[Archived] sam glad to be out of brfc

[den]

Fair enough Tom. I don't tend to get into discussions about whether Sam should have been sacked anyway. Childish.

[braddock]

How is it childish?

(Unless you were referring to the ongoing arguments with that part of the post and then fair enough. I first read the childish bit as referring to the Allardyce bit.)

[thenodrog]

  On 25/10/2012 at 22:33, braddock said:

I'd finish 3 places down every season under a manager who played slightly interesting football (providing that was in a safe position) than watch Allardyce's football for the rest of my life.

Really? 3 places in the Prem= well over 2m quid in lost revenue...... or in real terms more than the club have received for the entire ST sales this season. Arithmatic is obviously not your strong point is it?

As I said above braddock you know precious little about football and even less about business.

[thenodrog]

  On 25/10/2012 at 23:02, braddock said:

Some Rovers fans were loving Allardyce's football at Rovers. Some weren't.

It wasn't Allardyce or down and so I'd have taken a slight risk in appointing someone else. Allardyce served his purpose and had made us a safe enough club. A 'manager' like Kean wasn't a million miles off keeping us up with a decimated team.

History says it was. The manager before Allardyce in most peoples judgement was taking the club down the manager after Allardyce did. Stick to facts not fantasies should we?

  On 25/10/2012 at 23:26, Henwah said:

Agreed, getting rid of Allardyce wasn't entirely stupid, the choice of replacement was

And your choice would have been who exactly henwah?

[Henwah]

You honestly expect me to remember the state of the managerial merry-go-round from nearly 2 years ago in order to speculate on who might have been an option?

I'm not a Sam hater, or lover - I just remember my feelings at the time (when we were not yet fully aware of the extent of the Venky's lunacy) were that the new owners had a desire and opportunity to look for a manager who occasionally let the ball touch the green stuff. In hindsight it was a mistake, because they put a chump in charge

[thenodrog]

  On 26/10/2012 at 18:33, Henwah said:

You honestly expect me to remember the state of the managerial merry-go-round from nearly 2 years ago in order to speculate on who might have been an option?

Best for you not to make what is essentially uninformed comment then.

[Henwah]

  On 26/10/2012 at 18:41, thenodrog said:

Best for you not to make what is essentially uninformed comment then.

I'll assume you have full recollection of every managers whereabouts at the time then..

If having a differing opinion is frowned upon by your good self, why do you bother coming on a discussion forum?

[Henwah]

Though I vaguely recall Martin Jol being available at the time - think he could have been a good option

[thenodrog]

  On 26/10/2012 at 19:03, Henwah said:

Though I vaguely recall Martin Jol being available at the time - think he could have been a good option

I'ver nothing against Jol and imo they are similar types but his record and experience in Premier League football falls some way behind Allardyce's. You also need to ask yourself whether he would have come here though after the Venkys took over and sacked Allardyce after finishing in the top half.

[John]

Martin Jol, don't think he would have come, keep the names coming though - such a stupid debate, Sam is a very good manager, just accept it.

[Henwah]

It's hard (and largely pointless) to debate who might have come - we don't even have a clue who might do now, never mind then. Jol had no job at the time and despite the oddities surrounding the Sam sacking the Venky's weren't quite the joke they are now so we might have got him.

It seems he tries to get teams playing, but equally I guess Sam might have too, given the funds.

[thenodrog]

Like the Fairy Tale. Through their own greed and stupidity the Venky's killed the goose that laid the golden eggs and ended up with nowt. 10,000 absent supporters can't all be wrong can they?

[Henwah]

He sat on the fence during that interview, then occasionally agreed with whoever was winning at any given point so I wouldn't read too much into his 'stance' on anything!

[K-Hod]

Why is this debate still going on? Zzzzzzzzzz

[SydneyRover]

As expected, Braddock or Topman still haven't properly responded to my post a few pages back about their unrealistic expectations.

You do realise just three words "I was wrong" will make you look a lot better than you do now?

Anyway I'll rephrase them and I fully invite ANYONE (including Braddock and Topman) who would have sacked Sam whether at that point or at the end of the season to answer them.

Feel free to pick holes in the questions themselves, but if you can't, then you ought to be answer all of the questions and defend your position.

1. Since around the year 2000, aside from the managers I listed in my previous post (Curbishley, Hughes, Pulis and Allardyce), can you recall any other managers who have consistently managed to get their teams into mid table or better (often much better in Sam's case with Bolton) on the sort of budget we had under the Trust or under Venky's? Actually even including Pulis is generous as Stoke's net budget was considerably higher than ours but we'll go with it.

Moyes had a considerably bigger budget at Everton before you name him, although this isn't to say he's a worse manager than Sam, clearly Moyes is one of the best managers in the Sky era.

2. How many of those have a reputation with fans and media for playing attractive football, and how many have a reputation for playing more direct "negative" football? If you have named any other names for the first question, what about them?

3. If you can't name more than three managers who have a reputation for consistently getting mid table or higher positions on a budget with their clubs whilst playing significantly more attractive football, would you then agree this is something that has hardly been achieved in the recent history of the Premier League?

4. Why then did you advocate getting rid of Allardyce, who we've established already was achieving rare things in this league - consistently getting his clubs into mid table and often much higher, year on year, despite not having much to spend - in favour of getting someone who would achieve similar results but with playing more attractive football, especially when this was something that had hardly been achieved in the recent history of the league?

5. Name me as many clubs as you can think of who have attempted to play attractive, expansive football in the PL whilst on a tight budget. What happened to each one of them?

If you guys still say you would have fired Sam and got a better replacement, you ought to be able to answer all of these.

[thenodrog]

A strong argument very eloquently and firmly put Sydney Rover. You've not left much room for manouevre for the assorted ranks of Facebook Warriors, Friends of the Venkys and fully paid up members of Jerome's Army with their deeply entrenched opposition to your views. Unfortunately those with the knuckle dragging mentality who by now know any opinions they hold on football are about as valid as Jimmy Saville's opinions on good parenting will never ever admit that they were wrong and will automatically lob a one word retort in your direction with no reference to squad quality............ 'Hoofball'.

Have fun SR.

[Amo]

  On 27/10/2012 at 05:12, SydneyRover said:

You do realise just three words "I was wrong" will make you look a lot better than you do now?

How can my hypothesis be wrong? We haven't had the chance to test it out.

[Pedro]

Amazing how nobody seems to remember that Saint Sam was at the helm at Bolton when they racked up nearly £100m of debt, it can't just be down to leaky taps and someone flicking the immersion heater on once or twice too often.

He would keep teams up in the modern Premier League, without a doubt - but could he consistently do it whilst a club stays well within their means? Personally, I'm not too sure.

[den]

  On 27/10/2012 at 09:51, Pedro said:

He would keep teams up in the modern Premier League, without a doubt - but could he consistently do it whilst a club stays well within their means? Personally, I'm not too sure.

Have you really thought that one through Pedro?

[John]

  On 27/10/2012 at 09:51, Pedro said:

Amazing how nobody seems to remember that Saint Sam was at the helm at Bolton when they racked up nearly £100m of debt, it can't just be down to leaky taps and someone flicking the immersion heater on once or twice too often.

He would keep teams up in the modern Premier League, without a doubt - but could he consistently do it whilst a club stays well within their means? Personally, I'm not too sure.

Didn't realise he was also the Bolton chairman/finance director at the time.

Many clubs stay well within their means right?

[thenodrog]

  On 27/10/2012 at 09:51, Pedro said:

Amazing how nobody seems to remember that Saint Sam was at the helm at Bolton when they racked up nearly £100m of debt, it can't just be down to leaky taps and someone flicking the immersion heater on once or twice too often.

He would keep teams up in the modern Premier League, without a doubt - but could he consistently do it whilst a club stays well within their means? Personally, I'm not too sure.

Pedro why don't you do a little research before you post ? It'll make your opinions more valid.

Check out the spending power of Limerick, PNE, Blackpool, Notts Co, BWFC (before Eddie Davies) and BRFC. Allardyce did a good job for them all with budgets of next to sod all.

Not only that but re: any money spent by Bolton (or anybody else) the cheques would not be signed by Allardyce but by the Chairman / Sec. Furthermore if money was available at any club I can only think of one manager (Arsene Wenger) who would not spend it readily.

[greco]

  On 27/10/2012 at 05:12, SydneyRover said:

As expected, Braddock or Topman still haven't properly responded to my post a few pages back about their unrealistic expectations.

You do realise just three words "I was wrong" will make you look a lot better than you do now?

Anyway I'll rephrase them and I fully invite ANYONE (including Braddock and Topman) who would have sacked Sam whether at that point or at the end of the season to answer them.

Feel free to pick holes in the questions themselves, but if you can't, then you ought to be answer all of the questions and defend your position.

1. Since around the year 2000, aside from the managers I listed in my previous post (Curbishley, Hughes, Pulis and Allardyce), can you recall any other managers who have consistently managed to get their teams into mid table or better (often much better in Sam's case with Bolton) on the sort of budget we had under the Trust or under Venky's? Actually even including Pulis is generous as Stoke's net budget was considerably higher than ours but we'll go with it.

Moyes had a considerably bigger budget at Everton before you name him, although this isn't to say he's a worse manager than Sam, clearly Moyes is one of the best managers in the Sky era.

2. How many of those have a reputation with fans and media for playing attractive football, and how many have a reputation for playing more direct "negative" football? If you have named any other names for the first question, what about them?

3. If you can't name more than three managers who have a reputation for consistently getting mid table or higher positions on a budget with their clubs whilst playing significantly more attractive football, would you then agree this is something that has hardly been achieved in the recent history of the Premier League?

4. Why then did you advocate getting rid of Allardyce, who we've established already was achieving rare things in this league - consistently getting his clubs into mid table and often much higher, year on year, despite not having much to spend - in favour of getting someone who would achieve similar results but with playing more attractive football, especially when this was something that had hardly been achieved in the recent history of the league?

5. Name me as many clubs as you can think of who have attempted to play attractive, expansive football in the PL whilst on a tight budget. What happened to each one of them?

If you guys still say you would have fired Sam and got a better replacement, you ought to be able to answer all of these.

OUCH..!

excellent post, no doubt it will be ignored.

  On 27/10/2012 at 09:26, thenodrog said:

A strong argument very eloquently and firmly put Sydney Rover. You've not left much room for manouevre for the assorted ranks of Facebook Warriors, Friends of the Venkys and fully paid up members of Jerome's Army with their deeply entrenched opposition to your views. Unfortunately those with the knuckle dragging mentality who by now know any opinions they hold on football are about as valid as Jimmy Saville's opinions on good parenting will never ever admit that they were wrong and will automatically lob a one word retort in your direction with no reference to squad quality............ 'Hoofball'.

Have fun SR.

OUCH 2.0.!

[Give 'Em the Axe]

  Quote

Agreed, getting rid of Allardyce wasn't entirely stupid, the choice of replacement was

It was enormously stupid to get rid of Allardyce.

[Give 'Em the Axe]

  On 21/10/2012 at 23:58, Eddie said:

He's a total pr*ck.

Allardyce?

[SydneyRover]

  On 27/10/2012 at 09:42, Topman said:

How can my hypothesis be wrong? We haven't had the chance to test it out.

Just as I thought...you couldn't answer the actual footballing questions.