Clearly me... I just asked..
£250 a year.. Could have subsidised the buses...
To get back to the question in the article, what are our targets for this season? What are we happy with?
I do not believe that our financial status has improved so much that we now can afford to stay in the championship and go for promotion next year. I don't believe that our financial status has improved at all, so how can we afford - financially - to stay another season in this league with DF but not with Coyle?
You could also say £3m and what £10,000 a week wasted on Sordell.
This is a wind up surely. The debate whether coyle was any good is over. Is it not just how bad he was that's left? Maybe I am just misreading some posts.
Thank you WF. That is exactly my point.
MT - we were never going down in the Sturridge season. We were 7th at the end of March. We only finished as low as 14th because we lost the last 5 matches.
MT - we were never going down in the Sturridge season.
----
We were told that last season too and.....
Clearly me... I just asked..
£250 a year.. Could have subsidised the buses...
--------
He's on the going rate for a youth player. If you want to complain about Coyle's transfer policies I'm sure you can think of better examples. I don't think any of the managers are taking money out of the fund for buses either. Seems a bit flippant to me, that, MT. I wasn't having a pop at you.
If and when we release McKee without him playing a game, that would be a good time to complain about Coyle signing him, I'd have thought. He signed Eaves on a similar hunch too, and he's probably worth a few quid and adding to it all the time, but he has been in our youth system for a couple of years (you probably know we have an Elite level academy, Oldham and Burnley don't). So there's potential value we can add to these players, and in the context of a PL wage budget, to which we were working when they were signed, it's really insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Lads, sorry, but this article isn't about Coyle's mistakes or signings, it's about the changing of our targets now that we have a new manager.
Can we get back to discussing that, because this is turning out to be a similar discussion that we have had for the last 18 months.
I'm saying the run was poor and Sturridge stopped us fighting a possible relegation fight! The form after Christmas was not the greatest..
The point is the loan masked the problem of building the squad...
Highlighted the year after with Tuncay, Kakuta & the rest of the rubbish not being able to assist the weakened squad.
Coyles luck ran out!!!
AND THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT DOUGIE LOOKS AT THE FULL SQUAD AND CHECKS OUT ALL WEAKNESSES BEFORE ENTERING THE TRANSFER WINDOW. The cap locks represent relevance to the thread...
Flippant LH..
I asked a question and you finished off with who cares....
That's Flippant.
MT - sorry, you're right, I was well out of order.
AND THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT DOUGIE LOOKS AT THE FULL SQUAD AND CHECKS OUT ALL WEAKNESSES BEFORE ENTERING THE TRANSFER WINDOW. The cap locks represent relevance to the thread...
---------
So, I assume that you are happy with staying in the Championship this season and pushing for promotion next, MT?
I'm not. I can't understand how financially, we were told that we needed to get promoted this season. Even with a new manager, finances are the same, if not worse, so why have our targets changed?
Fair enough LH..
Your maturity just saved us 3 hours and 200 comments!!
Cheers
"So, I assume that you are happy with staying in the Championship this season and pushing for promotion next, MT?"
Happy... No.
Just trying to buy into what Dougie is doing.. £16m this season, £16m next then £8m and £8m in parachute.. I'd suggest for Dougie to be doing what he's doing, he's had the heads up,that he has 18 month to get us up..
Eddie must be bank rolling another year... And to be honest, I'd like to spend some time being competitive right now before worrying about United tearing us a new one..
That's fair, MT, but it still doesn't really answer why our targets have changed.
I'm sure you'll agree that Coyle had immense pressure from the top to get promoted. Garty said that we have to get promoted. Why and how has that changed?
We would've known about parachute payments when Coyle was in charge, weren't we?
The targets have changed because we are well into the season.
When Coyle was sacked, I'm sure him and the squad took equal blame.. If Gartside has assessed the championship and decided its not the walk in the park he and you thought, then targets and aims changed..
PG is not going to be totally vocal about this because his tenure as chairman has dipped slightly and he must take some blame for buying into OC as we all originally did.. But PG needed to avoid the emotion we are afforded as fans, and be more professional...
Which leads to the comment I made months ago.... Eddie Davies needs a football man below him, not Gartside... In the ilk of George Graham, but not George Graham..! Gartside isn't needed for his money or decision making over managers...!?
But the finances haven't changed. We were in a dire situation when Coyle was in charge and we still are now that DF is here.
Gartsides official remit for Coyle was to get promoted because of the poor financial situation. That's what it sounded like anyway. We are still in a poor financial situation. A new manager doesn't change that, so should are targets, based on finances, not change either?
Nobody has managed to give a satisfactory answer on this, hence me keep asking.
"so should are targets, based on finances, not change either?"
I said the targets have changed due to results and actual experience of the division...
You thought 100 points were realistic.. Then changed your mind with the numpty article...
What made you change your target...?
Results over finance I assume...?
Coyle had time to build his own team. This seasons team was now his. Quite clearly after all the pre season rhetoric from Coyle expectations were high. He told people how good a squad he had assembled etc. After backing him and keeping most of his squad PG had backed him as asked.
He is the problem Coyle talks bullocks. He after 10 games had let everyone down. He had kept and signed players not good enough. He dragged us into what would have become another relegation battle had he stayed.
DF has now to be given time to unpick this mess. PG must now realise this and therefore relax his targets for now giving DF time to shape a squad capable to challenge in this league.
Another reason for giving a new manager more time is allowing the process of transfer windows and contracts to run down... You can't employ a new manager and tell him overnight to change the mess we are in..
MT
Seriously? You're comparing my target, that of a fan, to an official club target mad by the chairman that''s privvy to information like finances, contracts, income and expenditure? My target is absolutely irrelevent.
Again, 'results and experience of the championship' doesn't alter the fact that we still needed to get promoted due to the poor financial status of the club, does it?
Again, 'results and experience of the championship' doesn't alter the fact that we still needed to get promoted due to the poor financial status of the club, does it?
-----
That was also under the belief that we would not be near the bottom of the league all season.
'The Coyle lie' that's what changed everything and should have been acted upon much earlier.
TRR
Why shouldn't I compare them...?
You've reevaluated the season and so has the chairman..
I'm not really sure why you keep asking the same 'why' question, when all theories have been dismissed..
In business, we have year targets and half year reports.. Those reports will explain the reasoning if we are close/far from target...
Let me answer this for the last time.
The targets have changed because our team isn't as good as we thought. The man who said the team was good enough has been sacked.
That's it, in a nutshell.
Couple of quotes from Gartside on this article from BBC Sport. Listen to the radio interview.
'We have deliberately set out to achieve promotion'
'There is no time for adjustment'
'It's got to happen as far as we're concerned'
That's what I'm basing it on, lads. Gartside put so much pressure on and we aren't achieving it.
MT, you're either blatantly ignoring my question because you can't provide an answer for it, or you don't understand what I am asking properly.
Surely, our targets shouldn't be changed to be made achievable. That's why it's a target and if we are changing it to support DF, why couldn't we do it for Coyle...? Because our financial restraints wouldn't allow it, that's why.
Sign in if you want to comment
Revised Targets?
Page 2 of 3
posted on 10/12/12
Clearly me... I just asked..
£250 a year.. Could have subsidised the buses...
posted on 10/12/12
To get back to the question in the article, what are our targets for this season? What are we happy with?
I do not believe that our financial status has improved so much that we now can afford to stay in the championship and go for promotion next year. I don't believe that our financial status has improved at all, so how can we afford - financially - to stay another season in this league with DF but not with Coyle?
posted on 10/12/12
£250k a year..
posted on 10/12/12
You could also say £3m and what £10,000 a week wasted on Sordell.
This is a wind up surely. The debate whether coyle was any good is over. Is it not just how bad he was that's left? Maybe I am just misreading some posts.
posted on 10/12/12
Thank you WF. That is exactly my point.
MT - we were never going down in the Sturridge season. We were 7th at the end of March. We only finished as low as 14th because we lost the last 5 matches.
posted on 10/12/12
MT - we were never going down in the Sturridge season.
----
We were told that last season too and.....
posted on 10/12/12
Clearly me... I just asked..
£250 a year.. Could have subsidised the buses...
--------
He's on the going rate for a youth player. If you want to complain about Coyle's transfer policies I'm sure you can think of better examples. I don't think any of the managers are taking money out of the fund for buses either. Seems a bit flippant to me, that, MT. I wasn't having a pop at you.
If and when we release McKee without him playing a game, that would be a good time to complain about Coyle signing him, I'd have thought. He signed Eaves on a similar hunch too, and he's probably worth a few quid and adding to it all the time, but he has been in our youth system for a couple of years (you probably know we have an Elite level academy, Oldham and Burnley don't). So there's potential value we can add to these players, and in the context of a PL wage budget, to which we were working when they were signed, it's really insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
posted on 10/12/12
Lads, sorry, but this article isn't about Coyle's mistakes or signings, it's about the changing of our targets now that we have a new manager.
Can we get back to discussing that, because this is turning out to be a similar discussion that we have had for the last 18 months.
posted on 10/12/12
I'm saying the run was poor and Sturridge stopped us fighting a possible relegation fight! The form after Christmas was not the greatest..
The point is the loan masked the problem of building the squad...
Highlighted the year after with Tuncay, Kakuta & the rest of the rubbish not being able to assist the weakened squad.
Coyles luck ran out!!!
AND THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT DOUGIE LOOKS AT THE FULL SQUAD AND CHECKS OUT ALL WEAKNESSES BEFORE ENTERING THE TRANSFER WINDOW. The cap locks represent relevance to the thread...
posted on 10/12/12
Flippant LH..
I asked a question and you finished off with who cares....
That's Flippant.
posted on 10/12/12
MT - sorry, you're right, I was well out of order.
posted on 10/12/12
AND THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT DOUGIE LOOKS AT THE FULL SQUAD AND CHECKS OUT ALL WEAKNESSES BEFORE ENTERING THE TRANSFER WINDOW. The cap locks represent relevance to the thread...
---------
So, I assume that you are happy with staying in the Championship this season and pushing for promotion next, MT?
I'm not. I can't understand how financially, we were told that we needed to get promoted this season. Even with a new manager, finances are the same, if not worse, so why have our targets changed?
posted on 10/12/12
Fair enough LH..
Your maturity just saved us 3 hours and 200 comments!!
Cheers
posted on 10/12/12
"So, I assume that you are happy with staying in the Championship this season and pushing for promotion next, MT?"
Happy... No.
Just trying to buy into what Dougie is doing.. £16m this season, £16m next then £8m and £8m in parachute.. I'd suggest for Dougie to be doing what he's doing, he's had the heads up,that he has 18 month to get us up..
Eddie must be bank rolling another year... And to be honest, I'd like to spend some time being competitive right now before worrying about United tearing us a new one..
posted on 10/12/12
That's fair, MT, but it still doesn't really answer why our targets have changed.
I'm sure you'll agree that Coyle had immense pressure from the top to get promoted. Garty said that we have to get promoted. Why and how has that changed?
We would've known about parachute payments when Coyle was in charge, weren't we?
posted on 10/12/12
The targets have changed because we are well into the season.
When Coyle was sacked, I'm sure him and the squad took equal blame.. If Gartside has assessed the championship and decided its not the walk in the park he and you thought, then targets and aims changed..
PG is not going to be totally vocal about this because his tenure as chairman has dipped slightly and he must take some blame for buying into OC as we all originally did.. But PG needed to avoid the emotion we are afforded as fans, and be more professional...
Which leads to the comment I made months ago.... Eddie Davies needs a football man below him, not Gartside... In the ilk of George Graham, but not George Graham..! Gartside isn't needed for his money or decision making over managers...!?
posted on 10/12/12
But the finances haven't changed. We were in a dire situation when Coyle was in charge and we still are now that DF is here.
Gartsides official remit for Coyle was to get promoted because of the poor financial situation. That's what it sounded like anyway. We are still in a poor financial situation. A new manager doesn't change that, so should are targets, based on finances, not change either?
Nobody has managed to give a satisfactory answer on this, hence me keep asking.
posted on 10/12/12
"so should are targets, based on finances, not change either?"
I said the targets have changed due to results and actual experience of the division...
You thought 100 points were realistic.. Then changed your mind with the numpty article...
What made you change your target...?
Results over finance I assume...?
posted on 10/12/12
Coyle had time to build his own team. This seasons team was now his. Quite clearly after all the pre season rhetoric from Coyle expectations were high. He told people how good a squad he had assembled etc. After backing him and keeping most of his squad PG had backed him as asked.
He is the problem Coyle talks bullocks. He after 10 games had let everyone down. He had kept and signed players not good enough. He dragged us into what would have become another relegation battle had he stayed.
DF has now to be given time to unpick this mess. PG must now realise this and therefore relax his targets for now giving DF time to shape a squad capable to challenge in this league.
posted on 10/12/12
He - Here
posted on 10/12/12
Another reason for giving a new manager more time is allowing the process of transfer windows and contracts to run down... You can't employ a new manager and tell him overnight to change the mess we are in..
posted on 10/12/12
MT
Seriously? You're comparing my target, that of a fan, to an official club target mad by the chairman that''s privvy to information like finances, contracts, income and expenditure? My target is absolutely irrelevent.
Again, 'results and experience of the championship' doesn't alter the fact that we still needed to get promoted due to the poor financial status of the club, does it?
posted on 10/12/12
Again, 'results and experience of the championship' doesn't alter the fact that we still needed to get promoted due to the poor financial status of the club, does it?
-----
That was also under the belief that we would not be near the bottom of the league all season.
'The Coyle lie' that's what changed everything and should have been acted upon much earlier.
posted on 10/12/12
TRR
Why shouldn't I compare them...?
You've reevaluated the season and so has the chairman..
I'm not really sure why you keep asking the same 'why' question, when all theories have been dismissed..
In business, we have year targets and half year reports.. Those reports will explain the reasoning if we are close/far from target...
Let me answer this for the last time.
The targets have changed because our team isn't as good as we thought. The man who said the team was good enough has been sacked.
That's it, in a nutshell.
posted on 10/12/12
Couple of quotes from Gartside on this article from BBC Sport. Listen to the radio interview.
'We have deliberately set out to achieve promotion'
'There is no time for adjustment'
'It's got to happen as far as we're concerned'
That's what I'm basing it on, lads. Gartside put so much pressure on and we aren't achieving it.
MT, you're either blatantly ignoring my question because you can't provide an answer for it, or you don't understand what I am asking properly.
Surely, our targets shouldn't be changed to be made achievable. That's why it's a target and if we are changing it to support DF, why couldn't we do it for Coyle...? Because our financial restraints wouldn't allow it, that's why.
Page 2 of 3