You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It's quiet 10, no apologies! (continued)
- Thread starter Neville Kneville
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Re: It's quiet 10, no apologies!
I like the transfer committee concept. I think Managers having sole control over the available funds leads to more gambles on long shots. Joint decisions tend to be a little more sure footed ... at least I'd imagine that to be true.
At City under Mancini I sense less risk in each signing than when Hughes was at the healm.
I think but have no real idea that KennyD had too much say at liverpool and wasted most of thier money on average players. Basically he went out on a limb too many times because no one was in a position to held him back until all the money was spent. I don't know this to be true but supposing.
I like to think that Mancini is free to make the key decisions but that the general rule is to govern by concensus amongst a core team. Whatever we are doing is working anyway :-)
I like the transfer committee concept. I think Managers having sole control over the available funds leads to more gambles on long shots. Joint decisions tend to be a little more sure footed ... at least I'd imagine that to be true.
At City under Mancini I sense less risk in each signing than when Hughes was at the healm.
I think but have no real idea that KennyD had too much say at liverpool and wasted most of thier money on average players. Basically he went out on a limb too many times because no one was in a position to held him back until all the money was spent. I don't know this to be true but supposing.
I like to think that Mancini is free to make the key decisions but that the general rule is to govern by concensus amongst a core team. Whatever we are doing is working anyway :-)
Re: It's quiet 10, no apologies!
Why should there be a transfer committee to decide on transfers? imo, Mancini should have full control on the transfers he wants (within the transfer budget of course), because it's his job on the line if the club fails to meet expectations (titles). Unlike Mark Hughes, we have seen that a majority of signings attributed to Mancini, have been huge successes - so he knows what he's doing (despite his seeming affinity towards players from Italy..)
This transfer committee would only work if they are held accountable for their actions. It would make them think twice before signing on a player. If that had been the case, Marwood would have been long gone based on the transfers he had made along with Hughes..and we could have saved a lot of money for the owners..
Another thing, if the manager does not get what he wants and gets another player instead, he tends to have less patience with that player. A prime example would be Adam Johnson as compared to Balotelli, I believe..
PS: Please don't compare Mancini with King Kenny lol. KD was worse than Hughes in transfer dealings and basically had no clue in what he was doing. Their American owners are totally right in clearing out the whole management due to the failures..
TonyM said:I like the transfer committee concept. I think Managers having sole control over the available funds leads to more gambles on long shots. Joint decisions tend to be a little more sure footed ... at least I'd imagine that to be true.
At City under Mancini I sense less risk in each signing than when Hughes was at the healm.
I think but have no real idea that KennyD had too much say at liverpool and wasted most of thier money on average players. Basically he went out on a limb too many times because no one was in a position to held him back until all the money was spent. I don't know this to be true but supposing.
I like to think that Mancini is free to make the key decisions but that the general rule is to govern by concensus amongst a core team. Whatever we are doing is working anyway :-)
Why should there be a transfer committee to decide on transfers? imo, Mancini should have full control on the transfers he wants (within the transfer budget of course), because it's his job on the line if the club fails to meet expectations (titles). Unlike Mark Hughes, we have seen that a majority of signings attributed to Mancini, have been huge successes - so he knows what he's doing (despite his seeming affinity towards players from Italy..)
This transfer committee would only work if they are held accountable for their actions. It would make them think twice before signing on a player. If that had been the case, Marwood would have been long gone based on the transfers he had made along with Hughes..and we could have saved a lot of money for the owners..
Another thing, if the manager does not get what he wants and gets another player instead, he tends to have less patience with that player. A prime example would be Adam Johnson as compared to Balotelli, I believe..
PS: Please don't compare Mancini with King Kenny lol. KD was worse than Hughes in transfer dealings and basically had no clue in what he was doing. Their American owners are totally right in clearing out the whole management due to the failures..
richards30
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 27,913
Re: It's quiet 10, no apologies!
im sure that bobby has his targets and then he discusses them with the board/owner. then probably contact between player and other club to guage possible transfer and costs. if its deemed acceptable then we`ll go for it but if we get the usual city tax bullshit then no matter how much bobby wants a player the board will not allow it.
im sure that bobby has his targets and then he discusses them with the board/owner. then probably contact between player and other club to guage possible transfer and costs. if its deemed acceptable then we`ll go for it but if we get the usual city tax bullshit then no matter how much bobby wants a player the board will not allow it.
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
Re: It's quiet 10, no apologies!
is he a big lad like Andy?de niro said:and me, desperate for cavani.
Plain Speaking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 5,093
Re: It's quiet 10, no apologies!
Cavani is 6' 0" Carroll is 6' 3"johnny crossan said:is he a big lad like Andy?de niro said:and me, desperate for cavani.
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
Re: It's quiet 10, no apologies!
dn likes 'em bigger than that!Plain Speaking said:Cavani is 6' 0" Carroll is 6' 3"johnny crossan said:is he a big lad like Andy?de niro said:and me, desperate for cavani.
MSP
Well-Known Member
Re: It's quiet 10, no apologies!
that's probably how it goes.
I've read list night that Liverpool's Comoli guy was sacked because he was the one who was in the charge of negotiating the price for players they brought. Dalglish was sacked for bringing them at all, lol.
Manager can't be the sole person who do the transfer stuff. He should be the one who picks the targets but there has to be a word from those who are giving the money for it.
richards30 said:im sure that bobby has his targets and then he discusses them with the board/owner. then probably contact between player and other club to guage possible transfer and costs. if its deemed acceptable then we`ll go for it but if we get the usual city tax bullshit then no matter how much bobby wants a player the board will not allow it.
that's probably how it goes.
I've read list night that Liverpool's Comoli guy was sacked because he was the one who was in the charge of negotiating the price for players they brought. Dalglish was sacked for bringing them at all, lol.
Manager can't be the sole person who do the transfer stuff. He should be the one who picks the targets but there has to be a word from those who are giving the money for it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.