CI Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 For every £1 he's saved he's probably wasted £1.50 Ridiculous CEO . How do you come to such an absurd statement? Are you serious ?? GED, Ireland and his deal, ditto Given, ditto Hutton, Jenas and that stupid contract with no clauses for injury, chasing and paying £M's in compensation to SHA for McRelegator. His crimes against this club are unforgivable. God knows how much he's had in basic + bonuses to bring this club to its knees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 27, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 27, 2013 For every £1 he's saved he's probably wasted £1.50Ridiculous CEO .How do you come to such an absurd statement?Are you serious ?? GED, Ireland and his deal, ditto Given, ditto Hutton, Jenas and that stupid contract with no clauses for injury, chasing and paying £M's in compensation to SHA for McRelegator. His crimes against this club are unforgivable. God knows how much he's had in basic + bonuses to bring this club to its knees.Because you know all that was Falkner's doing don't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I take the view that Managers matter more than Owners or CEO'S There seems to be a given that money buys success, in terms of tiers the top buying clubs seem to make it work, by appointing the best managers around, they in turn are attracted by the ability to buy just about who they please and in this modern game has a chance of working. Then there are tiers below and this is where it gets tricky, because the sums of money are not quite as plentiful and this subsequently attracts the lesser manager who has managed to get a bit of reputation albeit questionable....their judgement and ability to sign cast iron certainties like the top tier is debatable and inevitably casualties occur....it can all be a bit hit and miss at this level and at its worst very costly. There are other clubs who clearly have modest funds and their managers are in no doubt that talent spotting is the order of the day....as hard as it is in this day and age, a measure of success can be acheived, providing the the prudency is in evidence i.e Mourinho @porto....various managers at Swansea, Moyes @Everton. There is evidence around where managers have made a fist of things on modest sums and the CEO & Owners are a virtually unknown quantity. To have success in any football club it takes more than one person with nous, but I have always been of the belief that the manager is still the catalyst and his ability to trade well in the transfer market forms a large part of his ability to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 They already have been, smetrov. Malaga have been banned from next year’s UEFA competitions, for example. I thought that was for unpaid debts ? - rather than wages exceeding a % of turnover ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I take the view that Managers matter more than Owners or CEO'S There seems to be a given that money buys success, in terms of tiers the top buying clubs seem to make it work, by appointing the best managers around, they in turn are attracted by the ability to buy just about who they please and in this modern game has a chance of working. Then there are tiers below and this is where it gets tricky, because the sums of money are not quite as plentiful and this subsequently attracts the lesser manager who has managed to get a bit of reputation albeit questionable....their judgement and ability to sign cast iron certainties like the top tier is debatable and inevitably casualties occur....it can all be a bit hit and miss at this level and at its worst very costly. There are other clubs who clearly have modest funds and their managers are in no doubt that talent spotting is the order of the day....as hard as it is in this day and age, a measure of success can be acheived, providing the the prudency is in evidence i.e Mourinho @porto....various managers at Swansea, Moyes @Everton. There is evidence around where managers have made a fist of things on modest sums and the CEO & Owners are a virtually unknown quantity. To have success in any football club it takes more than one person with nous, but I have always been of the belief that the manager is still the catalyst and his ability to trade well in the transfer market forms a large part of his ability to succeed. Agree - but a good CEO will get and keep a good manager. Faulkner\Lerner have come up with Houllier\Mcleish ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 They already have been, smetrov. Malaga have been banned from next year’s UEFA competitions, for example. I thought that was for unpaid debts ? - rather than wages exceeding a % of turnover ? It was for unpaid debts. FFP isn't due to start for a while, if it ever does. Beşiktaş also had to pull out of the Europa League because of unpaid debts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 28, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 28, 2013 I take the view that Managers matter more than Owners or CEO'S There seems to be a given that money buys success, in terms of tiers the top buying clubs seem to make it work, by appointing the best managers around, they in turn are attracted by the ability to buy just about who they please and in this modern game has a chance of working. Then there are tiers below and this is where it gets tricky, because the sums of money are not quite as plentiful and this subsequently attracts the lesser manager who has managed to get a bit of reputation albeit questionable....their judgement and ability to sign cast iron certainties like the top tier is debatable and inevitably casualties occur....it can all be a bit hit and miss at this level and at its worst very costly. There are other clubs who clearly have modest funds and their managers are in no doubt that talent spotting is the order of the day....as hard as it is in this day and age, a measure of success can be acheived, providing the the prudency is in evidence i.e Mourinho @porto....various managers at Swansea, Moyes @Everton. There is evidence around where managers have made a fist of things on modest sums and the CEO & Owners are a virtually unknown quantity. To have success in any football club it takes more than one person with nous, but I have always been of the belief that the manager is still the catalyst and his ability to trade well in the transfer market forms a large part of his ability to succeed. There’s a great deal of truth in that, TRO. It’s not universal, obviously - Dave Whelan is hardly a shrinking violet, but Matinez at Swansea then Wigan is, I guess one of your examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delphinho123 Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 If we can stay in the premiership whilst cost cutting the way we have, we'll have succeeded. The club was in an awful state financially and Lerner knew it. Faulkner is under instructions from Lerner, nobody knows the man or what he does. Slowly but surely we're re-building and Lambert is the man to take us forward. We just have to stay up this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 FFS there always has to be someone to blame. I understand Faulkner is doing an excellent job as per his remit. He started slow as he was thrown in at the deep end but by all accounts he's grown into the role and is now very respected in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 I take the view that Managers matter more than Owners or CEO'S There seems to be a given that money buys success, in terms of tiers the top buying clubs seem to make it work, by appointing the best managers around, they in turn are attracted by the ability to buy just about who they please and in this modern game has a chance of working. Then there are tiers below and this is where it gets tricky, because the sums of money are not quite as plentiful and this subsequently attracts the lesser manager who has managed to get a bit of reputation albeit questionable....their judgement and ability to sign cast iron certainties like the top tier is debatable and inevitably casualties occur....it can all be a bit hit and miss at this level and at its worst very costly. There are other clubs who clearly have modest funds and their managers are in no doubt that talent spotting is the order of the day....as hard as it is in this day and age, a measure of success can be acheived, providing the the prudency is in evidence i.e Mourinho @porto....various managers at Swansea, Moyes @Everton. There is evidence around where managers have made a fist of things on modest sums and the CEO & Owners are a virtually unknown quantity. To have success in any football club it takes more than one person with nous, but I have always been of the belief that the manager is still the catalyst and his ability to trade well in the transfer market forms a large part of his ability to succeed. Agree - but a good CEO will get and keep a good manager. Faulkner\Lerner have come up with Houllier\Mcleish ! maybe, just maybe as described in my post.....The funds was not there to buy( as the horse had already bolted) i.e (The club had over spent already on poor quality in the main) which limited us to lesser managers to manage an austerity programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 which limited us to lesser managers to manage an austerity programme. Since MoN walked we've spent about £66 million on new players, spent around £16 million on compensation to ex managers and been able to offer very good contracts to Given, Hutton, Vlaar, Makoun, Ireland, Nzogbia and Bent. We had also just finished 6th after challenging the top 4 for most of the season. Could we have got a mourinho? Nope, no chance. Could we have got better than a Houllier or Mcleish? I'm struggling to see why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 which limited us to lesser managers to manage an austerity programme. Since MoN walked we've spent about £66 million on new players, spent around £16 million on compensation to ex managers and been able to offer very good contracts to Given, Hutton, Vlaar, Makoun, Ireland, Nzogbia and Bent. We had also just finished 6th after challenging the top 4 for most of the season. Could we have got a mourinho? Nope, no chance. Could we have got better than a Houllier or Mcleish? I'm struggling to see why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 which limited us to lesser managers to manage an austerity programme. Since MoN walked we've spent about £66 million on new players, spent around £16 million on compensation to ex managers and been able to offer very good contracts to Given, Hutton, Vlaar, Makoun, Ireland, Nzogbia and Bent. We had also just finished 6th after challenging the top 4 for most of the season. Could we have got a mourinho? Nope, no chance. Could we have got better than a Houllier or Mcleish? I'm struggling to see why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Without doubt John money was wasted post mon....but everything was done in desperation, good money, chasing bad money Randy Lerner has never set himself up as bob lord or jack walker and Faulkner has never viewed himself as David dein.... There have always been known naiveities in terms of football with both thos men....conversely mon seen himself as a Brian cough and the arrogance in sports forums and the like did not mirror his ability in the transfer market in my opinion of course Martin clearly had other abilities I believe in modern times, Martin o' Neil had more chance to succeed than any other manager we have had, he had unprecedented funds for a villa manager, that why I have such a jaundice view towards him. Said many times he is not wholly to blame, but started this poor return for our money rot... IMO It will take the right decisions moving forward and quite a bit of time to remedy it. There are some signs of good times ahead..... We just need to stay up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Without doubt John money was wasted post mon....but everything was done in desperation, good money, chasing bad money Randy Lerner has never set himself up as bob lord or jack walker and Faulkner has never viewed himself as David dein.... There have always been known naiveities in terms of football with both thos men....conversely mon seen himself as a Brian cough and the arrogance in sports forums and the like did not mirror his ability in the transfer market in my opinion of course Martin clearly had other abilities I believe in modern times, Martin o' Neil had more chance to succeed than any other manager we have had, he had unprecedented funds for a villa manager, that why I have such a jaundice view towards him. Said many times he is not wholly to blame, but started this poor return for our money rot... IMO It will take the right decisions moving forward and quite a bit of time to remedy it. There are some signs of good times ahead..... We just need to stay up. Are you endorsing Faulkner or Lambert or not ? - you seem to agree the catalogue of errors they have made post MON - Then say we need correct decisions to move forward. On the basis that the two guys who made the errors are still the big decision makers at the club - Im not seeing any evidence that they have learned anything. Lerner goes awol for months on end - and even an all round nice guy like Graham Taylor described Faulkner as one of the most naive men in football. Progress with those two at the helm is extremely unlikely IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 when did he describe Faulkner as naive? He has probably learned a lot since then. wasnt he voted onto FA committee by fellow Premier League chairmen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 when did he describe Faulkner as naive? He has probably learned a lot since then. wasnt he voted onto FA committee by fellow Premier League chairmen? I think was during the manager hunt after MON left. The subsequent appointment of Mcleish - would suggest he didn't learn much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 well when MON left, Faulkner was in job 3 months. The great Daniel Levy took about 5 or 6 years before Spurs even challenged the top end of table so its natural be some teething problems at start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts