The Rémi Garde thread

[Dodgyknees]

The mentality changed after the Leicester game. It's almost like it destroyed the players and Sherwood made things worse. They hit rock bottom and every week without a win they just give in some more. If Sherwood could have subbed Bacuna, not brought on a striker, made tactical choices to win that game - I don't think we'd be bottom. He lost it that day. Was that the day he almost cried in the interview too?

[Stevo985]

8 hours ago, Neil said:

1. I have made it up, because it's really what I think (I believe the clue was in the prepended text "I think"...too subtle?)...and you have no evidence to the contrary either.

2. Where other comittees get to demonstrate a Harrods catalog of players to choose from, ours is stuck in the local Bargain pages.  I very much doubt they're going to be what he "really wants" but what he has to make do with...

3. P.S.  No idea why you cite Sherwood, what has he got to do with it?  Simple logic for me as to question why a transfer committee is setup for a football club on a shoe string budget, nothing to do with some fabricated newspaper story you mention - I thikn you made that up.

I've numbered your points (and omitted the irrelevant bit)

1. There is evidence to the contrary. Both Fox and Sherwood have said that's how it works. Plus, what i'm describing is surely the "norm" for most clubs, so the burden of proof isn't really on me.

2. But that's not a problem of the transfer committee. That's a problem of not having much money to spend, which is an entirely different issue. Lots of clubs operate on a budget. Most managers aren't able to buy the players they really want because they don't have enough money to spend. That's nothing to do with the scouts or the committee. That's to do with budget and you won't see me arguing for a second that we shouldn't be spending more money.

3. I brought Sherwood into it because he was the last manager we had who went through a transfer window and was the manager when this transfer committee nonsense was brought up (even though it's the same system I imagine we've been using for years). I agree the shoestring budget is the problem, not the committee. That was my point all along.
(and I didn't make up the news story. It was the story before Sherwood got sacked (or maybe just after) that said none of the players were his signings)

[Keyblade]

1 hour ago, DK82 said:

The mentality changed after the Leicester game. It's almost like it destroyed the players and Sherwood made things worse. They hit rock bottom and every week without a win they just give in some more. If Sherwood could have subbed Bacuna, not brought on a striker, made tactical choices to win that game - I don't think we'd be bottom. He lost it that day. Was that the day he almost cried in the interview too?

Yes. He got it all wrong that day, and turned our season upside down

[lexicon]

If we really were on a shoestring budget, there's no way we would have spent so much money on players this summer. Randy would have just kept the bulk on the Benteke money and we'd have gone with frees and the cheaper options like we had done in the past - turning a nice tidy profit and getting back some of the money he's put in. We didn't do that and we look set to spend again this January. 

[Stevo985]

@villa4europe regarding your post about trying hard (I tried to quote it but the quoting on this site is so **** I couldn't do it) I agree with it more or less entirely.

However I do feel that workrate and organisation has gone up under Garde. It's not enough to improve results (clearly) but I have definitely seen an improvement there so I don't think it's something Garde has ignored.

I don't have them to hand but I'm pretty sure somebody posted some stats to back this up as well (at least the working hard bit)

[Stevo985]

7 minutes ago, lexicon said:

If we really were on a shoestring budget, there's no way we would have spent so much money on players this summer. Randy would have just kept the bulk on the Benteke money and we'd have gone with frees and the cheaper options like we had done in the past - turning a nice tidy profit and getting back some of the money he's put in. We didn't do that and we look set to spend again this January. 

We spent a lot, but I was referring to our general spending over the past few seasons, which hasn't been enough.

[lexicon]

It certainly wasn't but that was the position we found ourselves in, unfortunately. 

If Randy's been guilty of anything over his time here - it's been bad appointments and trusting the wrong people. Faulker being the worst of them. 

Regardless of which, we're still doing a lot worse than we should be with the squad we've got IMO - and that isn't his fault. 

[Guest av1]

I'm kind of torn. I found the video a difficult watch, its cringeworthy and embarrassing.

That said, I can't really knock the fans in question, we have been run into ground. We have a owner that doesn't care, and a bunch of players that don't look interested. 

Is it something I would have done? Well no, but as paying customers I think we have a right to show our frustrations, and if those fans felt their actions was the only way to get their frustrations across, who am I to say its wrong? 

 

[jon_c]

My only problem with that video is the fickle black and white nature of booing everyone, but clapping Gil because he scored. 

Like that's the only way a player can be good or bad. 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, lexicon said:

If we really were on a shoestring budget, there's no way we would have spent so much money on players this summer. Randy would have just kept the bulk on the Benteke money and we'd have gone with frees and the cheaper options like we had done in the past - turning a nice tidy profit and getting back some of the money he's put in. We didn't do that and we look set to spend again this January. 

But we really didn't spend big did we?  We just spent what we sold Benteke for, and maybe a little extra to boot.

One thing is allowing proceeds to be re-invested, but who or what is going to subsidise the "next big spend" that you're confident of again this January?  I tell you what there are no Bentekes in our team to sell, and if you think Randy is going to pull more out of his personal pocket then I would like a little dose of what you're smoking.

By definition, having to sell our best player just to get enough money to buy in other players is on a shoe string budget.  Every player we buy will have to count, they need to offer value down to the penny because we have not shown any signs of the famed "net spend" we'd need to spend lavishly.

[Wainy316]

I can't make everyone out on that video, do Adama, Veretout or Richards feature? Would be interested to see the reaction they get.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I've numbered your points (and omitted the irrelevant bit)

1. There is evidence to the contrary. Both Fox and Sherwood have said that's how it works. Plus, what i'm describing is surely the "norm" for most clubs, so the burden of proof isn't really on me.

2. But that's not a problem of the transfer committee. That's a problem of not having much money to spend, which is an entirely different issue. Lots of clubs operate on a budget. Most managers aren't able to buy the players they really want because they don't have enough money to spend. That's nothing to do with the scouts or the committee. That's to do with budget and you won't see me arguing for a second that we shouldn't be spending more money.

3. I brought Sherwood into it because he was the last manager we had who went through a transfer window and was the manager when this transfer committee nonsense was brought up (even though it's the same system I imagine we've been using for years). I agree the shoestring budget is the problem, not the committee. That was my point all along.
(and I didn't make up the news story. It was the story before Sherwood got sacked (or maybe just after) that said none of the players were his signings)

I'm at a small loss as to what you're disagreeing with now, there is little substance here.  You cite Fox as an example of "saying how it works", when all I've seen of his statements has been to confirm there is a transfer committee, that other clubs have them and the manager has to rubber stamp what comes of them.  I think I have eluded to most of these points already, maybe there is something more but I haven't seen him break down into deal about the process and financials.

Anyway, I take it that your main sticking point is you don't believe a manager can ask for a player to be rebuffed by the transfer committee because of costs...but you agree finance is a major player?  

I strongly do, I believe that any manager has targets of their own without any input from a committee.  They have targets in mind from players they have worked with / seen, or just formed through a simple fascination with football in general as any manager should have.  What you'll get with many other clubs who can afford it is managers coming in, then bringing along some of the players they've previously managed.  I can honestly see situations where Garde would like to bring in some players, discuss with the committee, only to be rebuffed on price and an alternative for the managers system be presented.

Players that come in are likely, in my opinion, to be strongly influenced by the transfer committee who will have a financial agenda to adhere to.

The players that come in as a result of this, again in my opinion, are likely to be a world apart from "his players".  That's hugely different to saying that he is going to end up with players he doesn't want, by the way, I don't believe that.  I just think the players he will end up with are going to be guided by the committee, and in many ways we're at the mercy of a good setup in this committee.  Even more so than a good transfer policy of the manager.

To this extent, problems we're facing now with the kind of player we have in the team are going to be prevalent even after Garde has rubber stamped the net result of the next committee recruitment drive.

I'd like to point out, though, that I don't think we did all bad in the last recruitment.  I like Amavi, Ayew and Vertout/few others show glimpses...it's just as much the fault of the existing players in the mix that are letting us down.

 

[Kingman]

12 hours ago, MikeMcKenna said:

Sorry mate don't agree. I reserve all my ire for Lerner. 

I totally agree with you on all aspects for the removal of Lerner and his 3 un-wise men, 

However it was a small protest after the game, We are encouraging a much larger protest next week so we should expect the air to be a little bit fruity. (If we lose Tuesday there will be a lot more waiting outside his time)

Emotions will be running high, I guess 40-50% of the turn out will be a little bit tipsy if not pi55ed. so for peeps to come back on here after the protest and make a noise about industrial language or the air was a bit blue, then i will find that a tad paradox. 

Peaceful as in non violent or causing any damage yes 100%, However i do imagine the air will be as blue as it is when players are on the pitch or even as yelling at the officials as they do.

PS, If i was a player on Tuesday the first thing going into my louis viuitton travel swag would be a sleeping bag! 

Edited January 5, 2016 by Kingman

[New_Jersey_Villa]

Not to be obtuse, but the guy already wants out doesn't he? I'm all for people protesting to get their points heard, but perhaps a more productive statement would be "Hire a management team that is actually qualified and experienced in running an English Football Club and get rid of your American business school graduates who don't have a clue"

I could understand if there was a queue of potential buyers knocking on the door and Lerner was holding out for more money, but there isn't.

What's the plan after Lerner out?

[lexicon]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

But we really didn't spend big did we?  We just spent what we sold Benteke for, and maybe a little extra to boot.

One thing is allowing proceeds to be re-invested, but who or what is going to subsidise the "next big spend" that you're confident of again this January?  I tell you what there are no Bentekes in our team to sell, and if you think Randy is going to pull more out of his personal pocket then I would like a little dose of what you're smoking.

By definition, having to sell our best player just to get enough money to buy in other players is on a shoe string budget.  Every player we buy will have to count, they need to offer value down to the penny because we have not shown any signs of the famed "net spend" we'd need to spend lavishly.

We spent 52 million (IIRC), which is a lot and Remi has said that he'll be backed this month. We'll just have to wait and see but it's not shoestring at all. We only had to sell Benteke because his release clause was met - it's not like we were flogging him to keep the lights on, like Southampton have had to do in recent years. 

[DJ_Villain]

12 minutes ago, New_Jersey_Villa said:

Not to be obtuse, but the guy already wants out doesn't he? I'm all for people protesting to get their points heard, but perhaps a more productive statement would be "Hire a management team that is actually qualified and experienced in running an English Football Club and get rid of your American business school graduates who don't have a clue"

I could understand if there was a queue of potential buyers knocking on the door and Lerner was holding out for more money, but there isn't.

What's the plan after Lerner out?

 

Get an oil rich Saudi / Colombian drug baron in!

[New_Jersey_Villa]

Just now, DJ_Villain said:

 

Get an oil rich Saudi / Colombian drug baron in!

I like that thinking, do we have one lined up?

[DJ_Villain]

Just now, New_Jersey_Villa said:

I like that thinking, do we have one lined up?

Was that a pun on the Colombian drug baron?

[Neil]

Just now, lexicon said:

We spent 52 million (IIRC), which is a lot and Remi has said that he'll be backed this month. We'll just have to wait and see but it's not shoestring at all. We only had to sell Benteke because his release clause was met - it's not like we were flogging him to keep the lights on, like Southampton have had to do in recent years. 

We only spend 52 milliion, because we sold Benteke...is more the point.  Who are we going to sell to raise that again?

There is another discussion about FFP, I'm not even sure we can spend much more without making sales.  Who is there to sell.

The money we've actually spent that wasn't raised through sales has been one of the lowest in the prem for some time*, kind of where we are in the league reflects that.  Actual investment of surplus isn't coming, I am pretty certain of that, many other clubs are making bigger "net spend"* than us and our budget is shoe string by comparison.


*Based on a table I'm sure I remember seeing where net spend compared with other teams was plotted, and shown ours to be low.

[New_Jersey_Villa]

Just now, DJ_Villain said:

Was that a pun on the Colombian drug baron?

To be honest when I first read your reply I stopped at Oil rich Saudi. I would say, however that the way some folks hate Lerner they'd rather have a Colombian drug baron in charge.