There has been a whole host of people over the last week or so accusing the Allams of lying when the said that millions would be available in the January window. There have been some people suggesting that we boycott the KC whilst the owners are in charge. All this has come from NB's "innocuous" comments on a local radio. The Allams clearly know what a lot of the fans are saying judging by EA's statement. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Nick was trying to be diplomatic in the interviews, but got it wrong. It may be that, by sacking Nick, they used a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, but in view of the comments being made by some supporters the Allams would no doubt feel justified in sacking him. Whether or not a warning as to his future conduct would have been enough is a separate discussion. As to who identifies targets, I agree that it should be the management who identify targets who they want to strengthen the squad. At every other club the board/owners will either sanction an approach or not. The owners shouldn't look to impose their own transfer targets on the management. But at the end of the day, that is not what the vast majority of people understood Nick to be saying in the interviews that got him the sack.
Who else wanted the job? He made a mistake sacking Brown when he did because there would be no one willing to come who was worth losing PB for. However given the state of the club's finances and the implications of going down he had to act quickly to do something in the hope we might stay up. At the time I disagreed with the sacking and I still do, but I can fully understand why he did it.
But that is exactly what they've been accused of by many people following Nick's interviews (and before in fact). I'd probably say it was putting their own "spin" on things, which is what everyone does
I'd say the original comment about millions being available was misleading, but based purely on me believing OLM, PT and a couple of others not on this board, I'd say their more recent comments in the HDM about every player requested by the management being signed was nothing short of lying.
I have no idea, as I wasn't present during the meetings, but again they could have been putting their own spin on things. What they said was that every transfer request was granted (or words to that effect). Nick made transfer requests for Mannone, King and that lad at Wolves. Maybe there were general discussions about other players that Nick wanted to go after, but didn't officially request that we look to get them on a transfer. Maybe OLM and/or PT can shed more light on it?
Just as one example, we wanted Hammill, we bid, it was rejected. Later we were offered him on loan, Nick wanted him, the Allam's said no. On that one that can claim it was a loan, not a permanent transfer, so they didn't actual refuse a transfer(but that's seriously misleading).
Technically they granted the transfer request (initially anyway). But I would tend to agree that it would appear misleading
He also sacked Billy Davies from derby and appointed Paul Jewell half way thru a season. How many points did Jewell get ? 3 ?
HDMsport ‏ @HDMsport In tomorrow's Mail - an exclusive on #HCAFC's search for their new manager to replace Nick Barmby - may be a surprise to fans No idea what that means, maybe we're going to appoint a seven legged octopus.
As usual no ambition at City. If we appoint any marine creature it just has to be a Giant Squid, I will stand for nothing less!
