What is the extent of your ambition with our football club. Survival? Top ten? Euros? This needs to be the starting point for our future development. In my view your approach needs to be:- 1) Hang on to Sam 2) Empower Sam to deliver 3)Gear up our marketing department to help fund your vision 4)Speculate to accumulate
Just do what you've been doing for years, Mr. Short because finally I think we might have the man to spend it on more than dross. And god knows you deserve it after all the money that 'football men' have wasted and left you to carry the can.
While I partially agree with this, Mr Short did appoint the man who spunked his cash No one made him appoint De Fanti or Congerton or O'Neil or Bruce
Well, I agree di Fanti was a shot in the dark, but Congerton, Bruce and O'Nrill were all well sought after. I can't blame Short for any of them. Di Canio and Poyet were both young managers doing well and looking for a leg up. I can't much blame him for those either. We can deflect the blame from 'football men' as much as we like, but it comes back to the point that Short has provided funds and they've p**sed it against the wall for him. On January's evidence, I'm finding Allardyce a refreshing change.
The Alvarez situation. The Johnson situation. Not finding a replacement for Advocaat before he left the first time. Giving players the power to oust a manager (Di Canio). Allowing the survival/poor start/sacking/new appointment/survival scenario to repeat more than once. Not stamping out the rumoured poor dressing room culture sooner. Not fully supporting Congerton as DofF, suggested by allowing Poyet to bring in Bridcutt and Buckley. These, and I'm sure there are others, all suggest to me poor executive decision making within the less publically visible hierachy of the club.
still thought hughes was a better option at the time but was by no means gutted, only that he didn't bring John Robertson with him. Think things would have been different if he had.
a) How was Short to blame for Inter not paying for an operation when one of their players was injured? n) How was Short to blame for one of his employees messing about with a minor behind some Chinese restaurant? Are you saying he should provide a minder for each player? c) Why would he find a replacement for Advocaat when he and almost his entire staff wanted to convince Advocaat to come back? d) Would you have preferred Short to keep di Canio and sack 25 players? How would we have fulfilled our fixtures? e) The dressing room is the manager's domain, not the owner's. f) See 'e'. g) Short had just sacked the previous DoF for disagreeing with Poyet. Now you want him to sack Poyet for disagreeing with Congerton? What do you want? I'm sorry, but I think every single word of that post was wrong.
Agree with you on this Personally, I'm still bloody glad Di Canio got the sack, whatever the reason for it was.
You back Short to the hilt the same way Marcus robustly defends Catts. Ultimately the buck stops at his office door for everything, good and bad. For me, his biggest mistake was keeping Maggie Byrne in post for so long. She was the operational boss.
A. The panels of arbritration found in Inter's favour. Something clearly wasn't right with Sunderland's conduct and it was ridiculous situation to get into. It should have been dealt with earlier. B. I was referring to the handling of the situation by the chief executive. C. Advocaat had stated he wished to retire before the end of the season. There was plenty of time to find a replacement. The ridiculous begging him to come back hampered the start to this season. Players stated as much in post-match interviews yesterday. D. It was Byrne who they complained to and the manager's authority should have been respected. E. What has this to do with the dressing room? If the same mistakes are being made it is the responsibility of the executives to question why. F. Maybe so but the hierachy has overall responsibility. G. No, I don't want him to sack Poyet over that. I want him to select a policy and stick to it. Not prevaricate and shift the goalposts.
A. Who ever negotiated the deal with Inter is to blame for that one, and I am pretty sure they are no longer at the club. C. Everyone wanted Advocaat back, SAFC fans sent his wife a bunch of flowers for **** sake D. Why ? So we could continue with a manager who had lost the dressing room and who would have got us relegated ? JoS, the often rumoured leader of the relbelion, played under SAF so he was used to "hard" managers so why would he want him out for just being authoritative ? . Di Canio was just a nutter, and the players couldnt stand the bloke. The fact that he was appointed in the 1st place could be criticised, media/PR bombshell that he was - but then we might have been relegated the season before. What has Di Canio done since he left us ? nothing, cos not other club will touch him E. Short tried experienced managers and got screwed when they turned out like they did (Bruce and O'Neil), so he tried less experienced ones and got screwed again. The only one I would truly say wtf were they thinking, is the appointment of Di Canio
A. This is what I'm saying; mistakes were made. Whether the person responsible is still at the club is a moot point- poor decision making has cost the club. C. It doesn't matter who wanted him back. His intention was retire. All of the grovelling to get him back had an adverse effect on the club. Poor decision making again. D. Personally, I like di Canio. But you could say that appointing such a divisive character was poor decision making. Not backing him suggests weakness to me. The concept of 'losing the dressing' is an indictment of the poor attitude of modern footballers. E. If repeatedly changing the manager doesn't bring about change, does this not suggest that something else is the problem?
Putting money in has never been a problem for Short...He has learned some very expensive lessons with the way he has done business, and hopefully he will now allow a bloke who knows what he is doing bring in the players needed to improve us.
