Time to go (2)

Ianmooreslovechild · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:46 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:

Not true at all. You give me a massive budget, I'll give you a better meal. Someone with no skills will f*ck up both the cheap and expensive ingredients.

I thought that was the point being made.

Lord Kangana · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:47 pm

It is.

Hoboh · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:48 pm

thebish wrote:

Ianmooreslovechild wrote:

I've reached the point where i'd rather he went because it's driving me nuts :crazy:

doctor, doctor, I have a steering wheel down my pants!!

it's Sunday morning have you not got a more pressing engagement? :mrgreen:

Ianmooreslovechild · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:49 pm

Then I'm agreeing with you. Be it greasy Joe's or the Hilton Coyle would Frank Spencer it eitherway

thebish · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:50 pm

Hoboh wrote:

thebish wrote:

Ianmooreslovechild wrote:

I've reached the point where i'd rather he went because it's driving me nuts :crazy:

doctor, doctor, I have a steering wheel down my pants!!

it's Sunday morning have you not got a more pressing engagement? :mrgreen:

been there - done that - and used an industrial sized smoke-machine this morning! (have some juice left - am gonna fill the house with smoke in a mo - just to scare the kids!)

Lord Kangana · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:50 pm

Well no, its not a different arena. You're asking for him to cater the Hilton on a quarter of the previous guy's budget, and still compare like-with-like. Thats why the analogy is flawed.

Hoboh · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:53 pm

Ianmooreslovechild wrote:

Then I'm agreeing with you. Be it greasy Joe's or the Hilton Coyle would Frank Spencer it eitherway

At least at greasy Joes you wouldn't feel cheated!

BWFC_Insane · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:55 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:

He's doing the majority of the job he was asked to do, ie rescue us from the financial train wreck of the last regime. Anyone who's good with figures will note that whilst Coyle is in profit on his dealings, the income from player sales does not match outlay from the likes of Elmander/Shittu/Taylor/Cahill etc. They represent a substantial, irrecoverable loss to the club. He (or appears to be) replacing these "assets" with more salebale versions. ANd reducing the wage and age of the squad. So far so good.

I have no idea why he didn't stick with the formations that worked in the early part of this year, and I've no idea why we win comfortably one week, then lose miserably for several weeks after. That has me as baffled and frustrated as the next man.

On balance, I don't know of any worthwhile replacement who is willing to work under the constraints of the first paragraph, yet has the demonstrable ability to remedy the second. Its still my belief that the board are, and will, stick with their man. Regardless of our polls.

I don't think there is any evidence to date that Coyle will make a profit on his dealings. I'm not sure that as it stands we'd have any offers for any of the players he's signed for cash. In fact I'm fairly convinced we'd not. So they're going to have to do really well to encourage significant bids before their contracts run out.

We will be able to judge that in a year or too.

And not in a million years would it offset the losses if we went down.

Lord Kangana · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:00 pm

You're opinion of what we'll sell our players for potentially has no bearing on what we've actually sold our players on for. Ergo, we've made a loss on the group of players signed under the last regime, but at the same time only reinvested in the black spending.

We'd have been in a much more precarious situation had we gone down in 2010, when were also 19th at the mid point of the season.

Ianmooreslovechild · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:00 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:

Well no, its not a different arena. You're asking for him to cater the Hilton on a quarter of the previous guy's budget, and still compare like-with-like. Thats why the analogy is flawed.

Only partially,the point is a decent chef makes the most of the available ingredients and has an idea about flavour combinations and the value of texture etc. Oh and you can assume you wont get food poisoning after the meal

Salford Trotter · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:05 pm

CAPSLOCK wrote:

Salford Trotter wrote:

Worthy4England wrote:

Salford Trotter wrote:

I doubt we can survive but there's no point in changing the manager now so let's focus on getting as many points as we can and hope beyond hope it's enough.

Understand that perspective - would you get rid when his Contract expires?

I genuinely feel he is setting the right foundations at the club with a focus on youth but his tactical shortcomings in the first half of the season have cost us dearly. If we survive then we have a chance of building something special, if we're relegated then he's probably gone

Wigan was a couple of weeks ago

As was Norwich

He's a fcuking cockend and I reckon we'd have more chance of surviving without him

Completely out of his depth

Stubborn beyond belief

Alienating players by the day

Fair shout but there were signs that when we played Liverpool and Arsenal that he'd started to recognise where he was going wrong and they were both encouraging displays. Inexplicably in the last couple of weeks he's gone back to that early season chaotic organisation but my point was made around the fact that he'd refused to recognise anything was wrong early on. Now at least he knows what formation works best but whether he choses to play it is a different question.

Hoboh · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:11 pm

Salford Trotter wrote:

CAPSLOCK wrote:

Salford Trotter wrote:

Worthy4England wrote:

Salford Trotter wrote:

I doubt we can survive but there's no point in changing the manager now so let's focus on getting as many points as we can and hope beyond hope it's enough.

Understand that perspective - would you get rid when his Contract expires?

I genuinely feel he is setting the right foundations at the club with a focus on youth but his tactical shortcomings in the first half of the season have cost us dearly. If we survive then we have a chance of building something special, if we're relegated then he's probably gone

Wigan was a couple of weeks ago

As was Norwich

He's a fcuking cockend and I reckon we'd have more chance of surviving without him

Completely out of his depth

Stubborn beyond belief

Alienating players by the day

Fair shout but there were signs that when we played Liverpool and Arsenal that he'd started to recognise where he was going wrong and they were both encouraging displays. Inexplicably in the last couple of weeks he's gone back to that early season chaotic organisation but my point was made around the fact that he'd refused to recognise anything was wrong early on. Now at least he knows what formation works best but whether he choses to play it is a different question.

Pure accident maybe his son picked the team the one who don't like stick on twitter but tells everyone there are "reasons" why some players don't play and one of them is not his dd is a tw*t of epic proportions

BWFC_Insane · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:19 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:

You're opinion of what we'll sell our players for potentially has no bearing on what we've actually sold our players on for. Ergo, we've made a loss on the group of players signed under the last regime, but at the same time only reinvested in the black spending.

We'd have been in a much more precarious situation had we gone down in 2010, when were also 19th at the mid point of the season.

You're saying he's bought players more likely to have a sell on value. I don't think there is any evidence they will.

Todd was very good at picking up players and selling them on for bigger fees. He was still a failure of a manager who nearly took the club out of business. Bottom line is going down is a complete disaster. If the club had sold players and said to Coyle, you can't spend the money like they did with Allardyce, then I could go along with some of your thinking. But they haven't they've given him money to spend. At a club like ours you need someone who gets the maximum out of what you've got, and that's what Coyle has failed to do, and why he should go. What's even worse is his decisions and tactics have actually had a negative effect on results, rather than just failing to have a positive impact. That's the clincher.

Worthy4England · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:24 pm

Why do we keep comparing what he's had to spend, with the previous incumbent? Other than to try and obfuscate the fact that he's shite with what he's had to spend?

Compare what he's had to spend with what Norwich, Swansea, Jackburn, Wigan, Fulham, West Brom, Wolves have had to spend.

Then tell me whether he's doing a good job in comparison.

BWFC_Insane · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:28 pm

Worthy4England wrote:

Why do we keep comparing what he's had to spend, with the previous incumbent? Other than to try and obfuscate the fact that he's shite with what he's had to spend?

Compare what he's had to spend with what Norwich, Swansea, Jackburn, Wigan, Fulham, West Brom, Wolves have had to spend.

Then tell me whether he's doing a good job in comparison.

Is the right answer.

Still comes down to people are determined to make an excuse for Coyle, where they wouldn't have let anyone even start with the previous manager. It's inconsistentency and double standards. Thing is I haven't heard many people slate Coyle for signings, more for how he sets teams up and the tactics he uses. That's where he's been poor along with a complete lack of organisation throughout the team.

Any manager who could have organised the team and that's an awful lot, would have us with more points.

Lord Kangana · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:34 pm

I'm trying to point out that we're 19th. That we were 19th when he took over, has had substantially less funds and has still retained us in 19th. Thats it.

If we wanted improvement, surely we'd have increased, not decreased, spending?

Dr.Karl · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:36 pm

CAPSLOCK wrote:

Bogdan,
Steinnson, Ream , Wheater, Ricketts
Myachi, NRC, Muamba, Petrov
Davies
Ngog

We then have a chance

But we won't see that team

Cos he's a prick

Amen brother. Amen.

Amazing what has happened to Petrov and Muamba two of our better players this season. I just can't fathom why they've been dropped recently.

I don't know what good it would do sacking him right now but he shouldn't be here next season whatever division we're in. Isn't his contract up in the Summer?

BWFC_Insane · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:41 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:

I'm trying to point out that we're 19th. That we were 19th when he took over, has had substantially less funds and has still retained us in 19th. Thats it.

If we wanted improvement, surely we'd have increased, not decreased, spending?

We changed manager cos everyone said the previous one wasn't getting the best out of the players. This is exactly the same situation. He's not getting the best or even close to, out of what we have.

We are not competing with clubs who have similar spending profiles to us, and considerably lower wage bills. Not sure anything else is remotely relevant.

Sammy Lee was given peanuts to spend, but went because he couldn't organise the team and get the best out of them. Again we're in that situation.

Lord Kangana · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:42 pm

So you're saying we do what we did last time, and throw money at it then?

BWFC_Insane · **Posted:** Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:46 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:

So you're saying we do what we did last time, and throw money at it then?

You're obsessed with money.

Megson kept us up that first season despite making a profit on transfers, cos he organised the team. That's what I'm suggesting. That like under Lee, a manager could come in now and make huge differences simply by organising the team better. Like the guys at Swansea and Norwich are doing for example.

Time to go (2)

Who is online