Rémi Garde and the case of the missing art galleries

[Jack Flash]

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?

 

When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that.

 

As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with.

 

You can't believe I wouldn't want a new manager to have the final say on transfers but at the same time accept that him having the final say isn't the only solution?   I haven't got time for this like.

 

Baffling. No idea what you're on about now or at any point in this conversation.

 

I'm on about the fact that instead of just answering my question you just continue to play with words to avoid doing so.  Which is why I can't be bothered wasting my time discussing anything with you.

 

Your question was ridiculous.

 

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?

[Teasy]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen.  No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either.

 

I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad.  But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place.

[steve_69]

It will work for us. We will be awesome. Everyone else will be filled with envy.

 

It might not but if a total clown like Pardew can get us top 10 finishes with the players Carr finds, I'm confident that a decent 'Head Coach' can do significantly better.

This regime are a fucking shambles and a disgrace to this club but the one area that actually works well is our scouting setup. We consistently bring in good players and there's nothing to suggest we won't continue to do so.

[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?

 

When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that.

 

As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with.

 

You can't believe I wouldn't want a new manager to have the final say on transfers but at the same time accept that him having the final say isn't the only solution?   I haven't got time for this like.

 

Baffling. No idea what you're on about now or at any point in this conversation.

 

I'm on about the fact that instead of just answering my question you just continue to play with words to avoid doing so.  Which is why I can't be bothered wasting my time discussing anything with you.

 

Your question was ridiculous.

 

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?

 

Asking you why you believe your solution is the way to go, yeah what an outlandish question..

 

If a manager is wasting talent that's being brought in then you could change that by giving him final say on transfers or you could change it by replacing him with someone who doesn't waste talent.  I asked why is the second option so unbelievable to you?

[Unbelievable]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen.  No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either.

 

I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad.  But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place.

 

There's absolutely nothing in the Charnley statement to suggest that there will be a healthy relationship between the head coach, chief scout/DoF and MD/dealmaker, so I'm just astounded reading so many people's optimism regarding us openly stating that the new manager will have very little say in transfers. That is all. It's just a system devised for maximum profit in the transfer market, not one supporting what should be the main focus of a football club, i.e. the (first team) manager and his squad of players.

[Jack Flash]

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?

 

When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that.

 

As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with.

 

You can't believe I wouldn't want a new manager to have the final say on transfers but at the same time accept that him having the final say isn't the only solution?   I haven't got time for this like.

 

Baffling. No idea what you're on about now or at any point in this conversation.

 

I'm on about the fact that instead of just answering my question you just continue to play with words to avoid doing so.  Which is why I can't be bothered wasting my time discussing anything with you.

 

Your question was ridiculous.

 

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?

 

Asking you why you believe your solution is the way to go, yeah what an outlandish question..

 

You didn't ask that. You asked a completely different question which had no relation to what I'd said. "Final say" and "100% control" are obviously not the same.

[TRon]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

No one would argue that the way the club is run is basically for profit not for success, but that isn't going to change soon. At least if we can have an intelligent coach who can work with the players we target then we might see some coherent football, if not winning football. It will still be a massive step up from the cock-eyed stuff we've had with the Carr/Pardew relationship.

[cubaricho]

Bring back Mort!

[Mole_Toonfan]

The thing is it's impossible to crtique anything they say as it's 99% lies. There isn't any merit in it. Charnley is just the latest one to bullshit everyone.

 

Aye it's basically the same old shit until they prove otherwise, in theory some of it makes sense but we'll need to see it executed properly before we actually believe a word of it.

[Unbelievable]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

No one would argue that the way the club is run is basically for profit not for success, but that isn't going to change soon. At least if we can have an intelligent coach who can work with the players we target then we might see some coherent football, if not winning football. It will still be a massive step up from the cock-eyed stuff we've had with the Carr/Pardew relationship.

 

Agreed TRon, we can at least hope that a new manager will bring a more appealing style of play. Nothing else will change, and the best we can hope for is that they are honest about their intentions with the club and some progressive young manager is prepared to put up with their bullshit.

[afar]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

Great post Unbelievable. One thing Charnley talked about yesterday is the need to work together and for the head coach to identify his needs to Carr to source the player and Charnley to negotiate and finalise the signing. So the process should work like this, HC says I need a CB with good height, technically sound and has a bit of pace, Carr identifies a number of candidates, with approximate costs, the three of them get together and draw up a priority list based on available budget, best fit for the club and likely price. Then charnley goes to work on getting the player in starting from the top of the priority list.

 

As you say they've been guilty way too many times in the past of getting that priority list wrong, with a focus way too much on price rather than ability  and/or trying to get the player for under the likely selling price. They need to learn from those mistakes.

[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?

 

When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that.

 

As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with.

 

You can't believe I wouldn't want a new manager to have the final say on transfers but at the same time accept that him having the final say isn't the only solution?   I haven't got time for this like.

 

Baffling. No idea what you're on about now or at any point in this conversation.

 

I'm on about the fact that instead of just answering my question you just continue to play with words to avoid doing so.  Which is why I can't be bothered wasting my time discussing anything with you.

 

Your question was ridiculous.

 

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?

 

Asking you why you believe your solution is the way to go, yeah what an outlandish question..

 

You didn't ask that. You asked a completely different question which had no relation to what I'd said. "Final say" and "100% control" are obviously not the same.

 

I give up

[Minhosa]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen.  No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either.

 

I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad.  But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place.

 

There's absolutely nothing in the Charnley statement to suggest that there will be a healthy relationship between the head coach, chief scout/DoF and MD/dealmaker, so I'm just astounded reading so many people's optimism regarding us openly stating that the new manager will have very little say in transfers. That is all. It's just a system devised for maximum profit in the transfer market, not one supporting what should be the main focus of a football club, i.e. the (first team) manager and his squad of players.

 

Amen to that.

[steve_69]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen.  No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either.

 

I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad.  But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place.

 

There's absolutely nothing in the Charnley statement to suggest that there will be a healthy relationship between the head coach, chief scout/DoF and MD/dealmaker, so I'm just astounded reading so many people's optimism regarding us openly stating that the new manager will have very little say in transfers. That is all. It's just a system devised for maximum profit in the transfer market, not one supporting what should be the main focus of a football club, i.e. the (first team) manager and his squad of players.

 

There is if you read it with your eyes. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what he says.

Whether or not it's true is another matter.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

All we can hope for is a better manager who is willing to get the most out of the players we sign. If we'd had that over the last couple of years we would have enjoyed it a hell of a lot more.

 

Obviously the underlying lack of ambition, especially around signings, will not change.

[Teasy]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen.  No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either.

 

I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad.  But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place.

 

There's absolutely nothing in the Charnley statement to suggest that there will be a healthy relationship between the head coach, chief scout/DoF and MD/dealmaker, so I'm just astounded reading so many people's optimism regarding us openly stating that the new manager will have very little say in transfers. That is all. It's just a system devised for maximum profit in the transfer market, not one supporting what should be the main focus of a football club, i.e. the (first team) manager and his squad of players.

 

The policy of only buying certain kinds of players with sell on value is devised for maximum profit but that will be their whether Graham Carr looks for the signings or a manager comes in and looks for signings.  Its Ashley's policy that fucks things up.  You can agree with the basic setup of director of Football/head coach and still disagree with the transfer policy.  I think the setup has definite advantages, but of course it'll never be perfect under this lot.  Neither would a traditional manager setup, because in that setup Ashley would simply withold funds, in the end nothing happens unless he agrees anyway.

[Unbelievable]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

Great post Unbelievable. One thing Charnley talked about yesterday is the need to work together and for the head coach to identify his needs to Carr to source the player and Charnley to negotiate and finalise the signing. So the process should work like this, HC says I need a CB with good height, technically sound and has a bit of pace, Carr identifies a number of candidates, with approximate costs, the three of them get together and draw up a priority list based on available budget, best fit for the club and likely price. Then charnley goes to work on getting the player in start from the top of the priority list.

 

As you say they've been guilty way too many times in the past of getting that priority list right, with a focus way too much on price rather than ability  and/or trying to get the player for under the likely selling price. They need to learn from those mistakes.

 

Not just that. They have been guilty time after time of not bringing in players for the positions where we were weak. Charnely speaks of trust in the relationship, and how they may have to wait for the next transfer window for a certain addition because there will be a better deal to be had. That could in theory be defended, but we have seen time and time again they will happily go three, four windows without cover in a position (right back), or without a first team player of the required ability (centre back, centre forward). I see no reason why that would change with a statement that only hammers home more firmly that the head coach has very little say in the makeup of his squad.

[Flartyblartclart]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen.  No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either.

 

I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad.  But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place.

 

There's absolutely nothing in the Charnley statement to suggest that there will be a healthy relationship between the head coach, chief scout/DoF and MD/dealmaker, so I'm just astounded reading so many people's optimism regarding us openly stating that the new manager will have very little say in transfers. That is all. It's just a system devised for maximum profit in the transfer market, not one supporting what should be the main focus of a football club, i.e. the (first team) manager and his squad of players.

 

There is if you read it with your eyes. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what he says.

Whether or not it's true is another matter.

 

Given that the club openly admitted at the Keegan tribunal that it 'repeatedly and intentionally misled the press, public and the fans of Newcastle United' then it's impossible not to view everything they say with a huge amount of cynicism.

[TRon]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen.  No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either.

 

I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad.  But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place.

 

There's absolutely nothing in the Charnley statement to suggest that there will be a healthy relationship between the head coach, chief scout/DoF and MD/dealmaker, so I'm just astounded reading so many people's optimism regarding us openly stating that the new manager will have very little say in transfers. That is all. It's just a system devised for maximum profit in the transfer market, not one supporting what should be the main focus of a football club, i.e. the (first team) manager and his squad of players.

 

There is if you read it with your eyes. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what he says.

Whether or not it's true is another matter.

 

That's how I read it as well. Charnley does specifically say that the manager would have input on new players signed, just not the final say. Personally I am encouraged that they are looking at someone like Garde who will dovetail well with Carr since they share similar philosophy and knowledge of French football. Yes I agree Garde would still have his hands tied somewhat, but he will be used to that at his previous club. It will still be a damn sight better than giving the job to Carver.

[arnonel]

A coach should focus on coaching - nobody should interfere

A scout should focus on scouting - watching loads of matches - finding out about personalities - contracts - etc - nobody should interfere

 

Not sure how a head coach could be the best judge of a player when he spends 99% of his time watching his own players - how is he going to have any clue who players are in Spanish lower divisions? (Perez) etc

[steve_69]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen.  No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either.

 

I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad.  But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place.

 

There's absolutely nothing in the Charnley statement to suggest that there will be a healthy relationship between the head coach, chief scout/DoF and MD/dealmaker, so I'm just astounded reading so many people's optimism regarding us openly stating that the new manager will have very little say in transfers. That is all. It's just a system devised for maximum profit in the transfer market, not one supporting what should be the main focus of a football club, i.e. the (first team) manager and his squad of players.

 

There is if you read it with your eyes. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what he says.

Whether or not it's true is another matter.

 

Given that the club openly admitted at the Keegan tribunal that it 'repeatedly and intentionally misled the press, public and the fans of Newcastle United' then it's impossible not to view everything they say with a huge amount of cynicism.

 

I completely agree but in the statement Charnley specifically states that he, Carr and the Head Coach will work together as a team to identify areas that need strengthening and the player recruitment team will actively target players to suit the playing style of the Head Coach. He specifically states that they will work as a team.  To say he doesn't say anything of that nature is total nonsense.

 

However, given the club is run by idiots there's a good chance it's bullshit and they'll just buy players they believe they can make a profit on.

 

Having said that, it's not in anyone's interest to do that because if the manager doesn't play the players he is given, their value will never increase - Ferreyra, Bigirimana, Marveaux, Anita, Ben Arfa, Haidara, Cabella etc.

[Unbelievable]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen.  No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either.

 

I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad.  But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place.

 

There's absolutely nothing in the Charnley statement to suggest that there will be a healthy relationship between the head coach, chief scout/DoF and MD/dealmaker, so I'm just astounded reading so many people's optimism regarding us openly stating that the new manager will have very little say in transfers. That is all. It's just a system devised for maximum profit in the transfer market, not one supporting what should be the main focus of a football club, i.e. the (first team) manager and his squad of players.

 

There is if you read it with your eyes. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what he says.

Whether or not it's true is another matter.

 

Fair enough, if you choose to ignore that that specific statement is gradually broken down in the very next paragraphs. What he says boils down to: the head coach gets to state his wishes and we will then go out and look for the best deals we can find, which may not be what was requested but he needs to trust us to get it right some day. In the meantime we may decide to sell our best players if a good offer comes in, and he will just have to accept that and (again) trust us that we will replace them one day or other.

 

[Minhosa]

I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem.

 

Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment.

 

This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”.  Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement.

 

It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top.

 

Great post Unbelievable. One thing Charnley talked about yesterday is the need to work together and for the head coach to identify his needs to Carr to source the player and Charnley to negotiate and finalise the signing. So the process should work like this, HC says I need a CB with good height, technically sound and has a bit of pace, Carr identifies a number of candidates, with approximate costs, the three of them get together and draw up a priority list based on available budget, best fit for the club and likely price. Then charnley goes to work on getting the player in start from the top of the priority list.

 

As you say they've been guilty way too many times in the past of getting that priority list right, with a focus way too much on price rather than ability  and/or trying to get the player for under the likely selling price. They need to learn from those mistakes.

 

Not just that. They have been guilty time after time of not bringing in players for the positions where we were weak. Charnely speaks of trust in the relationship, and how they may have to wait for the next transfer window for a certain addition because there will be a better deal to be had. That could in theory be defended, but we have seen time and time again they will happily go three, four windows without cover in a position (right back), or without a first team player of the required ability (centre back, centre forward). I see no reason why that would change with a statement that only hammers home more firmly that the head coach has very little say in the makeup of his squad.

 

When you look at our strategy it actually makes in virtually impossible for a manager/head coach to succeed.

 

In all of that time waiting for good quality purples (the 3-4 windows as you say) we're selling other players who are at their peak value contractually or due to outstanding form.

 

Given we're only interested in ££££££££££'s it makes you wonder what the point of NUFC is sportingly.

 

Perhaps the press () should ask that very question of Charnley. 'What exactly is the point of NUFC as a sporting institution?'

[Mole_Toonfan]

Tbf what he says has been in place during Pardew's entire tenure, difference is he didn't really improve those players for said profit. Let's just say we got a coach who gets on with Carr and sees football the same way he does, it's a lot more likely that the club would be a lot more successful albeit limited due to approach of how said plan is executed.

[James]

Knowing Pardew though if asked by the bored about style of play, he probably made out he was going to play front foot, possession football. Players were then recruited based on that preferred style of play, only These players wee unsuitable for the reality of Pardew football.