Martin appointed (reportedly)

[AKCJ]

6 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

I’m not sure who people thought we were going to appoint, because if you thought Ancelotti was on his way, you’re probably being a bit optimistic.

The problem is we need a total reset of the culture.

 

Martin is just another plaster trying to cover up a stab wound.

 

Nothing really changes until Top and Rudkin go, but it would have been really good to see them change their mindset by appointing a manager that was going to come here to look at behaviours and attitudes.

 

Martin isn't going to do that.

[Mark_w]

2 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

I’m not sure who people thought we were going to appoint, because if you thought Ancelotti was on his way, you’re probably being a bit optimistic.

I think most of us would have been very content if it was Challinor. Even if we'd appointed someone inexperienced or unknown to us we might have been cautiously optimistic.

The problem is we've appointed someone who we know to be extremely arrogant, unjustifiably stubborn and who refuses to take any accountability when things go wrong. Having people with those characteristics in positions of authority is what has caused our problems and been most demoralising about supporting this football club lately. It's not about wanting someone who is a proven successful manager because we know we aren't going to get that, it's about wanting someone at the football club with some sense of leadership, a willingness to acknowledge & own mistakes and to make changes to rectify things. It's been made abundantly clear that we're not going to get that from Top or Rudkin, it would have been nice to at least have a manager who might have been willing to do it.

[Claridge]

Martin is in the training ground as we speak

[HitchinFox]

2 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

I think most of us would have been very content if it was Challinor. Even if we'd appointed someone inexperienced or unknown to us we might have been cautiously optimistic.

The problem is we've appointed someone who we know to be extremely arrogant, unjustifiably stubborn and who refuses to take any accountability when things go wrong. Having people with those characteristics in positions of authority is what has caused our problems and been most demoralising about supporting this football club lately. It's not about wanting someone who is a proven successful manager because we know we aren't going to get that, it's about wanting someone at the football club with some sense of leadership, a willingness to acknowledge & own mistakes and to make changes to rectify things. It's been made abundantly clear that we're not going to get that from Top or Rudkin, it would have been nice to at least have a manager who might have been willing to do it.

 

I know 100% what you're saying here and I totally agree. But one could argue that Rowett had all of those attributes and we got even worse under him. So, ideally, we can find someone who has those qualities AND a bit of an idea of how to set up a team to win football games. 
 

[slymunn]

9 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I've said this before but no, I don't agree. 

 

Rodgers had already done the damage by that point we just didn't realise it at the time. 

 

We give our managers an enormous amount of control over our squad spend and our transfer philosophy. We let him bloat the wage bill up to 116% of our revenue on players that we had no chance of up selling for profit because his hubris thought he could "fix" "broken" players and his self-serving nature gave zero ****s for the long term health of the club. 

 

Should Topkin have done something about that and do they shoulder a share of the responsibility? Oh yeah definitely. Of course. 

 

But the point is that Rodgers' narcissism and his Dunning-Kruger estimation of his own coaching ability got us in years and years of financial crisis and decline. 

 

I agree as like all managers is given too much control when it comes to transfers.

But whoever it was (Rodgers/Top/Rudkin) that didn't move players on when we had the chance over that window feels to me like the turning point. They all talked about 'refreshing' then refused to sell players who was running down contracts, or we could sell on for profit.

 

Youri, Cags, Praet, Iverson, Perez to name a few all could have moved around that time, as there was offers and rumours. Which may of helped earlier on before the panic signings in the January which only raised the wage bill up even more.

 

I think the FA Cup win gave him too much credit for anyone to make the call on it.

[Stadt]

People praising Puel are publicly wanking by doing so. They think, ah this is counter-intuitive therefore I am very smart, I have a superior footballing understanding that you, a pleb, doesn't.

 

Dyche's Burnley beat us to 7th whilst we had Vardy, Mahrez, Ndidi and Schmeichel in their prime years. The football was totally awful. Somehow Eduardo Macia being our last good HoR has led to this revisionism Puel was actually good for us - or that even more bizarrely Puel would make a good director of football?

 

He was a good manager in France, since he left for England he's yesterday's man and getting worse. 

 

Nice finished 4th last year and finished in the relation play offs this year.

 

 

[Muzzy_no7]

Bringing coaching staff with him?

[Mark_w]

Just now, HitchinFox said:

 

I know 100% what you're saying here and I totally agree. But one could argue that Rowett had all of those attributes and we got even worse under him. So, ideally, we can find someone who has those qualities AND a bit of an idea of how to set up a team to win football games. 
 

I don’t remember seeing any indication of Gary Rowett showing any of them

[Happy Fox]

18 hours ago, Bergen fox said:

Taking the biscuit?

Jack Wiltshire is one of the promising managers at this level, and has potential to improve, in his first season in management he won a trophy would sooner have him and Chris Powell than Russell Martin.

[AjcW]

6 minutes ago, Claridge said:

Martin is in the training ground as we speak

"This place is just incredible, hard to believe"

"Everyone you talk to here speaks about Jon Rudkins impact on all this"

"As a proud bhudist, I really appreciate the little touches around the place, a nod to my spiritual side"

"They've given me a little fridge in the office for my Huel"

"I'm currently recovering as I had two glasses of wine 6 weeks ago and my whoop has shouted at me every day since"

[RumbleFox]

7 minutes ago, Stadt said:

People praising Puel are publicly wanking by doing so. They think, ah this is counter-intuitive therefore I am very smart, I have a superior footballing understanding that you, a pleb, doesn't.

 

Dyche's Burnley beat us to 7th whilst we had Vardy, Mahrez, Ndidi and Schmeichel in their prime years. The football was totally awful. Somehow Eduardo Macia being our last good HoR has led to this revisionism Puel was actually good for us - or that even more bizarrely Puel would make a good director of football?

 

He was a good manager in France, since he left for England he's yesterday's man and getting worse. 

 

Nice finished 4th last year and finished in the relation play offs this year.

 

 

“Puel wasn’t quite as terrible as some people say and despite him clearly not being great he did leave us in a decent state in some senses” ≠ “Puel was amazing I want to kiss him and this viewpoint makes me better than you”.

Edited 15 hours ago by RumbleFox

[kenny]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

100%

 

Puel's first 3-4 months were promising and then we ended that 2017/18 appallingly and it was under performance from there on in bar the odd decent scalp against the elite.

 

Rodgers for all his faults, teased out the quality in this squad immediately as we were top 6 form from the moment he joined us until the end of 2020/21 season spanning 2 and a bit seasons where arguably his signings were worse the longer he was here.

I reckon Puel gets a whole lot of credit for Macias work. They left around the same time and recruitment went downhill as well.

[Stadt]

1 minute ago, RumbleFox said:

“Puel wasn’t quite as terrible as some people say and despite him clearly not being great he did leave us in a decent state in some senses” ≠ “Puel was amazing I want to kiss him and this viewpoint makes me better than you”.

He left us in a decent state because we had a good young squad. His input was singing Rachid Ghezzal for £12m and experimenting with phasing Vardy out for Demarai Gray. He was crap, what did he do well?

 

He was the first manager to play some younger players but in hindsight blooding Chilwell and Barnes wasn't revolutionary at all, they were obvious talents. "He transitioned us to possession football" but that wasn't an immutable Puel trait, plenty of other managers could have dome that.

 

It's just bizarre he is assigned the credit for what came after despite Rodgers instantly getting far more from the same players. He was a cheap, crap, myopic appointment like most of them.

[brookfox]

Posed for a picture with Puel once and as he moved away the back of his hand brushed against my willy. That was comfortably the most I enjoyed his time managing us.

[murphy]

5 minutes ago, kenny said:

I reckon Puel gets a whole lot of credit for Macias work. They left around the same time and recruitment went downhill as well.

Tielemans and Ricardo came through puel

[Lesta Legend]

Just now, murphy said:

Tielemans and Ricardo came through puel

Tielemans, we definitely scouted before Puel. 
 

Puel also wanted to bomb Vardy out. 
 

Lot of revisionism going on here. 
 

He wasn’t the worst we’ve ever had and he impeccably managed the situation when Vichai passed. But we underperformed while being very boring, he setup Rodger’s very nicely. 

[Mark_w]

3 minutes ago, brookfox said:

Posed for a picture with Puel once and as he moved away the back of his hand brushed against my willy. That was comfortably the most I enjoyed his time managing us.

Are you sure it wasn’t Macia? He probably told him to do it anyway.

[RumbleFox]

7 minutes ago, Stadt said:

He left us in a decent state because we had a good young squad. His input was singing Rachid Ghezzal for £12m and experimenting with phasing Vardy out for Demarai Gray. He was crap, what did he do well?

 

He was the first manager to play some younger players but in hindsight blooding Chilwell and Barnes wasn't revolutionary at all, they were obvious talents. "He transitioned us to possession football" but that wasn't an immutable Puel trait, plenty of other managers could have dome that.

 

It's just bizarre he is assigned the credit for what came after despite Rodgers instantly getting far more from the same players. He was a cheap, crap, myopic appointment like most of them.

Yes I don’t disagree with any of that. You are correct. But that has no relevance to the point I made. 

[AKCJ]

2 minutes ago, Lesta Legend said:

Puel also wanted to bomb Vardy out. 

This is an important point that I had forgotten.

 

Vardy scored roughly 75 Premier League goals once Puel left.

[Gamble92]

7 minutes ago, Lesta Legend said:

Tielemans, we definitely scouted before Puel. 
 

Puel also wanted to bomb Vardy out. 
 

Lot of revisionism going on here. 
 

He wasn’t the worst we’ve ever had and he impeccably managed the situation when Vichai passed. But we underperformed while being very boring, he setup Rodger’s very nicely. 

You're right but I think there was definitely instructions from Rudkin to try and phase the title winners out quickly.

 

I'd put Rodgers down as one of the most catastrophic managers in our history for the damage he left but he made a lot of good calls early on and the likes of Kasper, Vardy and Morgan all had respect for him. Which they clearly didn't for Puel. 

[Stadt]

2 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Yes I don’t disagree with any of that. You are correct. But that has no relevance to the point I made. 

I have exaggerated the pro-Puel sentiment obviously but the sentiment that amounts to he actually, if you squint, did a good job for us just isn't true. Generously, his tenure can be given 5/10, its just in contrast the poor managers since have retrospectively made him look better

 

I like nuance, I'm usually a considered and analytical poster but I'm 100% against any Puel revionism, he was a handbrake for a talented squad.

[Grebfromgrebland]

I think he'll do ok

[RoboFox]

Lineker mentioned on his podcast the other week he'd had Lucy Pinder round for dinner "amongst others". I wonder whether Russell was also there. 

 

He's had him on The Rest Is Football too. 

 

You know he's going to be all over this appointment. 

[RedSoxUK]

2 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Lineker mentioned on his podcast the other week he'd had Lucy Pinder round for dinner "amongst others". I wonder whether Russell was also there. 

 

He's had him on The Rest Is Football too. 

 

You know he's going to be all over this appointment. 

It would be ****ing weird if he wasn't.

[AjcW]

3 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Lineker mentioned on his podcast the other week he'd had Lucy Pinder round for dinner "amongst others". I wonder whether Russell was also there. 

 

He's had him on The Rest Is Football too. 

 

You know he's going to be all over this appointment. 

Pretty sure when he had him on they mentioned they were friends/hung out a fair bit.