on about earlier in the year, if you only heard about it last weekend? No. It was a different person entirely. The managerial chase, as far as I was aware was Candidate no1 at BET 365 offices on 8th January. He pointed us in the direction of QSF. Candidate no2 was QSF. After QSF, I was aware of only 2 people being in the frame, 1 of which was Martin O'Neil and a 2nd, which was so far out of the realms of possibility that I didn't think it could possibly be true. Clearly, there was also a 3rd candidate who from what I was told, thought he stood a very good chance of getting the job and was disappointed not to get it when he found out that Lambert was the boards choice of manager. Worse than him?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 14, 2018 18:22:18 GMT
No. It was a different person entirely. The managerial chase, as far as I was aware was Candidate no1 at BET 365 offices on 8th January. He pointed us in the direction of QSF. Candidate no2 was QSF. After QSF, I was aware of only 2 people being in the frame, 1 of which was Martin O'Neil and a 2nd, which was so far out of the realms of possibility that I didn't think it could possibly be true. Clearly, there was also a 3rd candidate who from what I was told, thought he stood a very good chance of getting the job and was disappointed not to get it when he found out that Lambert was the boards choice of manager. Worse than him? Played in the same team as him. The one I was told about but didn't know to believe was gordon Strahan.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 18:42:02 GMT
Worse than him? Played in the same team as him. The one I was told about but didn't know to believe was gordon Strahan. He was loosely linked in the press at the final knockings before Lambert, Dave. Was he the one who wanted to bring in his own DOF?
|
|