Criticising the manager....

[Window Cleaner]

£1.7m you say. £1.7million! One point seven whole million!

 

We've bought at least three players for a million each this season, and we easily spent One point seven whole million in January alone.

 

Anyway, just saying.

 

 

 

Anyway it's not just about money spent, Norwich have the same first team coach as last season I think, so there's a measure of consistency in there even though they've changed the manager and some players.

[Doctoroncall]

£1.7m you say. £1.7million! One point seven whole million!

 

We've bought at least three players for a million each this season, and we easily spent One point seven whole million in January alone.

 

Add to that we kept our million pound goalkeeper and our million pound midfielder we already had, plus the likes of Lallana who could have gone for about £2m.

 

 

Anyway, just saying.

 

You're missed the points that Norwich could integrate all those new players and get to top of the league in one season, even with an early change in stewardship from Gunn to Lambert.

[Clifford Nelson]

When I hear this I wonder why we need an SD at all. Does the owner have a say in the style of play? Does the CE have to pursue that, or is it left to the CE to decide, and then appoint an SD who will try to deliver it by telling you who to appoint as manager?

 

It all becomes a frightful mess, as responsibilities and accountability becomes so blurred. In fact the SD becomes the one with the CE's ear and the manager is left to be the one to field the brickbats from the fans.

 

Does Furguson need an SD to tell him how the side should play? No. So if you get a good manager, the SD job becomes almost redundant straight away, especially if the CE or Chairman does all the contract negotiations.

 

What a CE needs are good "independent" contacts who can give as unbiased an opinion as possible on the qualities of potential managers, not an overpaid sinecure.

 

I believe NC to be a sensible person who knows that when it comes to footballing strategies he hasn't got any experience apart from what he may have learnt this season, and possibly rather little historic knowledge. Any CEO can have the final say in any appointment if he wish to have it, but there is no shame in taking on board somebody with a lot of knowledge who could provide a blueprint for this club's footballing development.

 

Ferguson is effectively the SD for Man U, and has been so for many years. They were very lucky to appoint him. His and his club's situation shouldn't be compared with us apart from what we would like to aspire to. For instance the ability to beat more than the bottom half of the table 90% of the time and never lose to any of them. That comes from a plan of how to play football as well as hard work, not just the latter.

[CB Fry]

Anyway it's not just about money spent, Norwich have the same first team coach as last season I think, so there's a measure of consistency in there even though they've changed the manager and some players.

 

I thought having a manager who doesn't hand pick entirely his own backroom staff was a bad thing. Oh, sorry, that's when it happens to us. When it happens to another club it's a measure of consistency.

 

Beautiful contortion act to make out that despite sacking a manager after one game and said manager spending money on new players they have more staff consistency than we do.

 

It's the usual story - every other team has it easy, Saints have it tough.

 

 

You're missed the points that Norwich could integrate all those new players and get to top of the league in one season, even with an early change in stewardship from Gunn to Lambert.

 

Why could they?

 

Their change of stewardship was a hell of a lot later than ours was and at least Pardew got to select which players he wanted to buy.

 

I'd love to see the whining on here if we had a manager inheriting a squad hand picked and pre-seasoned by the previous manager. I doubt many fans would be talking about "measures of consistency".

 

 

What ever happens its the same old story

 

Southampton - battling impossible odds all the time regardless of money spent or players bought. Britains underdog.

 

Every other team in britain - got it easy.

[Window Cleaner]

You're missed the points that Norwich could integrate all those new players and get to top of the league in one season, even with an early change in stewardship from Gunn to Lambert.

 

Anyone else could probably have kept them up last season though. Gunn was a crap manager,a wicked stupid appointment.

[Clifford Nelson]

What you have over looked is that managers like Ferguson, Wenger, even Redknapp ARE the sporting directors, who choose to farm out parts of their jobs to others. Ferguson rarely takes training whilst Wenger usually does. They naturally gravitate into that position by their success. Is there anyone daft enough to seriously propose that Redknapp is a coach? It's only when the coach / team manager does not have the skills / success that you require the extra position above him. And when that manager becomes succcessful, that sporting director just ends up as an aide to the manager.

 

One probably ought to add that Man U and Arsenal both had boards at the time with experience, deep pocket in the case of Wenger, and a good portion of luck when it came to Ferguson. If there were many managers like them around things would be easy, but it isn't the case. Most managers in the english game come from the same background, which is the explanation to why they all play the same game, with very few exceptions. Hard work and commitment is considered to be enough together with a bog standard 4-4-2. Some are better motivators than others, and some have some temporary luch and get promoted. To swap one such manager for another is a complete lottery.

 

An SD should be a completely different character than a manager. Somebody who has been there and done it and learnt a lot in the process, and dare I say it, who can demonstrate intelligence. A proper Director who directs, when the manager manages. Think about your own job: Do you think your directors are sitting there hoping to take over the managers job? And if the answer is, as I expect, no, then why should it be any different in football.

[Clifford Nelson]

I thought having a manager who doesn't hand pick entirely his own backroom staff was a bad thing. Oh, sorry, that's when it happens to us. When it happens to another club it's a measure of consistency.

 

Beautiful contortion act to make out that despite sacking a manager after one game and said manager spending money on new players they have more staff consistency than we do.

 

It's the usual story - every other team has it easy, Saints have it tough.

 

 

 

 

Why could they?

 

Their change of stewardship was a hell of a lot later than ours was and at least Pardew got to select which players he wanted to buy.

 

I'd love to see the whining on here if we had a manager inheriting a squad hand picked and pre-seasoned by the previous manager. I doubt many fans would be talking about "measures of consistency".

 

 

What ever happens its the same old story

 

Southampton - battling impossible odds all the time regardless of money spent or players bought. Britains underdog.

 

Every other team in britain - got it easy.

 

I'm convinced that the word "consistency" is a weasel word. In the posts your arguing with it's used presumably because they think "change" would equate "upheaval". I can't remember anybody who suggested that Mark Wotte ought to stay at Saints "to maintain consistency".

 

Last time AP used it he meant that we should be brilliant in every game, which is wishful thinking.