Jack Flash Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 What the hell does any on this have to do with a head coach setup vs a traditional manager? I'm honestly not sure what your point really is here. If Ashley and co was bringing in a traditional manager how would that improve our situation? The point being that a bloke with hardly any influence, with his PR wings completely clipped and an inability to rely on support from those bellends above him means it's a role that cannot work. Can you imagine a Keegan or SBR accepting that they could only talk about x, y or z? Could you imagine either of them having to ask somebody to find them a player please? Accepting whichever player the club thought appropriate? They were the only managers in my lifetime who 'got' the club. Take engagement and influence way from them and they're no better or worse than anyone else. My point is that this whole system, which is designed for and driven by financial return, is bound for failure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TruToon94 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". Well lets face it the average manager wouldn't be a complete fucking moron like Pardew was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Kaka that scenario is flawed by the fact you're using Alan Pardew as the example. He's not developed a player for the better since the day he arrived. Use KK and see what comes back. I'll tell you. 'I want Phillipe Albert whether you fucking like him or not'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". Well lets face it the average manager wouldn't be a complete fucking moron like Pardew was. And yet, the club thought he did a wonderful job. Go figure................ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". Well that's why we now have to get a manager that actually has a wider knowledge of players! And can actually have somi input on players from around the world, where greater value can be had (which is the club's policy, rightly or wrongly). Pardew knew fuck all. He was an absolute disgrace. Once he didn't get his prem guys he was going to be difficult about it. This fucker was playing Colback every minute of every game, and trying to convince us he was amazing when he wasn't. Why? What was he playing at? What was his agenda exactly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Kaka that scenario is flawed by the fact you're using Alan Pardew as the example. He's not developed a player for the better since the day he arrived. Use KK and see what comes back. I'll tell you. 'I want Phillipe Albert whether you f***ing like him or not'. IMO Keegan would be aware of a good number of players Carr had identified, and would be able to pick from that list. Therefore, it would work. That is how this thing is supposed to work. It's not that the manager has no input whatsoever. That's wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 What the hell does any on this have to do with a head coach setup vs a traditional manager? I'm honestly not sure what your point really is here. If Ashley and co was bringing in a traditional manager how would that improve our situation? The point being that a bloke with hardly any influence, with his PR wings completely clipped and an inability to rely on support from those bellends above him means it's a role that cannot work. Can you imagine a Keegan or SBR accepting that they could only talk about x, y or z? Could you imagine either of them having to ask somebody to find them a player please? Accepting whichever player the club thought appropriate? They were the only managers in my lifetime who 'got' the club. Take engagement and influence way from them and they're no better or worse than anyone else. My point is that this whole system, which is designed for and driven by financial return, is bound for failure. Aye that's great if you find a Keegan or Robson, but not if you get a Dalglish, Souness, Allardyce, Roeder, Gullit ect. There's nowt at all wrong with the concept of a head coach as long as you go for a man who's Footballing philosophy is in line with the key people he's working with on transfers. We all know that our transfer policy has problems in that we are too focused on resale value. But you don't need to completely change the setup and bring in a traditional manager to fix that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 To further analyse our signings under Pardew (a manager they both appointed and supported relentlessly), here's a list Good Cabaye Ba Cisse Sissoko(?) Perez Janmaat vs Bad Ben Arfa Marveaux Abeid Santon Anita Gouffran Haidara Yanga-Mbiwa Cabella Riviere Ferreyra Obertan Elliott Amalfitano Bigirimana Good Debuchy and Colback are up for debate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_69 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The whole trust thing that Charnley kept harping on about is actually really important in this setup. If the new 'Head Coach' trusts the scouting network's ability to get him a quality CB when he asked for one it can work fine. The club has proved that they can deliver quality players within this 'value' remit time after time. As long as the players that are brought in suit the preferred playing style of the Head Coach it isn't a problem. That's what's so baffling about the overwhelming gushing about Pardew from Charnley, Ashley etc. The players that were brought in more often than not didn't suit his shit style so he didn't use them and he wasn't flexible enough to adapt the team to accomodate them. He didn't develop a single player they brought in and he didn't give youth a chance. And he was a prize cunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonlemagnifique Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 To further analyse our signings under Pardew (a manager they both appointed and supported relentlessly), here's a list Good Cabaye Ba Cisse Sissoko(?) Perez Janmaat vs Bad Ben Arfa Marveaux Abeid Santon Anita Gouffran Haidara Yanga-Mbiwa Cabella Riviere Ferreyra Obertan Elliott Amalfitano Bigirimana Good Debuchy and Colback are up for debate. This is an argument against getting a shit manager, and for a head coach aligned with our purchasing policy, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a good style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The manager should have the final say like, if he hasn't then what's the point in either a) buying the player, or b) keeping the manager? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 What the hell does any on this have to do with a head coach setup vs a traditional manager? I'm honestly not sure what your point really is here. If Ashley and co was bringing in a traditional manager how would that improve our situation? The point being that a bloke with hardly any influence, with his PR wings completely clipped and an inability to rely on support from those bellends above him means it's a role that cannot work. Can you imagine a Keegan or SBR accepting that they could only talk about x, y or z? Could you imagine either of them having to ask somebody to find them a player please? Accepting whichever player the club thought appropriate? They were the only managers in my lifetime who 'got' the club. Take engagement and influence way from them and they're no better or worse than anyone else. My point is that this whole system, which is designed for and driven by financial return, is bound for failure. Aye that's great if you find a Keegan or Robson, but not if you get a Dalglish, Souness, Allardyce, Roeder, Gullit ect. There's nowt at all wrong with the concept of a head coach as long as you go for a man who's Footballing philosophy is in line with the key people he's working with on transfers. We all know that our transfer policy has problems in that we are too focused on resale value. But you don't need to completely change the setup and bring in a traditional manager to fix that. Would Wenger have been the success he has if he came into Arsenal from Grampus Eight with a remit of stick to the bibs and cones and we'll do the rest? Same for Ferguson and all of those others who have created dynasties? How can you talk about medium/long term but only have a transitional role in the most important job in the club? They basically indicate that the role is interchangable. One in, one out. Old guy says the wrong thing, bring a new one in. Great. Do you thinks players respect/fear that? Edit - it tells you everything you should need to know about the modern day NUFC. Football second, profits first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The manager should have the final say like, if he hasn't then what's the point in either a) buying the player, or b) keeping the manager? Hopefully the issue of 'final say' doesn't come up that much if the coach is on board with the purchasing policy and expects a certain type of player to arrive. At the end of the day it has to be a compromise, the club always has to sign off on purchases so the manager can't be all-powerful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The whole trust thing that Charnley kept harping on about is actually really important in this setup. If the new 'Head Coach' trusts the scouting network's ability to get him a quality CB when he asked for one it can work fine. The club has proved that they can deliver quality players within this 'value' remit time after time. As long as the players that are brought in suit the preferred playing style of the Head Coach it isn't a problem. That's what's so baffling about the overwhelming gushing about Pardew from Charnley, Ashley etc. The players that were brought in more often than not didn't suit his s*** style so he didn't use them and he wasn't flexible enough to adapt the team to accomodate them. He didn't develop a single player they brought in and he didn't give youth a chance. And he was a prize c***. I don't even think the Coach would just ask for a centre back and one would be produced that he knew nothing of. There will be options of players we could potentially go for, and he will then be involved in choosig from those. Pardew didn't know shit about players man. Unless they played on these shores. It was very obvious. So asking him for his view was completely pointless. I think they were just paying lip service to Pardew in that message yesterday. Just being 'polite' let's say. Iwould hope so at least. They weren't going to come out and say he didn't work. Their reference to not wanting a traditional English manager was the evidence of their real feelings on Pardew. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 This is an argument against getting a shit manager, and for a head coach aligned with our purchasing policy, right? It's to show how much talent/potential was wasted by "the right man". If they weren't happy with Pardew's use of those players they'd have sacked him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The manager should have the final say like, if he hasn't then what's the point in either a) buying the player, or b) keeping the manager? Because the man can select a winning team, is tactically astute, has motivational skills, can actually coach a side and has a game plan to win games? There's so much more to the job than being good at buying players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonlemagnifique Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 This is an argument against getting a shit manager, and for a head coach aligned with our purchasing policy, right? It's to show how much talent/potential was wasted by "the right man". If they weren't happy with Pardew's use of those players they'd have sacked him. Not after giving him that mental contract the wouldn't. And don't get hung up on the "right man" bollocks - Charnley can't come out and say "Pardew was a bit shit if we're honest" He clearly wasn't the right man if they're looking for his polar opposite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? luv u babes. Everyone at the club was perfectly happy with Pardew so why will their standards suddenly be so much higher with the new head coach? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The manager should have the final say like, if he hasn't then what's the point in either a) buying the player, or b) keeping the manager? Aye, final say not total say. Or at least a strong influence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The manager should have the final say like, if he hasn't then what's the point in either a) buying the player, or b) keeping the manager? Hopefully the issue of 'final say' doesn't come up that much if the coach is on board with the purchasing policy and expects a certain type of player to arrive. At the end of the day it has to be a compromise, the club always has to sign off on purchases so the manager can't be all-powerful. Even then - they might not fancy the particular player. There's plenty of Arsenal type players that Wenger seemingly doesn't chase. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Everyone at the club was perfectly happy with Pardew so why will their standards suddenly be so much higher with the new head coach? I think that's a bit of a simplification, they put on a front of being entirely happy with Pardew because that's what they do. I'm not denying that they could easily appoint another deeply average puppet... in fact that's exactly what I expected them to do. But the delay and the Garde link have made me think they are looking harder than that. We'll see I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The manager should have the final say like, if he hasn't then what's the point in either a) buying the player, or b) keeping the manager? Because the man can select a winning team, is tactically astute, has motivational skills, can actually coach a side and has a game plan to win games? But if he doesn't want a player, and therefore probably won't pick that player/give him a chance he may deserve, then what is the point of buying that player? No manager on the planet will be as catastrophic as Alan Pardew is when it comes to getting the best out of players he doesn't want (refusing to play arguably the 2 best players on the planet in their positions for example) but it's still a stupid move. 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