Managerial Changes 2014/15

[Invipai]

Moyes probably wasn't the right choice, but his decisions aren't coming off as reckless as Van Gaal's are.

Man U lost players in key positions as Moyes' tenure went on and finished, Van Gaal came in and brought in players for positions they already had filled and didn't replace those that left. He's just missed the point...

 

[Ealing Bee]

tbh no one wanted to sign for Moyes..

Less to do with identity of the Manager I'd say, than the money on offer (signing-on, weekly wage, bonuses etc).

I mean, Champions League/European football is another consideration often claimed by players to be a big attraction, but when it came to it, they've all signed for MU this season without it.

Or am I being cyncial in thinking that for many (most?) footballers, the bottom line is money?

 

[bees66]

Less to do with identity of the Manager I'd say, than the money on offer (signing-on, weekly wage, bonuses etc).

I mean, Champions League/European football is another consideration often claimed by players to be a big attraction, but when it came to it, they've all signed for MU this season without it.

Or am I being cyncial in thinking that for many (most?) footballers, the bottom line is money?

Rooney signed a 300K a week deal whilst he was there and they were also in the CL at that time.. had more pulling power last season more than now tbh..

 

[Les Beeavinu]

The other thing to remember of course is that Man U hadn't signed the huge shirt deal when Moyes was in charge last summer. That's what is funding the spending this season.

 

[Salford Bee]

Of course it's not "peanuts", but it's not £150m, either.

Actually, it's Angel Di Maria when you count add-ons.

Can anyone claim that Di Maria on his own would have been the answer to Moyes' problems?

Anyhow, I'm not denying that Moyes made mistakes etc. But on his the basis of the record which caused MU/Ferguson to appoint him, I think he might be entitled to argue that had he been supported by the Board in the same way as LvG has, then he might have done rather better than he did.

P.S. Allardyce and Ferguson are "thick as thieves", so maybe he spoke to him before making this comment. If so, is this Ferguson's way of questioning why the Board didn't give Moyes the support which LvG is enjoying?

You questioned whether the money was there. Moyes spent £64million so there clearly was money. United missed out on Bale/Ronaldo/Fabregas and they were openly courting them. Had he got one of them, United's spending would have been around £150m.

 

[Ealing Bee]

You questioned whether the money was there. Moyes spent £64million so there clearly was money. United missed out on Bale/Ronaldo/Fabregas and they were openly courting them. Had he got one of them, United's spending would have been around £150m.

Obviously the money was "there".

What I'm saying is that they weren't so desperate to spend it last season as this, whether because they didn't quite trust Moyes with the chequebook, and/or because they (complacently) thought the team was in better shape than it was.

And "missing out on" Bale/Ronaldo/Fabregas etc I think proves my point. That is, if they had been genuinely determined to get them, they would have got them the same way they got Di Maria, Falcao, Rojo, Vidal, Blind etc this time around - by paying whatever it takes.

 

[Salford Bee]

Obviously the money was "there".

What I'm saying is that they weren't so desperate to spend it last season as this, whether because they didn't quite trust Moyes with the chequebook, and/or because they (complacently) thought the team was in better shape than it was.

And "missing out on" Bale/Ronaldo/Fabregas etc I think proves my point. That is, if they had been genuinely determined to get them, they would have got them the same way they got Di Maria, Falcao, Rojo, Vidal, Blind etc this time around - by paying whatever it takes.

This is your response to me saying There was money there.

Was it though?

Missing out on Bale when Real signed him. Ronaldo - obvious. Fabregas - again, obvious.

 

[Ealing Bee]

This is your response to me saying There was money there.



Missing out on Bale when Real signed him. Ronaldo - obvious. Fabregas - again, obvious.

I got £100 from the cashpoint earlier.

If I had fancied a beer on my walk back, but my local was now charging £10 a pint, I'd have said "No thanks" and carried on home.

But if I had just been locked up in jail for 10 years, this was my first pint on release, and I'd £100 from the cashpoint, then I'd pay it in the blink of an eye.

That's what desperation does - and the way MU/LvG are lashing out huge sums on players in positions where they're covered, whilst neglecting positions where they're weak, smacks to me of desperation.

Moyes didn't have that leverage.

Anyhow, there's a bottle of red just waiting for me to open it, and I'm sure you've better things to do, too.

Enjoy your evening.

 

[maddogging]

Garcia wisely steps down at Watford. Billy McKinlay in charge tomorrow

 

[Ealing Bee]

You questioned whether the money was there. Moyes spent £64million so there clearly was money. United missed out on Bale/Ronaldo/Fabregas and they were openly courting them. Had he got one of them, United's spending would have been around £150m.

This was discussed on Football Focus.

They pointed out that when the Summer transfer window closed on Sept.1st, Moyes had spent (been allowed to spend?) £27.5m on one player.

Whereas LvG has spent (been allowed to spend?) £151.m on six players this Summer.

And after five League games, Moyes' team had seven points, whereas LvG's had five.

Of course, Moyes was allowed to spend a further £36.5m in the January window, but that's looks like a late panic by the Board, when they saw how the first half of the season had panned out.

So that if MU are still so-so come this January, I expect the Board will sanction LvG making further signings.

And who knows, one of them might even be a defender...

 

[Gee Bee]

This was discussed on Football Focus.

They pointed out that when the Summer transfer window closed on Sept.1st, Moyes had spent (been allowed to spend?) £27.5m on one player.

Whereas LvG has spent (been allowed to spend?) £151.m on six players this Summer.

And after five League games, Moyes' team had seven points, whereas LvG's had five.

Of course, Moyes was allowed to spend a further £36.5m in the January window, but that's looks like a late panic by the Board, when they saw how the first half of the season had panned out.

So that if MU are still so-so come this January, I expect the Board will sanction LvG making further signings.

And who knows, one of them might even be a defender...

Before he signed Fellaini, they had tried to buy Baines, Fabregas and Bale. The fact they spent £27m only, wasn't because that was all they had.

 

[Invipai]

Before he signed Fellaini, they had tried to buy Baines, Fabregas and Bale. The fact they spent £27m only, wasn't because that was all they had.

They kept trying to buy players they were clearly never going to get, it came across as slightly embarrassing. Of course they weren't going to get Bale! It struck me as Moyes wanted to make a big name signing because he felt it's what a manager at a big club does and he has a new toy with lots of cash, rather than because they were the right player for the club etc.

LvG's spending is done to try and recoup Moyes' losses, but they're very likely just making things much worse...

 

[Idaho Bee]

They kept trying to buy players they were clearly never going to get, it came across as slightly embarrassing. Of course they weren't going to get Bale! It struck me as Moyes wanted to make a big name signing because he felt it's what a manager at a big club does and he has a new toy with lots of cash, rather than because they were the right player for the club etc.

LvG's spending is done to try and recoup Moyes' losses, but they're very likely just making things much worse...[/QUOTE]

Let's hope so.............

 

[Gee Bee]

They kept trying to buy players they were clearly never going to get, it came across as slightly embarrassing. Of course they weren't going to get Bale! It struck me as Moyes wanted to make a big name signing because he felt it's what a manager at a big club does and he has a new toy with lots of cash, rather than because they were the right player for the club etc.

LvG's spending is done to try and recoup Moyes' losses, but they're very likely just making things much worse...

They were the current Premier League champions at the time and would always be after the top players. Bale did speak with them before opting for Real Madrid. Baines was only 2nd choice England full back at the time and Fabragas couldn't get a regular start for Barcelona. So hardly players out of their reach. The players they were after were the right positional players required I would suggest. Evra was already talking of leaving (Baines replaces), Giggs (Bale replaces) Fabregas ( better option than Cleverley for example). The new CEO was as much if not more to blame for lack of transfer activity imho.

 

[The Pipe]

Tick tick for Pardew. Fans distinctly restless tonight with home and away joining in singing, sacked in the morning. It must be tough trying to ignore that !!

 

[Salford Bee]

Before he signed Fellaini, they had tried to buy Baines, Fabregas and Bale. The fact they spent £27m only, wasn't because that was all they had.

Look above. I'm not bothering anymore as there is no point. Ealing Bee has ignored the holes picked into his argument and his assertions have also been completely wrong.

 

[buzzybees]

Tick tick for Pardew. Fans distinctly restless tonight with home and away joining in singing, sacked in the morning. It must be tough trying to ignore that !!

He's mates with Ashley, he won't be going anywhere.

 

[Ealing Bee]

Look above. I'm not bothering anymore as there is no point. Ealing Bee has ignored the holes picked into his argument and his assertions have also been completely wrong.

If you say so.

 

[Humblebee]

Tick tick for Pardew. Fans distinctly restless tonight with home and away joining in singing, sacked in the morning. It must be tough trying to ignore that !!

Six years left on his contract!! Would be expensive to get rid of him.

 

[Owlsmoor_Bee]

Six years left on his contract!! Would be expensive to get rid of him.

There will be a clause limiting any such pay out I'm sure..

 

[sonofabee]

Six years left on his contract!! Would be expensive to get rid of him.

Don't forget he's still paying back Ashley out of his salary for the gambling debt and that's public knowledge.

 

[Ealing Bee]

Don't forget he's still paying back Ashley out of his salary for the gambling debt and that's public knowledge.

"Knowledge" or speculation?

I have absolutely no idea about it myself, but the great majority of these Toon fans seemed to think it nonsense when the rumour first broke:
http://www.talk-of-the-tyne.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=17259

 

[Salford Bee]

If you say so.

You questioned whether Moyes had money to spend and ascertained he didn't.

He did. That's been proven to you. When your FLAWED arguments were pointed out you rabbited on with the same weak point.

 

[sonofabee]

"Knowledge" or speculation?

I have absolutely no idea about it myself, but the great majority of these Toon fans seemed to think it nonsense when the rumour first broke:
http://www.talk-of-the-tyne.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=17259

That's a first, you admitting you don't know anything about something. Really not bothered whether you or a few fans on some website sceptical, it's no secret in the football world.

 

[jlove]

... it's no secret in the football world.

It's a well-known fact, then!

 

[Gee Bee]

He must of owed many millions if he is still paying him back.
Would you keep a manager to get back what he owes you but in doing so see 60 million less income for being relegated?

 

[hanworthbee]

thought they were a bit unlucky last night, god knows how colback managed to hit the bar from three yards

 

[Ealing Bee]

You questioned whether Moyes had money to spend and ascertained he didn't.

He did. That's been proven to you. When your FLAWED arguments were pointed out you rabbited on with the same weak point.

As the late, great Brian Clough always used to point out, no Manager ever signed a player - it's always the Chairman's signature on the cheque.

Now if you're telling me that MU could have spent £150m in Moyes's first transfer window, then of course they could - such a sum was never going to be beyond them.

But what I was questioning was their (genuine) willingness to spend such a sum. And I suspect they were not willing to do so, for the following reasons:
1. As reigning League Champions, they were complacent as to the strength of their squad;
2. With a brand new CEO in place, they were not as well placed to clinch deals as under his predecessor;
3. Moyes was not as well placed to demand signings as his predecessor.

Which to me explains why they only made one signing in the Summer for £27.5m, and another couple in January, for another £36.5m i.e. if they had really wanted to sign some of those big names they were linked with, then they would have done so, especially since they could offer Champions League football.

This Summer, however, things were very different.
1. Having finished 7th, with no European football, there can have been no complacency in the Boardroom, since it was obvious they were in the crapper;
2. The CEO now had a year in the job, by which time he knew he had to prove himself, or face the sack like Moyes;
3. LvG was in a strong position to demand big signings, regardless of whether they were "overpaying", or whether they were actually what was needed (i.e. defenders).

Unless, of course, you think Moyes was actually offered Ronaldo, Fabregas, Bale etc, but decided that he didn't need them.

Anyhow, it is all speculation on both our parts. Which may mean your analysis is correct, or it may not.

But in any case, neither of us is in a position to state definitively that he is correct and the other wrong.

Like you are trying to do.

 

[Ealing Bee]

That's a first, you admitting you don't know anything about something. Really not bothered whether you or a few fans on some website sceptical, it's no secret in the football world.

 

[sonofabee]

He must of owed many millions if he is still paying him back.
Would you keep a manager to get back what he owes you but in doing so see 60 million less income for being relegated?

Of course not - the fact is that until recently his record at Newcastle was good and he has traded well so enjoyed the backing of Ashley who was single minded enough to bring him in against the wishes of the fans. Love Ashley or loathe him he is no fool and while Pardew was one of his gambling pals, nearly 4 years later he's been justified in his selection as one of the longest serving managers.

 

[Ealing Bee]

Pardew's job safe. Well for another week, at any rate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29423918

Meanwhile, here is an interesting analysis of what's going on at St.James Park (though no mention of gambling debts or casinos etc):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...08838/Why-Newcastle-United-are-in-crisis.html

 

[buzzybees]

Pardew has never made any team better no matter where he has been, amazed that Newcastle fans put up with him in charge.

 

[buzzybees]

Pardew's job safe. Well for another week, at any rate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29423918

Meanwhile, here is an interesting analysis of what's going on at St.James Park (though no mention of gambling debts or casinos etc):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...08838/Why-Newcastle-United-are-in-crisis.html

Swansea will win, then what?

 

[Phoenixkeeper]

Pardew has never made any team better no matter where he has been, amazed that Newcastle fans put up with him in charge.

The fans have to put up with whoever is in charge for as long as the chairman and the board decide to keep them. The fans can vent their frustrations, and they have done, but they are not in charge of hiring or firing.

 

[sonofabee]

Pardew has never made any team better no matter where he has been, amazed that Newcastle fans put up with him in charge.

They didn't want him in the first place but warmed to him, mainly the season after he joined when they went on a long winning run of 10 games playing good football with him picking up Manager of The Month. I don't like the bloke and neither do an awful lot of players he managed at other clubs but take away his recent dreadful record his stats at Newcastle are reasonable.

 

[buzzybees]

The fans have to put up with whoever is in charge for as long as the chairman and the board decide to keep them. The fans can vent their frustrations, and they have done, but they are not in charge of hiring or firing.

Oh yes, Ashley won't listen to the fans.

 

[SmiffyBee]

"Knowledge" or speculation?

I have absolutely no idea about it myself, but the great majority of these Toon fans seemed to think it nonsense when the rumour first broke:
http://www.talk-of-the-tyne.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=17259

It's a FACT.
Even i know about Pardew's gambling debt to Ashley

 

[Gee Bee]

It's a FACT.
Even i know about Pardew's gambling debt to Ashley

I bet you don't.

 

[SmiffyBee]

I bet you don't.

someone told me in the pub, so I do actually

 

[RodBee]

I bet you don't.

I bet he does!

 

[Ealing Bee]

It's a FACT.
Even i know about Pardew's gambling debt to Ashley

Yeah, but how many know about Warburton's gambling debt to Benham/Matchbook?

I mean, why else do you think he appointed him?

P.S. Before anyone asks me to prove it, I don't have to, since it's now on the Internet, so it must be true.

 

[SmiffyBee]

Yeah, but how many know about Warburton's gambling debt to Benham/Matchbook?

I mean, why else do you think he appointed him?

P.S. Before anyone asks me to prove it, I don't have to, since it's now on the Internet, so it must be true.

....Not true, as you did not put the word FACT in your sentence....

 

[Ealing Bee]

....Not true, as you did not put the word FACT in your sentence....

Yeah, except that the mate down the pub who originally told me, said it.

Which would stand up in any Court.

 

[SmiffyBee]

Yeah, except that the mate down the pub who originally told me, said it.

Which would stand up in any Court.

Just face it, you've lost this one, and anything else you say on the subject will just spell defeat for your soul

 

[Ealing Bee]

Meanwhile back with Pardew.

According to Luke Edwards, the Daily Telegraph's North East football correspondent:
"Pardew appreciates the support he is being shown [by Ashley], although there is also a suspicion the two men are involved in a compensation stand-off. Ashley does not want to pay off a manager who has six years left on his contract, while Pardew will not quit as he knows he is entitled to a large compensation package."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...obably-beyond-as-Mike-Ashley-keeps-faith.html

And according to Neil Ashton of the Daily Mail, the compensation package due to Pardew could be worth up to £5m:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...on-wants-sack-Newcastle-boss-Alan-Pardew.html


Have they not heard of Pardew's massive gambling debts to Ashley?

I mean, it's "no secret in the football world..."

Bloody journalists, eh?

What do they know?

 

[Salford Bee]

Luke Edwards and the Telegraph are banned by Newcastle for suggesting that Ashley wanted to sell up.

I am sure any mention of gambling debts would lead to a similar response.

I know someone who covers Tottenham and when Harry Redknapp mentioned Demba Ba's release clause he was told by Tottenham, who were told by Newcastle to take the mention of it down. Local press up there were told if it was mentioned they wouldn't come back.

 

[Ealing Bee]

Luke Edwards and the Telegraph are banned by Newcastle for suggesting that Ashley wanted to sell up.

I am sure any mention of gambling debts would lead to a similar response.

I know someone who covers Tottenham and when Harry Redknapp mentioned Demba Ba's release clause he was told by Tottenham, who were told by Newcastle to take the mention of it down. Local press up there were told if it was mentioned they wouldn't come back.

Ashley can't ban a Reporter twice. And after he has banned him once, then "the gloves come off" and the reporter will report what he likes (the Daily Telegraph has already done a hatchet job on Newcastle/Ashley since it was banned).

And in any case, if Pardew should owe Ashley gambling debts*, why would he still be liable to pay compensation to Pardew if he sacked him?

Or are the papers all making that up, too?



* - Incurred in the mysterious Casino which Ashley owns, but no-one has ever seen...

 

[TW3Bee]

Dougie Freedman could be the next one.

 

[SvenBee]

Stunned that he has lasted so long. Awful year and a half for them

 

[Bill Benn]

Dougie Freedman could be the next one.

Odds on gone tonight,look like there could be a change of managers at both the clubs we play in our next away games