Dave Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Whats everyone's opinion on Redknapp if he leaves QPR? I'm not saying he's my choice but he would tick a lot of the boxes for Ashley. Also did Redknapp turn us down previously? He wouldn't move up here before, so he definitely won't now. And he wouldn't accept the aforementioned transfer situation. He's a busted flush anyway IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
black_n_white Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Rather have Carver. Really? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Whats everyone's opinion on Redknapp if he leaves QPR? I'm not saying he's my choice but he would tick a lot of the boxes for Ashley. Also did Redknapp turn us down previously? Could name 100 I'd want before him at the club, absolute fraud. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Whats everyone's opinion on Redknapp if he leaves QPR? I'm not saying he's my choice but he would tick a lot of the boxes for Ashley. Also did Redknapp turn us down previously? Yes he did turn us, and Ashley down, before we were relegated I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Uwe Rosler is a pundit on Norwegian telly today for what it's worth. Fuck all? He's been mentioned in this thread as a potential new manager. That's all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
black_n_white Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Whats everyone's opinion on Redknapp if he leaves QPR? I'm not saying he's my choice but he would tick a lot of the boxes for Ashley. Also did Redknapp turn us down previously? Yes he did turn us, and Ashley down, before we were relegated I think. Thanks, thought he did just couldn't remember. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino14 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Whats everyone's opinion on Redknapp if he leaves QPR? I'm not saying he's my choice but he would tick a lot of the boxes for Ashley. Also did Redknapp turn us down previously? Better than Pardew and Carver. He usually needs a lot of money and high player turnover to achieve his aims though. I'm not sure he'd get that here and it's probably why he's turned the job away before if he did. If he could get Ashley to loosen the purse strings it'd be a good thing, but I doubt that. More likely he wouldn't get what he needed, would fail and the media would be backing up another one of their mates, saying fans are too demanding and are to blame for all the clubs ills. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Whats everyone's opinion on Redknapp if he leaves QPR? I'm not saying he's my choice but he would tick a lot of the boxes for Ashley. Also did Redknapp turn us down previously? Yes he did turn us, and Ashley down, before we were relegated I think. Thanks, thought he did just couldn't remember. Pretty sure it was before we offered Keegan the job when Allardyce had been sacked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Uwe Rosler is a pundit on Norwegian telly today for what it's worth. f*** all? He's been mentioned in this thread as a potential new manager. That's all. He's also out of work and used to working in the type of structure we have here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimbo Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 It will be confusing (to fans) but the only thing I will say is that the position is not now as a manager - it’s now a head coach’s job. So the head coach’s job is to get the team ready and prepared for the next game and that’s all I’ve been thinking about. There’s no need for me to be in touch with the owner because that’s the line the club is going down now – head coach. When I was with Toronto in the MLS, I was head coach so I never got involved in any transfer dealings. My sole responsibility was to look after the team and get them prepared and ready for the game and I’m assuming that’s what most head coaches do. Virtually rules out all of the proposed British names, does it not? As a nation we still struggle with the concept of a manager having no say whatsoever on the players he has to work with. It's also viewed as a bad thing as well which I find laughable really. It's the logical way to work IMO, it gives you the best chance of stability. Spending millions building a squad around a manager that will only be in the job for a few years, then having to rebuild again, is really quite silly. It's not just seen as bad either, alot of people(and the media) are repulsed by the idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 He then changed his mind and became re-interested, but we had Keegan sorted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 It will be confusing (to fans) but the only thing I will say is that the position is not now as a manager - it’s now a head coach’s job. So the head coach’s job is to get the team ready and prepared for the next game and that’s all I’ve been thinking about. There’s no need for me to be in touch with the owner because that’s the line the club is going down now – head coach. When I was with Toronto in the MLS, I was head coach so I never got involved in any transfer dealings. My sole responsibility was to look after the team and get them prepared and ready for the game and I’m assuming that’s what most head coaches do. Virtually rules out all of the proposed British names, does it not? As a nation we still struggle with the concept of a manager having no say whatsoever on the players he has to work with. It's also viewed as a bad thing as well which I find laughable really. It's the logical way to work IMO, it gives you the best chance of stability. Spending millions building a squad around a manager that will only be in the job for a few years, then having to rebuild again, is really quite silly. It's not just seen as bad either, alot of people(and the media) are repulsed by the idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 It will be confusing (to fans) but the only thing I will say is that the position is not now as a manager - it’s now a head coach’s job. So the head coach’s job is to get the team ready and prepared for the next game and that’s all I’ve been thinking about. There’s no need for me to be in touch with the owner because that’s the line the club is going down now – head coach. When I was with Toronto in the MLS, I was head coach so I never got involved in any transfer dealings. My sole responsibility was to look after the team and get them prepared and ready for the game and I’m assuming that’s what most head coaches do. Virtually rules out all of the proposed British names, does it not? As a nation we still struggle with the concept of a manager having no say whatsoever on the players he has to work with. It's also viewed as a bad thing as well which I find laughable really. It's the logical way to work IMO, it gives you the best chance of stability. Spending millions building a squad around a manager that will only be in the job for a few years, then having to rebuild again, is really quite silly. It's not just seen as bad either, alot of people(and the media) are repulsed by the idea. I'm not so sure, after all if the transfers brought in are total shit it ain't the director of football or whatever who loses his job its the manager burdened with those players he had 0 say on (see Spurs last season in particular, AVB gets the sack for the failure to spend the Bale money right while the guy who bought all those players is still there). Personally I think the manager should have a say in who goes in and out to just ignore him as Ashley will isn't a good way to run things at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 It will be confusing (to fans) but the only thing I will say is that the position is not now as a manager - it’s now a head coach’s job. So the head coach’s job is to get the team ready and prepared for the next game and that’s all I’ve been thinking about. There’s no need for me to be in touch with the owner because that’s the line the club is going down now – head coach. When I was with Toronto in the MLS, I was head coach so I never got involved in any transfer dealings. My sole responsibility was to look after the team and get them prepared and ready for the game and I’m assuming that’s what most head coaches do. Virtually rules out all of the proposed British names, does it not? As a nation we still struggle with the concept of a manager having no say whatsoever on the players he has to work with. It's also viewed as a bad thing as well which I find laughable really. It's the logical way to work IMO, it gives you the best chance of stability. Spending millions building a squad around a manager that will only be in the job for a few years, then having to rebuild again, is really quite silly. It's not just seen as bad either, alot of people(and the media) are repulsed by the idea. I'm not so sure, after all if the transfers brought in are total s*** it ain't the director of football or whatever who loses his job its the manager burdened with those players he had 0 say on (see Spurs last season in particular, AVB gets the sack for the failure to spend the Bale money right while the guy who bought all those players is still there). Personally I think the manager should have a say in who goes in and out to just ignore him as Ashley will isn't a good way to run things at all. Manager should of course get an input I don't think anyone would disagree with that. What I'm referencing is managers bringing in their own players who they've worked with everywhere without a thought for the long term. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 It will be confusing (to fans) but the only thing I will say is that the position is not now as a manager - it’s now a head coach’s job. So the head coach’s job is to get the team ready and prepared for the next game and that’s all I’ve been thinking about. There’s no need for me to be in touch with the owner because that’s the line the club is going down now – head coach. When I was with Toronto in the MLS, I was head coach so I never got involved in any transfer dealings. My sole responsibility was to look after the team and get them prepared and ready for the game and I’m assuming that’s what most head coaches do. Virtually rules out all of the proposed British names, does it not? As a nation we still struggle with the concept of a manager having no say whatsoever on the players he has to work with. It's also viewed as a bad thing as well which I find laughable really. It's the logical way to work IMO, it gives you the best chance of stability. Spending millions building a squad around a manager that will only be in the job for a few years, then having to rebuild again, is really quite silly. It's not just seen as bad either, alot of people(and the media) are repulsed by the idea. I'm not so sure, after all if the transfers brought in are total s*** it ain't the director of football or whatever who loses his job its the manager burdened with those players he had 0 say on (see Spurs last season in particular, AVB gets the sack for the failure to spend the Bale money right while the guy who bought all those players is still there). Personally I think the manager should have a say in who goes in and out to just ignore him as Ashley will isn't a good way to run things at all. Manager should of course get an input I don't think anyone would disagree with that. What I'm referencing is managers bringing in their own players who they've worked with everywhere without a thought for the long term. which is a natural reaction to the very short term nature of a managers job, the moment things go slightly wrong instead of trying to let a guy work through the bad period the sack button is hit so he's obviously going to go for guys he knows and trusts. I ultimately believe football clubs employ managers for their football knowledge and to trust them to run the first team either they back that with his list of players to get or why are they employing him in the first place? We trust you to run the first team except who your signing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino14 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Positions are never set in stone the way they're discussed by pundits. It's a title that implies certain things and a manager title implies more control than a head coach title. That doesn't necessarily mean that a manager gets full control and a head coach gets none. It depends on the club, the responsibilities they give to each person and also the individuals in charge. Any Head Coach who wants to keep his job long term and get good team performances should be pushing for some say in transfers, so he gets some players he wants. At the same time any director of football who isn't a total moron should be consulting with the head coach about players and then discussing things with the scouts. A good director of football would know who their head coach is and want to provide players that they know will help that coach get good performances. That way the system works to its potential and makes everyone look better. It doesn't reflect well on anyone or for their job situation when the team is failing. There are plenty of sacked directors of football on the scrap heap too, even if it isn't as publicised. The thing at Newcastle is that players aren't bought with the aim to do well. They're bought with the aim to do well enough, while getting any player that has an opportunity to increase in value. That's a difficult model for the director of football (chief executive in our case) and coach to work under. Having said that, the one thing we do need is a coach who understands the model, can work with technical european players and also understands the policy of selling on players to keep club finances healthy. Only a coach like that will succeed here under Ashley. That to me rules out any British coach of any description, because even our young up and coming coaches want almost full control and say. Most of the foreign coaches linked though are actually a pretty good fit and have worked at clubs with much worse positions (money that will be spent on the team) than ours financially. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 It will be confusing (to fans) but the only thing I will say is that the position is not now as a manager - it’s now a head coach’s job. So the head coach’s job is to get the team ready and prepared for the next game and that’s all I’ve been thinking about. There’s no need for me to be in touch with the owner because that’s the line the club is going down now – head coach. When I was with Toronto in the MLS, I was head coach so I never got involved in any transfer dealings. My sole responsibility was to look after the team and get them prepared and ready for the game and I’m assuming that’s what most head coaches do. Virtually rules out all of the proposed British names, does it not? As a nation we still struggle with the concept of a manager having no say whatsoever on the players he has to work with. It's also viewed as a bad thing as well which I find laughable really. It's the logical way to work IMO, it gives you the best chance of stability. Spending millions building a squad around a manager that will only be in the job for a few years, then having to rebuild again, is really quite silly. It's not just seen as bad either, alot of people(and the media) are repulsed by the idea. I'm not so sure, after all if the transfers brought in are total s*** it ain't the director of football or whatever who loses his job its the manager burdened with those players he had 0 say on (see Spurs last season in particular, AVB gets the sack for the failure to spend the Bale money right while the guy who bought all those players is still there). Personally I think the manager should have a say in who goes in and out to just ignore him as Ashley will isn't a good way to run things at all. Manager should of course get an input I don't think anyone would disagree with that. What I'm referencing is managers bringing in their own players who they've worked with everywhere without a thought for the long term. which is a natural reaction to the very short term nature of a managers job, the moment things go slightly wrong instead of trying to let a guy work through the bad period the sack button is hit so he's obviously going to go for guys he knows and trusts. I ultimately believe football clubs employ managers for their football knowledge and to trust them to run the first team either they back that with his list of players to get or why are they employing him in the first place? We trust you to run the first team except who your signing? I can definitely see the advantage of the system, it can be refined until you find the right people. If you have one man in charge of everything and you think recruitment is crap but motivation/tactics are good then how do you change one without the other? If you go for the head coach/director of Football kind of system both parties should have input. The head coach wants player type A, so the recruitment team work on bringing that kind if player in. If there's a problem you then need to decide where that problem lies. Are the players coming in not good enough?, are the tactics wrong ect. If you have people working at the club who can do that then its a good system. It allows you to change certain things that you believe are going wrong without necessarily having to start all over again from scratch. Of course the people in charge here don't really have a clue so it really limits the system. Still there's no denying that had Pardew had control over recruitment we'd be absolutely up shit creek right now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 It will be confusing (to fans) but the only thing I will say is that the position is not now as a manager - it’s now a head coach’s job. So the head coach’s job is to get the team ready and prepared for the next game and that’s all I’ve been thinking about. There’s no need for me to be in touch with the owner because that’s the line the club is going down now – head coach. When I was with Toronto in the MLS, I was head coach so I never got involved in any transfer dealings. My sole responsibility was to look after the team and get them prepared and ready for the game and I’m assuming that’s what most head coaches do. Virtually rules out all of the proposed British names, does it not? As a nation we still struggle with the concept of a manager having no say whatsoever on the players he has to work with. Another person who seems to think we're all thick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 It will be confusing (to fans) but the only thing I will say is that the position is not now as a manager - it’s now a head coach’s job. So the head coach’s job is to get the team ready and prepared for the next game and that’s all I’ve been thinking about. There’s no need for me to be in touch with the owner because that’s the line the club is going down now – head coach. When I was with Toronto in the MLS, I was head coach so I never got involved in any transfer dealings. My sole responsibility was to look after the team and get them prepared and ready for the game and I’m assuming that’s what most head coaches do. Virtually rules out all of the proposed British names, does it not? As a nation we still struggle with the concept of a manager having no say whatsoever on the players he has to work with. It's also viewed as a bad thing as well which I find laughable really. It's the logical way to work IMO, it gives you the best chance of stability. Spending millions building a squad around a manager that will only be in the job for a few years, then having to rebuild again, is really quite silly. It's not just seen as bad either, alot of people(and the media) are repulsed by the idea. I'm not so sure, after all if the transfers brought in are total s*** it ain't the director of football or whatever who loses his job its the manager burdened with those players he had 0 say on (see Spurs last season in particular, AVB gets the sack for the failure to spend the Bale money right while the guy who bought all those players is still there). Personally I think the manager should have a say in who goes in and out to just ignore him as Ashley will isn't a good way to run things at all. Manager should of course get an input I don't think anyone would disagree with that. What I'm referencing is managers bringing in their own players who they've worked with everywhere without a thought for the long term. which is a natural reaction to the very short term nature of a managers job, the moment things go slightly wrong instead of trying to let a guy work through the bad period the sack button is hit so he's obviously going to go for guys he knows and trusts. I ultimately believe football clubs employ managers for their football knowledge and to trust them to run the first team either they back that with his list of players to get or why are they employing him in the first place? We trust you to run the first team except who your signing? Most companies have people responsible for different things though. If you have one man in charge of everything then unless you find the perfect guy who is great at everything you end up having to decide wether to put up with the bad for the sake of the good or throw it all away and start again. If you go for the head coach/director of Football kind of system both parties should have input. The head coach wants player type A, so the recruitment team work on bringing that kind if player in. If there's a problem you then need to decide where that problem lies. Are the players coming in not good enough?, are the tactics wrong ect. If you have people working at the club who can do that then its a good system. It allows you to change certain things that you believe are going wrong without necessarily having to start all over again from scratch. Of course the people in charge here don't really have a clue so it really limits the system. Still there's no denying that had Pardew had control over recruitment we'd be absolutely up shit creek right now. we're up the shit creek regardless. Going nowhere fast just existing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 At the moment absolutely. But imagine what it would be like with everything else the same (Ashley's a cunt and we're going nowhere) except we don't have Perez, Sissoko, Janmaat ect We have Darren Bent, Hayden Mullens and James Tomkins Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 we could use tomkins right now tbh, prefer him to williamson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I'd prefer Yanga-Mbiwa, unfortunately Pardew still managed to fuck recruitment up at some level even without control of who was coming in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I suspect Ashley thinks that the manger is basically irrelevant in his model for NUFC. Any old average-to-shit manager could avoid relegation with Newcastle most years, just off the quality of players we usually attract. (Just ask Alan Pardew) It would take a greater manager to get the players we have to over-preform and get us higher up the table, but that's not what the ownership wants. If so, why pay anyone respectable when you can have someone desperate willing to take orders and work on a cheap contract? Imagine for a moment that we got someone like Rafa Benitez in. Where would he take the current squad? Probably up to about 5th~7th at best. Where does that leave Ashley? With more expectation from the fans to spend more money and push on to 4th, and saddled with Europa League football that he most certainly does not want. I suspect Ashley has learned his lesson from the season we fluked 5th. A taste of success can be dangerous for brewing discontent when it isn't expanded upon in following years. If that's the case, why not have John Carver instead? He's cheaper and will never kick up a fuss about transfer funds or control. He will have us in the 10th~15th range most years while feeding the fans shit about how it's impossible to compete at a higher level. The TV money keeps flowing in and we run at a profit without the need for significant reinvestment. If things start going tits up, Ashley can always grudgingly authorize 10~20m of spending to bail us out in January. Guess who wins again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_Taylor Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Just get this feeling that it's all going to go horribly wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Just get this feeling that it's all going to go horribly wrong Oh yes, it always does. 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