Twitter Thread Numero Who Cares!

[whitwickfox]

Why is Beckford on ridiculous wages. You take a player from a top six prem club where Beckford was probably the least paid player at that club.if you want him to drop down a division, would you expect him to take 50% wage cut as well..you play with the big boys you pay the big Wages. It's nothing to do with Sven

[Mark_w]

Why is Beckford on ridiculous wages. You take a player from a top six prem club where Beckford was probably the least paid player at that club.if you want him to drop down a division, would you expect him to take 50% wage cut as well..you play with the big boys you pay the big Wages. It's nothing to do with Sven

No, I'd expect him to go for targets that wouldn't command ridiculous wages.

[marty78]

No, I'd expect him to go for targets that wouldn't command ridiculous wages.

Maybe his employers should have told him to then.

[Believe!]

Maybe his employers should have told him to then.

It is the managers job to buy the players, not the owners or executives.

I dont mind paying 40k for a player, but he would need to offer more than JB has.

[marty78]

It is the managers job to buy the players, not the owners or executives.

I dont mind paying 40k for a player, but he would need to offer more than JB has.

It's the managers job to identify players, it's the club that buys them. The people qualified to run a clubs finances decide what deals can or can't be afforded. At any point the club can say no, like many clubs do. Managers often want players that their clubs can't agree personal terms with and that is because the manager doesn't completely control the purse strings, the people with the relevant expertise do.

Sven can be blamed for misjudging players and even for signing them but if they are paid too much then whoever agreed their contracts is to blame, for me at least. I seem to be in a minority with that view though so maybe Sven was signing all the cheques and his employers didn't realise what he was spending or their accountants couldn't add the figures together and project our yearly wage expenditure, both are pretty worrying traits for International businessmen.

[Believe!]

It's the managers job to identify players, it's the club that buys them. The people qualified to run a clubs finances decide what deals can or can't be afforded. At any point the club can say no, like many clubs do. Managers often want players that their clubs can't agree personal terms with and that is because the manager doesn't completely control the purse strings, the people with the relevant expertise do.

Sven can be blamed for misjudging players and even for signing them but if they are paid too much then whoever agreed their contracts is to blame, for me at least. I seem to be in a minority with that view though so maybe Sven was signing all the cheques and his employers didn't realise what he was spending or their accountants couldn't add the figures together and project our yearly wage expenditure, both are pretty worrying traits for International businessmen.

Sven would have had an idea what kind of wages the likes of Fernandes, johnson and beckford have been on.

If he wanted to sign michael owen for instance, he knew it would take more than a fiver and a family sized pack of Werthers original.

[Tielemans63]

It's the managers job to identify players, it's the club that buys them. The people qualified to run a clubs finances decide what deals can or can't be afforded. At any point the club can say no, like many clubs do. Managers often want players that their clubs can't agree personal terms with and that is because the manager doesn't completely control the purse strings, the people with the relevant expertise do.

Sven can be blamed for misjudging players and even for signing them but if they are paid too much then whoever agreed their contracts is to blame, for me at least. I seem to be in a minority with that view though so maybe Sven was signing all the cheques and his employers didn't realise what he was spending or their accountants couldn't add the figures together and project our yearly wage expenditure, both are pretty worrying traits for International businessmen.

I agree completely with your first paragraph - that's the way it SHOULD work.

As for the second part, you allude to the fact that maybe Sven was involved more directly with negotiations than is normal and that's absolutely what I think happened.

I have nothing to base this on other than intuition but I honestly think the Thais had so much belief in Sven that they gave him pretty much carte blanche.

I think they were relying almost completely on him to ensure they got value for money as their knowledge of the football league was probably limited (not being patronising, that's just what I think.) I don't think Andrew Neville knew what was value for money in the Championship either and was also only too ready to listen to Sven. A manager who not only didn't know himself what was par for a Champ club but who also has a record of indulging his players. Sven should have suspected that £20k + a week is too much for a Championship club, Neville should've known that it was too much and the Thais should have been more honest about the sustainability of having several players on 3-4 year contracts that pay more than £20k a week.

If they thought that it was worth risking everything it all for a gamble on instant promotion then I'm even more concerned about their business acumen!

You are absolutely right to say that this reflects badly on their business skills. I don't even really blame Sven, I just thinking was a comedy of errors in all departments.

I don't think they're bad guys or even bad owners but I do think they were surprisingly naive at the outset and have prob learnt a hell of a lot about the economics of English football since those early days!

[marty78]

Sven would have had an idea what kind of wages the likes of Fernandes, johnson and beckford have been on.

If he wanted to sign michael owen for instance, he knew it would take more than a fiver and a family sized pack of Werthers original.

It's a shame he didn't tell the accountants what he was paying people because they could of examined it against projected turnover and realised the figures didn't stack up.

What about Mancini or Di Matteo (or the manager of any overspending football club), are they being irresponsible by spending their clubs money and running up wage bills only sustainable because of rich owners, which Sven might have been forgiven for believing we had?

[marty78]

I agree completely with your first paragraph - that's the way it SHOULD work.

As for the second part, you allude to the fact that maybe Sven was involved more directly with negotiations than is normal and that's absolutely what I think happened.

I have nothing to base this on other than intuition but I honestly think the Thais had so much belief in Sven that they gave him pretty much carte blanche.

I think they were relying almost completely on him to ensure they got value for money as their knowledge of the football league was probably limited (not being patronising, that's just what I think.) I don't think Andrew Neville knew what was value for money in the Championship either and was also only too ready to listen to Sven. A manager who not only didn't know himself what was par for a Champ club but who also has a record of indulging his players. Sven should have suspected that £20k + a week is too much for a Championship club, Neville should've known that it was too much and the Thais should have been more honest about the sustainability of having several players on 3-4 year contracts that pay more than £20k a week.

If they thought that it was worth risking everything it all for a gamble on instant promotion then I'm even more concerned about their business acumen!

You are absolutely right to say that this reflects badly on their business skills. I don't even really blame Sven, I just thinking was a comedy of errors in all departments.

I don't think they're bad guys or even bad owners but I do think they were surprisingly naive at the outset and have prob learnt a hell of a lot about the economics of English football since those early days!

Sven was a poor appointment with hindsight but I think he gets blamed for some things that should never have been his responsibility or part of his job description. I honestly think people just want to have someone to blame and his is the easiest and most recognizable name to blame. An easy target so to speak.

[inckley fox]

Sven was a poor appointment with hindsight but I think he gets blamed for some things that should never have been his responsibility or part of his job description. I honestly think people just want to have someone to blame and his is the easiest and most recognizable name to blame. An easy target so to speak.

Well, he also spent over fifteen million on players we're now trying to sell for next to nothing, expanded the squad's average age by two years and added a third onto the wage bill. All of that would have been okay had the players he'd assembled been a capable force in the Championship - but they weren't. Not for him (averaged less than 1.5 points per game from end February 2011 to October 2011) and not for his successor (who has done a little better, in spite of constant griping from Sven's signings, ie Mills, Beckford, St. Ledger). There's not a great deal else to say about it, or at least not until FFP comes into play and we get fined or docked points for his rampant misuse of the resources at hand.

No, he isn't to blame for the money being made available to him. The appalling waste of that money and subsequent failure to put a side together capable of winning games at this level (when most of the players he'd inherited had recently finished 5th in the league) was entirely his fault.

Criticisms of Pearson are understandable. But if they are tempered with a defence of Sven then that's frankly absurd, and - as far as I see it - immediately invalidates the opinion of the person in question.

[marty78]

Well, he also spent over fifteen million on players we're now trying to sell for next to nothing, expanded the squad's average age by two years and added a third onto the wage bill. All of that would have been okay had the players he'd assembled been a capable force in the Championship - but they weren't. Not for him (averaged less than 1.5 points per game from end February 2011 to October 2011) and not for his successor (who has done a little better, in spite of constant griping from Sven's signings, ie Mills, Beckford, St. Ledger). There's not a great deal else to say about it, or at least not until FFP comes into play and we get fined or docked points for his rampant misuse of the resources at hand.

No, he isn't to blame for the money being made available to him. The appalling waste of that money and subsequent failure to put a side together capable of winning games at this level (when most of the players he'd inherited had recently finished 5th in the league) was entirely his fault.

Criticisms of Pearson are understandable. But if they are tempered with a defence of Sven then that's frankly absurd, and - as far as I see it - immediately invalidates the opinion of the person in question.

The bold bit is all I've really said. At no point have I defended Sven for his managerial decisions but only the fact he gets the blame for having players that are overpaid (people are reluctant to divulge actual figures). I don't understand why people think any manager, with the understanding he will lose his job (as well as tarnish his reputation) should he fail to reach expectations, would not spend their allocated budget. If the spending of that budget is unsustainable then why did he have it? I can't blame him for that as I personally see that as a massive failure by the clubs financial department.

Why you mention criticism of Pearson I am not sure at all, because I have not even mentioned him, let alone criticised him for anything. That being said, I would be very surprised if he didn't use the available budgets, knowing it will put him out of a job should he fall below expectations. If he has anything about him, he will use all the funds at his disposal to keep his job and his reputation intact and if those funds are greater than the club can afford then that would be the club to blame over Pearson should his tenure be a failure.

It is only my opinion that the primary financial responsibility belongs to the club over any manager, be it Sven, Pearson or any manager of any club that lives beyond its means. As I said, I seem to be in a minority that hold that opinion but it is my opinion nonetheless.

I think removing Sven was the correct decision but lets face it, he got thirteen games to prove his spending was on a good team and if he had been given longer, who is to say that we wouldn't have been promoted given we were two points ahead of Reading, the league champions, at that time.

[Raw Dykes]

The bold bit is all I've really said. At no point have I defended Sven for his managerial decisions but only the fact he gets the blame for having players that are overpaid (people are reluctant to divulge actual figures). I don't understand why people think any manager, with the understanding he will lose his job (as well as tarnish his reputation) should he fail to reach expectations, would not spend their allocated budget. If the spending of that budget is unsustainable then why did he have it? I can't blame him for that as I personally see that as a massive failure by the clubs financial department.

Why you mention criticism of Pearson I am not sure at all, because I have not even mentioned him, let alone criticised him for anything. That being said, I would be very surprised if he didn't use the available budgets, knowing it will put him out of a job should he fall below expectations. If he has anything about him, he will use all the funds at his disposal to keep his job and his reputation intact and if those funds are greater than the club can afford then that would be the club to blame over Pearson should his tenure be a failure.

It is only my opinion that the primary financial responsibility belongs to the club over any manager, be it Sven, Pearson or any manager of any club that lives beyond its means. As I said, I seem to be in a minority that hold that opinion but it is my opinion nonetheless.

I think removing Sven was the correct decision but lets face it, he got thirteen games to prove his spending was on a good team and if he had been given longer, who is to say that we wouldn't have been promoted given we were two points ahead of Reading, the league champions, at that time.

I agree. The board must set a budget, and the manager would be foolish not to use most or all of it with his job on the line.

I think the manager must be aware of players' wages and the budget available to him. If he isn't, then how could he know how many more players he can sign? Say he wants a striker and two defenders, he signs a striker and isn't told how much the contract's worth. He goes after the defenders he wants, but the board tell him he's just spent all the money he's allowed to. Now he's fvcked.

I still think Sven probably was sacked a bit too early, but I can see why the owners did it. If you look at the team's performances at the time, we were getting worse. There weren't really any encouraging signs.

[marty78]

I agree. The board must set a budget, and the manager would be foolish not to use most or all of it with his job on the line.

I think the manager must be aware of players' wages and the budget available to him. If he isn't, then how could he know how many more players he can sign? Say he wants a striker and two defenders, he signs a striker and isn't told how much the contract's worth. He goes after the defenders he wants, but the board tell him he's just spent all the money he's allowed to. Now he's fvcked.

I still think Sven probably was sacked a bit too early, but I can see why the owners did it. If you look at the team's performances at the time, we were getting worse. There weren't really any encouraging signs.

I agree almost completely with that. Sven obviously budgeted for a squad though as he had a shit load of players, the given budget must have massive, what were we thinking? I agree we were getting worse and I couldn't argue against his dismissal, it was completely understandable.

[Hirsty The Blue 94]

I agree almost completely with that. Sven obviously budgeted for a squad though as he had a shit load of players, the given budget must have massive, what were we thinking? I agree we were getting worse and I couldn't argue against his dismissal, it was completely understandable.

Agree that it would be foolish not to spend your budget that you are given by the board, I think the major criticism of Sven was the way in which he spent the budget, shelling out what is believed to be a fair amount of cash to players who played very little (e.g Johnson, Ball, Pantsil etc.) If the owners have changed their tactics in the the way they wish to achieve promotion then surely they must back Pearsons project and give him this season and the early part of next if things don't go well this to build a side capable of consistancy.

[Raw Dykes]

Agree that it would be foolish not to spend your budget that you are given by the board, I think the major criticism of Sven was the way in which he spent the budget, shelling out what is believed to be a fair amount of cash to players who played very little (e.g Johnson, Ball, Pantsil etc.) If the owners have changed their tactics in the the way they wish to achieve promotion then surely they must back Pearsons project and give him this season and the early part of next if things don't go well this to build a side capable of consistancy.

Exactly! Sven could have spent the fortune he did far more wisely. Just think who we could have bought instead of pissing money down the drain on those expensive reserves.

That last sentence raises the key question, really - will Pearson get enough time to see his project through? I really hope so. I'd like to think the owners notice the much improved performances and promising young signings. I'd be shocked if the current squad isn't cheaper than last year's by some distance, as well.

[Foxhateram]

Oh no not again what is it with you lot! There is a Sven thread for Sven debates this is a twitter thread. I thought there was news so came in here to only find yet another repeated Sven debate, this place is like watching the Bbc, endless repeats!

[Happy Fox]

Gareth Jones â€@garethjones25

#htafc boss Grayson hopeful of reviving deal for Beckford from Leicester when loan window opens.Says in the hands of #lcfc though@BBCLeeds

[MattyFromLE]

Gareth Jones â€@garethjones25

#htafc boss Grayson hopeful of reviving deal for Beckford from Leicester when loan window opens.Says in the hands of #lcfc though@BBCLeeds

Thought this may be the case - however, on Saturdays showing I hope Grayson wasn't watching. That said, I still think we'd be better with him, than without.

[Ric Flair]

I think his days are numbered, shame.

[Libertine Dream]

Grayson will know how to get him playing and how to play to his strengths. Worst place to send him.

[Lambert09]

If he was still going I don't understand why he came on at the weekend. I took him coming on as Pearson showing the fans he's still with us and is staying

[MPH]

If he was still going I don't understand why he came on at the weekend. I took him coming on as Pearson showing the fans he's still with us and is staying

I think there was a possible replacement line up who woould of played if we had signed him... that deal fell through so Beckford keeps his place on the bench.

[Raw Dykes]

If he was still going I don't understand why he came on at the weekend. I took him coming on as Pearson showing the fans he's still with us and is staying

I think it could be that we're trying to convince other clubs that we value him and encourage some decent offers, or it could be to give him another chance to prove his ability to either us or his next club. Or, like MPH says, it could just be that he is still our 3rd choice striker for now.

[marty78]

I think it could be that we're trying to convince other clubs that we value him and encourage some decent offers, or it could be to give him another chance to prove his ability to either us or his next club. Or, like MPH says, it could just be that he is still our 3rd choice striker for now.

Yeah, having him around the squad might make it easier to get a fair deal as we won't look so desperate to move him on. I'm not saying that is the reason he is in the squad but it would make some sense.

People shouldn't underestimate the fact a team, with expectations they fall below early on, might get desperate enough to take a punt on him. Hopefully he bags against Wolves and they panic and spend some of that Fletcher money on a new striker. Can teams loan until the end of the season with a view to a permanent move outside of the window?