Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Neil Warnock, Steve Gibson & Long Term Vision?


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, KARANKA KING said:

Warnock will build a a good team maybe warnocks appointment as manager was made years ago pulis was maybe put as manager to help stabilise the club by selling traore bamford gibson so the funds of them can help warnock build a team for promotion  

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

 

What

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As it's looking a virtual certainty that Warnock is going to get the job for next season, it's worth noting both the significant positives and negatives that will result from Warnock being our manager

👀Thanks for the invite, really appreciate it.

The Evening Gazette has said that Steve Gibson is against a director of football because it would add another 6 figure salary onto the wage bill. I can't help but question whether that is the true mot

Posted Images

8 hours ago, KARANKA KING said:

Warnock will build a a good team maybe warnocks appointment as manager was made years ago pulis was maybe put as manager to help stabilise the club by selling traore bamford gibson so the funds of them can help warnock build a team for promotion  

Did you buy Pulis’ PR BS?

In no way did he stabilise the club.

He was on £3m+ a year, he signed Flint, Saville & some very expensive loan signings. 

We would’ve made money on players whether or not he was in charge.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sackrobson2 said:

It’s not “that” king again is it. If so maybe he might last longer by not repeatedly putting king in his new usernames and giving himself away instantly. 

Oh no.. not him..

The Office No GIF

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sackrobson2 said:

It’s not “that” king again is it. If so maybe he might last longer by not repeatedly putting king in his new usernames and giving himself away instantly. 

I think you are spot on 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lurker said:

Did you buy Pulis’ PR BS?

In no way did he stabilise the club.

He was on £3m+ a year, he signed Flint, Saville & some very expensive loan signings. 

We would’ve made money on players whether or not he was in charge.

Didn’t someone one here say that he DID sort a lot of things out behind the scenes?

I’m genuinely still curious as to what those “things” are, as on the face of it, as you say, he got paid a lot of money to make overpriced signings and pointless, expensive loans....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen nothing to suggest that Pulis changed anything behind the scenes to make us remotely more competitive. He left us with a terrible squad, no money and tactics suitable for two centuries ago. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Evening Gazette has said that Steve Gibson is against a director of football because it would add another 6 figure salary onto the wage bill. I can't help but question whether that is the true motive as it appears to be more down to Gibson wanting to retain power. The best way to assess whether this 6 figure salary is value for money, is to consider how Steve Gibson and his loyal courtiers like Gary Gill and co are actually performing with the powers that they have which, if we were to appoint a director of football, would be taken away from them.

Firstly, how much has our knee-jerking between managers of contrasting styles cost us through wasted transfer fees, wages and resulting underperformance of players not suiting the next managers tactics? I have our managerial merry-go-round as: McLaren (250 games) > Southgate (151 games) > Strachan (51games) > Mowbray (153 games) > Karanka (171 games) > Monk (26 games) > Pulis (80 games) > Woodgate (41 games) > Warnock. Considering the 3 and 4 year deals that each of them managers handed out only for them to leave shortly afterwards, it has left huge inefficiencies due to a lack of cohesion between what the current manager wants and what players he has which were bought by his predecessor. As an illustration (estimate figures), Britt Assombalonga was bought for £15 million in the summer of 2017 on a 4 year deal with wages of around £40,000 a week. The financials of that will cost us £23,320,000 (£15,000,000 transfer fee & £8,320,000 wages) over his 4 years here. This signing was thought to bring in a new era under Monk, however, he was sacked after 26 games and replaced by Pulis who did not rate Assombalonga as he could not lead the line as a target man, and wanted him sold in a cut price deal. Similar examples can be made about Monk's signings of Cyrus Christie & Martin Braithwaite who were bought for big money and wages only to be not wanted by Pulis as they did not fit his tactics which were in stark contrast to Monk's. My point is that this is the sort of extremely costly inefficiency that results from Gibson's knee-jerking between managers.

Also, what about all of the settlements for sacking the awful, reactionary appointments to key positions like Monk, Woodgate and Bevington. If we had a competent decision maker at the top of the club then we wouldn't needlessly bleed money as a result of appointing people who are unprepared for the job and only got the job through their closeness to Gibson like Woodgate and Bevington. To give Monk such a huge transfer kitty, and sack him 26 games later is bonkers by Gibson.

If we are terrified of adding a 6 figure salary onto the wage bill then this financial restraint is out of keeping with the lavish wages and financial packages Gibson is happy to give managers such as Pulis' £3 million a year a 6% of the transfer fees on all players sold. Equally, Warnock will not be coming cheap either and it wouldn't surprise me if he's on a similar sort of deal to Pulis. Them sorts of financial packages are more than enough to afford an excellent director of football and a head coach with the way Norwich have Stuart Webber and Daniel Farke.

If we had a director of football who set the club culture, long term template of tactics, style of play, recruit players to fit that template, personalities we sign to fit into that culture, appoint a head coach who must implement tactics to fit that template, then we would not regularly be in states of transition.

Considering all of that, my view is that Gibson's argument that we can't afford a director of football is absolute garbage. The utterly bonkers signings of Gestede and Gueudiora would have funded a director of football for many decades! The true reason why he doesn't want a director of football is that the only way one could be accommodated into the club is by Gibson giving up control of appointing the head coach, Gary Gill's "head of recruitment" role would become defunct and the director of football would be able to recruit player and sell players without Gibson's impulsive, reactionary input. Steve Gibson giving up that level of power to a director of football is never going to happen. Gibson's abhorrence to a director of football is not becuase of the 6 figure salary. It all comes down to the fact that Gibson wanting him and Gary Gill to retain their power.

Edited by p_mards
  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree Pmards, it makes no sense and honestly I can’t see how they expect us to believe it. We will 100% sign some crap player and pay him a 6 figure salary per every month never mind per year. It IS all about control and everything else is just excuses.

What makes even less sense is a good DoF will SAVE us money in the long run by not spending fortunes on total crap, he’s literally costing himself more money.

One thing I do wonder though is how much of it is down to trust, I have a feeling the monk stuff has only made him tighten his grip on things even more. Maybe he just doesn’t trust anyone enough to have a free reign and not do any dodgy deals.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now that Pearson as just been sacked by Watford which I find bloody stupid on their part.

Perhaps Gibson may have a rethink and ask Nigel to join The Boro.

We all know he's a fighter and will take no crap off anyone,but on second thoughts maybe he will scare Gibson.

Him not being a yes man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, HoyteForLeftBack said:

Didn’t someone one here say that he DID sort a lot of things out behind the scenes?

I’m genuinely still curious as to what those “things” are, as on the face of it, as you say, he got paid a lot of money to make overpriced signings and pointless, expensive loans....

Pulis did nothing to improve our finances. Its a myth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post p_mards. Have you ever thought about writing a book?

I would have agreed with everything you said, until I heard late last night that Watford have sacked Nigel Pearson.

 

For all the good that Warnock has done for us recently - hopefully rescuing us from relegation, I don't think we should be using his name and "long term vision" in the same sentence. 

If Gibson had any sense whatsoever, he would be moving heaven and earth right now to bring Pearson in time for next season.

Until last night I'd have said give Warnock next season, at least, to see what he could do with a full season to shape the squad and implement his preferred style of play.

But he isn't a long-term solution and if we want to get some stability, we need to bring in a manager who is more likely to stick around for a few seasons.

 

Edited by AnglianRed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Posts

    • Well Chuba is a jammy dodger to be earning a living in football
    • This isn't biscuit related! Booooooo!
    • I've seen/heard a lot of chatter that Derby are potentially up the creek without a paddle. Apparently they are actually in debt by a fair bit, annoyingly they still haven't released their accounts for the year ending June 19 so we don't have a definite figure for last year. But looking at the accounts ending June 18, it looks like they owed around £25m to various creditors, apparently that figure has at least doubled (if not trebled) in two years. Plus they've sold the stadium to themselves and mortgaged their training ground in recent years. So it's no surprise there isn't a queue of potential buyers, as they'd effectively have to buy the club, potentially pay off the large debt (including the mortgage on the training ground) and buy the stadium back. All this with the backdrop of a potential points deduction (most likely next season), due to their bizzare accounting method around amortisation on players.
    • Congrats to Leicester on winning the FA, nice to see a first time winner for a change too. Would like to see them continue to build upon this and their PL win too, which they definitely seem on course to do.  Very clever in the transfer market, good youth academy and they've recently finished a brand new training complex (which looks immense).

×
×
  • Create New...