Tony Jimenez leaves the club

[magorific]

I think a decent squad improvement (+5/6 places worth) for a reasonable outlay was all that most fans expected - as Isegrim says that didn't happen.

I would think a 5 to 6 place improvement was possible before Keegan threw his toys out of the pram.

Possibly but isn't the whole point of this wonderful structure to build a squad and club which achieves its target regardless of managerial comings and goings?

Oh FFS.  Honestly NJS.  "Managerial comings and goings" is a ridiculous bit of semantic play to try and apply to this situation just to beat up on the "structure".  Unless you genuinely believe the spirit and intent of such a structure is one that would be immune from ill effects even if it changed managers every two weeks. 

 

Which of course it isn't.  No structure is.  Just as no structure is equipped to handle the shitstorm of a cult icon manager walking out in a huff at the end of a summer transfer window.  DoF or not we'd be in the same shape right now. 

 

So you're saying KK would have walked away at the end of August if he HAD been able to pursue the players HE wanted?

 

 

 

[Golfmag]

Just in tems of Jiminez, he was in touch this morning and talked about "we" when describing how s**** that decision was on Monday night. I suspect he is the wrong target in all of this - he didn't create the structure after all.

[thomas]

I think a decent squad improvement (+5/6 places worth) for a reasonable outlay was all that most fans expected - as Isegrim says that didn't happen.

I would think a 5 to 6 place improvement was possible before Keegan threw his toys out of the pram.

Possibly but isn't the whole point of this wonderful structure to build a squad and club which achieves its target regardless of managerial comings and goings?

Oh FFS.  Honestly NJS.  "Managerial comings and goings" is a ridiculous bit of semantic play to try and apply to this situation just to beat up on the "structure".  Unless you genuinely believe the spirit and intent of such a structure is one that would be immune from ill effects even if it changed managers every two weeks. 

 

Which of course it isn't.  No structure is.  Just as no structure is equipped to handle the shitstorm of a cult icon manager walking out in a huff at the end of a summer transfer window.  DoF or not we'd be in the same shape right now. 

So you're saying KK would have walked away at the end of August if he HAD been able to pursue the players HE wanted?

  No.  You utterly fail at reading comprehension.

 

edit: ok that's mean.  But my entire post had nothing to do with the "why's" of Keegan leaving, only the effects that it had on the club;  that it's not the point of any structure, DOF enabled or not, to deal with that kind of blow and maintain expectation/achivement.  Pointing it out as though it's an inherent flaw is ridiculous.

[NJS]

I think a decent squad improvement (+5/6 places worth) for a reasonable outlay was all that most fans expected - as Isegrim says that didn't happen.

I would think a 5 to 6 place improvement was possible before Keegan threw his toys out of the pram.

Possibly but isn't the whole point of this wonderful structure to build a squad and club which achieves its target regardless of managerial comings and goings?

Oh FFS.  Honestly NJS.  "Managerial comings and goings" is a ridiculous bit of semantic play to try and apply to this situation just to beat up on the "structure".  Unless you genuinely believe the spirit and intent of such a structure is one that would be immune from ill effects even if it changed managers every two weeks. 

 

Which of course it isn't.  No structure is.  Just as no structure is equipped to handle the shitstorm of a cult icon manager walking out in a huff at the end of a summer transfer window.  DoF or not we'd be in the same shape right now. 

 

Not every two weeks but the big selling points are supposed to be "stability" and "long term" planning. When I and others argued that a manager shapes his squad and team for his style/ethos, people on the other side argued that such criteria should be set at a club level, relegating the "manager" to exactly as described in the "fact" statement and to me inferring that stability is brought even with managerial changes. This is supposedly what happens at Madrid and all the other bollocks examples.

 

If Keegan was so central to the plan for improvement and the structure merely "secondary" than why was the latter deemed more important when it came to the crunch? That suggests that Ashley thought it would survive managerial comings and goings with minimal impact. In that context "depending" on an inspirational manager as part of the plan is a major flaw.

 

 

[TRon]

When you say one person took the final consequences are you talking about Keegan or Ashley? Because it's easy to say let's sign Beckham, Rooney and Ronaldo for example. All of these would improve the squad no doubt at a price. At the end of the day someone has to pay the bills and generally can't walk away from the situation so has to look at the longer term situation.

 

I think a decent squad improvement (+5/6 places worth) for a reasonable outlay was all that most fans expected - as Isegrim says that didn't happen.

 

 

 

I agree that investment in the squad was needed and didn't happen. On this point obviously Keegan felt he wasn't backed in the transfer market and that is probably true. The Ashley camp seem to be of the view that Keegan's targets were not in line with their recruitment policy of buying players who would keep their value. Both sides are probably valid, just depends on which side you agree with.

 

What I would say is that appointing Keegan was a mistake if he wasn't going to be backed in the transfer market.

[magorific]

I think a decent squad improvement (+5/6 places worth) for a reasonable outlay was all that most fans expected - as Isegrim says that didn't happen.

I would think a 5 to 6 place improvement was possible before Keegan threw his toys out of the pram.

Possibly but isn't the whole point of this wonderful structure to build a squad and club which achieves its target regardless of managerial comings and goings?

Oh FFS.  Honestly NJS.  "Managerial comings and goings" is a ridiculous bit of semantic play to try and apply to this situation just to beat up on the "structure".  Unless you genuinely believe the spirit and intent of such a structure is one that would be immune from ill effects even if it changed managers every two weeks. 

 

Which of course it isn't.  No structure is.  Just as no structure is equipped to handle the shitstorm of a cult icon manager walking out in a huff at the end of a summer transfer window.  DoF or not we'd be in the same shape right now. 

So you're saying KK would have walked away at the end of August if he HAD been able to pursue the players HE wanted?

  No.  You utterly fail at reading comprehension.

 

edit: ok that's mean.  But my entire post had nothing to do with the "why's" of Keegan leaving, only the effects that it had on the club;  that it's not the point of any structure, DOF enabled or not, to deal with that kind of blow and maintain expectation/achivement.  Pointing it out as though it's an inherent flaw is ridiculous.

 

I was simply asking a question. Your patronising patter in response not only smacks of someone with his head up his arse, but fails to address the notion (naive as it may appear to a man of your obvious intellect) that the fact that Keegan left might just expose our DOF structure (as was, now that TJ has also walked out) as flawed.

 

 

[Mick]

 

Not every two weeks but the big selling points are supposed to be "stability" and "long term" planning. When I and others argued that a manager shapes his squad and team for his style/ethos, people on the other side argued that such criteria should be set at a club level, relegating the "manager" to exactly as described in the "fact" statement and to me inferring that stability is brought even with managerial changes. This is supposedly what happens at Madrid and all the other bollocks examples.

 

If Keegan was so central to the plan for improvement and the structure merely "secondary" than why was the latter deemed more important when it came to the crunch? That suggests that Ashley thought it would survive managerial comings and goings with minimal impact. In that context "depending" on an inspirational manager as part of the plan is a major flaw.

 

 

 

The structure which was put in place was to stop new managers coming in and wanting to turn around the whole playing staff.

 

Pity it wasn't in place when Souness took over from Sir Bobby.

[NJS]

What I would say is that appointing Keegan was a mistake if he wasn't going to be backed in the transfer market.

 

Without going over old ground too much I think there was a shift. The bid for Woodgate and Modric did suggest reasonable intentions which in the end exploded as the pressure of the deadline approached. I think right from his first statements on joining Keegan was aware there wasn't going to be a ridiculous spree which makes the Henry/Lampard/Robinho smear look bollocks imo.

 

 

 

[thomas]

I think a decent squad improvement (+5/6 places worth) for a reasonable outlay was all that most fans expected - as Isegrim says that didn't happen.

I would think a 5 to 6 place improvement was possible before Keegan threw his toys out of the pram.

Possibly but isn't the whole point of this wonderful structure to build a squad and club which achieves its target regardless of managerial comings and goings?

Oh FFS.  Honestly NJS.  "Managerial comings and goings" is a ridiculous bit of semantic play to try and apply to this situation just to beat up on the "structure".  Unless you genuinely believe the spirit and intent of such a structure is one that would be immune from ill effects even if it changed managers every two weeks. 

 

Which of course it isn't.  No structure is.  Just as no structure is equipped to handle the shitstorm of a cult icon manager walking out in a huff at the end of a summer transfer window.  DoF or not we'd be in the same shape right now. 

So you're saying KK would have walked away at the end of August if he HAD been able to pursue the players HE wanted?

  No.  You utterly fail at reading comprehension.

 

edit: ok that's mean.  But my entire post had nothing to do with the "why's" of Keegan leaving, only the effects that it had on the club;  that it's not the point of any structure, DOF enabled or not, to deal with that kind of blow and maintain expectation/achivement.  Pointing it out as though it's an inherent flaw is ridiculous.

 

I was simply asking a question. Your patronising patter in response not only smacks of someone with his head up his arse, but fails to address the notion (naive as it may appear to a man of your obvious intellect) that the fact that Keegan left might just expose our DOF structure (as was, now that TJ has also walked out) as flawed.

Sorry, but what you think of me doesn't change the fact you missed the point of my post by about 3000 miles and instead responded with an NE5ish bit of questioning that amounted to putting words in my mouth.  I don't react well to that.

[Parky]

Our structure needed to be more like the Spurs one.  mackems.gif

[TRon]

What I would say is that appointing Keegan was a mistake if he wasn't going to be backed in the transfer market.

 

Without going over old ground too much I think there was a shift. The bid for Woodgate and Modric did suggest reasonable intentions which in the end exploded as the pressure of the deadline approached. I think right from his first statements on joining Keegan was aware there wasn't going to be a ridiculous spree which makes the Henry/Lampard/Robinho smear look bollocks imo.

 

 

 

 

I think when Keegan came in the general feeling was that Ashley was going to back him with decent cash which he had denied Allardyce as he wasn't his man. I really don't see Keegan being the type to take the job with a limited budget. Whether the Henry, Beckham stuff is true or bollocks no one really knows so your speculation is only as good as mine.

[NJS]

What I would say is that appointing Keegan was a mistake if he wasn't going to be backed in the transfer market.

 

Without going over old ground too much I think there was a shift. The bid for Woodgate and Modric did suggest reasonable intentions which in the end exploded as the pressure of the deadline approached. I think right from his first statements on joining Keegan was aware there wasn't going to be a ridiculous spree which makes the Henry/Lampard/Robinho smear look bollocks imo.

 

 

 

 

I think when Keegan came in the general feeling was that Ashley was going to back him with decent cash which he had denied Allardyce as he wasn't his man. I really don't see Keegan being the type to take the job with a limited budget. Whether the Henry, Beckham stuff is true or bollocks no one really knows so your speculation is only as good as mine.

 

It depends on how you judge his honesty - I recognise that he was probably spinning the Milner sale but as I said his other statements suggested to me a reasonable but not stupidly large budget.

 

Of course I accept the suggestions that Keegan being Keegan he may have said "Yeah Mike, £20m's fine" while thinking he could wring more out of him but I think going as far as to suggest Keegan expected stupid money is wrong.

[UV]

But my entire post had nothing to do with the "why's" of Keegan leaving, only the effects that it had on the club;  that it's not the point of any structure, DOF enabled or not, to deal with that kind of blow and maintain expectation/achivement.  Pointing it out as though it's an inherent flaw is ridiculous.

 

A higher rate of managerial change is an almost inevitable consequence of having more egos flying around at the top.

 

 

The structure which was put in place was to stop new managers coming in and wanting to turn around the whole playing staff.

 

Pity it wasn't in place when Souness took over from Sir Bobby.

 

Souness didn't turn around the whole playing staff though did he.

How do you think things would have turned out differently with a DoF? Would Souness have been forced to keep and play Bellamy?

[TRon]

What I would say is that appointing Keegan was a mistake if he wasn't going to be backed in the transfer market.

 

Without going over old ground too much I think there was a shift. The bid for Woodgate and Modric did suggest reasonable intentions which in the end exploded as the pressure of the deadline approached. I think right from his first statements on joining Keegan was aware there wasn't going to be a ridiculous spree which makes the Henry/Lampard/Robinho smear look bollocks imo.

 

 

 

 

I think when Keegan came in the general feeling was that Ashley was going to back him with decent cash which he had denied Allardyce as he wasn't his man. I really don't see Keegan being the type to take the job with a limited budget. Whether the Henry, Beckham stuff is true or bollocks no one really knows so your speculation is only as good as mine.

 

It depends on how you judge his honesty - I recognise that he was probably spinning the Milner sale but as I said his other statements suggested to me a reasonable but not stupidly large budget.

 

Of course I accept the suggestions that Keegan being Keegan he may have said "Yeah Mike, £20m's fine" while thinking he could wring more out of him but I think going as far as to suggest Keegan expected stupid money is wrong.

 

My view is that Keegan was probably led up the garden path a bit as far as transfer money goes. I don't think that Ashley put a specific figure to Keegan that was available to spend, which might have led Keegan to think there was more available than turned out in reality. Even £20m would be something to work with if it was the amount available in terms of transfer fees. If wages were part of the package it's virtually nothing.

[TRon]

But my entire post had nothing to do with the "why's" of Keegan leaving, only the effects that it had on the club;  that it's not the point of any structure, DOF enabled or not, to deal with that kind of blow and maintain expectation/achivement.  Pointing it out as though it's an inherent flaw is ridiculous.

 

A higher rate of managerial change is an almost inevitable consequence of having more egos flying around at the top.

 

 

The structure which was put in place was to stop new managers coming in and wanting to turn around the whole playing staff.

 

Pity it wasn't in place when Souness took over from Sir Bobby.

 

Souness didn't turn around the whole playing staff though did he.

How do you think things would have turned out differently with a DoF? Would Souness have been forced to keep and play Bellamy?

 

We'd have been far better off if Souness had to work under a DoF. There again we'd have been far better off leaving him at Blackburn in the first place.

[UV]

We'd have been far better off if Souness had to work under a DoF.

 

How? Explain.

 

[magorific]

I think a decent squad improvement (+5/6 places worth) for a reasonable outlay was all that most fans expected - as Isegrim says that didn't happen.

I would think a 5 to 6 place improvement was possible before Keegan threw his toys out of the pram.

Possibly but isn't the whole point of this wonderful structure to build a squad and club which achieves its target regardless of managerial comings and goings?

Oh FFS.  Honestly NJS.  "Managerial comings and goings" is a ridiculous bit of semantic play to try and apply to this situation just to beat up on the "structure".  Unless you genuinely believe the spirit and intent of such a structure is one that would be immune from ill effects even if it changed managers every two weeks. 

 

Which of course it isn't.  No structure is.  Just as no structure is equipped to handle the shitstorm of a cult icon manager walking out in a huff at the end of a summer transfer window.  DoF or not we'd be in the same shape right now. 

So you're saying KK would have walked away at the end of August if he HAD been able to pursue the players HE wanted?

  No.  You utterly fail at reading comprehension.

 

edit: ok that's mean.  But my entire post had nothing to do with the "why's" of Keegan leaving, only the effects that it had on the club;  that it's not the point of any structure, DOF enabled or not, to deal with that kind of blow and maintain expectation/achivement.  Pointing it out as though it's an inherent flaw is ridiculous.

 

I was simply asking a question. Your patronising patter in response not only smacks of someone with his head up his arse, but fails to address the notion (naive as it may appear to a man of your obvious intellect) that the fact that Keegan left might just expose our DOF structure (as was, now that TJ has also walked out) as flawed.

Sorry, but what you think of me doesn't change the fact you missed the point of my post by about 3000 miles and instead responded with an NE5ish bit of questioning that amounted to putting words in my mouth.  I don't react well to that.

 

Clearly, otherwise you'd have answered my subsequent point.

[Lotus]

Manager should be in charge of the 1st team's training, selection, buying and selling.

 

The club should have a scouting network in place which, whoever is Manager at the time, can use. Remeber Roeder saying the club had 1 scout, absolutely disgraceful for this club to have 1 scout. It's actually ridiculous. They should be like the Civil Service, availabe for whoever is in charge at the time

 

Said scouts should befree for reserve/youth team signings with autonomy, i can't see that they need to be accountable to the 1st team manager regarding this.

 

Club should have someone who can deal with contract and negotiations. If the Manager wants a player he shouldn't be burdened with arguing with the players agent over wages.

 

Key point imo, the Board should have a member who knows something about football, someone to say, don't hire Graeme Souness, or SBR's getting on - replace him at the end of the season to limit disruption, or only let Roeder do the Caretaker role then find some body proper, or let Keegan get on with his job and don't undermine him with no-mark appointments - support him properly if you're going to employ in the first place.

This bloke shouldn't be in charge of Managerial appointments, he should be a respected and trusted figure who will stay out of the Managers way (and the media limelight) and give his opinion. I'd appoint SBR if he wasn't so unwell.

 

It should be the resonsibility of the Board to appoint and sack a manager, such important decisions shouldn't be down to DOF or Chief Exec or whatever job title alone, should be a collective responsibilty.

[TRon]

We'd have been far better off if Souness had to work under a DoF.

 

How? Explain.

 

 

Because he wouldn't have been able to waste so much money on bad players.

[UV]

We'd have been far better off if Souness had to work under a DoF.

 

How? Explain.

 

 

Because he wouldn't have been able to waste so much money on bad players.

 

So you're assuming that a DoF, simply because of their job title, wont waste money on bad players?

 

[TRon]

We'd have been far better off if Souness had to work under a DoF.

 

How? Explain.

 

 

Because he wouldn't have been able to waste so much money on bad players.

 

So you're assuming that a DoF, simply because of their job title, wont waste money on bad players?

 

 

I'm assuming he wouldn't have allowed Souness to waste money on bad players...otherwise what is the point?

[Lotus]

We'd have been far better off if Souness had to work under a DoF.

 

How? Explain.

 

 

Because he wouldn't have been able to waste so much money on bad players.

 

So you're assuming that a DoF, simply because of their job title, wont waste money on bad players?

 

 

I'm assuming he wouldn't have allowed Souness to waste money on bad players...otherwise what is the point?

 

I'm guessing his point is, if you're a Chairman/Owner why would you trust a DoF to sign players if you don't think you can trust your manager too?

If you can't trust your own judgement by giving the Manager the money to spend how can you trust your own judgement in recruiting a DoF to buy the players instead?

[Mick]

 

Souness didn't turn around the whole playing staff though did he.

How do you think things would have turned out differently with a DoF? Would Souness have been forced to keep and play Bellamy?

 

 

7 of the players who played in the first league game under Souness were gone before he left the club and he was only here for around 16 months.  As for how things would have turned out differently with a DoF, I think we would have scouted better players than Babayaro, Boumsong and Luque.

 

I doubt Souness would have been forced to play Bellamy, why do you ask?  Would Souness even have been appointed if a DoF had any say in the managerial appointment?  I doubt that he would.

[Mick]

 

So you're assuming that a DoF, simply because of their job title, wont waste money on bad players?

 

 

I'd assume that a DoF would have scouted Luque and not bought him because Michael Robinson thought he might be worth a punt.

[NJS]

 

So you're assuming that a DoF, simply because of their job title, wont waste money on bad players?

 

 

I'd assume that a DoF would have scouted Luque and not bought him because Michael Robinson thought he might be worth a punt.

 

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Souness told the truth about Luque's signing - you can have any structure on the planet but if a chairman decides he wants to buy someone that's it.