Since who ever is employed to write press releases for the club has been doing a terrible job of it for months I find it hard to understand how people think they're now magically able to carefully construct anything.
Your view was on something that could only ever be a guess. If your view was that a certain player is **** I'd say fair enough, but if your view is about what Barmby does behind the scenes, then unless you have some insider info it's not really a view it's just a guess. I might as well say my view is that the Allams eat kittens every night for tea, because no one can prove otherwise, but I'd obviously just be making that up because without any ionformation on the matter I can't have a view on what they have for their tea! I didn't guess anything, I pointed out that now its confirmed by all parties that NB was sacked for his comments about funding. That can't be ignored now it has been confirmed as fact, most of us have accepted that for the last 10 days anyway but now it simply can't be avoided. Barmby definitely wanted players. Who is right and who is wrong in all of this is up for debate and I'm willing to listen to and debate any view on it, but it can't be denied any more that barmby was sacked for his comments about funds so he obviously wanted players of some description and wasn't happy in some way about how the Allams made money available, if at all. I'm only questioning what you've posted. It doesn't mean I hate you or want some massive war I'm just questioning your post like I do with anyone's that I think is open to question. There's no need to get offended about it. I'm sure you were 100% anti-Allam before all this came out...
Like Phill Buckingham said in the fail, Barmby was naive and that's what is likely what cost him his job and I am in the middle at the moment as I believe there is 2 sides to every story. I also believe that NOBODY on here knows what is going on unless they get it from Barmby, Pearson or the Allam's, so take what is said on here with a pinch of salt.
Exactly! On the basis of not replacing him until after his appeal we'd have played with 10 men for 6 months after the Bullard affair!
Bet we don't find it hard to recruit. There will be a queue of Managers for the Job, all more experienced than Nick, and with Brownie jostling to get to the front. Christ even Dean Windass if sniffing at it. I'm sorry Nick went, but I can't help thinking we may be better of as a club because of it. And until I see or hear any actual evidence that the Allams have done wrong I reserve judgement. After all we applauded their action over Bullard (or most of us did), so why do we assume they've suddenly become villans?
There might be a queue of Managers but with the Allams negotiating skills will they want the job. Surely they will want assurances and want to know how much money they have to spend. The Allams have said they want more involvement with running the club and it is this that worries me. Things they say just really annoy me. Like Buckingham in the mail pointed out, they said in their statement that they had given Nick his first managerial post as if it was some kind of a wonderful gift. What they omitted to say was that Nick had got them out of a hole, he was a lot cheaper then anyone else they could get and knew the players so we could have some continuity, and although he only played an increasingly rare bit part in the team he did give that up. How long did he take to actually sign the contract, he needed persuading. Sorry but in my eyes the sacking was way to harsh and a shoddy way to treat someone. I don't care how much money they have put in the club my feeling has always been there is something not quite right about them.
I agree the way he was sacked was wrong, the Allams if they wanted when NP got sacked could quite easily have found another cheaper manager with experience to do what he did, Sean O Discroll perhaps, he belives in passing football and is now an assistant and would of being dirty cheap. So don't say the Allams owe Barmby. And how do you know they won't get a manager? I can gurantee we will get a decent manager, there are that many unemployed out there, their is no chance that we won't have someone decent offer themselves to us.
Nick got sacked for basically saying they didn't give him money. One of the parties involved are lying. If I didn't know anything else I'd believe Barmby because he's an honest guy and the Allams are mysterious 'businessmen'. But there is plenty of other evidence to suggest the Allams are going a bit mad with the club lately. They are penny-pinching all over the place in different areas of the club, they didn't back Barmby and they sacked him for breaking the silence on it. Either way one party is lying and in my opinion that's the Allams. The way I see it those who are still defending the Allams are being naiive and very easily tricked. If they want to belive that then fine, but please stop having a go at those who believe something isn't right here. No one can 'guarantee' we will get a good manager. This will not be an attractive job.
If Nick is an honest guy, how come he said, in an interview in Jan, that he was happy with the squad and didn't need to bring anyone in? This is the main thing that is niggling me tbh. Either he lied at the time, which throws anything else he says into doubt, or he wasn't lying, in which case the Allams are also telling the truth about offering him cash/players but he turned them down. So I think you have to either believe Nick lied, to protect the Allams who were also lieing, or Nick didn't lie in which case the Allams didn't either. As has been said before, both sides share responsibility for this, neither come out of it well, and the truth is more likely in the middle of both versions.
How about not lied, but didn't tell everything he knew? Someone suggested the other day that the Allams might have said he could have money in January, but it would have to come out of the Summer budget. I have no information that that is true, but I think it may well be close to what was actually the situation. In that scenario he probably was happy with the squad as it was in January, because he didn't want to spunk next seasons budget on a Hail Mary attempt to get promoted this season.
Spot on. Could not agree more. If they had told Nick it was just till the end of the season and then they would look to bring someone in with more experience but Nick works as his No.2 to learn the ropes would have been perfect. The Allams missed a massive trick there imo and yet another reason why Ehab is not fit for purpose. imo.
Indeed. Nick and Adam both knew there is better value in the summer(especially this one). Only the desperate buy in January.
We were desperate for a striker in Jan...imagine if we'd won 2 or 3 of those games we lost in March... Other than that, Strov, we obviously don't know but I'd love it if your comment: Would make me happy, mostly because that suggests that Nick had a budget, and knew he was getting money in the summer, which makes his comments seeming to insist more was done even more puzzling as he was asking for something he knew he already had coming. In this scenario I'd also question why getting in a striker, when we quite clearly needed one, and please, this was obvious to everyone at the time, and was proven to be the case afterwards was the last thing on Nicks mind.
When did Roberts go to Reading out of interest? Or Sharp to Southampton? Or Vaz Te or Maynard to West Ham? When all is said and done( and this is just my opinion) if your team is faltering and you need to bring in fresh faces to liven it up you do it, finances permitting. Whether that be in the summer or January. No doubt you pay over the odds but you also get players in form and scoring goals We can't just write off the January transfer window every year because it's a bit cheaper to do business in the summer. That, old boy, would be pure madness.
I think whether you buy in January being a wise thing, or not, depends on your position in the League. Prices are inflated in January. However, if, like Wet Spam, Reading and Southampton you have a good chance of going up automatically, investment in players that will bolster the squad, even at inflated prices, is an entirely sensible thing to do. If we had been in the automatic promotion places and we had not spent, in January, and that awful March had ruined a good chance of going up automatically.................I WOULD HAVE BEEN LIVID!!
That's the thing Strov, we lost 19 points from the end of Feb to the end of March that DID stop us going up automatically. With a striker we would have been top 3. That, as manager, was down to Nick. Majority of those games should have been 3 points for us easily.
My view on that, as I've said before is that he did lie in January, because he had to. They forced him into it to cover up for their own lies. (Their 'lies' may have been due to the extra expenses they kept finding on the club's books around that time, they may have changed their mind on money due to this and not wanted to admit it) Clearly though, the second Barmby stopped lying about it he got sacked for it, so he obviously didn't have much choice unless he wanted to be sacked earlier. I know you don't like me quoting your posts all the time but I have to give my view on this too. Was it obvious we needed a striker? Everyone loved Fryatt and we played 1 up front, would we have dropped Fryatt? I'd suggest what we needed more were a couple of wingers/midfielders who could penetrate a defence a bit more. In those games in March we stopped making chances for the strikers to miss and instead just passed it about in front of them with no penetration. If Nick was allowed to bring in Hamill (either time he tried) it might have made a big difference. I don't see how replacing Fryatt with another good striker would have made a difference?
and knew he was getting money in the summer, which makes his comments seeming to insist more was done even more puzzling as he was asking for something he knew he already had coming. Maybe when he agreed to be manager they had assured him money would be available but then in January there either was none or if there was there was "strings attached" hence the hints that he hoped he would get the money that had been originally promised to him. I think that there was a bit of money available in January but not for Nick to spend how he felt fit, don't think it was as simple as money or no money. I really think that the Allams think they can do a better job then either Adam or Nick did and they want to have a go.
That was Nick's thinking, shame he wasn't allowed to bring his targets in really, just think what might have been.
