Fairly quiet on here.....

[Patrick Suffaux]

Surely that's just consistency. If I believe the board have not backed Clough, then promotion is his good work and failure to win promotion would be their fault? You believe they have backed Clough, and again, that's where we come back to the root of our difference.

So Clough takes us up with this squad and the board haven't given him enough? Are you saying in that event you would argue that the board should have spent more money?

Smart business.

 

[alcoblade]

So Clough takes us up with this squad and the board haven't given him enough? Are you saying in that event you would argue that the board should have spent more money?

Smart business.

I think it's a fair suggestion that a club could get promoted, despite being underfunded. In that case, you'd credit the manager and not the board. Surely that situation can occur? And actually, I'm with Blader on that - promotion will be down to Clough. As I've said elsewhere, I'm very sceptical about the level of backing he's had, and not convinced Clough is entirely happy with it. The noises from him have been ambiguous.

UTB

 

[Pinchy]

Disappointing news for Bristol City. Against all expectations the League have extended the season, beyond its usual end of September finish, to May 2015.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

I think it's a fair suggestion that a club could get promoted, despite being underfunded. In that case, you'd credit the manager and not the board. Surely that situation can occur? And actually, I'm with Blader on that - promotion will be down to Clough. As I've said elsewhere, I'm very sceptical about the level of backing he's had, and not convinced Clough is entirely happy with it. The noises from him have been ambiguous.

UTB

Sorry Alco I normally agree with you but this is utter nonsense.

If we go up and even if it is through good football management, then the board has provided enough tools to achieve the objective. If the manager can get this squad promoted then there is no argument about him needing more to do the job. Is is just me or does that sound too logical?

 

[alcoblade]

Sorry Alco I normally agree with you but this is utter nonsense.

If we go up and even if it is through good football management, then the board has provided enough tools to achieve the objective. If the manager can get this squad promoted then there is no argument about him needing more to do the job. Is is just me or does that sound too logical?

I think you're turing it into the binary argument you were arguing against previoulsy

To take it to an extreme, Did Dave Bassett get us promoted twice on the bounce because of the pension raiders, ladyboys and interpol's most wanted that were running the club at the time? Clearly not, it was in spite of them.

Of course, it is not often as black and white as that. But if you have to vote for who would you give credit, it would be Clough for me this year, by country mile.

UTB

 

[Zanzibar]

I think you're turing it into the binary argument you were arguing against previoulsy

To take it to an extreme, Did Dave Bassett get us promoted twice on the bounce because of the pension raiders, ladyboys and interpol's most wanted that were running the club at the time? Clearly not, it was in spite of them.

Of course, it is not often as black and white as that. But if you have to vote for who would you give credit, it would be Clough for me this year, by country mile.

UTB

Now you're talking.
Alan Turing...he knew about binary.
He doesn't post much these days.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

I think you're turing it into the binary argument you were arguing against previoulsy

To take it to an extreme, Did Dave Bassett get us promoted twice on the bounce because of the pension raiders, ladyboys and interpol's most wanted that were running the club at the time? Clearly not, it was in spite of them.

Of course, it is not often as black and white as that. But if you have to vote for who would you give credit, it would be Clough for me this year, by country mile.

UTB

The board's argument would be that they believed the manager was capable of promotion with the existing squad and that they had been proved right, hence they had given him adequate tools by which to achieve his objective.

It's not about binary thinking it's about being unable to argue with what would essentially be a fact. It's like saying I won the play of the year award despite not having enough votes

It's a completely illogical argument.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

The board's argument would be that they believed the manager was capable of promotion with the existing squad and that they had been proved right, hence they had given him adequate tools by which to achieve his objective.

It's not about binary thinking it's about being unable to argue with what would essentially be a fact. It's like saying I won the play of the year award despite not having enough votes

It's a completely illogical argument.

It's all bollocks, if we get promoted it's ALL down to me and my lucky socks.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

It's all bollocks, if we get promoted it's ALL down to me and my lucky socks.

If we don't go up your socks are shit

 

[alcoblade]

The board's argument would be that they believed the manager was capable of promotion with the existing squad and that they had been proved right, hence they had given him adequate tools by which to achieve his objective.

It's not about binary thinking it's about being unable to argue with what would essentially be a fact. It's like saying I won the play of the year award despite not having enough votes

It's a completely illogical argument.

In which case, why do clubs pay lots of money for a top manager?

Clubs don't spend "too much" money or "too little" money. They cover the spectrum from fuck all to stupid ammounts. There's no defined point at which they have spent "enough". However, it's surely the case that Wimbledon got into the premier league due to the managerial skill of Dave Bassett, and not because of the clubs spending.

Now, looking backwards, it's a factual point that in that case they spent enough. However, looking forward, the answer to "how much isi required to get promotion" would never be "Whatever Wimbledon spent". They got there through someone elses skill, and a shit load of luck.

Anyway, it's a bit circular. But following promotion it's Clough who'll be getting my praises, and not the current board.



UTB

 

[Grecian2000]

Now this is a thread that could use a bit of Ched.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

In which case, why do clubs pay lots of money for a top manager?

Clubs don't spend "too much" money or "too little" money. They cover the spectrum from fuck all to stupid ammounts. There's no defined point at which they have spent "enough". However, it's surely the case that Wimbledon got into the premier league due to the managerial skill of Dave Bassett, and not because of the clubs spending.

Now, looking backwards, it's a factual point that in that case they spent enough. However, looking forward, the answer to "how much isi required to get promotion" would never be "Whatever Wimbledon spent". They got there through someone elses skill, and a shit load of luck.

Anyway, it's a bit circular. But following promotion it's Clough who'll be getting my praises, and not the current board.



UTB

This is where we differ. If we go up everyone has done their job in my mind. The whole club gets a congratulations top down from me. Whatever anyone thinks of the current board I'm not going to turn around after promotion and say "yeh but you could have spent more."

It's a redundant argument. The more agreeable way for all of us to look at it is that it wouldn't matter.....not one little bit.

 

[Pinchy]

Of course, it's inarguable that none of us know how much we'll have spent by the time we get promotion. If we do, I'll be happy whatever the 'spend' [I'm fluent in Phippsian].