I do agree with most of this NSM, but why then are we keeping to much dead wood at the club. Time for GM to start shipping out his mate in Tatey. What the f is he still doing at the club. I like Tatey but he should have been released and paid off along with Jazz, Cornell and i have to say Tiendalli.
Are we able to pay up his contract or is that just to simplistic. So dai what you are saying if the likes of canas and pozz and jazz want to sit here for their contracts we cant pay them up and release them. I am genuinly asking as i dont know. You see people being released mid contract at other clubs every week.
It would all depend on what is stipulated in the contract, with Tate there may be an option to become coach upon retirement with a wage for that already agreed. This is just guesswork but if that was negotiated a year or two ago then it would save us money on his post playing days, with our finances now he could expect more to be coach coming in without an agreement in place. Tate is surely on the verge of retirement.
Tate could go on loan somewhere but as it stands he is still a swans player and is happy to do any job that the club wants him to do. He is with the under 21's helping out atm. He is a legend waiting for his testimonial and just running down his contract..
So Ki might not be going to Villa afterall? His own agents have said there has been no interest from Aston Villa, it's right there on the Evening Post website. Check it out.
Yet I read a post in the SWEP that the "head" of the Trust was absolutely opposed to both the sacking of Laudrup and the appointment of Monk. Not raising this issue again, I've had enough of it. Just posting what I read which obviously is a different tale. Which version is right? I don't know (does anyone really), I'm just sharing what I saw.
Well when you see he was sacked and we are not known as a club that sack managers then i know exactly the feelings in the Board room. At the end of the day Actions speak louder than words.....
Originally Posted by Nosugarman "It is well documented Ki and Laudrup did not get on so he may well not have featured much if he had come back." Where was that documented? As I recall there was a lot of speculation that led to the rumours. From memory Laudrup reported he'd wanted to get Ki back but found out too late that there was a Dec 31st, not 31st Jan, deadline on his recall so there wasn't any point wasting time and energy on it.
Further to this post - something I posted a few weeks ago. In his programme notes post Michael Laudrup, Huw Jenkins suggested a change was needed as Swansea principles were being eroded. BUT when asked about that comment, Jenkins said: "What I said had no direct bearing on Michael Laudrup or his time at the club. He had a good 18 months here and I had a great working relationship with him". Please let's not get into this issue again but it might beg the question: if they had a great working relationship; if Jenkins' comments were NOT attributable to Laudrup but our principles were still being eroded then who was responsible for the "eroding"? Laudrup's assistant coaches? Who? Jenkins implied that it wasn't Laudrup by his clear statement. Oh well, history now and I guess we'll never learn the truth behind it. (I'd love to know, though )
It was rumoured and 90% of what we read is rumour, That Ki was refused time off for his honeymoon by Laudrup. Jenkins was blamed for not having a recall condition in his loan contract but what was Laudrup doing when it was signed. Scratching his arse.
Manager's don't get involved with contractual matters at level of detail .... do they really .... that's director of football stuff and in our case HJ's responsibility.
Does that apply to managers such as Sir Alex,Wenger and van Gaal I bet they know these things. I would want to in that position as my job would depend on it!!!!
There are two elements to this: a) a manager making is requirements known as to when, to whom, for how long, and what other constraints should apply to the loan agreement; b) the negotiation of the loan agreement with the player's agent and other club, its writing, proofing and signing. (a) would be SAF, Wenger, VG, Laudrup and Monk's role. (b) would be the role of the Dir of Footbal, club executive (HJ) and lawyers. I would hope that football managers wouldn't be asked to do (b) - they're not qualified and it's above their pay grade. As a football manager, I would hope that the executives have their s**t together, take my requirements to heart and produce a result in the "best interests of the club". If they don't, there's nothing I can do, I'm busy, I have to do the heavy lifting of competing against City, 'Pool, Chelsea, United, Arsenal etc FFS give me a break .... and, I have "Monks" up my ass. I don't have time to make sure that the executives don't nod off at the wheel; especially when they can't be bothered to talk to me anyway and slag me off in the program.
Reading Ash' book at the moment and he says when he was offered a new contract it was down to the board and Moralee to sort it. neither him nor Brendan had nything to do with it till it was signed.
Yankee I think the players wishes come into loan agreements as well and I am sure I read somewhere that with the world cup coming up Ki wanted more game time. The manager must know when a player is going on loan and should ensure the negotiator includes a return cause if the player is needed. If Laudrup and Jenkins didn't discuss this when Ki went then in my book they were both negligent.
I included the player's agent in (b). The agent takes care of the player's needs that's what he's paid to do by the player. My point is that Laudrup reported to HJ not the other way around. If Laudrup says I need these things on this loan, then it's not Laudrup's responsibility to review HJ's work to make sure he's got it right. If Laudrup was loose in his specifications then it's up HJ to nail down any loose details before signing on the dotted line. It's not as if Ki was the first player we've ever loaned out. Businesses are not democracies they are hierarchies. Subordinates don't get paid to vet their supervisors work.
