The "real" reason Reid should be sacked

[smoker]

Originally Posted by Hetzkes Ballet Teacher

Look at the wage bills over the last four years, which you have totally "forgotten" about. Here's a clue - Boksic is on 60k/week after tax.

But Laslandes, Nunez and Helmer were on something like 80k a week combined and hardly kicked a ball. Robbo spent a fortune on wages for a handful of big name players, but Reid has spent a fortune on wages for several average players who never get a game. You also conveniently overlook signing on fees - the more players you sign, the more signing on fees you pay out to players and agents. I will be happy to continue this argument when you present anything other than annecdotal evidence about Boksic's alleged pay packet!

[quote="Hetzkes Ballet Teacher"]Reid certainly has wasted some money, we all know that, but he's also made some excellent signings at generally good fees. I'm not sure what you mean by 'net', I assume its purchases - sales. If I'm quite glad that the SAFC number looks big as it means we haven't been a selling club (for the first time in my life). [/color]

Net = purchases - sales.

Quite possibly true. But it could also be no-one wants our current players or they have little sell on value - note the stampede to sign the 8 transfer listed lads (not). Also, if we are not a selling club whatever happened to Makin, Hutchison, Johnston, Rae et al who - on their pre-sale form - would have walked into our first team last season?

Originally Posted by HBT

Your stats are meaningless because they are not comparing similar situations - the only thing that is comparable between them is the results over the last X games and, once again, we already know SAFC's are crap.

I read every bloody word of your post and you are getting progressively more defensive, annecdotal and less factual to the detriment of my patience!! My evidence encompassed several managers from differing backgrounds. If you are going to dismiss them all as not being applicable, why haven't you presented any evidence to contradict it - ie of one manager with a 38 game record as bad as Reid's who still has his job??

Your argument "we know last season was crap" doesn't bear scrutiny either cos you're dismissing it as not being applicable to the judgement of a manager's ability when it is there in black and white in the record book.

I am not going to keep arguing the toss with you until you present some evidence.

[Welshy]

The only way I can interpret that is that you have precious little grasp on reality and think we shoudl have that lass out of Bewitched (The 60s telly program as opposed to the Irish girl band) as our next manager, since she could bring in a new striker simply by twitching her nose.

Are you saying that we're not in the doldrums? Or are you suggesting that our transfer activity, level of motivation and variety of tactics are acceptable?

[Homer]

Originally Posted by Boi

Well, I think you have misunderstood me. What I said was that Reid turned things around after one bad season. Last season was bad too. Why shouldn't he be able to do it again? I said nothing about getting relegated again, which obviously would mean two bad seasons in a row.

Fair enough. In which case I don't see how Reid's previous experience of turning it around makes your reasoning valid. After all, it was in a lower division with a squad of players who'd been playing against better teams. Did he actually turn anything around ? Or would it not be just as easy to argue that his Sunderland team were worse than most in the Premiership but better than most in the First Division ?

[Homer]

Originally Posted by Welshy

think we shoudl have that lass out of Bewitched

That's who's in my Avatar. :wink:

Originally Posted by smoker

But Laslandes, Nunez and Helmer were on something like 80k a week combined and hardly kicked a ball. Robbo spent a fortune on wages for a handful of big name players, but Reid has spent a fortune on wages for several average players who never get a game. You also conveniently overlook signing on fees - the more players you sign, the more signing on fees you pay out to players and agents. I will be happy to continue this argument when you present anything other than annecdotal evidence about Boksic's alleged pay packet!

Erm...how long were the above three on a combined 80K/week for ? I thought that Helmer had gone before Laslandes was signed - am I mistaken ? Where is the substantiation for your quote on the above wages ? The Boksic figure comes from someone I know inside the club (which is how I knew about the after-tax clause - work that out, its 100K/week, and thats just ONE Player who rarely plays - and you compare Boro with SAFC's !!???).

Quite possibly true. But it could also be no-one wants our current players or they have little sell on value - note the stampede to sign the 8 transfer listed lads (not).

If you look around I think you will find that that is a general problem at the moment. But isn't Laslandes (our biggest non-playing wage earner) being paid by someone else at the moment, with a view to a permanent move ? Part of the problem is that we take chances on cheaper players who, if they don't work out, are harder to sell on. I'm not going to criticise anyone for this - its what got us SKP, Sorensen, Craddock, etc, etc.

Also, if we are not a selling club whatever happened to Makin, Hutchison, Johnston, Rae et al who - on their pre-sale form - would have walked into our first team last season?

In your opinion. Out of the above, Rae is the only one that was a straightforward sale (ie. no mitigating reason to sell him). I personally wouldnt play him ahead of Reyna and an in-form McCann, plus he's aging and had discipline problems that got him banned at bad times. All in all, I'd have also taken the money for him when I could.

I read every bloody word of your post and you are getting progressively more defensive, annecdotal and less factual to the detriment of my patience!!


I am getting progressively less interested in your repeated posts of the same commens, and your ignoring of valid points made against the concept, hence I'm also getting less inclined to argue the toss.

My evidence encompassed several managers from differing backgrounds. If you are going to dismiss them all as not being applicable, why haven't you presented any evidence to contradict it - ie of one manager with a 38 game record as bad as Reid's who still has his job??

Your argument "we know last season was crap" doesn't bear scrutiny either cos you're dismissing it as not being applicable to the judgement of a manager's ability when it is there in black and white in the record book.

What on earth does that mean ? It was a statement, not an argument. Last season was crap. We know it. The fact that your numbers bear it out and show that some other managers (in different situations) had similar periods prior to their dismissals means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because there are other significant bits of the picture that are missing.

Simply put, one set of numbers does not begin to cover the considerations involved in making a stay/go decision about a manager of 7 years, many of which are not quantifiable (eg. which metric shows whether a team is playing sexy football or route 1, for a given set of results?).

Furthermore, it wouldn't be hard to find examples of similarly poor streaks where the manager then went on to conquer all. Howard Kendall and the Everton team of the late 80s springs immediately to mind - immediately before winning Div1 they had a worse season than we just had (or at least ner to it - maybe you want to check those stats??).

That is my fundamental point - do you disagree (and if so, justify it - show me some tables and formulae that cover all of the relevant considerations)?

I am not going to keep arguing the toss with you until you present some evidence.

Great, I'll go and do something worthwhile and productive then.

[smoker]

Originally Posted by Hetzkes Ballet Teacher

I see, so if you played a team of 10 skittles and SKP, then the fact that SKP wouldnt score many goals would mean that he'd lost it as a goalscorer?

If you don't score goals you are not a goalscorer, you are merely a potential goalscorer.

Originally Posted by Hetzkes Ballet Teacher

Anyone who has watched SKP play since he joined us KNOWS that he is a much better all round player now. In fact, I think he'd do a better Scholes-role for SAFC/England than Scholes does himself.

Disagree. This is purely opinion. Mine is he's lost his confidence and fitness due to unrealistic expectations and it has affected his game. Kev's best season by far was 99/00 and he has not repeated the form of this.

Originally Posted by Hetzkes Ballet Teacher

Bridges, I can honestly say that, to me, he flattered to deceive. Even when he was scoring for fun at Leeds, I was thinking to myself "that won't last". PR was entirely right to play SKP/DP together in Div 1, if that stretched Bridges loyalty too far, then I'd show him a picture of Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and tell him to F* off.

You conveniently "forgot" the Dichio factor. When SK was injured the natural and forward looking choice to replace him was Bridges, but Reid played Dichio.

Bridges did not flatter to deceive, he had natural ability. The only question mark was over his physical strength and fitness.

Originally Posted by Hetzkes Ballet Teacher

Dichio isn't worth talking about. He's at the other end of his career to Kyle, so if you say they are comparible now, then presumably they won't be later.

Agreed, but he was still more use than Laslandes or no-one at all. And why did he get in the fucking team in front of Bridges.

Originally Posted by Hetzkes Ballet Teacher

True enough we are light in the PROVEN forwards now, but that happens to every team at some point in the cycle.

Evidence?? How many other teams have as few as one first team quality forward. Even WBA have 3.

Originally Posted by Hetzkes Ballet Teacher

The club has promising young-uns, and has been busting a gut to get more experience and has kept its best forwards in the meanwhile (which has rarely happened in the past). Cant ask more than that, at this point in time.

Who is better? Bridges or Oster? Dichio or Laslandes?

Originally Posted by Welshy

The only way I can interpret that is that you have precious little grasp on reality and think we shoudl have that lass out of Bewitched (The 60s telly program as opposed to the Irish girl band) as our next manager, since she could bring in a new striker simply by twitching her nose.

No that is surprisingly not what I meant. You said that PR is "demonstarting precious little ability in the transfer market" which I took as a reference to the lack of a striker signing as yet. I, on the other hand, think that signing a world (or near) class signing for SAFC is a very difficult thing which, if it fails, is not necessarily a reflection on the manager, and I was asking you to name some previous SAFC managers who had done this, and done it very quickly and easily.

Are you saying that we're not in the doldrums?

Yes I am. Just as one swallow doesn't make a summer, one bad season doesn't make a doldrum. The only doldrum's I remember concerning SAFC were those where week after week I turned out in a freezing and embarrasing tin can of a ground to watch journeyman players struggle to do anything in a second rate division. In fact, most of my supporting life has been a doldrum now that I think about it. It only left that state 7 years ago.

Or are you suggesting that our transfer activity, level of motivation and variety of tactics are acceptable?

I'm generally happy with SAFC's transfer policy (middle road between spending nothing and going broke), save for the fact that a couple of bad key signings were made when we were 7th and we've been paying for it ever since. The club seems to have been busting a gut to put that right for several weeks/months, while also keeping an eye out for unexpected but useful signings (eg. Babb/Myrhe/Thornton). I can't really complain about that, in the big scheme of things.

I've never seen a problem with player motivation under PR. If there is or will be a problem there, it comes from a proportion of the crowd.

Tactics - do you know what they actually are? I don't - I know I saw some hoofball last season, but common sense told me that this wasn't what the management were trying to achieve, so I can't really nitpick in this area (its part of the same problem as getting the right players on the pitch).

[the sleeping giant]

Originally Posted by Hetzkes Ballet Teacher

On that we are totally agreed. And I've already registered a new name just in case our season turns to total shit

Come on - share it with me. I won't tell (promise).

OR

Maybe's one or two us on this board would like to give you some possible idea's......... :wink:

Originally Posted by smoker

If you don't score goals you are not a goalscorer, you are merely a potential goalscorer.

A totally meaningless comment in context. You say SKP is a poorer player now, I say he isn't generally. A difference of opinion - can't say more than that.

Disagree. This is purely opinion.

A lot of people seem to have it.

Mine is he's lost his confidence and fitness due to unrealistic expectations and it has affected his game. Kev's best season by far was 99/00 and he has not repeated the form of this.

Your opinion. Certainly the goals-for column could be used to conclude that, but I have seen his all round game develop and reasoned that his lack of goals is more to do with the team around him, other teams learning how to deal with the SKP-DP partnership, and a single persistant injury than his own game.

You conveniently "forgot" the Dichio factor. When SK was injured the natural and forward looking choice to replace him was Bridges, but Reid played Dichio.

I could count the number of times that I remember DP + Dichio playing together on one hand.

Bridges did not flatter to deceive, he had natural ability. The only question mark was over his physical strength and fitness.

Thats what I'm saying. To me, he always looked like a player who would never deliver to his potential. I think Bridges is a weak platform to build your entire staffing argument on, as you seem to want to do.

Agreed, but he was still more use than Laslandes or no-one at all. And why did he get in the fucking team in front of Bridges.

See above.

Evidence?? How many other teams have as few as one first team quality forward. Even WBA have 3.

In your opinion. And once again - do you or do you not think that the club are doing all they reasonably can to remedy that given that the Laslandes signing didn't work out?

Who is better? Bridges or Oster? Dichio or Laslandes?

I wouldn't have any of them in my SAFC squad right now, so its a mute point.

[Homer]

Originally Posted by Hetzkes Ballet Teacher

Furthermore, it wouldn't be hard to find examples of similarly poor streaks where the manager then went on to conquer all. Howard Kendall and the Everton team of the late 80s springs immediately to mind - immediately before winning Div1 they had a worse season than we just had (or at least ner to it - maybe you want to check those stats??).

So finishing seventh and winning the FA cup is a worse season than you've just had ?

Teehee