Tend to agree. People (myself included) have said that Alex Neil was the best fit for this club since Allardyce, or even as far back as Reid, but the reality is that he hadn't been here long enough to piss anyone off. I guarantee there would be a spell in the season with a few defeats in a row where fans would get twitchy and start asking if he's the right man. For what it's worth, the fact he's even willing to try and engineer more money by speaking to a different club then it proves he wasn't the man we thought he was. I'm not sure this was an attempt to garner more money, I genuinely think he saw this club as his stepping stone to a bigger contract elsewhere after a few years of mediocracy after managing in the PL
Okay. All very good at the club. Everyone is happy there. It's ran very smoothly. No chaos at all, never has been.
Well he obviously did sign a contract 4wks ago or he wouldn't of said it on sky interview. He was guarded on saying much else but he was clear on that
Also the interviewer made a point of saying we know you are restricted legally with what you can say. Clearly been briefed I can't talk about such and such.
Yes, that was my original point that Speakman stated Neil had signed a contract 4 weeks ago, but the conversation moved on so I responded
I know it's not going to happen, but it would be the highlight of the week for me EDIT. What would happen then? We would have to sack him
Corry Evans speaks for the squad: “It shows the strength of the group now and the character we have in the dressing room,” Evans added when discussing the performance against Norwich. “Today I am proud to be a part of that team. I’m sure a lot of questions were being asked about the players but I thought we handled it really well today and on another day we go on and win that game.” Doesn't seem too upset that Neil has followed his dream ... oops sorry, cash to The Potteries
They did very well given the circumstances. No doubt about it and they should all be given the credit.
Just read pages of back and forth over semantics of head coach vs manager. The one point that I think is missed (apologies if already said, skimmed a bit) is that Alex Neil was a manager who was now instead working as a head coach. There’s naturally going to be frustrations as his remit is smaller regarding transfers and he is more dispensable. He doesn’t manage the playing/coaching staff and squad development, he coaches them and focuses on setting up a team to win games. Also, if a player out grows the club and/or wage structure they get sold for a big fee and everyone gets a big pat on the back if a decent replacement is brought in. Isn’t this what has just happened with AN? Only he’s the one pocketing a lot more money. And we don’t know the replacement yet.
I'm assuming the hold up announcing him is they are trying up compo and deals with his backroom staff from here?
I thought Speakman chose his words carefully when he said the "contract was signed 4 weeks ago" rather than "Alex Neil signed the contract 4 weeks ago" which made me wonder was it signed by Speakman and they were waiting for Neil to sign it? Every contract I've ever had has 2 signatures on it - the person representing the employer and the employee - without both it's not binding
Speakman clearly meant that Neil signed a new deal for a rolling year on better terms 4 weeks ago. Not sure how there’s any conjecture in this, was crystal clear.