Rémi Garde and the case of the missing art galleries

[AyeDubbleYoo]

A manager might not 'want' a player but his role could be clear and he could be professional enough to use that player even though he didn't personally prefer him.

 

Obviously we're hoping to avoid the situation where the transfer policy and the manager's views are completely opposed, so it should be a question of degrees rather than 'I hate this player completely'.

[Jack Flash]

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.

 

The club made a huge mistake with that contract but why let it dictate the entire direction of the playing side of things for 8 years? He'd have been sacked if they wanted him sacked but they didn't because he was doing such a great job in their eyes.

[r0cafella]

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?

Indeed.

 

To think they were happy with Pardew yet did nothing to keep him says it all really.

 

I assume our new manager will be on a much lower wage than Pardew is at palace.

[Minhosa]

Imagine the scenario where we've had a great start to the season. Are sitting in 5th and pushing on. Our key centre back gets injured and the manager wants an old head to steady the ship until he returns in 3-4 months.

 

It's January and there are two options buying a young kid with a huge upside or taking on a top old boy for £3m cos he's going to be out of contract in the summer.

 

Which do the club go for and how does the manager feel as we slip away to mid-table cos the kid can't cope with the league?

 

Club don't give a fuck. They don't want Europe anyway. They'll stick with the kid the following season and hopefully make a few million on him.

 

The sporting achievement is not a priority.

 

What kind of coach would want that? And why would they stay when they could actually join a club with some ambition?

[Hanshithispantz]

A manager might not 'want' a player but his role could be clear and he could be professional enough to use that player even though he didn't personally prefer him.

This is literally what Keegan walked out for. Forcing players onto a manager is absolutely pointless imo, if he doesn't think the player will fit into his side, or will mix with the other squad members or whatever then you just have to look elsewhere.

 

I can sort of see why West Ham forced Tevez and Mascherano onto Pardew like but 100% of other managers would have given an arm for that deal.

[Teasy]

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.

 

Again that's great if you find a Wenger or Ferguson, how likely is that?  IF you somehow manage to find a world class manager he controls everything and stays for 20 years you have continuity and success.  If not you end up going from manager to manager, each time going through massive upheaval.  The majority of the time it isn't a recipe for long term success at all.  What's wrong with looking for a man who is talented at coaching a side, working with players, tactically astute and willing to work with a good head scout/director of Football?  You keep getting hung up on our exact transfer policy (profit, youth, saving money ect) but that's entirely separate from the director of Football/head coach system.

[mrmojorisin75]

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.

 

i was about to reply to one of your earlier posts but you've made it even easier, your examples are the absolute exception to what happens when managers buy players in the PL, indeed much of ferguson's success was built on his overhaul of the manyoo youth system lets not forget

 

i have no problem with the 'system' assuming the person in charge of coaching and selecting the team isn't left criminally under strength in certain areas - it was always a gripe of mine with pardew, he preferred to complain about what he didn't have rather than work with the players he did have and make them better

 

old school british mentality and if we see the back of that then i'm all for it personally

 

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

A manager might not 'want' a player but his role could be clear and he could be professional enough to use that player even though he didn't personally prefer him.

 

This is literally what Keegan walked out for. Forcing players onto a manager is absolutely pointless imo, if he doesn't think the player will fit into his side, or will mix with the other squad members or whatever then you just have to look elsewhere.

 

I can sort of see why West Ham forced Tevez and Mascherano onto Pardew like but 100% of other managers would have given an arm for that deal.

 

You just need the right kind of manager, and for his role to be clear up front. With Keegan that was obviously not the case.

 

I'm not saying there will never be disagreements, that's inevitable.  But everyone has to be able to work together under the transfer policy the club has defined. 

 

My favourite model is the Southampton/Swansea one where the manager can change and the philosophy of the club remains the same. Obviously we lack the football philosophy to make that happen.

[TaylorJ_01]

To be honest I don't really want managers buying players... Seriously considering how much time they should really be spending on tactics and training then you get situations like Souness signing players based on videotapes and the like. Unless you're Jose Mourinhino or the like, managers make a lot of pish signings.

 

To be honest the one ray of hope is Carr in all this as IMHO he's a top quality scout who I'd much rather have in charge of choosing players. His track record since he's been here is nothing short of amazing and the best I've seen in my lifetime since Keegan to be honest. If he's having a say in choosing the manager that can only be a good thing. All signs point to Carver being a temp until the summer at best which in that case I think might be hinting at one of expiring contract managers coming in which I'd take. Pardew was rock bottom, it can't get any worse in any way when it comes to managers.

 

Carr provided a manager with a competivie and potential top six squad and that t*** though that Williamson and Obertan were better than MYM and Ben Arfa. I think a decent manager will certainly vindicate the way we buy players.

 

Pinning your hopes on a 70 year old bloke, what could go wrong?

 

The systemic advantage of having the suits make the signings only works when you have a succession plan for the plum sticking the cones out. They've admitted they didn't have that.

 

The same 70 year old that brought some of the best player we've had in the millennium.... I'll trust him in a heartbeat, his record speaks for itself.

 

The same bloke who won't be able to brush his own teeth if a few f***ing years.

 

[Dave]

A manager might not 'want' a player but his role could be clear and he could be professional enough to use that player even though he didn't personally prefer him.

 

This is literally what Keegan walked out for. Forcing players onto a manager is absolutely pointless imo, if he doesn't think the player will fit into his side, or will mix with the other squad members or whatever then you just have to look elsewhere.

 

I can sort of see why West Ham forced Tevez and Mascherano onto Pardew like but 100% of other managers would have given an arm for that deal.

 

You just need the right kind of manager, and for his role to be clear up front. With Keegan that was obviously not the case.

 

I'm not saying there will never be disagreements, that's inevitable.  But everyone has to be able to work together under the transfer policy the club has defined. 

 

My favourite model is the Southampton/Swansea one where the manager can change and the philosophy of the club remains the same. Obviously we lack the football philosophy to make that happen.

 

Have those clubs ever openly stated that this is their policy though, or is it just a case of sensible managers taking on the good work done before them? I was under the impression Swansea started their current philosophy under Martinez.

[Teasy]

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?

 

How am I putting words in his mouth?  Are you talking about the fact he said "final say" and I said "100% control"?  Ok, lets do this again then..

 

He's just said that he can't believe people don't want the new manager to have the final say on transfers and goes on to give the example of Pardew not playing some of the players bought for him as the reason for that assertion.  So I'm asking why is the only solution to that problem to give the manager final say on transfers?  Rather than finding a head coach who isn't a fucking dunce, who can appreciate a good player?

[mrmojorisin75]

A manager might not 'want' a player but his role could be clear and he could be professional enough to use that player even though he didn't personally prefer him.

 

This is literally what Keegan walked out for. Forcing players onto a manager is absolutely pointless imo, if he doesn't think the player will fit into his side, or will mix with the other squad members or whatever then you just have to look elsewhere.

 

I can sort of see why West Ham forced Tevez and Mascherano onto Pardew like but 100% of other managers would have given an arm for that deal.

 

You just need the right kind of manager, and for his role to be clear up front. With Keegan that was obviously not the case.

 

I'm not saying there will never be disagreements, that's inevitable.  But everyone has to be able to work together under the transfer policy the club has defined. 

 

My favourite model is the Southampton/Swansea one where the manager can change and the philosophy of the club remains the same. Obviously we lack the football philosophy to make that happen.

 

Have those clubs ever openly stated that this is their policy though, or is it just a case of sensible managers taking on the good work done before them? I was under the impression Swansea started their current philosophy under Martinez.

 

Martinez I think yeah.  Presumably they just bought into his style and philosophy then Rodgers continued it and so on.  It doesn't have to be a big drama like, but if we got a manager next who plays lush football and implements at all levels of the club achieving relative success on the pitch then it stands to reason it'd be something that the people in charge would want to continue.

[Hanshithispantz]

A manager might not 'want' a player but his role could be clear and he could be professional enough to use that player even though he didn't personally prefer him.

 

This is literally what Keegan walked out for. Forcing players onto a manager is absolutely pointless imo, if he doesn't think the player will fit into his side, or will mix with the other squad members or whatever then you just have to look elsewhere.

 

I can sort of see why West Ham forced Tevez and Mascherano onto Pardew like but 100% of other managers would have given an arm for that deal.

 

You just need the right kind of manager, and for his role to be clear up front. With Keegan that was obviously not the case.

 

I'm not saying there will never be disagreements, that's inevitable.  But everyone has to be able to work together under the transfer policy the club has defined. 

 

My favourite model is the Southampton/Swansea one where the manager can change and the philosophy of the club remains the same. Obviously we lack the football philosophy to make that happen.

 

Have those clubs ever openly stated that this is their policy though, or is it just a case of sensible managers taking on the good work done before them? I was under the impression Swansea started their current philosophy under Martinez.

Pretty sure the managers have a big say. Laudrup buying Michu and probably Amat. Koeman getting Elia.

[KaKa]

I think it is huge that the requirements have been laid out so openly this way. Whoever comes in next can't be surprised by any of it now.

 

No other manager has been made fully aware beforehand, and this has clearly led to issues.

 

It is going to be fascinating to see who gets hired.

[loki679]

Manchester United and Arsenal have two of the best scouting networks in the world.  It's not like Ferguson and Wenger were finding these players themselves.

[Minhosa]

Manchester United and Arsenal have two of the best scouting networks in the world.  It's not like Ferguson and Wenger were finding these players themselves.

 

If they didn't like the scouts, would they still have jobs?

 

If our new head coach doesn't like them he's fucked. They don't report to him. He's bibs and cones remember.

[Darth Crooks]

Personally I think the head coach thing is great when utilised properly. Giving the likes of souness, Martin o'neill and redknapp tens of millions and relying on jobs for the boys types to spend it wisely is lunacy really.

[KaKa]

A manager might not 'want' a player but his role could be clear and he could be professional enough to use that player even though he didn't personally prefer him.

 

This is literally what Keegan walked out for. Forcing players onto a manager is absolutely pointless imo, if he doesn't think the player will fit into his side, or will mix with the other squad members or whatever then you just have to look elsewhere.

 

I can sort of see why West Ham forced Tevez and Mascherano onto Pardew like but 100% of other managers would have given an arm for that deal.

 

You just need the right kind of manager, and for his role to be clear up front. With Keegan that was obviously not the case.

 

I'm not saying there will never be disagreements, that's inevitable.  But everyone has to be able to work together under the transfer policy the club has defined. 

 

My favourite model is the Southampton/Swansea one where the manager can change and the philosophy of the club remains the same. Obviously we lack the football philosophy to make that happen.

 

Have those clubs ever openly stated that this is their policy though, or is it just a case of sensible managers taking on the good work done before them? I was under the impression Swansea started their current philosophy under Martinez.

Pretty sure the managers have a big say. Laudrup buying Michu and probably Amat. Koeman getting Elia.

 

It's hard to compare to these sorts of managers though, because they have such a good knowledge of players.

 

Michu and Elia aren't players I would imagine we would have been adversed to signing if Pardew knew them and rated them, as they fit our 'criteria'. They were younger players with good value. In Elia's case even a bit of damaged goods arguably, as he wasn't playing in Germany.

 

Pardew would have been asking for Jarvis or Joe Cole man.

[Teasy]

Well I'd be right behind us bringing in Wenger or Ferguson

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I really don't think this has to be such a massive deal, especially now the manager knows about it before hand. Obviously it limits the candidates somewhat but we were never going to employ one of the top 10 in the world anyway.

[Minhosa]

Personally I think the head coach thing is great when utilised properly. Giving the likes of souness, Martin o'neill and redknapp tens of millions and relying on jobs for the boys types to spend it wisely is lunacy really.

 

Can you point to where it's worked in the UK?

 

Koeman is a Manager by the way. You don't arrive at a club quickly followed by ex-players and top players from your homeland by coincidence.

[KaKa]

I really don't think this has to be such a massive deal, especially now the manager knows about it before hand. Obviously it limits the candidates somewhat but we were never going to employ one of the top 10 in the world anyway.

 

I was actually more upbeat after reading the thing yesterday. And everyone is ruining it for me. I just want to be cheerful.

[Hanshithispantz]

I really don't think this has to be such a massive deal, especially now the manager knows about it before hand. Obviously it limits the candidates somewhat but we were never going to employ one of the top 10 in the world anyway.

It's a massive deal when you know exactly why we're doing it.

[Minhosa]

Well I'd be right behind us bringing in Wenger or Ferguson

 

Both arrived from different leagues and created empires. Your man Charnley talked about long term yesterday so why wouldn't that be the aspiration?

[Minhosa]

I really don't think this has to be such a massive deal, especially now the manager knows about it before hand. Obviously it limits the candidates somewhat but we were never going to employ one of the top 10 in the world anyway.

 

I was actually more upbeat after reading the thing yesterday. And everyone is ruining it for me. I just want to be cheerful.