I'm not bothered about 'megabucks'

[Guest Heneage]

If Ashley brought Keegan (or indeed any manager) in with the promise of a £20m budget plus sales and he agreed to that then it's fine with me. If a new owner came in and brought Keegan back (or anyone new in) with the promise of less than that and Keegan/they agreed to it then that's fine with me too.

 

Transfer budgets are perfectly fine, and are perfectly understandable.

 

I'm f***ing pig-sick of everyone - including Mike Ashley - assuming that as a Newcastle United fan I demand £30m players every transfer window. f*** off.

 

I'm still confused as to why people found the last transfer window horrific in terms of finances, you got some quality players in, 12m for Milner? Laughing all the way to the bank.

 

 

My concern was with the lack of players not the quality.

[NE5]

If Ashley brought Keegan (or indeed any manager) in with the promise of a £20m budget plus sales and he agreed to that then it's fine with me. If a new owner came in and brought Keegan back (or anyone new in) with the promise of less than that and Keegan/they agreed to it then that's fine with me too.

 

Transfer budgets are perfectly fine, and are perfectly understandable. All I care about is that the manager has the final say.

 

I'm fucking pig-sick of everyone - including Mike Ashley - assuming that as a Newcastle United fan I demand £30m players every transfer window and that I don't care about anything else. Fuck off.

 

that pissed me off as well. Nobody has asked him to buy 30m quid players, not me, you or anybody. Nobody I know has asked him or suggested he buys 30m quid players.

 

Only that he allowed his manager complete authority over his staff and scouting teams, and that he backs him as much as possible, and by that I mean if Keegan wanted a player [whatever the price and despite any claims to the contrary, Keegan understands the need to get value for money] then he would do his best to get him and pay a bit over the top to trust his manager if need be.

 

Thats how big clubs should act.

 

 

 

Shit, I know I'm going to regret this, but....

 

Pretty certain you said that the new board should be judged on a number of things, including breaking the world record for a transfer. I can find the quotes if you want?

 

you will find a quote or two somewhere saying that they shouldn't be afraid of breaking the world record transfer [ as they did with Shearer] but fundamentally, it all comes under backing the manager. I don't suppose you have any major misgivings about how buying Shearer turned out ?

 

The other side of the coin of course is the absurd posts by people who think you can compete with the other top clubs by buying a team of cheap signings from out of the 3rd division ? And by saying you can match these clubs without going into debts [like they have themselves]. If you disagree, you should write to ManU and tell them how Alex Ferguson has been getting it all wrong in winning all these league titles when he could have done it for peanuts.

 

You will find the odd occasion I have commented about "world record transfer" has probably been in response to this sort of stupid post.

 

Not that I'm particularly arsed. I know that I'm right when I say the club has to behave like a big club if they truly want to be one.

 

 

 

See, that's why I'm gonna regret it. I don't disagree with you - like you, I said from day one that bringing in the youngsters rather than looking at established players wasn't the way to run the club. The two should be done hand in hand.

 

I personally thought that we'd have to spend big to even compete with the top 7 teams, let alone the top 4.

 

My only reason for questioning you was I thought you thought exactly the same.

 

yes and no. I know that you have agreed with me regarding the basic principle of this. I was a bit surprised by your post there....basically its neither a yes or a no. Its trusting the manager. If he wants a player who costs 20m quid, then you should be prepared to go for it. But I have never said that you should have tight, unflexible budget limits, only the small clubs have to operate in such a way. Operate like a smalll club, and that is what you will be. A good manager may get you some success, but it won't last.

THAT is what is unsustainable, not a big club acting like a big club, this is expected, or should be expected.

 

It would take a lot of good signings to get into the top 4, and the reality is that doing such a thing would involve buying "some" expensive players, its pretty much impossible for anyone to be such a good judge of a footballer to do it by scouting around the lower leagues for ALL your players.

 

I don't think even Ashley's biggest supporter expected us to make a profit in the transfer window this summer. In the end, they even sold Milner to bring in the striker we needed, and wasn't one the manager wanted.

 

Big club ? Bollocks. A sell to buy policy. The club has made comments over the past 18 months that suggested this approach on a few occasion, and they stood out a mile. Small time.

 

 

[S.S.R.]

The sale of Faye was a big warning flag in retrospect.

 

Utterly pointless sale of a decent player.

[Gash]

The fun is going of if a player will be good/not.

I could go out and buy a quality player for any position with arab money.

but thats shit.

[Minhosa]

Again, I'm surprised KK came back when the structure, and more importantly the annual budget, was made clear to him.

 

I'm a KK fan and sad to see him go but he's a chequebook manager with a terrific ability to motivate, get an extra 10%, have players run through walls for him etc.

 

I don't think he'd be content to make a gradual improvement, year on year, whilst relying upon a blend of youth and experience. I think he's the kind of guy who wants success and wants it now.

 

I've got a lot of time for the principles of the structure but now, in hindsight, wonder whether or not KK was the man to lead us at this stage of the stabilisation/building process.

 

[Shearergol]

The fun is going of if a player will be good/not.

I could go out and buy a quality player for any position with arab money.

but thats shit.

 

True, but to be fair, you've won stuff, so your opinion isn't wanted here

[BottledDog]

The sale of Faye was a big warning flag in retrospect.

 

Utterly pointless sale of a decent player.

 

Why a warning flag? We were hardly going to try and keep hold of an unhappy player. Reports at the time said that he wanted to go.

[Syrette]

Pretty sure he wanted out.

[Karjala]

Problem is Keegan isn't happy with that, which is a part of the problem.

I would say KK is probably alright with it, but he's not alright with not actually being able to spend it.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Its simple. Set the goals and budget, hire a good manager, give that manager full control and time and back him with the budget and see what happens. The better managers will buy better and build better meaning better results. Whether your budget is 10m or 100m that should always be the model. For me anyway. When clubs try to carve out a way of doing something and sticking to it rigidly it will always fall a part at some point. I.e. keep buying young and you'll quickly need older and experienced players to balance things out. Keep buying British and you'll quickly needs some continental flair to again balance things out. Keep spending pennies and you'll quickly need to start spending mega money to get yourself out of trouble. Keep spending mega money and you'll quickly run up a mountain of debt. We are pretty fortunate in ways because here at Newcastle we've experienced every kind of set-up, approach and transfer policy. Which ones worked the best? See above in bold...

 

Not just at Newcastle but at every major club that has had success, none more so than Man Utd.

 

I'm all for trying new things but not to the point where it becomes a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face which our new system seems to have become or turned into.

 

Lets just imagine that KK was after Heskey, SWP, Sidwell and Dunne. Now imagine those lot joining Jonas, Collocini, Guthrie, Bassong and the new Spanish lads.

 

That's what I'd call balance.

 

Back to the original point, I'd honestly be extremely satisfied with a reasonable transfer budget befitting our gates and revenues and I'd be extremely happy with a decent team playing decent football looking to develop into a consistent top 6 side. That's what I want and would be happy with.

 

I wouldn't want what Chelsea and now Man City appear to have if I'm being honest. I know, I'm daft but that's not what it's about for me.

[manorpark]

Its simple. Set the goals and budget, hire a good manager, give that manager full control and time and back him with the budget and see what happens. The better managers will buy better and build better meaning better results. Whether your budget is 10m or 100m that should always be the model. For me anyway. When clubs try to carve out a way of doing something and sticking to it rigidly it will always fall a part at some point. I.e. keep buying young and you'll quickly need older and experienced players to balance things out. Keep buying British and you'll quickly needs some continental flair to again balance things out. Keep spending pennies and you'll quickly need to start spending mega money to get yourself out of trouble. Keep spending mega money and you'll quickly run up a mountain of debt. We are pretty fortunate in ways because here at Newcastle we've experienced every kind of set-up, approach and transfer policy. Which ones worked the best? See above in bold...

 

Not just at Newcastle but at every major club that has had success, none more so than Man Utd.

 

I'm all for trying new things but not to the point where it becomes a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face which our new system seems to have become or turned into.

 

Lets just imagine that KK was after Heskey, SWP, Sidwell and Dunne. Now imagine those lot joining Jonas, Collocini, Guthrie, Bassong and the new Spanish lads.

 

That's what I'd call balance.

 

Back to the original point, I'd honestly be extremely satisfied with a reasonable transfer budget befitting our gates and revenues and I'd be extremely happy with a decent team playing decent football looking to develop into a consistent top 6 side. That's what I want and would be happy with.

 

I wouldn't want what Chelsea and now Man City appear to have if I'm being honest. I know, I'm daft but that's not what it's about for me.

 

The happiest I have been as a supporter (for over 38 years) has been when we were challenging for the title. As we were 'seriously' under KK, 'almost' under Dalglish, and 'almost' (again) under SBR.

 

So (simply) that is what I want to happen to this club - whatever it takes (in the modern game) to asap get us back into that position again.  What I'm trying to say is - I'm not "demanding they do this" or "demanding they spend that" - I just want them to get us back to what we have had so recently.

 

It is GREAT fun to be challenging for the title!  Nothing better.

 

So, whatever it takes . . . thats all.

[Cronky]

The sale of Faye was a big warning flag in retrospect.

 

Utterly pointless sale of a decent player.

 

Said to have fallen out with Keegan.

[TRon]

gazillionaires will be the death of football... whilst i dont deny it woul dprobably be exciting to be one of those clubs, in my heart of hearts, i would know it wouldnt be the right way to go

 

I would be happy with an owner who strives to sustain a realistic business model, whilst balancing the requirement to invest heavily in the club in the long term (whether it be via a dedicated yearly transfer budget, improvements to the academy or otherwise).  Eventually, the time of the gazillionaire owner will end, especially seeing as FIFA are becoming increasingly bureaucratic, and I would like to think that we would be better placed to whether the storm if we worked as a 'business' first and 'football club' second.

 

I still agree this is the way to go. I don't think we were miles away, but we should have signed a couple more quality players to augment the less proven players that came in. If that had been done we wouldn't be where we are now.

[Cronky]

Again, I'm surprised KK came back when the structure, and more importantly the annual budget, was made clear to him.

 

I'm a KK fan and sad to see him go but he's a chequebook manager with a terrific ability to motivate, get an extra 10%, have players run through walls for him etc.

 

I don't think he'd be content to make a gradual improvement, year on year, whilst relying upon a blend of youth and experience. I think he's the kind of guy who wants success and wants it now.

 

I've got a lot of time for the principles of the structure but now, in hindsight, wonder whether or not KK was the man to lead us at this stage of the stabilisation/building process.

 

 

That's a good appraisal of the situation, but unfortunately the 'Keegan is God' brigade are the ones who have prevailed.

 

I don't think Keegan is the sort of manager like Wenger, who takes tapes of South American Under 19 tournaments home with him to study the talent, and in any case, he had barely watched any football for three years. Delegating the player recruitment to other people was a necessity, but at the same time Keegan is a person who doesn't back down in an argument. All an accident waiting to happen.

[S.S.R.]

The sale of Faye was a big warning flag in retrospect.

 

Utterly pointless sale of a decent player.

 

Why a warning flag? We were hardly going to try and keep hold of an unhappy player. Reports at the time said that he wanted to go.

 

 

Said to have fallen out with Keegan.

 

Source?

 

People trying to rationalise a pointless sale?

 

[Mowen]

The sale of Faye was a big warning flag in retrospect.

 

Utterly pointless sale of a decent player.

 

Said to have fallen out with Keegan.

 

I thought it was a useless sale, just assumed he wanted first team football which KK couldn't guarantee him. Couldn't really see any other logical explanation.

[Cronky]

The sale of Faye was a big warning flag in retrospect.

 

Utterly pointless sale of a decent player.

 

Why a warning flag? We were hardly going to try and keep hold of an unhappy player. Reports at the time said that he wanted to go.

 

 

Said to have fallen out with Keegan.

 

Source?

 

People trying to rationalise a pointless sale?

 

 

Faye got subbed at half-time, I think in the final game of last season, and didn't appear to be injured. When someone falls out with Keegan, it's not easily mended, as we've seen this last fortnight. Faye was our best defender last year, yet there's not been a hint that Keegan wasn't happy with his transfer.

 

Also - one of Keegan's stranger decisions last season was not bringing Faye straight back into the team for the Villa game when he recovered from injury or suspension - I can't remember which it was.

 

Speculation I suppose, but it fits together.

[johnnypd]

Again, I'm surprised KK came back when the structure, and more importantly the annual budget, was made clear to him.

 

I'm a KK fan and sad to see him go but he's a chequebook manager with a terrific ability to motivate, get an extra 10%, have players run through walls for him etc.

 

I don't think he'd be content to make a gradual improvement, year on year, whilst relying upon a blend of youth and experience. I think he's the kind of guy who wants success and wants it now.

 

I've got a lot of time for the principles of the structure but now, in hindsight, wonder whether or not KK was the man to lead us at this stage of the stabilisation/building process.

 

 

That's a good appraisal of the situation, but unfortunately the 'Keegan is God' brigade are the ones who have prevailed.

 

I don't think Keegan is the sort of manager like Wenger, who takes tapes of South American Under 19 tournaments home with him to study the talent, and in any case, he had barely watched any football for three years. Delegating the player recruitment to other people was a necessity, but at the same time Keegan is a person who doesn't back down in an argument. All an accident waiting to happen.

 

it's not true that 'delegating the player recruitment to other people was a necessity', at least not in the terms you seem to understand it. what was a necessity was getting in a first rate scouting team to help Keegan identify players for his team. He's a shrewd judge of talent and has worked with scouts all his career so he wouldve been able to take advantage of this and used the system to good effect. but that is not the issue - the issue is taking the final say on who comes and goes out of his hands, selling players and then failing to bring in the promised replacements, or telling Keegan we've signed players he has never discussed with the scouts or given the greenlight to. that is a very different issue to establishing a good scouting team and sadly some people on here have conflated the two things into one.

 

secondly, you're right that it was an accident waiting to happen. This is compounded by Keegan's confrontational character but not primarily caused by it.. if you look through recent football manager history, you'll see it is littered with bustups and departures due to interference from above - our original choice Harry Redknapp has left twice in the past few years for this reason, one slated replacement in Deschamps has walked out from clubs due to it, and in the same bloody week as keegan left, Curbishley did exactly the same thing. Santini left Spurs because of it and even Jol had a very frosty relationship with his employers. you cant get more obvious than this but some people are totally ignoring it. The situation has replicated itself even when there were different people involved. that tells us one thing - this is not essentially a personality based problem but a systematic problem. Therefore removing Keegan or any other individual such as Wise, while retaining the system, does not remove the problem itself, rather moves it on and guarantees a repeat further down the line. any strong willed manager (ie, the successful ones) will have problems unless the system is tweaked. Ramos at Sevilla had a good relationship with Monchi his director of football because Monchi never went out and disregarded what Ramos asked for, he was there to help the manager and not the other way round. On the other hand, Benitez left Valencia for a club where he'd have more control because their directors 'bought him a sofa when he asked for a lamp'. So that's not to say a DoF system can't work, but that it has to be structured correctly, as Parky has touched upon in another thread. Either you forget about the entire concept of 'managers' and appoint a first team coach who knows his place (difficult), or you tailor the system to the manager to fit his needs. what you don't want to do is get a mish-mash of both as it brings out the worst possible results.

[Cronky]

Again, I'm surprised KK came back when the structure, and more importantly the annual budget, was made clear to him.

 

I'm a KK fan and sad to see him go but he's a chequebook manager with a terrific ability to motivate, get an extra 10%, have players run through walls for him etc.

 

I don't think he'd be content to make a gradual improvement, year on year, whilst relying upon a blend of youth and experience. I think he's the kind of guy who wants success and wants it now.

 

I've got a lot of time for the principles of the structure but now, in hindsight, wonder whether or not KK was the man to lead us at this stage of the stabilisation/building process.

 

 

That's a good appraisal of the situation, but unfortunately the 'Keegan is God' brigade are the ones who have prevailed.

 

I don't think Keegan is the sort of manager like Wenger, who takes tapes of South American Under 19 tournaments home with him to study the talent, and in any case, he had barely watched any football for three years. Delegating the player recruitment to other people was a necessity, but at the same time Keegan is a person who doesn't back down in an argument. All an accident waiting to happen.

 

it's not true that 'delegating the player recruitment to other people was a necessity', at least not in the terms you seem to understand it. what was a necessity was getting in a first rate scouting team to help Keegan identify players for his team. He's a shrewd judge of talent and has worked with scouts all his career so he wouldve been able to take advantage of this and used the system to good effect. but that is not the issue - the issue is taking the final say on who comes and goes out of his hands, selling players and then failing to bring in the promised replacements, or telling Keegan we've signed players he has never discussed with the scouts or given the greenlight to. that is a very different issue to establishing a good scouting team and sadly some people on here have conflated the two things into one.

 

secondly, you're right that it was an accident waiting to happen. This is compounded by Keegan's confrontational character but not primarily caused by it.. if you look through recent football manager history, you'll see it is littered with bustups and departures due to interference from above - our original choice Harry Redknapp has left twice in the past few years for this reason, one slated replacement in Deschamps has walked out from clubs due to it, and in the same bloody week as keegan left, Curbishley did exactly the same thing. Santini left Spurs because of it and even Jol had a very frosty relationship with his employers. you cant get more obvious than this but some people are totally ignoring it. The situation has replicated itself even when there were different people involved. that tells us one thing - this is not essentially a personality based problem but a systematic problem. Therefore removing Keegan or any other individual such as Wise, while retaining the system, does not remove the problem itself, rather moves it on and guarantees a repeat further down the line. any strong willed manager (ie, the successful ones) will have problems unless the system is tweaked. Ramos at Sevilla had a good relationship with Monchi his director of football because Monchi never went out and disregarded what Ramos asked for, he was there to help the manager and not the other way round. On the other hand, Benitez left Valencia for a club where he'd have more control because their directors 'bought him a sofa when he asked for a lamp'. So that's not to say a DoF system can't work, but that it has to be structured correctly, as Parky has touched upon in another thread. Either you forget about the entire concept of 'managers' and appoint a first team coach who knows his place (difficult), or you tailor the system to the manager to fit his needs. what you don't want to do is get a mish-mash of both as it brings out the worst possible results.

 

I suppose whichever system you have - whether the manager is reporting direct to a Chairman or to a DOF - there's always going to be some crossover of responsibilities and it depends on trust. It's never as simple as the Manager identifying the players and the Chairman / DOF going out to get them, because whoever holds the purse strings has got to have a major say. In fact, it's that individual, not the Manager, who really has the final say. Which players are brought in depends on how much money there is available, and which players get shipped out will also be influenced by finance.

 

This relationship is the most important in a football club. It can be a very tense one, and occasionally it can break down. British managers are used to dealing direct with a Chairman, but that's no guarantee that things will work better, as with Sir Bob and Freddie Shepherd, and some of the other examples you've mentioned.

 

Keegan was a poor choice on two levels - and this would have been the case regardless of whether it was a DOF or a Chairman system. He wasn't suited to an Arsenal-type plan of recruiting and developing young players because he's never had a record of that in the past. He's always sought to persuade his Board to go out and spend big on established names. If you've not taken any interest in football for three years, it's even more inevitable that your knowledge and interest is going to be limited in that way.

 

He was also a poor choice for a long-term plan. His motivation can crumble when he experiences frustration, as we've seen from the previous walk-outs, and after the Chelsea game. It's easy to keep your spirits up if you can run to the Chairman and get him to spend big on a new player to keep the upward momentum going, but when that's not an option, his head goes down.

 

Ashley, Mort and co have to bear some responsibility for their poor judgement. They were hoping to ally Keegan's relationship with the fans with their own more scientific approach, but the gap between the two mentalities has been too wide.

 

But I keep reading about the Manager having 'full control over who comes in and out', but that's never the case. Not anywhere. In practice, they're always working as part of a team.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

 

I suppose whichever system you have - whether the manager is reporting direct to a Chairman or to a DOF - there's always going to be some crossover of responsibilities and it depends on trust. It's never as simple as the Manager identifying the players and the Chairman / DOF going out to get them, because whoever holds the purse strings has got to have a major say. In fact, it's that individual, not the Manager, who really has the final say. Which players are brought in depends on how much money there is available, and which players get shipped out will also be influenced by finance.

 

This relationship is the most important in a football club. It can be a very tense one, and occasionally it can break down. British managers are used to dealing direct with a Chairman, but that's no guarantee that things will work better, as with Sir Bob and Freddie Shepherd, and some of the other examples you've mentioned.

 

Keegan was a poor choice on two levels - and this would have been the case regardless of whether it was a DOF or a Chairman system. He wasn't suited to an Arsenal-type plan of recruiting and developing young players because he's never had a record of that in the past. He's always sought to persuade his Board to go out and spend big on established names. If you've not taken any interest in football for three years, it's even more inevitable that your knowledge and interest is going to be limited in that way.

 

He was also a poor choice for a long-term plan. His motivation can crumble when he experiences frustration, as we've seen from the previous walk-outs, and after the Chelsea game. It's easy to keep your spirits up if you can run to the Chairman and get him to spend big on a new player to keep the upward momentum going, but when that's not an option, his head goes down.

 

Ashley, Mort and co have to bear some responsibility for their poor judgement. They were hoping to ally Keegan's relationship with the fans with their own more scientific approach, but the gap between the two mentalities has been too wide.

 

But I keep reading about the Manager having 'full control over who comes in and out', but that's never the case. Not anywhere. In practice, they're always working as part of a team.

 

That's a quality post, everyone has to be able to compromise and work together, no manager is all-powerful.

 

I loved it when Keegan came back, but I always had the factors you mention nagging at the back of my mind. It was easy to ignore them when the euphoria was at its height.

[johnnypd]

Again, I'm surprised KK came back when the structure, and more importantly the annual budget, was made clear to him.

 

I'm a KK fan and sad to see him go but he's a chequebook manager with a terrific ability to motivate, get an extra 10%, have players run through walls for him etc.

 

I don't think he'd be content to make a gradual improvement, year on year, whilst relying upon a blend of youth and experience. I think he's the kind of guy who wants success and wants it now.

 

I've got a lot of time for the principles of the structure but now, in hindsight, wonder whether or not KK was the man to lead us at this stage of the stabilisation/building process.

 

 

That's a good appraisal of the situation, but unfortunately the 'Keegan is God' brigade are the ones who have prevailed.

 

I don't think Keegan is the sort of manager like Wenger, who takes tapes of South American Under 19 tournaments home with him to study the talent, and in any case, he had barely watched any football for three years. Delegating the player recruitment to other people was a necessity, but at the same time Keegan is a person who doesn't back down in an argument. All an accident waiting to happen.

 

it's not true that 'delegating the player recruitment to other people was a necessity', at least not in the terms you seem to understand it. what was a necessity was getting in a first rate scouting team to help Keegan identify players for his team. He's a shrewd judge of talent and has worked with scouts all his career so he wouldve been able to take advantage of this and used the system to good effect. but that is not the issue - the issue is taking the final say on who comes and goes out of his hands, selling players and then failing to bring in the promised replacements, or telling Keegan we've signed players he has never discussed with the scouts or given the greenlight to. that is a very different issue to establishing a good scouting team and sadly some people on here have conflated the two things into one.

 

secondly, you're right that it was an accident waiting to happen. This is compounded by Keegan's confrontational character but not primarily caused by it.. if you look through recent football manager history, you'll see it is littered with bustups and departures due to interference from above - our original choice Harry Redknapp has left twice in the past few years for this reason, one slated replacement in Deschamps has walked out from clubs due to it, and in the same bloody week as keegan left, Curbishley did exactly the same thing. Santini left Spurs because of it and even Jol had a very frosty relationship with his employers. you cant get more obvious than this but some people are totally ignoring it. The situation has replicated itself even when there were different people involved. that tells us one thing - this is not essentially a personality based problem but a systematic problem. Therefore removing Keegan or any other individual such as Wise, while retaining the system, does not remove the problem itself, rather moves it on and guarantees a repeat further down the line. any strong willed manager (ie, the successful ones) will have problems unless the system is tweaked. Ramos at Sevilla had a good relationship with Monchi his director of football because Monchi never went out and disregarded what Ramos asked for, he was there to help the manager and not the other way round. On the other hand, Benitez left Valencia for a club where he'd have more control because their directors 'bought him a sofa when he asked for a lamp'. So that's not to say a DoF system can't work, but that it has to be structured correctly, as Parky has touched upon in another thread. Either you forget about the entire concept of 'managers' and appoint a first team coach who knows his place (difficult), or you tailor the system to the manager to fit his needs. what you don't want to do is get a mish-mash of both as it brings out the worst possible results.

 

I suppose whichever system you have - whether the manager is reporting direct to a Chairman or to a DOF - there's always going to be some crossover of responsibilities and it depends on trust. It's never as simple as the Manager identifying the players and the Chairman / DOF going out to get them, because whoever holds the purse strings has got to have a major say. In fact, it's that individual, not the Manager, who really has the final say. Which players are brought in depends on how much money there is available, and which players get shipped out will also be influenced by finance.

 

This relationship is the most important in a football club. It can be a very tense one, and occasionally it can break down. British managers are used to dealing direct with a Chairman, but that's no guarantee that things will work better, as with Sir Bob and Freddie Shepherd, and some of the other examples you've mentioned.

 

Keegan was a poor choice on two levels - and this would have been the case regardless of whether it was a DOF or a Chairman system. He wasn't suited to an Arsenal-type plan of recruiting and developing young players because he's never had a record of that in the past. He's always sought to persuade his Board to go out and spend big on established names. If you've not taken any interest in football for three years, it's even more inevitable that your knowledge and interest is going to be limited in that way.

 

He was also a poor choice for a long-term plan. His motivation can crumble when he experiences frustration, as we've seen from the previous walk-outs, and after the Chelsea game. It's easy to keep your spirits up if you can run to the Chairman and get him to spend big on a new player to keep the upward momentum going, but when that's not an option, his head goes down.

 

Ashley, Mort and co have to bear some responsibility for their poor judgement. They were hoping to ally Keegan's relationship with the fans with their own more scientific approach, but the gap between the two mentalities has been too wide.

 

But I keep reading about the Manager having 'full control over who comes in and out', but that's never the case. Not anywhere. In practice, they're always working as part of a team.

 

you're right it's not the case, not anywhere, and no one is saying it is, so it's pointless bringing it up as if it were some point of searing insight.

 

youre right that keegan was a poor choice for this role though, but so was the first choice of harry redknapp. i dont think ashley understands the system or its benefits beyond how it can be cost effective and value for money. that seems to override anything else, mix with it ashley's cronyistic system of governance ie employ your mates and it is a recipe for trouble.