Poll: Sack Race 2014/15

[drunkenmaster]

That can surely only mean a huge change of structure at WBA. There's no way that Pulis is going there as a Head Coach.

guy wants to be manager and have control of all decisions, great but said principled manager is now not being paid probably 1-3mil a year. Only job available is one in which he has less control but he can get paid 1-2mil a year again but he'll not take it?

2 million quid is a lot better than sitting on your arse doing nothing. It's also worth noting that managers who stay in jobs and working tend to keep being in jobs while those who turn their nose up at jobs for several years seem to fall out of the loop and not be considered in the future. Exceptionally few people would turn down a 1-2mil a year job, it's as simple as that. He could have taken countless championship/league one jobs with this magical full control but on 1/10th the wages and magically hasn't taken any of these jobs at all.

Anyway, the Palace situation to me suggested that he got full backing in the first transfer window he was in charge but then he wanted massive spending again in the summer because.... whatever. It wasn't interference that made him leave, if anything it seemed to me like he likely made an ultimatum along the lines of "I want 20mil to spend on a few players or I'm walking" and the owners didn't back down and he forced himself into looking like a **** or walking so he chose to walk. This is after spending year after year at Stoke and buying pretty horribly and not moving the club forwards by spending, the club were right not to simply borrow money and load on debt for the sake of a manager with a pretty horrible spending record.

A man manager, tactician(foul the opposition and defend to the death being the only tactic he knows) and getting good discipline(positional, not mental ) is all he is, he is a head coach. He spent 100mil and basically the only genuinely top class player he bought was Begovic, over 5 seasons in the prem and a huge number of players signed. Hughes has bought more higher class players in two seasons spending less than 10 million than Pulis managed.

I really genuinely think he should stick to defensive training and would make a very good assistant to someone like Rodgers, organise the defence, motivation, but leave the buying and attack to someone else entirely.

The strikers he bought included, Crouch £10mil , Jerome £4mil , Jones £8mil, Kitson £5.5mil(really), Walters £3mil, Beattie £3.5mil, oh, and Michael Owen... again, really. Crouch has "worked" just about but for £10mil he's expensive, on a big wage and isn't good and absolutely very much limits how the team can play with him upfront.

 

[BaZ87]

Why did Pulis walk out of his job at Palace, and his £1-3m per year salary, DM? Was it because he wanted but wasn't given control over transfers? Yea, I thought so.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Why did Pulis walk out of his job at Palace, and his £1-3m per year salary, DM? Was it because he wanted but wasn't given control over transfers? Yea, I thought so.

Did he really, you have proof of this? Most places are saying he wasn't given backing, which you may or may not realise is entirely different to not being able to choose who you buy. Rather like that idiot AVB who is now saying the club refused to back him, when they tried and failed to get a list of players who simply weren't available or interested in Spurs. By not available I mean Spurs could offer X amount for someone like Moutinho and Monaco were a far more attractive club likely offering higher wages and without taxes so effectively double the wages. AVB got all upset because the club COULDN'T buy the targets he wanted, not because they wouldn't. It was pretty obvious Spurs tried to buy Moutinho and he chose Monaco.

Palace bought the players Pulis wanted in the previous transfer window but didn't want to splurge on players Pulis wanted the next window, that is NOT the same as buying him a bunch of players he didn't want regardless of if you think so.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...Palace-after-dispute-over-transfer-funds.html

You haven't even got the reason he left Palace correct, which means it doesn't line up with your narrative of him being upset over having no control. Just because you leave one job for a specific reason of something you don't like doesn't mean you'd never take a job with the same limitations.

If I join Utd and am told I have full control of transfers but 3 years later it's taken away I might leave because they change the job and potentially show a lack of respect or more realistically a lack of faith(deserved or not). However that doesn't mean that if I talk to say West brom and I know the situation upfront that I wouldn't take a job there, it's an entirely different thing having something taken away from you and choosing to accept such a condition upfront. People go where the money is, I find it hilarious people haven't worked that out by now. Regardless of how good the player or manager is, they follow the money like in every other industry and job in the world. You think Pires and Anelka, Drogba wanted to play in India or China, or Turkey, or they were the best paying offers? You think Henry couldn't find another offer except for the MLS or that was the best paying offer? You think a manager will turn down a 1+ mil a year job without full control to take a 50k a year job in league one with full control?

Fact is that Pulis may have spent a year analysing every transfer he's ever made, realised he's done a poor job and may now prefer a job that focuses on the areas he is actually good at.

I'm not saying he will take such a job, I'm saying you saying he wouldn't is based on illogical thinking and makes entirely no sense. Many of the top managers in the game today have less control than Pulis had at Stoke. Would Pulis turn down a job offer from Barca or Real because he'd have almost no control of transfers there? Did Mourinho find that condition unacceptable at Real?

 

[No1newts]

To be fair, he gets sod all support at Newcastle. Players constantly sold from under him, he's probably getting little input into who is brought in. He could be harbouring dreams of setting up the most technical fluid tactics ever seen for all we know (unlikely!), but if he has little say in the signings its never going to work.

He was only at Newcastle to pay off his debt to Ashley. He's undoubtedly bored of being Ashley's puppet now, so if a few million is thrown in Ashley's direction, he'll might take off the chains.

After all these years I'm none the wiser as to how good Pardew is. He's got teams promoted, he's failed them, he's nearly caused one of the biggest upsets in recent Premier League times, got both manager of the season awards, nearly got them relegated. At Newcastle how much of that was him? How much did they hinder him? I've got absolutely no idea.

Good post.

 

[BaZ87]

...

From your own link:

...following a string of disagreements over the club’s transfer policy.

I'm not sure how that's any different to what I said.

Pulis, reportedly, threatened to leave Stoke on a fairly regular basis because of disagreements with the board over transfers and walked out of a job and salary at Palace over transfers again. Unless there's a change of structure at WBA then not only will he have little to no input over how much is spent but also over who is signed.

And I'm not sure it's a fact that Pulis has decided he doesn't want a say in transfers anymore. That's you just randomly guessing. History suggests that Pulis will want more control than what's normally given at WBA - maybe that's changed but I've not seen anything to suggest otherwise.


edit: I love how you managed to get a dig at AVB into your post too. You may as well put some **** about AVB in your sig rather than in every other post.

 

[Frankiemac]

He has annoyed Ashley, I can't see Ashley allowing him to stay

Whats he done to annoy him ?

 

[jkb]

Whats he done to annoy him ?

Talking to palace after Ashley supported him through the shocking run in 2014 and the headbutt. Not attending the press conference and sending the media into a frenzy as to why not. Obviously I don't know Mike Ashley but I can imagine he isn't happy.

 

[rossk26]

Talking to palace after Ashley supported him through the shocking run in 2014 and the headbutt. Not attending the press conference and sending the media into a frenzy as to why not. Obviously I don't know Mike Ashley but I can imagine he isn't happy.

Mike Ashley is laughing, he's just been paid £2.5m to let Pardew go.

Granted he now has to find another manager gullible enough to think they have a say in the team, and pay them a pittance compared to other PL managers.

 

[drunkenmaster]

I'm not sure how that's any different to what I said.

You're comparing apples to oranges that is why. A club in which the manager doesn't get to choose the players bought by a club, and one in which the manager doesn't choose the transfer budget are different things. Effectively no manager in the world gets to dictate what the transfer budget is. Arguing over the manager asking for more money and not getting it and arguing over the club spending money but not on the players the manager want are ENTIRELY different things regardless of it you want them to be different or not.

Pulis, reportedly, threatened to leave Stoke on a fairly regular basis because of disagreements with the board over transfers and walked out of a job and salary at Palace over transfers again. Unless there's a change of structure at WBA then not only will he have little to no input over how much is spent but also over who is signed.

So what you're saying is he spent 5+ years in a job in which he wasn't happy with the way the board "backed him" and got fired, then he took another job in which it was directly clear he wouldn't get an unlimited transfer budget and walked when not given it. Again as many people seem to believe it screams of he made ultimatums at Stoke and the owner caved for many years before finally firing him, at Palace he made the same ultimatum and walked after the owners didn't cave. Again, joining a club under one set of circumstances(or what you think will happen at least) and finding the circumstances change or you were simply wrong in your assumptions is one thing, it doesn't indicate you wouldn't take an extremely well paid job(over being paid nothing) when the same circumstance is in place but it's clear up front. Again Ancelotti, Mourinho, Pep and multiple others go to big clubs and take jobs with very little control over transfers, it's entirely different to joining a club and having the job change on you at a later date. Which of these situations, spending 5 years at Stoke while constantly arguing over transfers, then taking a job at a club with limited funds then arguing and leaving over money available, indicates he is unwilling to take a job in which transfer funds will be an issue... or can we merely assume that transfer funds are always a bone of contention with most clubs and their managers? Is there really any club in which the manager wouldn't like to spend more money and the owners would like to spend less money?

Can you not assume that people have the capacity to learn? Pulis's mistake appears to be assuming that one owner would cave to his ultimatums like another manager then not wanting to back down he walked when the ultimatum didn't work. So learning from that, wouldn't you just think he'd take another job and maybe not be so quick to lay down an ultimatum and realise that the transfer budget isn't in his control?

Fact is you are ignoring thousands of cases of players, managers, coaches taking less than ideal jobs and billions of other people worldwide also taking jobs they don't like.... because money kind of makes the world go around. You seem to believe Pulis would prefer not to make millions a year while waiting for an almost non existent job in which an owner will give him unlimited funds and control over the club... I argue that is a completely ridiculous assumption to make not least because he can simply take a non ideal job, get paid millions and be waiting for the right job to come along anyway and leave should he want to. Extremely few people would turn down the chance to make millions in an effectively pretty easy job even more so in football because being a fired manager is one of the best paid jobs in the world.... you suck, you get fired, you get paid your full contract and go and get another job... woe is the football manager that has to live through such hardship.

And I'm not sure it's a fact that Pulis has decided he doesn't want a say in transfers anymore. That's you just randomly guessing. History suggests that Pulis will want more control than what's normally given at WBA - maybe that's changed but I've not seen anything to suggest otherwise.

That isn't me randomly guessing or assuming anything, it's a suggestion of a possibility, I asked how you would know he hadn't changed his mind. You're the one making very bold statements that Pulis wouldn't take the job without a massive change in structure, I'm not making bold statements about anything. I'm pointing out the holes and the pretty much dozens of reasons someone would take that job. You're stating something as fact when there is a huge number of situations to the contrary. Wasn't Mourinho rather unhappy about Ballack and Shevchenko being "bought" for him, yet then signed for Real knowing upfront he'd have almost no say in transfers and again resigned for Chelsea knowing Roman might stick his oar in again.... but it's impossible Pulis would take such a job?

edit: I love how you managed to get a dig at AVB into your post too. You may as well put some **** about AVB in your sig rather than in every other post.

Why not find the last post I made about AVB, time and date and give me a rough idea of the number of posts between that and the last one... then stop talking rubbish. I talked about AVB when he was a manager in the league and doing poorly while we all talked about his teams weekly like every other team in the league. When he left, I've barely mentioned him.

 

[nemtizz]

Granted he now has to find another manager gullible enough to think they have a say in the team

So it's Mike who has been picking Gouffran all along?! That mother****er.

 

[rossk26]

So it's Mike who has been picking Gouffran all along?! That mother****er.

haha, no no definitely Pards all along with that selection.

Purposely not picking Cabella to spite Carr.

 

[No1newts]

Mike Ashley is laughing, he's just been paid £2.5m to let Pardew go.

Granted he now has to find another manager gullible enough to think they have a say in the team, and pay them a pittance compared to other PL managers.

John Carver, Lee Clark, Kevin Keegan or Shearer probably

 

[Andybtsn]

Coloccini

 

[rossk26]

John Carver, Lee Clark, Kevin Keegan or Shearer probably

Carver and Clark out of those. Keegan left for above reason, and Shearer would earn more with the BBC!

 

[BaZ87]

You're comparing apples to oranges that is why.....

No dm I gave an opinion based on actual events. Pulis has shown as little as 4-5 months ago that he doesn't like working at clubs without full control. WBA don't give their managers that.

You on the other hand initially based your opinion on the fact that he just wants the money - which is contradicted by the fact he walked out of Palace just 5 months ago and now making random guesses as what might have changed. He might have decided he wants to dress as a woman too, it's possible.

And the AVB comment was a joke dm, lighten up. You don't miss a chance to give him **** though.

As I initially said, I can't see Pulis taking over unless WBA give him more control than they usually do.

 

[nemtizz]

Coloccini

Who?

Coloccini has already been ruled out. He has 0 coaching badges, thank God.

 

[nemtizz]

Andy and his magic powers.

 

[this_is_gav]

Who?

Colocchini has already been ruled out. He has 0 coaching badges, thank God.

Shearer didn't have any badges either as I recall, but they made an exception for him, didn't they?

Anyway, it seems it's Carver and Stone while Ashley calls up another old favour. Kinnear again?

 

[the wopster]

Shearer didn't have any badges either as I recall, but they made an exception for him, didn't they?

Anyway, it seems it's Carver and Stone while Ashley calls up another old favour. Kinnear again?

Shearer had already stated his badges when he took over collo hasn't.

 

[BaZ87]

I'm pretty sure it's happened a fair few times where the manager hasn't had the required badges and they've been given special permission based on their being a coach at the club that has the badges.