Dickov22 Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 Sven'a phone rang all day every day with agents trying to sell him players. The club had never seen anything like it. He just couldn't say no. That's EXACLTY what happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylofox Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 Of course, I have no experience at all in business, managers never have anything to with budgets. If only I worked in football I'd understand. Your whole basis for Sven knowing nothing is based on his own comments, the word of a compulsive liar. How many times have you heard a manager say in an interview when asked about a player they are interested in something along the lines of "We'd like him but we're absolute miles apart in terms of valuation at the minute" It happens al the time. We'll never know but if you are correct it just shows what even more of a joke he is, how can a person manage his staff when he doesn't even know what wages they are on, absolutely incredible, what a mess. CEO/DoF Sorry NP you can't have player X that you asked for cos I spoke to his Agent/Club and he's on 65k a week. NP Oh really I did not know club Z paid so much oh well try my next target then please. Suppose that to hard to work out people actually talking to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burmesefox Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 love the way the keyboard warriors on here think they know exactly how business is conducted in football clubs and specifically ours. Every football club will have itsnuances and run themselves differently. Just wish you's all stop shouting about how football business is conducted as most if not all haven't got a clue and are just second guessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 Seems to me that there's a lot of naivite as to how a board of directors operate. No-one these days sits in their own silo and is expected to be doing their job without input from the whole board. presumably a budget would have been approved for transfer expenditure. Sven would have proposed certain players with an estimate of the cost and wage demands. I assume Neville would have headed up the negotiations and as they came to a close, Whelan and Top would have been involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 Come on Bert you know football now is not just what's on the pitch. What I am trying to get people to understand is that football manager's such as Pearson and Sven are in control of the football operation. They have no say in the financial dealings away from that. No say at all? So why has Pearson been the one that was handed the task of reducing the wage bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 Seems to me that there's a lot of naivite as to how a board of directors operate. No-one these days sits in their own silo and is expected to be doing their job without input from the whole board. presumably a budget would have been approved for transfer expenditure. Sven would have proposed certain players with an estimate of the cost and wage demands. I assume Nevile would have headed up the negotiations and as they came to a close, Whelan and Top would have been involved. Well according to some not Sven's defence of his involvement in transfer dealing sounds like a lot of the henchmans defence at Nuremburg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 Come on Bert you know football now is not just what's on the pitch. What I am trying to get people to understand is that football manager's such as Pearson and Sven are in control of the football operation. They have no say in the financial dealings away from that. Surely Sven will have had the final say over transfer dealings. Do you really think that when we signed Matt Mills for instance, he wouldn't have been told how much the player is going to cost and as a result how much less he has to spend on other areas? It makes no sense for a manager to have zero involvement in the financial side of these dealings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 But but but but Sven was to blame for contract negotiations and transfer fees. Sven & Neville were. How anyone can try and absolve either of them from blame is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dickov22 Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 No say at all? So why has Pearson been the one that was handed the task of reducing the wage bill? True that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerrrFox Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 No say at all? So why has Pearson been the one that was handed the task of reducing the wage bill? So Neville and the people behind the scenes have been told to do nothing whilst Pearson has come back. Pearson and Sven had two different briefs. Sven was we have the money get us to the Premiership, that failed and the club have to recover for FFP and Pearson's brief is different. He has to make sacrifices in the playing squad and move players he may necessarily want but can't keep because of their cost and he is now restricted in the transfer market. You think if Pearson was in charge of the financials and the say over the signing of players we wouldn't already have made signings? You know better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 No say at all? So why has Pearson been the one that was handed the task of reducing the wage bill? Superb line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 So Neville and the people behind the scenes have been told to do nothing whilst Pearson has come back. Pearson and Sven had two different briefs. Sven was we have the money get us to the Premiership, that failed and the club have to recover for FFP and Pearson's brief is different. He has to make sacrifices in the playing squad and move players he may necessarily want but can't keep because of their cost and he is now restricted in the transfer market. You think if Pearson was in charge of the financials and the say over the signing of players we wouldn't already have made signings? You know better than that. Pearsons hands are tied.... Money needs to be made available to him first. Pearson's brief was reduce the wage bill. If that's not having anything to do with the finance side of it I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerrrFox Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 Pearsons hands are tied.... Money needs to be made available to him first. Pearson's brief was reduce the wage bill. If that's not having anything to do with the finance side of it I don't know what is. Exactly my point Sven was given money but he wasn't party to drawing up contracts for players and agreeing transfer fees for players. Just the same as Pearson isn't involved in those things now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 None of us know what Andrew Neville's instructions were. It could be he was told to get Sven anything he wants, money no object. We signed a lot of Sven's targets that hardly got a game, that can't be Neville's fault. It wouldn't have been Neville's decision to give Wellens and Gallagher extended contracts either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 Exactly my point Sven was given money but he wasn't party to drawing up contracts for players and agreeing transfer fees for players. Just the same as Pearson isn't involved in those things now. But Pearson is/was party to reducing the wage bill.... So has a say in the financial operations.... Just like Sven did "Get Matt Mills at all costs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerrrFox Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 But Pearson is/was party to reducing the wage bill.... So has a say in the financial operations.... Just like Sven did "Get Matt Mills at all costs". Being TOLD you have to pick players to remove from the club because of cost isn't the same as determining transfer fees and drawing up contracts that people accuse wildly at Sven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 It wouldn't have been Neville's decision to give Wellens and Gallagher extended contracts either. Of course, some people seem to have a hard time understanding that. Which scenario sounds more realistic Sven "Richie wants a new deal and I think he should get one" Nev "Ok, how long for" Sven "Maybe another two years" Nev "Does he deserve a pay rise" Sven "Yes" or Sven "Richie wants a new deal" Nev "Leave it to me Svennis" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 Being TOLD you have to pick players to remove from the club because of cost isn't the same as determining transfer fees and drawing up contracts that people accuse wildly at Sven. Pearson will not sign anyone that demands ridiculous money. Why? Because he has been told to control the wage bill. If he thinks said player isn't worth what he's demanding he pulls the plug. If that's not having any control over club finance that what is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerrrFox Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 Pearson will not sign anyone that demands ridiculous money. Why? Because he has been told to control the wage bill. If he thinks said player isn't worth what he's demanding he pulls the plug. If that's not having any control over club finance that what is? He's also not been able to target certain players because of finances - which you probably know about already. So is that being in control of the club's finances? If he had control of the club's finances and felt the player was worth the money then he would do the deal. But he's not in control of the finances, as you said earlier "his hands are tied". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 He's also not been able to target certain players because of finances - which you probably know about already. So is that being in control of the club's finances? If he had control of the club's finances and felt the player was worth the money then he would do the deal. But he's not in control of the finances, as you said earlier "his hands are tied". But because there's no money available at the club, not because he isn't in control of it. If you don't have any money then you can't spend any. You said (along these lines) he has no say whatsoever - all i'm trying to tell you is that he does, regardless of how much, the points I've made and added to your responses clearly indicate so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerrrFox Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 But because there's no money available at the club, not because he isn't in control of it. If you don't have any money then you can't spend any. You said (along these lines) he has no say whatsoever - all i'm trying to tell you is that he does, regardless of how much, the points I've made and added to your responses clearly indicate so. You know there is money at the club, they just won't spend because they are wary of FFP if we don't get promotion this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 You know there is money at the club, they just won't spend because they are wary of FFP if we don't get promotion this season. There isn't - We'd have made signings by now, Pearson has always said "We'd prefer to get business done early" but why not this year? We have to sell to buy. That's why Pearson is trying to get rid of the high earners. Look at previous Pre-seasons, we had new signings sorted before the players came back after their holidays, so why not this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerrrFox Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 There isn't - We'd have made signings by now, Pearson has always said "We'd prefer to get business done early" but why not this year? We have to sell to buy. That's why Pearson is trying to get rid of the high earners. Look at previous Pre-seasons, we had new signings sorted before the players came back after their holidays, so why not this year? FFP you think the owners wouldn't keep pumping money in if there wasn't the risk of the repercussions if Pearson doesn't get promotion this season. The risky option would be to let Pearson make his signings whilst trying to offload unwanted players but if we don't balance the books and don't make the premiership next season we are in trouble. That's the difference between there being money and not being able to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 FFP you think the owners wouldn't keep pumping money in if there wasn't the risk of the repercussions if Pearson doesn't get promotion this season. The risky option would be to let Pearson make his signings whilst trying to offload unwanted players but if we don't balance the books and don't make the premiership next season we are in trouble. That's the difference between there being money and not being able to use it.Where do you not understand "there is no money". Dickov22 will back me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 5 July 2013 Share Posted 5 July 2013 Still same old faces still don't understand that a manager has a grasp on resource allocation, even if they're not the person sat opposite a player's agent. Managers, manage, if not the list of transfer targets would all be £50m+ players on £200k+ a week DoF should have been here when it mattered, when some clown was throwing money around like confetti, rather than one who knows how to get value out the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.