The very players Grayson wanted all got through to the last stages and were put off by the Chairman in the transfer talks. Grayson has (had?) a great reputation in football, but he did have his problems too which I am not going to try and gloss over. I was happy when he went, I thought he had taken us as far as he could, and he never stood up to Bates But he was not given the chance to spend his own budget - any idea that he had control over it is absolutely false
Is this another thought, a fact, or a thought presented as fact. I don't honestly know, but let's face it - most people with a budget spend it or it gets cut. So if Grayson was asking for more signings after he'd already spent the dosh, what did he expect? The only evidence I can see is that he did not get rid of the deadwood, and he had plenty of it. Would ANY chairman allow a manager to continue spending over budget when the majority of his buys were crap? Doubt it. I'm by no means a Bates defender, but I cannot see any evidence to suggest this wasn't happening. Your words suggest that Bates decided how Grayson spent his budget. If Grayson was weak enough to allow that, we're well shot of him. Bates would be picking the team next! Wouldn't be the first Chairman to try it on with a weak manager.
Well he did sign players so i would assume it was money that was being spent on wages and transfer fees rather than nothing....
I agree that the players were signed while he was the manager. That's as far as it goes. That's not the same as the players were the ones he really wanted, nor that he had control of the budget and decisions. So I ask again - and would prefer an answer that addresses the question (instead of an irritating obfuscation or an angry response from someone who should really take a chill pill) - what proof do you have that Grayson had control of the playing staff budget?
As stated before, practically everything I write is opinion. I have a factual "sticky" thread on the squad that I will edit when facts arise.
Last summer, Grayson wanted a player, Bates held the contract talks, the player wanted to consider his options and wanted to negotiate a better offer, Bates told him where to go, and Bates then scoffed at the player coming back a couple of weeks later wanting to accept the original offer. Bates stated this last summer. We have no idea whether that player actually became an LUFC player in the end as it was never published who the player was. The fact is - Bates admits he had control of the budget, not Grayson. Now, please provide me with factual evidence that Grayson had control of the budget.
Like you, I have no idea how the R&R's shaped up. It also tickles me that you're using Bates statements to support your argument. Thought Bates always spoke with forked tongue and we should believe anyone but him?
Why does it tickle you that the chairman, who is meant to have hold of the purse strings, admits that he has hold of the purse strings and that people would believe that? It tickles me that some people believe that a chairman, in the current world of financial fair play, would abdicate his financial responsibilities by handing over the financial reins to someone in charge of operations. An example: as soon as there is a salary cap on players' wages, there is no chance that a manager has the autority to use his own budget how he wishes to do so. It is already curtailed. To extrapolate, if I (as chairman) stated you had a budget of £10m, but also that you were only allowed a maximum of 25 players and the highest salary that any one player could be paid was £250,000 per year, then the £10m budget is irrelevant, as I have effectively capped your budget at £6.25m. If, because of my stringent policies, you are unable to get hold of your three first choice players which would have given you your spine, then your only pool of players you can fish in is the lower end. When you fail and the team is struggling, there are two scenarios. You can moan about it and I can sack you, or I might relax my 25 player rule but under no circumstances are you allowed to break the wage cap rule. Frankly, you just end up brining in more dross, and no-one wants to buy the dross that you have already been forced to draft in. You may be lucky and get a gem once in a while. So, the fact is that Grayson never had real control of the playing staff budget. My opinion is that the impact of that lack of control and the subsequent actions (or inactions and inability to sell the dross) is not down to the manager, but down to the constraints imposed by soeone else on the manager. We shall see how Warnock fares.
Big discussion points here elmo, and I don't know if my typing's up to it. I'm only down in Wetherby if you want to go for a pint sometime. I don't bite!
