Teasy

Ashley and co believe we're already safe, keeping us up won't impress anyone and they clearly have no interest in giving him the job long term. God forbid if Ashley loses a bet with him and is forced to keep him on he's neither slimy enough nor has the brains to keep the job for long. Too many would turn against him too easily including the London press and he'd lose it.

£20m or £2m, what difference does it make at this stage? The difference between any future players we bring in costing £2m or £20m unfortunately. As has been shown in the past we refuse to spend our extra revenue. All we'll spend is what we bring in for players. Its ridiculous, but its also the way it is under this lot.

Aye, age is a big issue with us and will be a reason we'll definitely look to sell over the course of the next 12 months rather than offering Cisse a new contract. But plenty of other clubs just aren't that bothered. Doubt we're desperate to sell this January, but we'll likely want him gone by the end of next summer.

We'll never sell him at this rate Ashley has the chopper on stand by Plenty of time, 2 and a half years left on his contract.

IF that's true and all three contracts over 5 years come to £2m its safe to say we could easily get rid for £1m.

Really doubt we'd have to pay all three of them 5 full years like, I'm sure they'd accept a couple of years pay and being allowed to then go off and earn on top somewhere else. Not that £2m should be anything to cry over anyway when we've just received £3.5m for the cunt.

I'd be pissing my pants with excitement at Garde or Tuchel.

And won the league. With a La Liga record points total at the time, and won the super cup.

Is Galtier not meant to be a very defensive and negative coach in a similar vein to Pardew tactically? I'm just asking because I remember reports on here saying that about him, might be wrong and you might know better?

Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen. No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either. I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad. But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place. There's absolutely nothing in the Charnley statement to suggest that there will be a healthy relationship between the head coach, chief scout/DoF and MD/dealmaker, so I'm just astounded reading so many people's optimism regarding us openly stating that the new manager will have very little say in transfers. That is all. It's just a system devised for maximum profit in the transfer market, not one supporting what should be the main focus of a football club, i.e. the (first team) manager and his squad of players. The policy of only buying certain kinds of players with sell on value is devised for maximum profit but that will be their whether Graham Carr looks for the signings or a manager comes in and looks for signings. Its Ashley's policy that fucks things up. You can agree with the basic setup of director of Football/head coach and still disagree with the transfer policy. I think the setup has definite advantages, but of course it'll never be perfect under this lot. Neither would a traditional manager setup, because in that setup Ashley would simply withold funds, in the end nothing happens unless he agrees anyway.

But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? How am I putting words in his mouth? Are you talking about the fact he said "final say" and I said "100% control"? Ok, lets do this again then.. He's just said that he can't believe people don't want the new manager to have the final say on transfers and goes on to give the example of Pardew not playing some of the players bought for him as the reason for that assertion. So I'm asking why is the only solution to that problem to give the manager final say on transfers? Rather than finding a head coach who isn't a fucking dunce, who can appreciate a good player? When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that. As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with. You can't believe I wouldn't want a new manager to have the final say on transfers but at the same time accept that him having the final say isn't the only solution? I haven't got time for this like. Baffling. No idea what you're on about now or at any point in this conversation. I'm on about the fact that instead of just answering my question you just continue to play with words to avoid doing so. Which is why I can't be bothered wasting my time discussing anything with you. Your question was ridiculous. But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? Asking you why you believe your solution is the way to go, yeah what an outlandish question.. You didn't ask that. You asked a completely different question which had no relation to what I'd said. "Final say" and "100% control" are obviously not the same. I give up

But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? How am I putting words in his mouth? Are you talking about the fact he said "final say" and I said "100% control"? Ok, lets do this again then.. He's just said that he can't believe people don't want the new manager to have the final say on transfers and goes on to give the example of Pardew not playing some of the players bought for him as the reason for that assertion. So I'm asking why is the only solution to that problem to give the manager final say on transfers? Rather than finding a head coach who isn't a fucking dunce, who can appreciate a good player? When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that. As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with. You can't believe I wouldn't want a new manager to have the final say on transfers but at the same time accept that him having the final say isn't the only solution? I haven't got time for this like. Baffling. No idea what you're on about now or at any point in this conversation. I'm on about the fact that instead of just answering my question you just continue to play with words to avoid doing so. Which is why I can't be bothered wasting my time discussing anything with you. Your question was ridiculous. But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? Asking you why you believe your solution is the way to go, yeah what an outlandish question.. If a manager is wasting talent that's being brought in then you could change that by giving him final say on transfers or you could change it by replacing him with someone who doesn't waste talent. I asked why is the second option so unbelievable to you?

Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen. No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either. I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad. But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place.

But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? How am I putting words in his mouth? Are you talking about the fact he said "final say" and I said "100% control"? Ok, lets do this again then.. He's just said that he can't believe people don't want the new manager to have the final say on transfers and goes on to give the example of Pardew not playing some of the players bought for him as the reason for that assertion. So I'm asking why is the only solution to that problem to give the manager final say on transfers? Rather than finding a head coach who isn't a fucking dunce, who can appreciate a good player? When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that. As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with. You can't believe I wouldn't want a new manager to have the final say on transfers but at the same time accept that him having the final say isn't the only solution? I haven't got time for this like. Baffling. No idea what you're on about now or at any point in this conversation. I'm on about the fact that instead of just answering my question you just continue to play with words to avoid doing so. Which is why I can't be bothered wasting my time discussing anything with you.

But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? How am I putting words in his mouth? Are you talking about the fact he said "final say" and I said "100% control"? Ok, lets do this again then.. He's just said that he can't believe people don't want the new manager to have the final say on transfers and goes on to give the example of Pardew not playing some of the players bought for him as the reason for that assertion. So I'm asking why is the only solution to that problem to give the manager final say on transfers? Rather than finding a head coach who isn't a fucking dunce, who can appreciate a good player? When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that. As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with. You can't believe I wouldn't want a new manager to have the final say on transfers but at the same time accept that him having the final say isn't the only solution? I haven't got time for this bollocks like.

Both arrived from different leagues and created empires. Your man Charnley talked about long term yesterday so why wouldn't that be the aspiration? My man Charnley Aye of course I don't think a traditional manager setup is the only way to go so I must love Charnley and agree with the exact way they currently implement that system.. I've said this a few times but its not sticking with a few of you so I'll say it again. Our transfer policy is far from perfect, but the problems there are not inherent in a director of Football/head coach setup. That's all I'm saying. Get a good head coach who can use the players we bring in to good effect and you'd improve things no end. Change the policy on penny pinching ect and it'd improve even further.

Well I'd be right behind us bringing in Wenger or Ferguson

But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? How am I putting words in his mouth? Are you talking about the fact he said "final say" and I said "100% control"? Ok, lets do this again then.. He's just said that he can't believe people don't want the new manager to have the final say on transfers and goes on to give the example of Pardew not playing some of the players bought for him as the reason for that assertion. So I'm asking why is the only solution to that problem to give the manager final say on transfers? Rather than finding a head coach who isn't a fucking dunce, who can appreciate a good player?

The point being that a bloke with hardly any influence, with his PR wings completely clipped and an inability to rely on support from those bellends above him means it's a role that cannot work. Can you imagine a Keegan or SBR accepting that they could only talk about x, y or z? Could you imagine either of them having to ask somebody to find them a player please? Accepting whichever player the club thought appropriate? They were the only managers in my lifetime who 'got' the club. Take engagement and influence way from them and they're no better or worse than anyone else. My point is that this whole system, which is designed for and driven by financial return, is bound for failure. Aye that's great if you find a Keegan or Robson, but not if you get a Dalglish, Souness, Allardyce, Roeder, Gullit ect. There's nowt at all wrong with the concept of a head coach as long as you go for a man who's Footballing philosophy is in line with the key people he's working with on transfers. We all know that our transfer policy has problems in that we are too focused on resale value. But you don't need to completely change the setup and bring in a traditional manager to fix that. Would Wenger have been the success he has if he came into Arsenal from Grampus Eight with a remit of stick to the bibs and cones and we'll do the rest? Same for Ferguson and all of those others who have created dynasties? How can you talk about medium/long term but only have a transitional role in the most important job in the club? They basically indicate that the role is interchangable. One in, one out. Old guy says the wrong thing, bring a new one in. Great. Do you thinks players respect/fear that? Edit - it tells you everything you should need to know about the modern day NUFC. Football second, profits first. Again that's great if you find a Wenger or Ferguson, how likely is that? IF you somehow manage to find a world class manager he controls everything and stays for 20 years you have continuity and success. If not you end up going from manager to manager, each time going through massive upheaval. The majority of the time it isn't a recipe for long term success at all. What's wrong with looking for a man who is talented at coaching a side, working with players, tactically astute and willing to work with a good head scout/director of Football? You keep getting hung up on our exact transfer policy (profit, youth, saving money ect) but that's entirely separate from the director of Football/head coach system.

Because the man can select a winning team, is tactically astute, has motivational skills, can actually coach a side and has a game plan to win games? There's so much more to the job than being good at buying players.

But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a good style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr.

The point being that a bloke with hardly any influence, with his PR wings completely clipped and an inability to rely on support from those bellends above him means it's a role that cannot work. Can you imagine a Keegan or SBR accepting that they could only talk about x, y or z? Could you imagine either of them having to ask somebody to find them a player please? Accepting whichever player the club thought appropriate? They were the only managers in my lifetime who 'got' the club. Take engagement and influence way from them and they're no better or worse than anyone else. My point is that this whole system, which is designed for and driven by financial return, is bound for failure. Aye that's great if you find a Keegan or Robson, but not if you get a Dalglish, Souness, Allardyce, Roeder, Gullit ect. There's nowt at all wrong with the concept of a head coach as long as you go for a man who's Footballing philosophy is in line with the key people he's working with on transfers. We all know that our transfer policy has problems in that we are too focused on resale value. But you don't need to completely change the setup and bring in a traditional manager to fix that.

What does any on this have to do with a head coach setup vs a traditional manager? I'm honestly not sure what your point really is here. If Ashley and co was bringing in a traditional manager how would that improve our situation?

They overruled Pardew because his players wouldn't appreciate in value. My point is that, of the 3 cogs in the transfer wheel, the coach is the smallest and least influential. 1. Will the signing be cheap/damaged goods.......or have potential for huge upside? 2. Does he tick the box age-wise? There will be no question of do we need him (Colback/Gosling etc) nor whether the coach actually see's a use for him. If the kid can play and have the chance to make the club money, then he'll fucking play, whether the coach likes it or not. Pardews suggested signings had no value to begin with, neither financially or as players. Are you actually saying we should have signed Bent, Sidwell ect? Also your last sentence is quite clearly rubbish. How many of our new players did Pardew sit on the bench/ruin?, he was never forced to field any player we signed. If bringing in a head coach that agrees with/appreciates the kind of player we sign and plays them makes him a yes man then give me a yes man please..

Of course, everyone gets dementia or dies the moment they pass 70