|
The Board - general discussion (including Res 12); notes from the AGM
|
|
Topic Started: 15 Jul 2014, 12:03 AM (1,414,647 Views)
|
|
Belgrano
|
13 May 2016, 06:24 PM
Post #7501
|
- Posts:
- 17,112
- Group:
- Senior Member
- Member
- #5,524
- Joined:
- 11 November 2006
- Twitter Name
- Belgrano67
|
- murphio
- 13 May 2016, 05:56 PM
I should add to my above post that Lawwell tried the Miller routine again with Bobo Balde with the result that one of our highest paid players became a virtual outcast. The notion that was down to Strachan was utterly lamentable. I don't think anyone ever inferred it was Strachan's decision to outcast Balde? In fact - I think pretty much everyone was in agreement that Balde had been hard done by, by Lawwell and the board. The cheek of the guy, eh? Expecting to be paid the weekly wages he'd agreed to sign on for, at the end of the previous season! What a effing chancer!
In fact, did Strachan not bring Balde back in from the cold when he faced a bit of a defensive central defence injury crisis? Must have been a particularly bitter pill for Lawwell to have to swallow that. Especially as we'd gone some ridiculous run of losing goals in every game - to finally get a clean sheet when Balde returned for that game at Tannadice.
The Kenny Miller thing was a bit of a worrying trend as it involved a non-football man like Lawwell getting involved (over and above the manager) in the footballing affairs. But getting that sort of money for such a dud such as Miller was great business. Sometimes Strachan's hand being forced (like when Scott Brown got suspended near the end of his first season - forcing a Robson and Hartley settled central midfield) were the best things to happen to him during his reign. But the Balde business was one that a much bigger deal should have been made of - but luckily for Lawwell, we continued to win as Balde saw out his contract in the reserves, so it was never assessed as much as it should have been. But I don't think anyone was under any illusions that it was anyone but Lawwell who was pulling the strings on that scenario.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wee Ed KTF
|
13 May 2016, 06:36 PM
Post #7502
|
- Posts:
- 6,194
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,493
- Joined:
- 10 July 2005
|
CQN claiming a Club statement on Resolution 12 is expected soon and the Club are on the same wavelength as the fans
And Resolution 12 adverts to be placed in The Guardian and a Swiss paper (funded by CQN) Interesting
|
|
|
| |
|
murphio
|
13 May 2016, 06:47 PM
Post #7503
|
Could start a row in an empty room
- Posts:
- 47,800
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #127
- Joined:
- 2 September 2004
- Twitter Name
- @murphio1888
|
- Belgrano
- 13 May 2016, 06:24 PM
The Kenny Miller thing was a bit of a worrying trend as it involved a non-football man like Lawwell getting involved (over and above the manager) in the footballing affairs. But getting that sort of money for such a dud such as Miller was great business. It might have been 'great business' since we got him for free but as I went to great lengths to argue at the time - whether it was good, bad or indifferent was never the point. It was interference from above in what should have been the manager's decision. I'd have had absolutely issue whatsoever if Strachan had decided to take the money for Kenny Miller. But that's not what happened.
|
|
|
| |
|
steviefrombelfast
|
13 May 2016, 06:55 PM
Post #7504
|
- Posts:
- 6,467
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #350
- Joined:
- 11 November 2004
|
- murphio
- 13 May 2016, 05:56 PM
I should add to my above post that Lawwell tried the Miller routine again with Bobo Balde with the result that one of our highest paid players became a virtual outcast. The notion that was down to Strachan was utterly lamentable. I would disagree about balde. Strachan wanted rid of him. Strachan may not have agreed 100% with the way it was handled but imo he definitely wanted rid. No way would Strachan have accepted a player he wanted to play being frozen out. Strachan did bring bobo back for a game or two when injuries dictated but froze him out again pretty quickly.
As for miller I would agree Lawwell sold a player Strachan wanted to keep. Absolutely. That's what happens when a club gets an offer for a player they wanted to accept. I suspect simome never wanted to sell costa, or whoever was spurs mamager at the time wouldnt have wanted to sell bale. That list coild go for over a 100/years. If clubs only ever sold the players managers wanted to shift there would be a hell of a lot less football transfers.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pussyfoot
|
13 May 2016, 07:07 PM
Post #7505
|
- Posts:
- 13,323
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #22,774
- Joined:
- 12 January 2009
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul McStay
|
- Wee Ed KTF
- 13 May 2016, 06:36 PM
CQN claiming a Club statement on Resolution 12 is expected soon and the Club are on the same wavelength as the fans
And Resolution 12 adverts to be placed in The Guardian and a Swiss paper (funded by CQN) Interesting I've not really clicked on CQN in a good while before just now and I'm aware they take some stick, looks as though that community is putting their money where their mouth is to me.
|
|
|
| |
|
murphio
|
13 May 2016, 07:13 PM
Post #7506
|
Could start a row in an empty room
- Posts:
- 47,800
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #127
- Joined:
- 2 September 2004
- Twitter Name
- @murphio1888
|
- steviefrombelfast
- 13 May 2016, 06:55 PM
- murphio
- 13 May 2016, 05:56 PM
I should add to my above post that Lawwell tried the Miller routine again with Bobo Balde with the result that one of our highest paid players became a virtual outcast. The notion that was down to Strachan was utterly lamentable.
I would disagree about balde. Strachan wanted rid of him. Strachan may not have agreed 100% with the way it was handled but imo he definitely wanted rid. No way would Strachan have accepted a player he wanted to play being frozen out. Strachan did bring bobo back for a game or two when injuries dictated but froze him out again pretty quickly. As for miller I would agree Lawwell sold a player Strachan wanted to keep. Absolutely. That's what happens when a club gets an offer for a player they wanted to accept. I suspect simome never wanted to sell costa, or whoever was spurs mamager at the time wouldnt have wanted to sell bale. That list coild go for over a 100/years. If clubs only ever sold the players managers wanted to shift there would be a hell of a lot less football transfers. I have no problem with there being someone at the club who makes these type of decisions. Having a manager who has complete and total control over football matters is not without its down sides. Martin O'Neill decided to award huge contract extensions to Sutton, Balde, Hartson and Thompson which ended up leaving us completely hamstrung when it came to bringing in new recruits - bar a last minute move for Dwight Yorke on a free. What you absolutely must have though is accountability. You can't be interfering in football matters with absolutely no responsibility for effing them up. Lawwell has been acting as a de facto DOF which is absolutely fine except for the fact he has carried the can for nothing that has went wrong on the field - in actual fact he has been consistently rewarded for failure.
|
|
|
| |
|
tomtheleedstim
|
13 May 2016, 07:37 PM
Post #7507
|
- Posts:
- 2,428
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #27,080
- Joined:
- 14 October 2010
|
- Pussyfoot
- 13 May 2016, 07:07 PM
- Wee Ed KTF
- 13 May 2016, 06:36 PM
CQN claiming a Club statement on Resolution 12 is expected soon and the Club are on the same wavelength as the fans
And Resolution 12 adverts to be placed in The Guardian and a Swiss paper (funded by CQN) Interesting
I've not really clicked on CQN in a good while before just now and I'm aware they take some stick, looks as though that community is putting their money where their mouth is to me. It's open to all Celtic supporters. It's not a CQN thing. The link should be on here. It's up to individuals if they wish to contribute.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pussyfoot
|
13 May 2016, 08:23 PM
Post #7508
|
- Posts:
- 13,323
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #22,774
- Joined:
- 12 January 2009
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul McStay
|
- tomtheleedstim
- 13 May 2016, 07:37 PM
- Pussyfoot
- 13 May 2016, 07:07 PM
- Wee Ed KTF
- 13 May 2016, 06:36 PM
CQN claiming a Club statement on Resolution 12 is expected soon and the Club are on the same wavelength as the fans
And Resolution 12 adverts to be placed in The Guardian and a Swiss paper (funded by CQN) Interesting
I've not really clicked on CQN in a good while before just now and I'm aware they take some stick, looks as though that community is putting their money where their mouth is to me.
It's open to all Celtic supporters. It's not a CQN thing. The link should be on here. It's up to individuals if they wish to contribute. After all the talk it does represent action. Would be good to see a united approach, particularly if Paul is right about the Board's impending declaration. Is there any reason we can't align with other groups on this one and have a thread?
|
|
|
| |
|
krungthep
|
13 May 2016, 08:51 PM
Post #7509
|
- Posts:
- 3,710
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,953
- Joined:
- 31 August 2005
|
- tomtheleedstim
- 13 May 2016, 07:37 PM
- Pussyfoot
- 13 May 2016, 07:07 PM
- Wee Ed KTF
- 13 May 2016, 06:36 PM
CQN claiming a Club statement on Resolution 12 is expected soon and the Club are on the same wavelength as the fans
And Resolution 12 adverts to be placed in The Guardian and a Swiss paper (funded by CQN) Interesting
I've not really clicked on CQN in a good while before just now and I'm aware they take some stick, looks as though that community is putting their money where their mouth is to me.
It's open to all Celtic supporters. It's not a CQN thing. The link should be on here. It's up to individuals if they wish to contribute. Lawwell says here statement coming.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3588257/Bringing-Ronny-Deila-Celtic-boss-not-vanity-project-says-chief-executive-Peter-Lawwell.html
|
|
|
| |
|
lenobhoy
|
13 May 2016, 10:38 PM
Post #7510
|
Catch some light and it'll be alright
- Posts:
- 26,056
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #333
- Joined:
- 4 November 2004
|
- murphio
- 13 May 2016, 05:56 PM
I should add to my above post that Lawwell tried the Miller routine again with Bobo Balde with the result that one of our highest paid players became a virtual outcast. The notion that was down to Strachan was utterly lamentable. Look at him bringing in Flood when we needed a striker, the length of time it took to get a decent left back, Lennon needing a striker for the qualifiers, Deila needing a striker, Samaras wanting to stay but was told to get tae. He's the man with his fingers all over our transfers and there's no team building or strategy other than making a quick buck. This is the guy that built a 3/4 size indoor pitch, in a country with the worst weather, for an all purpose training centre, because he was too tight. The money that we've got in for transfers has been offset by the amount of money we've lost through his eff ups.
|
|
|
| |
|
Vinnie Bhoy
|
13 May 2016, 11:11 PM
Post #7511
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 10,793
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #3,025
- Joined:
- 7 February 2006
|
- Belgrano
- 13 May 2016, 06:24 PM
- murphio
- 13 May 2016, 05:56 PM
I should add to my above post that Lawwell tried the Miller routine again with Bobo Balde with the result that one of our highest paid players became a virtual outcast. The notion that was down to Strachan was utterly lamentable.
I don't think anyone ever inferred it was Strachan's decision to outcast Balde? In fact - I think pretty much everyone was in agreement that Balde had been hard done by, by Lawwell and the board. The cheek of the guy, eh? Expecting to be paid the weekly wages he'd agreed to sign on for, at the end of the previous season! What a effing chancer! In fact, did Strachan not bring Balde back in from the cold when he faced a bit of a defensive central defence injury crisis? Must have been a particularly bitter pill for Lawwell to have to swallow that. Especially as we'd gone some ridiculous run of losing goals in every game - to finally get a clean sheet when Balde returned for that game at Tannadice. The Kenny Miller thing was a bit of a worrying trend as it involved a non-football man like Lawwell getting involved (over and above the manager) in the footballing affairs. But getting that sort of money for such a dud such as Miller was great business. Sometimes Strachan's hand being forced (like when Scott Brown got suspended near the end of his first season - forcing a Robson and Hartley settled central midfield) were the best things to happen to him during his reign. But the Balde business was one that a much bigger deal should have been made of - but luckily for Lawwell, we continued to win as Balde saw out his contract in the reserves, so it was never assessed as much as it should have been. But I don't think anyone was under any illusions that it was anyone but Lawwell who was pulling the strings on that scenario. As much as it seemed like good business at the time, Miller went to the huns eventually and stuck it to us on many occasions, winning a couple of titles with them and got to a UEFA final. Not that he was great with us, far from it but he was starting to play well for us at the time he left and maybe wouldn't have went to the huns if his departure to Deby had been handled better.
|
|
|
| |
|
Zurawski 7
|
13 May 2016, 11:19 PM
Post #7512
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 17,049
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,501
- Joined:
- 10 July 2005
|
- Vinnie Bhoy
- 13 May 2016, 11:11 PM
- Belgrano
- 13 May 2016, 06:24 PM
- murphio
- 13 May 2016, 05:56 PM
I should add to my above post that Lawwell tried the Miller routine again with Bobo Balde with the result that one of our highest paid players became a virtual outcast. The notion that was down to Strachan was utterly lamentable.
I don't think anyone ever inferred it was Strachan's decision to outcast Balde? In fact - I think pretty much everyone was in agreement that Balde had been hard done by, by Lawwell and the board. The cheek of the guy, eh? Expecting to be paid the weekly wages he'd agreed to sign on for, at the end of the previous season! What a effing chancer! In fact, did Strachan not bring Balde back in from the cold when he faced a bit of a defensive central defence injury crisis? Must have been a particularly bitter pill for Lawwell to have to swallow that. Especially as we'd gone some ridiculous run of losing goals in every game - to finally get a clean sheet when Balde returned for that game at Tannadice. The Kenny Miller thing was a bit of a worrying trend as it involved a non-football man like Lawwell getting involved (over and above the manager) in the footballing affairs. But getting that sort of money for such a dud such as Miller was great business. Sometimes Strachan's hand being forced (like when Scott Brown got suspended near the end of his first season - forcing a Robson and Hartley settled central midfield) were the best things to happen to him during his reign. But the Balde business was one that a much bigger deal should have been made of - but luckily for Lawwell, we continued to win as Balde saw out his contract in the reserves, so it was never assessed as much as it should have been. But I don't think anyone was under any illusions that it was anyone but Lawwell who was pulling the strings on that scenario.
As much as it seemed like good business at the time, Miller went to the huns eventually and stuck it to us on many occasions, winning a couple of titles with them and got to a UEFA final. Not that he was great with us, far from it but he was starting to play well for us at the time he left and maybe wouldn't have went to the huns if his departure to Deby had been handled better. miller wasnt there when they scraped into the uefa final. no problem with lawwell punting him either. he was terrible and we have had much better strikers since him
plenty of players are punted against managers wishes, not a huge issue. plenty to slag lawwell about and he has been involved in terrible transfers but not this one
|
|
|
| |
|
frankebhoy
|
13 May 2016, 11:58 PM
Post #7513
|
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
- Posts:
- 1,957
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13,246
- Joined:
- 23 December 2007
|
- Belgrano
- 13 May 2016, 06:24 PM
- murphio
- 13 May 2016, 05:56 PM
I should add to my above post that Lawwell tried the Miller routine again with Bobo Balde with the result that one of our highest paid players became a virtual outcast. The notion that was down to Strachan was utterly lamentable.
I don't think anyone ever inferred it was Strachan's decision to outcast Balde? In fact - I think pretty much everyone was in agreement that Balde had been hard done by, by Lawwell and the board. The cheek of the guy, eh? Expecting to be paid the weekly wages he'd agreed to sign on for, at the end of the previous season! What a effing chancer! In fact, did Strachan not bring Balde back in from the cold when he faced a bit of a defensive central defence injury crisis? Must have been a particularly bitter pill for Lawwell to have to swallow that. Especially as we'd gone some ridiculous run of losing goals in every game - to finally get a clean sheet when Balde returned for that game at Tannadice. The Kenny Miller thing was a bit of a worrying trend as it involved a non-football man like Lawwell getting involved (over and above the manager) in the footballing affairs. But getting that sort of money for such a dud such as Miller was great business. Sometimes Strachan's hand being forced (like when Scott Brown got suspended near the end of his first season - forcing a Robson and Hartley settled central midfield) were the best things to happen to him during his reign. But the Balde business was one that a much bigger deal should have been made of - but luckily for Lawwell, we continued to win as Balde saw out his contract in the reserves, so it was never assessed as much as it should have been. But I don't think anyone was under any illusions that it was anyone but Lawwell who was pulling the strings on that scenario. The sale of kenny Miller was as stupid a decision as Lawwell ever made , did we not have JVH and Skippy as our main strikers at the time with JVH frequently injured,He was the only striker on our books with serious pace at the time and was always a great sub to bring on,also crucially Strachan wanted to keep him but was overruled, but seriously to call Miller a dud is simply unbelievable and shows a lack of understanding of football,Surely you haven't forgotten on his return to Rangers he rattled in numerous goals against us in crucial old firm games which cost us titles and millions of pounds in Champions league money, In the twilight of his career he went to America before being brought back to Rangers where even then he played a major part and scored against us inflicting one of the most embarrassing defeats in our history knocking us out of the cup .our director of football must have been hurting big time ! he wasn't the best we've ever had, but a dud ? no way mate ,that would be the guy who sold him .
|
|
|
| |
|
murphio
|
14 May 2016, 12:14 AM
Post #7514
|
Could start a row in an empty room
- Posts:
- 47,800
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #127
- Joined:
- 2 September 2004
- Twitter Name
- @murphio1888
|
- Zurawski 7
- 13 May 2016, 11:19 PM
plenty of players are punted against managers wishes, not a huge issue. plenty to slag lawwell about and he has been involved in terrible transfers but not this one It is a huge issue when the person making the decisions is completely unaccountable for them. Lawwell thought Steven Fletcher wasn't worth the 3.5m Hibs wanted. The net result - I don't care what anyone says - ended up costing us the title. Prior to that he pulled the plug on Hasselbaink because he personally decided he wasn't worth the wage he was demanding. Whether he was right or wrong, how is he qualified to make that call over the head of the manager? And why should he be free to pull these type of strings behind a succession of managers and yet be completely bullet proof from the consequences? The issue here is not whether the role of Director of Football can be a useful one but whether Lawwell is qualifed to carry it out. He should also take a share in the responsibilty for failure. His salary and bonuses should absolutely be linked to what happens both on and off the field. So in as much as he gets rewarded for 'positive transfer outcomes' then he should be sanctioned for negative ones.
Edited by murphio, 14 May 2016, 12:16 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Zurawski 7
|
14 May 2016, 12:18 AM
Post #7515
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 17,049
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,501
- Joined:
- 10 July 2005
|
- murphio
- 14 May 2016, 12:14 AM
- Zurawski 7
- 13 May 2016, 11:19 PM
plenty of players are punted against managers wishes, not a huge issue. plenty to slag lawwell about and he has been involved in terrible transfers but not this one
It is a huge issue when the person making the decisions is completely unaccountable for them. Lawwell thought Steven Fletcher wasn't worth the 3.5m Hibs wanted for Fletcher. The net result - I don't care what anyone says - ended up costing us the title. Prior to that he pulled the plug on Hasselbaink because he personally decided he wasn't worth the wage he was demanding. Whether he was right or wrong, how is he qualified to make that call over the head of the manager? And why should he be free to pull these type of strings behind a succession of managers and yet be completely bullet proof from the consequences? The issue here is not whether the role of Director of Football can be a useful one but whether Lawwell is qualifed to carry it out. He should also take a share in the responsibilty for failure. His salary and bonuses should absolutely be linked to what happens both on and off the field. So in as much as he gets rewarded for 'positive transfer outcomes' then he should be sanctioned for negative ones. what manager is qualified to negotiate wages with players? i doubt many if any at all do it. big jan in the end wasnt worth the fee or wages he got as much as i liked him tbf
fletcher wasnt worth that and i certainly wouldnt have gave strachan that sort of money to spend after his previous signings especially when they knew he was leaving. only one person to blame for losing that title and it was the manager. he had more than enough in that squad to do it
no arguments with the rest of the criticism of lawwell. his time has been up for a long time
|
|
|
| |
|
murphio
|
14 May 2016, 12:25 AM
Post #7516
|
Could start a row in an empty room
- Posts:
- 47,800
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #127
- Joined:
- 2 September 2004
- Twitter Name
- @murphio1888
|
- Zurawski 7
- 14 May 2016, 12:18 AM
- murphio
- 14 May 2016, 12:14 AM
- Zurawski 7
- 13 May 2016, 11:19 PM
plenty of players are punted against managers wishes, not a huge issue. plenty to slag lawwell about and he has been involved in terrible transfers but not this one
It is a huge issue when the person making the decisions is completely unaccountable for them. Lawwell thought Steven Fletcher wasn't worth the 3.5m Hibs wanted for Fletcher. The net result - I don't care what anyone says - ended up costing us the title. Prior to that he pulled the plug on Hasselbaink because he personally decided he wasn't worth the wage he was demanding. Whether he was right or wrong, how is he qualified to make that call over the head of the manager? And why should he be free to pull these type of strings behind a succession of managers and yet be completely bullet proof from the consequences? The issue here is not whether the role of Director of Football can be a useful one but whether Lawwell is qualifed to carry it out. He should also take a share in the responsibilty for failure. His salary and bonuses should absolutely be linked to what happens both on and off the field. So in as much as he gets rewarded for 'positive transfer outcomes' then he should be sanctioned for negative ones.
what manager is qualified to negotiate wages with players? i doubt many if any at all do it. big jan in the end wasnt worth the fee or wages he got as much as i liked him tbf fletcher wasnt worth that and i certainly wouldnt have gave strachan that sort of money to spend after his previous signings especially when they knew he was leaving. only one person to blame for losing that title and it was the manager. he had more than enough in that squad to do it no arguments with the rest of the criticism of lawwell. his time has been up for a long time How is an accountant qualified to decide what a player is 'worth' in terms of wages or fees? Again though, the point here is not whether Lawwell (or anyone else) should be having an input into these negotiations but whether he should be able to exert influence over team matters while being immune from the consequences. I don't mind having a Director of Football per se and I don't even mind it being Lawwell. What does bother me is a succession of managers who been slaughtered for decisions - including some very poor signings - who had little or nothing to do with them. Park (the CEO's boy) identified them, Lawwell completed the deals for them and the guys who signed off on them were left carrying the can when they flopped.
|
|
|
| |
|
steviefrombelfast
|
14 May 2016, 12:31 AM
Post #7517
|
- Posts:
- 6,467
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #350
- Joined:
- 11 November 2004
|
- Zurawski 7
- 14 May 2016, 12:18 AM
- murphio
- 14 May 2016, 12:14 AM
- Zurawski 7
- 13 May 2016, 11:19 PM
plenty of players are punted against managers wishes, not a huge issue. plenty to slag lawwell about and he has been involved in terrible transfers but not this one
It is a huge issue when the person making the decisions is completely unaccountable for them. Lawwell thought Steven Fletcher wasn't worth the 3.5m Hibs wanted for Fletcher. The net result - I don't care what anyone says - ended up costing us the title. Prior to that he pulled the plug on Hasselbaink because he personally decided he wasn't worth the wage he was demanding. Whether he was right or wrong, how is he qualified to make that call over the head of the manager? And why should he be free to pull these type of strings behind a succession of managers and yet be completely bullet proof from the consequences? The issue here is not whether the role of Director of Football can be a useful one but whether Lawwell is qualifed to carry it out. He should also take a share in the responsibilty for failure. His salary and bonuses should absolutely be linked to what happens both on and off the field. So in as much as he gets rewarded for 'positive transfer outcomes' then he should be sanctioned for negative ones.
what manager is qualified to negotiate wages with players? i doubt many if any at all do it. big jan in the end wasnt worth the fee or wages he got as much as i liked him tbf fletcher wasnt worth that and i certainly wouldnt have gave strachan that sort of money to spend after his previous signings especially when they knew he was leaving. only one person to blame for losing that title and it was the manager. he had more than enough in that squad to do it no arguments with the rest of the criticism of lawwell. his time has been up for a long time As I remember it was widely reported that it was strachan who reckoned that the bidding for fletcher had went too high - and given that at that stage we have three strikers with over 40 goals between them as opposed to fletchers 4 it's easy to see why.
|
|
|
| |
|
davesterjc
|
14 May 2016, 12:35 AM
Post #7518
|
- Posts:
- 1,979
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #27,530
- Joined:
- 5 January 2011
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul McStay
|
To call Miller a dud is just ridiculous. Amido balde & Mo Bangura are the very definition of the word.
The guy works his socks off and has also scored goals in big games for most of his clubs,including us. Dud? not having iit.
|
|
|
| |
|
murphio
|
14 May 2016, 12:41 AM
Post #7519
|
Could start a row in an empty room
- Posts:
- 47,800
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #127
- Joined:
- 2 September 2004
- Twitter Name
- @murphio1888
|
- steviefrombelfast
- 14 May 2016, 12:31 AM
- Zurawski 7
- 14 May 2016, 12:18 AM
- murphio
- 14 May 2016, 12:14 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
what manager is qualified to negotiate wages with players? i doubt many if any at all do it. big jan in the end wasnt worth the fee or wages he got as much as i liked him tbf fletcher wasnt worth that and i certainly wouldnt have gave strachan that sort of money to spend after his previous signings especially when they knew he was leaving. only one person to blame for losing that title and it was the manager. he had more than enough in that squad to do it no arguments with the rest of the criticism of lawwell. his time has been up for a long time
As I remember it was widely reported that it was strachan who reckoned that the bidding for fletcher had went too high - and given that at that stage we have three strikers with over 40 goals between them as opposed to fletchers 4 it's easy to see why. I followed that story very closely at the time and I recall no such thing - googling brings up nothing to support what you have posted and certainly not anything that was 'widely reported'. Hibs ended up getting £1m more from Burnley than we had bid on the previous deadline day, totally vindicating Petrie telling us to take a hike. And Burnley doubled their money in the space of a year. Not winning the title cost us a fortune since the Champions that season were guaranteed direct entry into the Champions League. Lawwell effed that deal up and Strachan paid the price.
Edited by murphio, 14 May 2016, 12:45 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
kellybhoy
|
14 May 2016, 12:45 AM
Post #7520
|
- Posts:
- 12,084
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #3,529
- Joined:
- 4 April 2006
|
- murphio
- 14 May 2016, 12:25 AM
- Zurawski 7
- 14 May 2016, 12:18 AM
- murphio
- 14 May 2016, 12:14 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
what manager is qualified to negotiate wages with players? i doubt many if any at all do it. big jan in the end wasnt worth the fee or wages he got as much as i liked him tbf fletcher wasnt worth that and i certainly wouldnt have gave strachan that sort of money to spend after his previous signings especially when they knew he was leaving. only one person to blame for losing that title and it was the manager. he had more than enough in that squad to do it no arguments with the rest of the criticism of lawwell. his time has been up for a long time
How is an accountant qualified to decide what a player is 'worth' in terms of wages or fees? Again though, the point here is not whether Lawwell (or anyone else) should be having an input into these negotiations but whether he should be able to exert influence over team matters while being immune from the consequences. I don't mind having a Director of Football per se and I don't even mind it being Lawwell. What does bother me is a succession of managers who been slaughtered for decisions - including some very poor signings - who had little or nothing to do with them. Park (the CEO's boy) identified them, Lawwell completed the deals for them and the guys who signed off on them were left carrying the can when they flopped. Wasn't Park highly thought of as a scouting director at one point? I seem to recall most fans being quite excited at his appointment. But if he is not meeting the requirements of his job description he needs to go. Despite coming up with the odd gem like VVD and Wanyama, the number of non-scoring strikers we have signed is unbelievable. And it's not as if we didn't know they were poor scorers, the stats were there for everyone to see.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|