Or, directly supports it as she wanted to retain him but felt he needed to be more strictly supervised.
Well sure, but I imagine his job would still have involved doing what he...you know...does. That is managing the finances of billionaires. Not much point having him do something else. If he was being particularly crazy with her money and offering enormous bonuses which would later require us to sell players, I suspect she may have sacked him.
Can't cos it doesn't. Its unprecedented. You may expect to lose 1 or 2 players, but would quickly replace them.
But by and large, the clubs who have gone before us in terms of threatening the big clubs have not had a nucleus of young, English players. Both of those things, in this day and age, are very attractive to other teams. There is also the factor, but I don't believe it to be as big a factor as the young, English factor, that our style of player was widely applauded. Who wouldn't want players who play positive, attractive football, similar to what some of the big European sides play? Big Sam has finished in the top 10 with West Ham and Bolton, but the big clubs were never going to suddenly buy Kevin Davies or Kevin Nolan.
I didn't hold with that theory either, but there are many out there that reckon our current ills are down to a load of verbal promises that NC made to players, that the Club couldn't or wouldn't honour. Spider, kind of hinted that he had "earned" the right to get a move, that hints that even he, was only using us as a stepping stone, like the others, who may have been earning the right to a verbally promised move?
Well they could have honoured that, and probably should have if he's been wanting out for more than a year, has been patient, and has served us so well for so long. He deserves a move. Shaw and Chambers, not so much, but Morgan has earned it.
True...can anyone remember another team (outside the top ones) so full of talented and young players? The media loved us...we got massive coverage...no surprise that our team sheets were considered to be menus.
Not if they had players and staff who indicated their future was tied to his. And that's real. Plus the fact that he was clearly appreciated by the stars at the club (I wonder why) and was a huge public face, there's plenty of reason for them to want to keep him on, just with some checks and balances in place to stop him running up costs and destroying the commercial side of the business. Oh, hey, that's real too!
Indeed, we (Leeds) were probably one of the last clubs to do this. In the early 90's we were the best club in the Country, and a large proportion of our players were home grown, the others were on the whole British.
I agree...Morgan should have been front of the queue...his behaviour was good, but his timing was crap. But all I care about is Saints...he's contracted and we can't lose anyone else...live with it.
Difficult to honour a verbal contract if don't know what the terms were? Up until the text I would have said the same, but after six years of earning Saints fans respect, he DESTROYED it in about sixteen seconds.
I doubt if the role offered was any different, except that it would be answerable to the Board as a whole. Having total control can affect a person, and lacking that control is simply not acceptable in a case like this.
Chairman. With a democratic board making decisions together. I'm sure that's exactly what was wanted.
No it isn't; Les Reed has been around since this supposed promise was made, and he'll have known the deal. It's not a verbal contract anyway; it's a promise, and it doesn't have terms. If Morgan's been keeping his head down playing for the past year, honouring his promise to commit to Saints for one more season, knowing that he's been allowed to move on to new pastures at the end of it, it's not like all knowledge of that info will have left with Cortese.
