Theo Walcott? ..

FanchesterCity said:
People seem to be confused.

Folks are assuming that the lack of a signing = Marwood not doing his job.

Why can't folks get their minds around the possibility that the lack of signing is Marwood actually DOING his job, and cutting the talks when the budget is broken.

It's perfectly feasibly the owner has said "Brian - YOUR job is to be the rational negotiator. Roberto will identify the targets, and you'll both set out the constraints prior to entering negotiations (and run them by me). Your job is to pull the plug when those limits are broken, as Roberto is more emotional and likely to get drawn into paying more".

If I was running the club... I'd be saying that to Marwood. If we're just going to pay the asking price at any cost, there's no point in having Marwood or anybody else in that position - might as well just post a blank cheque to the clubs owning the players we want, and let them determine the price.

Eureka!
 
MCFC BOB said:
LoveCity said:
Walcott is frustrating Bob, but he's become quite productive in the last two seasons. He fed van Persie a lot of goals.

2009/2010: 13 goals, 12 assists
2010/2011: 9 goals, 11 assists
I think he's one of the most over-rated players to appear in football. Jesus, this would really do it for me over Marwood.

Hang on - are you now suggesting Marwood's actually determining the targets too?

This thread is going from the sublime to the ridiculous...

Firstly Marwood can't get Mancini's targets, then he's attempting to identify his own and failing to get them too... all under the noses of the chairman and ultimately owner?

Last summer Garry Cook was deemed 'the moron'. And this summer it seems like it's Marwood's turn.

We've just won the league under the stewardship of the owner and chairman, who's trusted key people to do their jobs... Marwood is one of them, Mancini's another. I see no reason to lose faith in any of them.
 
munster said:
FanchesterCity said:
People seem to be confused.

Folks are assuming that the lack of a signing = Marwood not doing his job.

Why can't folks get their minds around the possibility that the lack of signing is Marwood actually DOING his job, and cutting the talks when the budget is broken.

It's perfectly feasibly the owner has said "Brian - YOUR job is to be the rational negotiator. Roberto will identify the targets, and you'll both set out the constraints prior to entering negotiations (and run them by me). Your job is to pull the plug when those limits are broken, as Roberto is more emotional and likely to get drawn into paying more".

If I was running the club... I'd be saying that to Marwood. If we're just going to pay the asking price at any cost, there's no point in having Marwood or anybody else in that position - might as well just post a blank cheque to the clubs owning the players we want, and let them determine the price.

Eureka!

Please can all the chimps repeatedly read this until they understand,it may take you some time......
 
FantasyIreland said:
munster said:
FanchesterCity said:
People seem to be confused.

Folks are assuming that the lack of a signing = Marwood not doing his job.

Why can't folks get their minds around the possibility that the lack of signing is Marwood actually DOING his job, and cutting the talks when the budget is broken.

It's perfectly feasibly the owner has said "Brian - YOUR job is to be the rational negotiator. Roberto will identify the targets, and you'll both set out the constraints prior to entering negotiations (and run them by me). Your job is to pull the plug when those limits are broken, as Roberto is more emotional and likely to get drawn into paying more".

If I was running the club... I'd be saying that to Marwood. If we're just going to pay the asking price at any cost, there's no point in having Marwood or anybody else in that position - might as well just post a blank cheque to the clubs owning the players we want, and let them determine the price.

Eureka!

Please can all the chimps repeatedly read this until they understand,it may take you some time......

So not signing any of the manager's targets means Marwood is doing a good job? Can I have that job please.
 
munster said:
FanchesterCity said:
People seem to be confused.

Folks are assuming that the lack of a signing = Marwood not doing his job.

Why can't folks get their minds around the possibility that the lack of signing is Marwood actually DOING his job, and cutting the talks when the budget is broken.

It's perfectly feasibly the owner has said "Brian - YOUR job is to be the rational negotiator. Roberto will identify the targets, and you'll both set out the constraints prior to entering negotiations (and run them by me). Your job is to pull the plug when those limits are broken, as Roberto is more emotional and likely to get drawn into paying more".

If I was running the club... I'd be saying that to Marwood. If we're just going to pay the asking price at any cost, there's no point in having Marwood or anybody else in that position - might as well just post a blank cheque to the clubs owning the players we want, and let them determine the price.

Eureka!


I'm sure this is the case, however if your the 'rational negotiator' and all your negotiations come to nothing then you have failed.
He hasn't negotiated the price down, he's walked away and said 'too expensive'. That is a failure.

A successful negotiation would envolve either the price being reduced or staged payments based on the success of a player and ultimately a signature!!

We can all just walk away muttering 'too expensive' but that dosnt mean were doing a good job!
 
FanchesterCity said:
MCFC BOB said:
LoveCity said:
Walcott is frustrating Bob, but he's become quite productive in the last two seasons. He fed van Persie a lot of goals.

2009/2010: 13 goals, 12 assists
2010/2011: 9 goals, 11 assists
I think he's one of the most over-rated players to appear in football. Jesus, this would really do it for me over Marwood.

Hang on - are you now suggesting Marwood's actually determining the targets too?
No, I'm not, I'm suggesting he didn't do his job in the first place by not getting Sinclair. You can't tell me Walcott will cost less than Sinclair because that's ridiculous.
 
Walcott would be a good signing. I understand people having reservations over his ability, but his pace is something we are crying out for, he would really stretch games for us, and would be huge outlet for us.
I'd be happy with this.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.