Sack the board

[Sothall_Blade]

Unfortunately you can't sack a manager that has just got you up.

You can but it would be rank stupidity which is why nobody does it. Why would anybody want to sack a successful manager?

NW was given an incredible 7 years to get us up

It took him 2.5 years to build a team good enough to finish 3rd, reach the Play-Off Final, The League Cup Semi Final and the FA Cup Semi-Final.
When that team narrowly missed promotion and was broken up (not through Warnock’s choice), it took him another 2 years to build the team that got promotion.

What other manager has been given that amount of time at a big Champ club?

We weren’t a big Championship club when Warnock took over. We were second from bottom and crowds were down below 10,000.

Let's not forget the big Blade nearly repaid us by going to Portsmouth during the season.

Alternatively, let’s not forget that he had the chance to treble his pay and manage a big-spending Premiership club but turned them down partly because he was a “Big Blade”.
One of the other reasons he stayed was that McCabe promised to improve his Blades contract if he got promotion, an offer which he subsequently reneged on.

It was certainly time for NW to go especially given the hangover about all that had happened.

I think the decision was rushed into. McCabe AND Warnock should have taken a couple of weeks out before making such a vital, fateful decision.
Personally, I get the impression that McCabe couldn’t wait to get his “big name” manager in, whatever the cost.

 

[alcoblade]

Shame McCabe couldn't have sacked Warnock straight after promotion. He was not ready to manage in the top flight at that time and relegation was always likely with him in charge. Unfortunatley you can't sack a manager that has just got you up.

NW was given an incredible 7 years to get us up. What other manager has been given that amount of time at a big Champ club?

We had some good times under NW and some bad ones. He was given more than a good chance by McCabe and let's not forget the big Blade nearly repaid us by going to Portsmouth during the season.

I have issues about some of McCabe's decisions but you can't fault his backing of Warnock - perhaps he could have given him a few more million in the prem but Warnock's spending record with us hardly suggests he would have spent it well.

It was certainly time for NW to go especially given the hangover about all that had happened. It was McCabe's appointment of his replacements that have been the problem.

Warnock's been a manager for the best part of a quarter of a century. Are you suggesting that he's only just become capable of managing in the premiership after a 20 year apprentiship? He was given 7 years because he took over a shambles and for 5 years has fuck all to spend. It's likely he'll succeed now because he's allowed to buy players of the quality of Joey Barton rather than Luton shelton.

Warnock was not sufficiently backed in the premiership. He was bottom fishing on the wages front. You can argue he shouldn't have spent the money if the players weren't up to it, and I'd agree. What he did spend was poorly spent. But I don't believe he had any chance of signing the players that Robson was allowed to sign, a year later.

7 promotions, taking 3 clubs to the premiership who's place wasn't naturally there - a top manager, sadly lost to us because our chairman had an ego for style* over content. And sadly lost on many fans, who still can't admit they got it wrong.

UTB

* An with an international name, but miniscule ability

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Wasn't having a go at you PS. I think you should be criticising the club for overspending, and agree that it's likely we may be forced to sell players we'd rather have kept, if noone wants the high earners.

No worries Bergen I know where you were coming from.

You make a valid point and I wasnt being sarcy with my last comment btw.

My gripe is that we dont manage the football side properly over a whole season.

We have a history of over spending as you rightly point out.

Trouble is, we pull the plug on it before we give it time to work (I offer you Deane and Beattie).

Its only speculating if you give it time to run its course.

We assume its a bad financial call by the time its too late and cut our losses.

Ultimately we end up failing in the boardroom and on the pitch.

 

[dkc Blade]

Totally agree with this. We have to give Wilson time to get players out and in then judge him. A lot on here would have been happy with mid table this season so 5th isnt a disaster

I doubt if many will be "happy" if we aren't challenging for the play offs with so many mediocre teams in this division.

 

[Pedro Verde]

Warnock was not backed with enough money in the Transfer Market whilst we were in the Premiership.
Take Stoke as an example in their 1st season in the Prem when the January transfer window came around they spent nearly £10m (inc Beattie £4m, Etherington £3.5m) compared to our, what was it £2m on Shelton and Fathi. Look at whats happened to Stoke since theyve kept spending stayed in the Premiership and are now in Europe

 

[Balham]

Warnock was not backed with enough money in the Transfer Market whilst we were in the Premiership.
Take Stoke as an example in their 1st season in the Prem when the January transfer window came around they spent nearly £10m (inc Beattie £4m, Etherington £3.5m) compared to our, what was it £2m on Shelton and Fathi. Look at whats happened to Stoke since theyve kept spending stayed in the Premiership and are now in Europe

Plus £2m on Kilgallon plus £1.2m on Stead. Warnock had the funds, he just chose to spend a large chunk of it on shite.

 

[pommpey]

I also think it has a lot to do with our style of play. Many players move on from BDTBL and then hit their mark with other clubs, possibly because we fail over and over again to attract decent midfielders who will play football in the middle of the park, deny possession to the opposition, go on the attack and create goalscoring chances. Last time we did that? Michael Brown springs to mind, but we've had our spells before and after that when I've seen us breifly change from the lump-it-long mentality and get the ball to feet, people moving into space, passing and attack minded football coming out of our game.

pommpey

 

[grafikhaus]

I also think it has a lot to do with our style of play. Many players move on from BDTBL and then hit their mark with other clubs, possibly because we fail over and over again to attract decent midfielders who will play football in the middle of the park, deny possession to the opposition, go on the attack and create goalscoring chances. Last time we did that? Michael Brown springs to mind, but we've had our spells before and after that when I've seen us breifly change from the lump-it-long mentality and get the ball to feet, people moving into space, passing and attack minded football coming out of our game.

pommpey

Top post, pommpey.

 

[Micalijo]

What lenners did was patronise the rest of the world. If you didn't agree exactly, word for word with what he'd said, if you dared to challenge even the slightest aspect of his argument, then you were fair game for the lenners condescending and patronising bullshit. He was right on more than one occasion, but it wasn't what he said - it was how he said it. No doubt he's still at it on some other forum, belittling anyone and everyone who dares to challenge anything he says.

Lenners is the pub bore. He might well be right, but people soon get tired of his droning and tell him to get out of the pub.

Coming from you, this really is somat else shoreham, apart from I cannot recall you being right about anything - or remotely interesting.

 

[Deleted member 875]

The thing is Lenners dared to be different.

The best way of dealing with him was by debating his argument, i think all things considered this board is less interesting for his demise.

 

[DuncDisorderly]

I agree with everything you say Dunc. Maybe we need to go into L2 for KM to realise what mess we are in or even go into admistration. At least all the deadwood would get thrown out and we could start a fresh.

etc etc etc

I was going to just go with 'whoooosh'. My prediction of doom was somewhat 'tonge in cheek', and as regular readers will know, I'm more on the positive side. I was a bit surprised to see people agreeing with me.

But then it made me think that if my fellow posters are happy to agree with my prediction then maybe its just because people like to think the worst, to accept the negative and reject the positive. Is it more comfortable? Is it an opportunity to release some of lifes frustrations? Who knows, but it seems strange that my post gets nodding agreement...

 

[pommpey]

post: 375000"]The thing is Lenners dared to be different.

The best way of dealing with him was by debating his argument, i think all things considered this board is less interesting for his demise.

Aye. But you just told him to fuck off, mate!

pommpey

 

[Deleted member 875]

Aye. But you just told him to fuck off, mate!

pommpey

Maybe once or twice when he was being a bit extremist, but he always made his point and argued it.

Think this board is a poorer for his absence.

 

[judge]

post: 375021"]Maybe once or twice when he was being a bit extremist, but he always made his point and argued it.

Think this board is a poorer for his absence.

I think you change your mind more than your underpants brownie

 

[Bladesway]

post: 374971"]Not backing him enough in the Premiership, by which i meant if Warnock had been allowed to spend in the Premiership like Robson did in the Championship then maybe, just maybe we would have retained our place in the Premiership.

But there is no proof that Warnock didn't get the backing is there? Surely Warnock would have mentioned it in his book? More a case of Warnock wanted quantity over quality from what I can see.

---------- Post added at 08:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 AM ----------

post: 375000"]i think all things considered this board is less interesting for his demise.

Agree. Len got the push because he wasn't groovy gang. Had the Groovy Gang said the things Lenners said they would have had slapped dannys and that would have been that. This place is poorer without him as you say.

You need your Lens, you need your Sitwells, you need your Darrens etc etc etc. We don't have to agree. In fact its disagreement that makes it interesting.

 

[Balham]

The issue with Lenners is that while he made valid points from time to time, he also pushed it too far with his personal criticism of Foxy and Linz as, to paraphrase, puppets of the club. It was pointed out to him on numerous occasions that he was, in effect, taking a dump on the living room carpet of someone else's house but he chose to ignore it.

The main issue was that he let the attention get to him and started playing pantomime villain. If Lenners had acted like the rest of us - who disagree frequently but never that frequently and certainly not with the attitude that he displayed - he'd not be banned.

 

[Darren]

The issue with Lenners is that while he made valid points from time to time, he also pushed it too far with his personal criticism of Foxy and Linz as, to paraphrase, puppets of the club. It was pointed out to him on numerous occasions that he was, in effect, taking a dump on the living room carpet of someone else's house but he chose to ignore it.

The main issue was that he let the attention get to him and started playing pantomime villain. If Lenners had acted like the rest of us - who disagree frequently but never that frequently and certainly not with the attitude that he displayed - he'd not be banned.

Len had been doing the same one trick pony routine since around 2003 (first on BU then on here). This consisted of, whatever the situation, predicting looming disaster and metaphorically masturbating with glee when people took him seriously and tried to engage him in debate.

To paraphrase Morrissey that joke wasn't funny anymore by 2005 at the latest and, apart from anything else, he deserved his ban for being a crushing bore.

 

[pommpey]

The issue with Lenners is that while he made valid points from time to time, he also pushed it too far with his personal criticism of Foxy and Linz as, to paraphrase, puppets of the club. It was pointed out to him on numerous occasions that he was, in effect, taking a dump on the living room carpet of someone else's house but he chose to ignore it.

The main issue was that he let the attention get to him and started playing pantomime villain. If Lenners had acted like the rest of us - who disagree frequently but never that frequently and certainly not with the attitude that he displayed - he'd not be banned.

And, to compound the issue even further, when we did do something right - like actually get promoted, he would either refuse to accept it or fuck off into the ether. There's one thing being a decent debaters of issues, and then there's being a cock-headed wind-up merchant or a shit-troll. Decent debate means accepting sometimes, you're fucking wrong me old, and either admitting it or providing information to sustain your adversity. When we won, he couldn't bring it to himself to come on BU and issue praise where it was due or even agree with the clappers. It was all 'his way' or nowt at all. I frequently asked him what direction he thought Uited should go and the sum total of his astounding brilliance was 'appoint McCarthy'. Now that's all well and good, but there are a billion and one other issues with Sheffield United apart from appointing McCarthy that I wanted his clarity on that for someone so verbose in their criticism, I'd have thought he'd have pertinent ponits on. It all seemed all so 'personal', raher than objective. I don't think we are missing Len here. It would be the same old stuck record, with him telling us he was right all along and with no material solution for us to think on about. We know whats wrong with United - we argue and debate it every week, much to our disappointment. Decent debate involves ideas, and he had fuck all ideas. Besides, he'd wind loads up on here and I'd be one who would leave ... I don't know about or speak for any one else on that. His mission would be accomplished, as it was on BU when the self-righteous, ginger cunt banned me for telling Len he was a shit-headed fuck-stick, or words to the effect.

pommpey

 

[beightonblade]

all yer need to do is remember yer manners ............................ yer can post as much bollox on here without any aggro then !

 

[Bergen Blade]

all yer need to do is remember yer manners ............................ yer can post as much bollox on here without any aggro then !

Agree. How about one year bans, rather than a year though? Should be effective, while still giving people a new chance?

 

[Highbury_Blade]

post: 375000"]The thing is Lenners dared to be different.

The best way of dealing with him was by debating his argument, i think all things considered this board is less interesting for his demise.

The best way of dealing with lenners was completely ignoring him.

 

[Bergen Blade]

The best way of dealing with lenners was completely ignoring him.

That is true, he didn't reply to people who didn't reply to him.

 

[shorehamview]

I have said it before and I'll say it again, people in glass houses really shouldn't go around chucking rocks.

If I addressed people like lenners did then I'd be banned. Constantly being referred to as "son" or "sonny" by someone who they've never met grinds after a while, especially when you're in your forties.

post: 374929"]Lenners might have been a bit extreme in his views, but his message was there for all to see, and despite not being taken seriously, he was right in a lot of what he said......

I don't mind someone putting their point of view across. What I do get pissed off with is the lenners way of doing it. Given his way there would be no discussions, just him telling us all how correct he is all the time in endless lectures, with every single thread locked.

We might not agree with other posts, we might take the piss, we might argue wildly to the contrary, but there has been no other poster on this forum in the time I've been posting on here who was such a patronising person as lenners. And that's why he got banned - not for what he said, but for how he said it. If you want further clarification, ask Linz why.

Coming from you, this really is somat else shoreham, apart from I cannot recall you being right about anything - or remotely interesting.

Fine, if that's your opinion. I'm not going to call you "sonny", "little boy" or "stupid" because you disagree.

post: 375000"]The thing is Lenners dared to be different.

The best way of dealing with him was by debating his argument, i think all things considered this board is less interesting for his demise.

Pay for one that will let him on then.

Len got the push because he wasn't groovy gang. Had the Groovy Gang said the things Lenners said they would have had slapped dannys and that would have been that. This place is poorer without him as you say.

You need your Lens, you need your Sitwells, you need your Darrens etc etc etc. We don't have to agree. In fact its disagreement that makes it interesting.

Again, if you want a forum that lets people slag off those who run it for running it, and want someone one who calls the administrators liars and worse, put your money where your mouth is. Disagreeing is one thing, but lenners pushed the boundaries too far.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Plus £2m on Kilgallon plus £1.2m on Stead. Warnock had the funds, he just chose to spend a large chunk of it on shite.

Warnock had no choice but to bring in players on Championship wages who had the POTENTIAL to become Premiership players.
Inevitably, some performed better than expected (Hulse, CKR, Stead, Nade) and some performed worse (Davis, Leigertwood, Kilgallon, Fathi).
What he wasn’t allowed to do was to pay Premiership wages in order to bring in a few established, proven Premiership players.

What I think McCabe should have done following promotion is this:-

1) Pay off all external debts to secure the future of the club and avoid wasting any money on interest payments
2) Reward Warnock for promotion with a two year contract. Publically state that even if we were relegated, he would be given one more season to bring us straight back up.
3) Allow Warnock to break the “Championship” wage ceiling but only for a maximum of three PROVEN Premiership players.
4) Crucially, all large new contracts for players should only have been for a maximum of 3 years. This would ensure they expired at the same time as the parachute payments ran out.

If McCabe had done this, I’m confident that the injection of three Premiership players would have secured us the extra goal/point we needed for survival.
Even if we were relegated, having the consistency of the same manager and same team at Championship level would have given us a great chance of bouncing straight back up.
Worst case scenario, the parachute payments would have expired after three years but so would the contracts of all large earners.
We’d have had to build again from scratch but at least we would have been debt-free and living within our means.

Can anybody seriously argue that if McCabe had followed the course above we wouldn't be in a much stronger position today, both in football and in financial terms?