What grind my gears :-p

[Brandt]

Look at how much Mike Ashley spent on Newcastle. Where are they? Look how much Roy Keane on Sunderland (13th, very surprising), Ramos at Spurs (doing better at 16th) & Every West Ham manager since god knows What an absolute waste! To take a fraction of Roy Keanes ?70 he spent, that could turn Hearts into a force, top it up with the massive potential crowd/stadia etc, and of course champions league gate money, (Rangers and Celtic are there for the absolute taking) what an investment! Even if it was Aberdeen, Hibs or the Dundee Utd, surely in time you could make a profit. Rangers and Celtic are there for the absolute taking. I cant believe why the chairmen from these clubs have spent so much on nothing. If say two ambitious

(like Ashley) multi-millioniares took over us and say Aberdeen and really charged up the league surely that could kick start the league, big sponsors, big TV coverage, big name signings etc. It doesnt seem so far fetched. I just cant get my head round the amount of money squandered on nothing. Oh and Freddy Shepherd :-)

Any thoughts?

[Ibrahim Tall]

Look at how much Mike Ashley spent on Newcastle. Where are they? Look how much Roy Keane on Sunderland (13th, very surprising), Ramos at Spurs (doing better at 16th) & Every West Ham manager since god knows What an absolute waste! To take a fraction of Roy Keanes ?70 he spent, that could turn Hearts into a force, top it up with the massive potential crowd/stadia etc, and of course champions league gate money, (Rangers and Celtic are there for the absolute taking) what an investment! Even if it was Aberdeen, Hibs or the Dundee Utd, surely in time you could make a profit. Rangers and Celtic are there for the absolute taking. I cant believe why the chairmen from these clubs have spent so much on nothing. If say two ambitious

(like Ashley) multi-millioniares took over us and say Aberdeen and really charged up the league surely that could kick start the league, big sponsors, big TV coverage, big name signings etc. It doesnt seem so far fetched. I just cant get my head round the amount of money squandered on nothing. Oh and Freddy Shepherd :-)

Any thoughts?

 

Not sure we'd be a force on a fraction of 70 quid.

[Brandt]

Not sure we'd be a force on a fraction of 70 quid.

 

You know what i mean

[scott_jambo]

What grinds my gears is that Mike Ashley buys all these great players for Newcastle and the fans back bottler Keegan over him, while there greetin into there Newcastle Brown Ale's and protesting like proper numpty Geordies.

 

Those Toon tw*ts should try supporting Hearts for year, then you'l see a what a real incompetent chairman looks like!

 

I would give my right arm for Mike Ashley to take over Hearts! We would win the league in an instant! He can sign Michael Owen again for us!

[shaun.lawson]

What grinds my gears is that Mike Ashley buys all these great players for Newcastle and the fans back bottler Keegan over him, while there greetin into there Newcastle Brown Ale's and protesting like proper numpty Geordies.

 

Those Toon tw*ts should try supporting Hearts for year, then you'l see a what a real incompetent chairman looks like!

 

I would give my right arm for Mike Ashley to take over Hearts! We would win the league in an instant! He can sign Michael Owen again for us!

 

What great players did he buy? How much did he spend? And rather than back his manager, he throws his toys out the pram, sticks by the ridiculous Dennis Wise and appoints 13th choice Joe Kinnear! Which has worked so far, but only by accident. The man's a disaster, and staggeringly, an even worse owner than Freddy Shepherd. That the Toon have been in another relegation battle is entirely down to him.

[shaun.lawson]

Look at how much Mike Ashley spent on Newcastle. Where are they? Look how much Roy Keane on Sunderland (13th, very surprising), Ramos at Spurs (doing better at 16th) & Every West Ham manager since god knows What an absolute waste! To take a fraction of Roy Keanes ?70 he spent, that could turn Hearts into a force, top it up with the massive potential crowd/stadia etc, and of course champions league gate money, (Rangers and Celtic are there for the absolute taking) what an investment! Even if it was Aberdeen, Hibs or the Dundee Utd, surely in time you could make a profit. Rangers and Celtic are there for the absolute taking. I cant believe why the chairmen from these clubs have spent so much on nothing. If say two ambitious

(like Ashley) multi-millioniares took over us and say Aberdeen and really charged up the league surely that could kick start the league, big sponsors, big TV coverage, big name signings etc. It doesnt seem so far fetched. I just cant get my head round the amount of money squandered on nothing. Oh and Freddy Shepherd :-)

Any thoughts?

 

Except that wealthy clubs need to be run properly too. Newcastle haven't been for as long as I can remember. Tottenham pursued the managerial structure from hell. Rangers spent themselves into disaster. And West Ham parted company with a manager who was doing fine, and unless their owner manages to sell up, are probably the next Leeds.

 

Meanwhile, Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Celtic have all been very stable and run well for a considerable period of time: hence their success. Aston Villa are another example under Randy Lerner. Chelsea started going wrong when Abramovich started interfering and changing the template Mourinho initially pursued. And Hearts were a shambles for a couple of years because of our owner's idiocy. Now, finally, we have an autonomous manager who's been left to get on with his job - and the results can be very clearly seen.

[scott_jambo]

What great players did he buy? How much did he spend? And rather than back his manager, he throws his toys out the pram, sticks by the ridiculous Dennis Wise and appoints 13th choice Joe Kinnear! Which has worked so far, but only by accident. The man's a disaster, and staggeringly, an even worse owner than Freddy Shepherd. That the Toon have been in another relegation battle is entirely down to him.

 

I dont know. I just dont like Newcastle or there fans... :xmasgrin:

[JamboAl]

Except that wealthy clubs need to be run properly too. Newcastle haven't been for as long as I can remember. Tottenham pursued the managerial structure from hell. Rangers spent themselves into disaster. And West Ham parted company with a manager who was doing fine, and unless their owner manages to sell up, are probably the next Leeds.

 

Meanwhile, Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Celtic have all been very stable and run well for a considerable period of time: hence their success. Aston Villa are another example under Randy Lerner. Chelsea started going wrong when Abramovich started interfering and changing the template Mourinho initially pursued. And Hearts were a shambles for a couple of years because of our owner's idiocy. Now, finally, we have an autonomous manager who's been left to get on with his job - and the results can be very clearly seen.

 

I find this "run properly" theory fascinating, Could you give an outline of how a club should be run that deserves the adverb "properly"? Most fans will think it's run properly if it's winning but not if it's losing. Simple as that!

 

You say these well run clubs have been stable hence their success. Could it not be that because they have had success they have been stable. When Man U had been unsuccessful for a long spell, they chopped and changed managers until Fergie came along and brought success. Were they any better run before or after Fergie? I doubt there was much difference apart from the manager.

 

Laszlo does not claim to be an autonomous manager. He has his own opinions but freely admits he consults the owner, coaches and medical staff where appropriate before making important decisions (remember the buzz word "together"). He also delegates and trusts those to whom he delegates. I rather think you have this autonomous management style in your head and you're trying to equate it with success.

 

If you want a good success theory it is dead simple - get the right man/men for the job you want done. Finding the right man is a bit more difficult and this is achieved often, more by good luck than good judgment - and Lazlo is a case in point. He was the 4th or 5th choice.

[shaun.lawson]

I find this "run properly" theory fascinating, Could you give an outline of how a club should be run that deserves the adverb "properly"? Most fans will think it's run properly if it's winning but not if it's losing. Simple as that!

 

You say these well run clubs have been stable hence their success. Could it not be that because they have had success they have been stable. When Man U had been unsuccessful for a long spell, they chopped and changed managers until Fergie came along and brought success. Were they any better run before or after Fergie? I doubt there was much difference apart from the manager.

 

Laszlo does not claim to be an autonomous manager. He has his own opinions but freely admits he consults the owner, coaches and medical staff where appropriate before making important decisions (remember the buzz word "together"). He also delegates and trusts those to whom he delegates. I rather think you have this autonomous management style in your head and you're trying to equate it with success.

 

If you want a good success theory it is dead simple - get the right man/men for the job you want done. Finding the right man is a bit more difficult and this is achieved often, more by good luck than good judgment - and Lazlo is a case in point. He was the 4th or 5th choice.

 

None of the clubs I praised have spent beyond their means, Al - but Rangers, Hearts, West Ham and Newcastle (under Shepherd) all have. The minute bankers have more control over a football club's decisions than its board, you have a problem. Stability off the park breeds stability on it, with Strachan building on the huge off-field advantage he inherited from O'Neill.

 

Csaba does work together with others - but when it comes to final veto over picking the team and making substitutions, I think it's pretty clear he's autonomous. Indeed, taking Romanov at his word, he no longer interferes because he trusts in Csaba's expertise and professionalism. Getting the right manager and leaving him to it is what all of us wanted for so long because we knew it'd maximise the chances of the team winning football matches - and belatedly, even Vlad seems to have realised this.

 

And of course, it's easy for a club to leave a manager in charge if he's successful. But Man Utd stuck by Fergie - just - when they could have got rid of him; and Arsenal's vision in more or less entrusting their entire club to Wenger enabled him literally to turn it on its head, and take it from being England's most prosaic, predictable side to one of the most aesthetically pleasing on the planet. That both have been so successful for so long is what made it so frighteningly difficult for Newcastle, say, to go beyond a certain point when they finished 4th and 3rd under Sir Bobby Robson, but remained well adrift of the top 2: indeed, the famous 6-2 defeat to Man Utd in April 2003 suggested for all their progress, they were still about a decade behind Fergie's boys.

 

Abramovich started interfering, and Chelsea started going wrong. Tottenham employed an absurd management structure, and found themselves bottom of the league. West Ham spent disastrous amounts of money, and sold players over Alan Curbishley's head. Manchester City sacked Sven-Goran Eriksson after their best season in 15 years. Leicester employed four different managers in a single season. Leeds... let's not even go there. Look at these clubs, and at Hearts until recently; then look at Aston Villa (struggling two thirds of the way through O'Neill's first season: would other clubs have tolerated this?), and at Hearts now. The lesson is obvious.

[Martin_T]

None of the clubs I praised have spent beyond their means, Al - but Rangers, Hearts, West Ham and Newcastle (under Shepherd) all have. The minute bankers have more control over a football club's decisions than its board, you have a problem. Stability off the park breeds stability on it, with Strachan building on the huge off-field advantage he inherited from O'Neill.

 

Csaba does work together with others - but when it comes to final veto over picking the team and making substitutions, I think it's pretty clear he's autonomous. Indeed, taking Romanov at his word, he no longer interferes because he trusts in Csaba's expertise and professionalism. Getting the right manager and leaving him to it is what all of us wanted for so long because we knew it'd maximise the chances of the team winning football matches - and belatedly, even Vlad seems to have realised this.

 

And of course, it's easy for a club to leave a manager in charge if he's successful. But Man Utd stuck by Fergie - just - when they could have got rid of him; and Arsenal's vision in more or less entrusting their entire club to Wenger enabled him literally to turn it on its head, and take it from being England's most prosaic, predictable side to one of the most aesthetically pleasing on the planet. That both have been so successful for so long is what made it so frighteningly difficult for Newcastle, say, to go beyond a certain point when they finished 4th and 3rd under Sir Bobby Robson, but remained well adrift of the top 2: indeed, the famous 6-2 defeat to Man Utd in April 2003 suggested for all their progress, they were still about a decade behind Fergie's boys.

 

Abramovich started interfering, and Chelsea started going wrong. Tottenham employed an absurd management structure, and found themselves bottom of the league. West Ham spent disastrous amounts of money, and sold players over Alan Curbishley's head. Manchester City sacked Sven-Goran Eriksson after their best season in 15 years. Leicester employed four different managers in a single season. Leeds... let's not even go there. Look at these clubs, and at Hearts until recently; then look at Aston Villa (struggling two thirds of the way through O'Neill's first season: would other clubs have tolerated this?), and at Hearts now. The lesson is obvious.

 

Have you any idea just how much debt Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool are in Shaun? If the economic downturn continues at the pace it has been, these clubs will very soon be in danger of financial meltdown.

[shaun.lawson]

Have you any idea just how much debt Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool are in Shaun? If the economic downturn continues at the pace it has been, these clubs will very soon be in danger of financial meltdown.

 

United and Liverpool are ridiculously over leveraged - but on the pitch, they've kept the same managers and broadly the same ethos since changing owners. Arsenal are an exception: the Emirates will pay itself off, and has turned them into one of the biggest clubs (in terms of turnover) in the world.

[Martin_T]

United and Liverpool are ridiculously over leveraged - but on the pitch, they've kept the same managers and broadly the same ethos since changing owners. Arsenal are an exception: the Emirates will pay itself off, and has turned them into one of the biggest clubs (in terms of turnover) in the world.

 

Time will tell. In my opinion the whole 'Premiership' brand is on the verge of collapse and that fact that so many previously proud clubs (Everton, Newcastle etc) are now openly whoring themselves to any billionaire (fit and proper person or otherwise) that will take them, tells you all you need to know.

 

I expect the EPL to go the same way as Serie A in the late 90's/ early 2000's in the very near future.

[shaun.lawson]

Time will tell. In my opinion the whole 'Premiership' brand is on the verge of collapse and that fact that so many previously proud clubs (Everton, Newcastle etc) are now openly whoring themselves to any billionaire (fit and proper person or otherwise) that will take them, tells you all you need to know.

 

I expect the EPL to go the same way as Serie A in the late 90's/ early 2000's in the very near future.

 

That's an interesting parallel. Could certainly happen too, with only the strongest surviving, and those who've overstretched way beyond their natural means (West Ham? Chelsea even?) falling victim. Roma, Lazio, Fiorentina and Parma - the smaller clubs among the old 'Seven Sisters' - bore the brunt of it in Italy; I wonder if the same will apply here?

[Charlie-Brown]

The Premiership's current level of spending on transfer fee's, wages and even on changing club ownership requires a huge amount of surplus profits & wealth to be built up elsewhere in the world economy for the clubs to access via debt or investment........where exactly are these surplus funds being generated in the last 12 months and next 12-18 months......an economic slowdown at the top level of football seems inevitable sooner or later?

[shaun.lawson]

The Premiership's current level of spending on transfer fee's, wages and even on changing club ownership requires a huge amount of surplus profits & wealth to be built up elsewhere in the world economy for the clubs to access via debt or investment........where exactly are these surplus funds being generated in the last 12 months and next 12-18 months......an economic slowdown at the top level of football seems inevitable sooner or later?

 

Transfer fees and wages are bound to fall. SKY and CL money will continue, though.

[Charlie-Brown]

Transfer fees and wages are bound to fall. SKY and CL money will continue, though.

 

So Sky (News Corp) & Champions League (UEFA) are immune from economic downturn?

[shaun.lawson]

So Sky (News Corp) & Champions League (UEFA) are immune from economic downturn?

 

SKY - no. They'll have to honour their present EPL deal though. UEFA - probably yes, in the sense of being able to carry on paying out CL revenue, I mean.

[Charlie-Brown]

SKY - no. They'll have to honour their present EPL deal though. UEFA - probably yes, in the sense of being able to carry on paying out CL revenue, I mean.

 

How long is the current Sky deal & when is it due for renewal?

Both Sky & Uefa are likely to find it much more difficult to sell their advertising & sponsorship which generates a fair chunk of their money which then flows into football.....as an example Ford motor co. are one of the main sponsors of the Champions League, them & others will find it much harder to generate or justify the funds currently spent on football.

[CBjambo]

Look at how much Mike Ashley spent on Newcastle. Where are they? Look how much Roy Keane on Sunderland (13th, very surprising), Ramos at Spurs (doing better at 16th) & Every West Ham manager since god knows What an absolute waste! To take a fraction of Roy Keanes ?70 he spent, that could turn Hearts into a force, top it up with the massive potential crowd/stadia etc, and of course champions league gate money, (Rangers and Celtic are there for the absolute taking) what an investment! Even if it was Aberdeen, Hibs or the Dundee Utd, surely in time you could make a profit. Rangers and Celtic are there for the absolute taking. I cant believe why the chairmen from these clubs have spent so much on nothing. If say two ambitious

(like Ashley) multi-millioniares took over us and say Aberdeen and really charged up the league surely that could kick start the league, big sponsors, big TV coverage, big name signings etc. It doesnt seem so far fetched. I just cant get my head round the amount of money squandered on nothing. Oh and Freddy Shepherd :-)

Any thoughts?

 

Here's one...

 

Newcastle, sunderland and Tottenham are all in the ENGLISH PREMIERSHIP! Where managing to finish 17th and avoiding relegation nets you a whopping ?60million windfall! We are in the SCOTTISH PREMIER LEAGUE where finishing a dissapointing 8th last season netted us a whopping ?11.50 and a case of IRN BRU!

 

There is no money in the SPL, Grounds outside the OF are all smaller than many in the English Championship and fan bases in certain parts of the country are tiny... the scale of the premiership is the main reason why SKY heavily invest in the premiership and not the spl... we get Santa Tv... it's way poorer distant cousin.

 

I know that Sky show the occasional OF game and Cup game and all the National games... but it is nowhere near enough!

 

Face it the Spl for all we love it... is a very poor league (monetarily speaking) and it will never grow because we do not have the footballing populus to support it!

 

If the OF do **** off... it will kill off all the tv revenue and we'll be back to basics... we may even see the trickle effect of less sponsorship money signing the death warrant of a lot of smaller clubs.

 

We're in a catch 22 situation... we need money and a lot more fans per club to attract more investment to see our leagues grow... I just don't see it ever happening.

[jamboinglasgow]

None of the clubs I praised have spent beyond their means, Al - but Rangers, Hearts, West Ham and Newcastle (under Shepherd) all have. The minute bankers have more control over a football club's decisions than its board, you have a problem. Stability off the park breeds stability on it, with Strachan building on the huge off-field advantage he inherited from O'Neill.

 

Csaba does work together with others - but when it comes to final veto over picking the team and making substitutions, I think it's pretty clear he's autonomous. Indeed, taking Romanov at his word, he no longer interferes because he trusts in Csaba's expertise and professionalism. Getting the right manager and leaving him to it is what all of us wanted for so long because we knew it'd maximise the chances of the team winning football matches - and belatedly, even Vlad seems to have realised this.

 

And of course, it's easy for a club to leave a manager in charge if he's successful. But Man Utd stuck by Fergie - just - when they could have got rid of him; and Arsenal's vision in more or less entrusting their entire club to Wenger enabled him literally to turn it on its head, and take it from being England's most prosaic, predictable side to one of the most aesthetically pleasing on the planet. That both have been so successful for so long is what made it so frighteningly difficult for Newcastle, say, to go beyond a certain point when they finished 4th and 3rd under Sir Bobby Robson, but remained well adrift of the top 2: indeed, the famous 6-2 defeat to Man Utd in April 2003 suggested for all their progress, they were still about a decade behind Fergie's boys.

 

Abramovich started interfering, and Chelsea started going wrong. Tottenham employed an absurd management structure, and found themselves bottom of the league. West Ham spent disastrous amounts of money, and sold players over Alan Curbishley's head. Manchester City sacked Sven-Goran Eriksson after their best season in 15 years. Leicester employed four different managers in a single season. Leeds... let's not even go there. Look at these clubs, and at Hearts until recently; then look at Aston Villa (struggling two thirds of the way through O'Neill's first season: would other clubs have tolerated this?), and at Hearts now. The lesson is obvious.

 

I would agree with you there, there is too much emphasis these days on managers having instant sucess, if you dont perform well in the first season than you are out. Its no surprise that 3 out of the four longest running Premier league managers are from the top four teams (SAF, Wenger and Rafael benitz.) The third longest running manager is David Moyes, a man who has developed Everton well though problems at the moment due to lack of a striker. Fergusson had a terrible start at Man Utd but was allowed time that he made them into a argubly the best English side for the last 20 years. Wenger need time to develop and was allowed time (though it was just a season he needed as second year in charge he won the league and cup.)

 

What I am trying to say that the problem with football is the lack of patientice that teams and fans have towards managers means that there is that most football teams think too much in the short term. An at risk manager only thinks of results now and dont develop long term strategys that when they get out of the bad patch they are left with continuing the short run view as they have not thought more than half a season ahead. Chelsea need a constant and any talk of removing Scolari should be viewed as bad. He still needs time with chelsea, yes they havent won at Stamford Bridge for a long time but this can be broken.

 

I agree that Hearts are in the same catagory as Leiscter and Leeds for too many managers that does not help a team. Its amazing that these teams go through so many managers and wonder why they are not doing better. In Csaba hearts have the manager who could go for many years. He needs time and the results at the moment mean that there is unlikely to be any sacking in this season thus giving him time. I think that is what is needed.

[Charlie-Brown]

Football existed for over a century from the 1870's until the 1980's with little or no corporate income or sponsorship and relied almost exclusively on attendance money to finance the game - football has since come to rely on outside forms of income to pay huge salaries and transfer fee's etc. and it would take probably a huge shift in the current mindset if they were ever forced to live without huge money pouring into football, but football could and did exist for most of it's history without it.

[jamboinglasgow]

How long is the current Sky deal & when is it due for renewal?

Both Sky & Uefa are likely to find it much more difficult to sell their advertising & sponsorship which generates a fair chunk of their money which then flows into football.....as an example Ford motor co. are one of the main sponsors of the Champions League, them & others will find it much harder to generate or justify the funds currently spent on football.

 

I would argue that we shouldn't think of the tv rights as being based on skys fortunes, as I remember reading an article in the FT a month or two ago saying that Disney was preparing to challenge sky for the tv rights (when I say Disney, that is the company but it would be ESPN bidding as they are owned by Disney. ESPN are the sky sports of America and do have alot of money.) Plus it wouldn't be hard to imagine other large companies considering purchasing the rights.

 

Clubs may reduce transfer fees but even that seems unlikely as if you are a club near the bottom you will spend like mad to stop the relegation and the huge loss of income, if you are near top and feel that you can achieve either CL or Europa Cup than you will spend for those big players. I am certain that Arsenal will splash the cash this January as they need a replacement for Cesc and a holding midfielder plus other teams may try to spend. Only Man Utd and Chelsea and possibly Liverpool wont try and buy anyone.

[JamboAl]

None of the clubs I praised have spent beyond their means, Al - but Rangers, Hearts, West Ham and Newcastle (under Shepherd) all have. The minute bankers have more control over a football club's decisions than its board, you have a problem. Stability off the park breeds stability on it, with Strachan building on the huge off-field advantage he inherited from O'Neill.

 

Many clubs and businesses speculate to accumulate but it's only when it doesn't pay off that it's bad management. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

And Strachan appears to be having stability off the field (McGeady) but they're still top.

 

Csaba does work together with others - but when it comes to final veto over picking the team and making substitutions, I think it's pretty clear he's autonomous. Indeed, taking Romanov at his word, he no longer interferes because he trusts in Csaba's expertise and professionalism. Getting the right manager and leaving him to it is what all of us wanted for so long because we knew it'd maximise the chances of the team winning football matches - and belatedly, even Vlad seems to have realised this.

 

Whether or not Romanov interferes is perception/opinion depending upon where you're coming from but we do agree on the "right man" principle. An owner will always want to know where the money is going and will interfere unless/until he feels comfortable. I do believe CL has more, if not total, control in the final team selection

 

And of course, it's easy for a club to leave a manager in charge if he's successful. But Man Utd stuck by Fergie - just - when they could have got rid of him; and Arsenal's vision in more or less entrusting their entire club to Wenger enabled him literally to turn it on its head, and take it from being England's most prosaic, predictable side to one of the most aesthetically pleasing on the planet. That both have been so successful for so long is what made it so frighteningly difficult for Newcastle, say, to go beyond a certain point when they finished 4th and 3rd under Sir Bobby Robson, but remained well adrift of the top 2: indeed, the famous 6-2 defeat to Man Utd in April 2003 suggested for all their progress, they were still about a decade behind Fergie's boys.

 

That too is a perception which is probaly derived from their relative success creating a situation where no one challenges how the club is run. Arsenal were weighed down with the Emirates debt and I have little doubt that restricts what AW can do in the market, hence the conveyor belt of young stars being brought through. As regards Newcastle, their fans are too demanding and impatient (like ours?) which puts undue pressure on the Board and manager and IMO that is one of the main problems there.

 

Abramovich started interfering, and Chelsea started going wrong. Tottenham employed an absurd management structure, and found themselves bottom of the league. West Ham spent disastrous amounts of money, and sold players over Alan Curbishley's head. Manchester City sacked Sven-Goran Eriksson after their best season in 15 years. Leicester employed four different managers in a single season. Leeds... let's not even go there. Look at these clubs, and at Hearts until recently; then look at Aston Villa (struggling two thirds of the way through O'Neill's first season: would other clubs have tolerated this?), and at Hearts now. The lesson is obvious.

 

Yes let's go to Leeds. Ridsdale gave O'Leary free rein and they have never recovered especially from the excess fees he paid out. BTW I do agree that unwarranted interference is unlikely to yield success. You've given reasons or opinions on the lack of success and said the lesson is obvious. What is the lesson?

[shaun.lawson]

Yes let's go to Leeds. Ridsdale gave O'Leary free rein and they have never recovered especially from the excess fees he paid out. BTW I do agree that unwarranted interference is unlikely to yield success. You've given reasons or opinions on the lack of success and said the lesson is obvious. What is the lesson?

 

The lessons are:

 

1. Don't spend beyond your means.

 

2. Let the manager manage.

 

3. Give him time, unless he's self-evidently a total incompetent.

 

Speculating to accumulate doesn't work in football. You can only spend what you have, or risk a reckoning a bit further along the way - that's true for clubs budgeting for but failing to succeed in the CL, or clubs budgeting for the EPL but getting relegated. Leeds' model could never, ever have worked long term: they were spending too damn much and had too little margin for error. Ditto, albeit with consequences not as drastic, Newcastle after them. Meanwhile, clubs who've stayed within their means and given the manager time have generally either succeeded, or not suffered badly when the wrong appointments have been made.

[JamboAl]

The lessons are:

 

You said "lesson"

 

1. Don't spend beyond your means.

 

In general terms I agree but if you borrow ?5m and have a good Euro run netting ?19m that is brilliant management. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

2. Let the manager manage.

 

Ridsdale did let the manager manage and backed him with big money but....

 

3. Give him time, unless he's self-evidently a total incompetent.

 

Ridsdale did give him time and at one point it looked like it was paying off, so at what point is right for the owner to interfere/bail out? That is a very fine judgment.

 

Speculating to accumulate doesn't work in football. You can only spend what you have, or risk a reckoning a bit further along the way - that's true for clubs budgeting for but failing to succeed in the CL, or clubs budgeting for the EPL but getting relegated. Leeds' model could never, ever have worked long term: they were spending too damn much and had too little margin for error. Ditto, albeit with consequences not as drastic, Newcastle after them. Meanwhile, clubs who've stayed within their means and given the manager time have generally either succeeded, or not suffered badly when the wrong appointments have been made.

 

I agree generally about speculating but it is a football thing with very few clubs in the black. We certainly know now that the Leeds model did not work which is why we should not give our manager what people call full autonomy - and if you don't it's called interference. Maybe you could tell us which clubs stayed within their means and succeeded (I agree with the "not suffering badly" bit). I'd be interested to compare your list with those who overspent and succeeded.