Guest Brazilianbob Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I am getting mightily fed up with the likes of O'Neill, Curbishley and Bruce et al criticising Allardyce's sacking because he wasn't given enough time. To me this smacks of EPL managers wanting to set the parameters of when they can and cannot be sacked. If thats the way they want it then its about time benchmarks were introduced to their contracts, which if not achieved means they can be sacked without compensation. I wonder how many of them would agree to that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I'm not sure they would increase their own job security by saying 'managers should get sacked halfway through the season'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LucaAltieri Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Or maybe they're right and in fact all the sackings have been harsh. Most of them that have happened this season have seemed really unfair to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swissmag Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I'm not sure they would increase their own job security by saying 'managers should get sacked halfway through the season'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I swear there wasn't this much whinging when Hutchings, Lee etc were sacked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_69 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Ashley and Mort were perfectly within their rights to sack a man they didn't employ because he didn't meet their criteria. If THEY had hired him and then sacked him after 8 months it would've been a different matter. If you bought a company that was performing badly and you wanted to turn it around what's the first thing you'd do? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCW1983 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Two of the finest managers in the game have went on record saying it would be a mistake to sack Sam previous to the event, Two managers that are so good at their job and have contributed so much to the sport that thay have been knighted by the queen. The fact that the rest have said the same thing can be no surprise, they all know they need time to do the job and get it right....just a same the chairmen of EPL clubs didnt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tisd09 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I think some of the sackings have been harsh this season but then again there is only so much shit boards can put up with. In Allardyce's case though I am still not 100% whether it was the right decision (especially if he's replaced by Harry). However, Allardyce showed no signs of improvement. After that draw against Arsenal we should have really kicked on, a dream December fixture list barring Chelsea we should be comfortable top 10 by now but he blew it so nobody can really knock the board or the fans for wanting a change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Two of the finest managers in the game have went on record saying it would be a mistake to sack Sam previous to the event, Two managers that are so good at their job and have contributed so much to the sport that thay have been knighted by the queen. The fact that the rest have said the same thing can be no surprise, they all know they need time to do the job and get it right....just a same the chairmen of EPL clubs didnt They were 'knighted by the Queen' because Blair decided it would a good move among the populist voters if he pushed them forward.....HM had nothing to do with it..!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
9 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Another classic that gets used is, "look at the 2 most successful clubs, they have had the same managers for years" Ignoring the fact that Ferguson and Wenger are great managers and have given there clubs no reason to sack them, Ferguson struggled early on in his time there but the pressures were nothing like they are now and he would have no doubt been sacked had they been the same as now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Another classic that gets used is, "look at the 2 most successful clubs, they have had the same managers for years" Ignoring the fact that Ferguson and Wenger are great managers and have given there clubs no reason to sack them, Ferguson struggled early on in his time there but the pressures were nothing like they are now and he would have no doubt been sacked had they been the same as now. Exactly. It's the most idiotic cliche around. They've only been kept on because they've been successful. I think people are confusing cause and effect here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Parka Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Or maybe they're right and in fact all the sackings have been harsh. Most of them that have happened this season have seemed really unfair to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 There just pissed off that an easy 3 points might have dissapered! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eltsacwen Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Alex Ferguson: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11678_3039220,00.html "Newcastle is a strange club and I don't know what else you can say about them," said Fergsuon. "I'm sure the likes of Jack Charlton, Ossie Ardiles, Kenny Dalglish, Ruud Gullit and Graeme Souness would all have won something had they been given the time." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delima Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Look at David Moyes and Everton. David Moyes is not an outstanding manager. But the board is wise enough that if they could not realistically attract a top class manager, they might as well persist with a competent manager who will get better gradually with time. So it is not very wise to sack Sam only to replace him with another one who has been the game longer, had both time and fund but achieved nothing significantly better than Sam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delima Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Another classic that gets used is, "look at the 2 most successful clubs, they have had the same managers for years" Ignoring the fact that Ferguson and Wenger are great managers and have given there clubs no reason to sack them, Ferguson struggled early on in his time there but the pressures were nothing like they are now and he would have no doubt been sacked had they been the same as now. I think you are wrong about Ferguson. Ferguson didn't win anything in Man Utd for a while and with Man Utd being a bigger club than Newcastle United the pressure will only be more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Alex Ferguson: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11678_3039220,00.html "Newcastle is a strange club and I don't know what else you can say about them," said Fergsuon. "I'm sure the likes of Jack Charlton, Ossie Ardiles, Kenny Dalglish, Ruud Gullit and Graeme Souness would all have won something had they been given the time." Ossie Ardiles might have won the old 3rd division, nowt else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Alex Ferguson: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11678_3039220,00.html "Newcastle is a strange club and I don't know what else you can say about them," said Fergsuon. "I'm sure the likes of Jack Charlton, Ossie Ardiles, Kenny Dalglish, Ruud Gullit and Graeme Souness would all have won something had they been given the time." what he means is if all clubs kept their managers they'd all be successful ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Alex Ferguson: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11678_3039220,00.html "Newcastle is a strange club and I don't know what else you can say about them," said Fergsuon. "I'm sure the likes of Jack Charlton, Ossie Ardiles, Kenny Dalglish, Ruud Gullit and Graeme Souness would all have won something had they been given the time." what he means is if all clubs kept their managers they'd all be successful ? We have already had a glimpse of what Man U are going to be like when Ferguson leaves. They absolutely folded like a pack of cards last time and only survived when he backed down and changed his mind. Lets bide our time and see what they are like when a succession of managers fails to carry on his work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nufcfan76 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Wait til we bring in 'Arry and see what they say- It will be like a frick'n choir: "I can't understand why they fired Sam and brought in Redkanpp." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Two of the finest managers in the game have went on record saying it would be a mistake to sack Sam previous to the event, Two managers that are so good at their job and have contributed so much to the sport that thay have been knighted by the queen. The fact that the rest have said the same thing can be no surprise, they all know they need time to do the job and get it right....just a same the chairmen of EPL clubs didnt Two managers who know f*** all about our situation, something which makes there opinion completely pointless IMO. P.S. The Queens a tit .. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kingdawson Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 lets just have a look at this.......... Davies (Derby) = Did brilliantly to get Derby in the premiership in the first place. Was given very little to spend and the board expected miracles. Got trounced, week in week out, but the squad was a shambles to begin with. Verdict = Unfair Hutchings (Wigan) = Was backed by the board but didnt deliver. They lost about 7 premiership games in a row and were sinking faster then the titanic. Verdict = Fair Sanchez (Fulham) = Spent £25 million on utter crap. Not one of his signings this season look anything special. Tbh i dont even think any of them are regular staters so the clown basically spent £25 million and is starting with the same team as last season :idiot2:/ Verdict = Fair Lee (Bolton) = Shouldnt have been given the job in the first place. Bolton looked dead and buried. Verdict = Fair Jol (spurs) = Spent over £30 million this season and the team had just come from consecutive 5th place finishes in the league. Was tactically inept, favoured certain players and basically let players do and eat what they please. Championship was calling. Verdict = Fair Allardyce (Newcastle) = hmmmmmm hard one tbh. Wated money on some dodgy players but it wasnt as if, you lot were in fear of relegation. Like Jol, makes some crazy substitutions, but im really not sure. By all means, if theres someone better lined up then its ok but Arry Bloody Redknapp?? Verdict = A bit unfair Bruce and Mourinho cant be counted as they both wanted to leave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 lets just have a look at this.......... Jol (spurs) = Spent over £30 million this season and the team had just come from consecutive 5th place finishes in the league. Was tactically inept, favoured certain players and basically let players do and eat what they please. Championship was calling. Verdict = Fair Tactically inept, but still managed consecutive 5th placed finishes? Did he spend the money, or was it spent by Comolli-dore 64? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kingdawson Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 lets just have a look at this.......... Jol (spurs) = Spent over £30 million this season and the team had just come from consecutive 5th place finishes in the league. Was tactically inept, favoured certain players and basically let players do and eat what they please. Championship was calling. Verdict = Fair Tactically inept, but still managed consecutive 5th placed finishes? Did he spend the money, or was it spent by Comolli-dore 64? Im 90% sure he wanted Bent. Kaboul was for sure a Commoli signing. During Jol's first full season at spurs we played a midfield of: Lennon----------jenas-----------carrick-----------Davids/Tainio Whe you have players like Davids and Carrick sitting infront of the back 4, its pretty safe to say, the opposition will find it difficult to score (not to mention, we had a fully fit King). After that season, Jol decided that he'll just go for the ' score more goals then the opposition' tactic, which any true spurs fan would tell you we were rather lucky to nick 5th place. Obviously this season, things went tits up which was inevitable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kingdawson Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Sorry Elbee, i didnt really answer your question properly. Im pretty sure, Jol had to ok the signings and thats exactly what he did. He cant then complain that they werent his signings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now