Firthy said:Hes had money to spend (like Hughes) and plenty of time (unlike Hughes).
Is he now a bad manager? When does your stock decrease as a manager?
u2fme2 said:i would have him at city in a shot
Kris_Musampa said:u2fme2 said:i would have him at city in a shot
ffs
i would have him at city in a shot
Really? That appointment would depress the hell out of me to be honest.
Firthy said:Hes had money to spend (like Hughes) and plenty of time (unlike Hughes).
Is he now a bad manager? When does your stock decrease as a manager?
Your missing the point.Mike D said:Firthy said:Hes had money to spend (like Hughes) and plenty of time (unlike Hughes).
Is he now a bad manager? When does your stock decrease as a manager?
Yeah he's sh*t he's had pots of money over £230mil to completely overall his squad, where as Hughes has had buttons in comparison.
I sort of agree. Some Managers do well with fuck all but cant do the business when roles are reversed. Horses for courses.Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:I have a rather weird theory about managers. The theory is backed up by little evidence, so lay off. Some can manage so long as they have riches and success is a given, and all is rosy. They seem to be able to maintain a high position at or near the top. Others seem to manage on a shoestring and do it well. The latter may well over-achieve but get the best out of journeymen professionals.
Swap each manager about and they flounder.
My conclusion is simple: manager is like putting together a 1000 piece jigsaw where upto half the pieces are blank, and there is a good number of duplicate pieces. You put a piece in, it fits, you don't know which piece it was, swap it for another one that fits, the picture looks no different but anyone looking at it would say that the illustration isn't for them.
Finished. I'm due back at the asylum shortly. Think I'll have a game of chess.