OK,change the word to gamble if you like, the point still remains though
Ex-Manager Thread
- Thread starter SaintElliot
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
OK,change the word to gamble if you like, the point still remains though
True, but why isn't he saying the same about Everton? Looking to appoint a new Manager, core players want to leave, and a huge rebuilding job. All you have to do is change Saints to Everton and it would still ring true.
What they do is research and number crunch so much that they minimise the risk to as low as possible. It means that the gamble [your word] they take is almost no gamble at all.
Probably because he doesn't like Saints and this is the first time this is happening to Everton, not an annual occurence. I did always wonder how they kept their players in the last few seasons and always just put it down to the high wages they pay, but looks like that won't be enough this summer to keep Lukaku and Stones. I think everyone else will stay and they have the makings of a decent side there. Just been terribly managed the last couple of years.
BTW, Saintmagic, I do agree with your main point in that Saints will need to pay people more. That is patently true in an ever richer market.
I agree that they obviously put in a load of ground work on any new recruit to Saints, be that player/manager/coach, but they are all gambles and can back fire. You are talking about people coming from all round the world, moving to a new country/culture, bringing family with them, taking to a new league, there are so many things that can't be measured that it is impossible to call it "no gamble at all".
OK well we have to agree to disagree then as I think any new person coming from overseas is a pretty big gamble, especially with our usual recruitment of going to the smaller leagues to source players.
Samuelson isn't making that stuff up. Les Reed is on record saying they were in no rush to get Koeman signed. It was also reported that Saints didn't even bother to have a meeting when Everton first made Koeman an offer. That doesn't sound like meticulous planning to me.
This is why that earlier post must be right and this is a bluff gone wrong. It wasn't just in public he said he wanted to stay - he said it to Les, his (ex)agent and I guess his brother as well. Impossible that he lied to them all whilst having this cunning plan about an approach from Everton (who hadn't sacked their manager yet) in his head.
Even keeping a team together can be deemed to have a certain risk to it.
Other teams work you out as you're unlikely to change style/tactics. Players can lose form just as easily.
Plenty of teams who enjoy success one season and don't replicate it the next (man city) get accused of gong stale and losing hunger.
Other teams work you out as you're unlikely to change style/tactics. Players can lose form just as easily.
Plenty of teams who enjoy success one season and don't replicate it the next (man city) get accused of gong stale and losing hunger.
Yeah, it makes the most sense to me as a scenario in which both Koeman/the board had misgivings about an extension, but were still willing to get it done...until Koeman saw an opportunity to leverage Everton's interest to try and get the board to spend more. He miscalculated just how much they wanted him back, and now has to go with the fallback option of joining Everton.
Could be a miscalculation that both parties ultimately regret, though. Samuels isn't wholly wrong that we're perhaps a bit too confident that we can consistently change the team and manager without any disruption. We have done fantastically well at walking the tightrope, but you generally get just one fall.
It sounds like confidence in your position and expecting the person you're dealing with, who has publicly stated his intention to stay at his present address, to not suddenly become a dodgy operator.
Koeman's actions took everyone, everyone by surprise. I think he placed the club in the only position they could be in right now. However, no doubt we'll have to wait for yet another biography to read about what really went on.
Uncle Les' biography would be some read, I'd wager...
I confess that I have kept off this particular thread for about a week now because RK appeared to be gone, only he hasn't, so I came back to find out why and I am probably more confused now than I was a week ago. There appears to have been a lot of shenanigans going on (not unusual in so-called 'professional' football - if ever there was a misnomer it is this). So my understanding is this: (please edit where I have got this wrong)
1. RK's agent was in negotiations with Southampton and Everton appear to have tapped up this agent;
2. Said agent, that had been in final negotiations with Les Reed, is fired by RK and new agent appointed by RK who then tries to leverage a better contract on the back of the illicit discussions with Everton;
3. Les tells the new agent the previous negotiated new contract stands;
4. Everton now formally approach Saints - Les 'lets loose the dogs of war' and advises Everton that its in their interests to hand over 5M because if they don't - there is the small matter of 'tapping up' our manager. 'Tail between legs' Everton agree to this and RK now finds himself trying to negotiate a contract with a club that has been shown to have acted as dishonourably has he and are probably less than happy to find themselves in this situation.
Have I got this right or am I missing something out? If correct - the bit I don't fully understand is why fire the agent? Either he was ethical and did not want to damage his relationship with Saints - possible but unlikely given there appears to be no ethical behaviour in 'professional' football. Or, this was a means of trying to mitigate any linkage to RK over the tapping up - in which case the first agent is expecting a commission fee from the other agents fee for his troubles when RK signs for Everton. For me, the latter seems more plausible.
1. RK's agent was in negotiations with Southampton and Everton appear to have tapped up this agent;
2. Said agent, that had been in final negotiations with Les Reed, is fired by RK and new agent appointed by RK who then tries to leverage a better contract on the back of the illicit discussions with Everton;
3. Les tells the new agent the previous negotiated new contract stands;
4. Everton now formally approach Saints - Les 'lets loose the dogs of war' and advises Everton that its in their interests to hand over 5M because if they don't - there is the small matter of 'tapping up' our manager. 'Tail between legs' Everton agree to this and RK now finds himself trying to negotiate a contract with a club that has been shown to have acted as dishonourably has he and are probably less than happy to find themselves in this situation.
Have I got this right or am I missing something out? If correct - the bit I don't fully understand is why fire the agent? Either he was ethical and did not want to damage his relationship with Saints - possible but unlikely given there appears to be no ethical behaviour in 'professional' football. Or, this was a means of trying to mitigate any linkage to RK over the tapping up - in which case the first agent is expecting a commission fee from the other agents fee for his troubles when RK signs for Everton. For me, the latter seems more plausible.
Meticulous, as in so meticulous that they already have their possible targets should anything go wrong.
Last edited: