I had heard that before, yeah. My girlfriend's family are all West Ham season ticket holders and they hated Allardyce so I brought that one up just to see the rage! Sam's transfer dealings have always been a bit scattergun but he struck it lucky three times in one window when he was here. Mr Allardyce leads me back to my point about Saracens though and to unhappy players. I thought he was a strange appointment to follow Dick Advocaat; I would consider them to be very different types of managers. I thought it was especially odd given that Dick had been allowed to recruit the players he wanted to suit his system/style. Surely, it would have been more sensible to appoin a manager more similar to Dick at that time? Although, as we know it didn't turn out too badly until England came calling. It did, however, end up with at least two of Dick's signings (Lens and Toivonen) not playing because Sam didn't rate them for whatever reason. That's a waste of money and squad places. That, to me, suggests the same lack of contingency planning on the part of the board that you refer to with regard to Defoe on the "Fans" thread. At more progressive sporting organisations (like Saracens, who I keep banging on about) all of that kind of stuff would have been planned in possibly years in advance. So really, what I've been getting at with the last however many posts is that I think players being unhappy is, in the end, because of the club being run badly. And ultimately, what we all know anyway, Short is a useless twat!
People think cause of his honeymoon period he was the answer to everything. His transfer activity is apauling, I saw nowt to surgest he'd have done better keeping us up given MoN, PDC, Poyet and Dick all us looking like world beaters in their first seasons during relegation battle. Had any of them left before pre season like Sam did, folk would have a default opinion that they would have kept us up too. Doesn't necasserily make it so. Sam has a track record of signing dross and bad apples. He leaves teams with **** and problematic players. His Sunderland players he signed. Hoff - Crock Harper - Never played(but needed cover so fair play) Kone - Refused to play, Tried to force a move, doesn't want to be here. Khazri- Give up after Sam left, put on weight and wouldn't pull it when given the chance. One can only imagine how little he gave a **** in training as two managers were having none of him, didn't want to be here. Eboue - Less said about that embarrassing situation the better. The **** would rather not make a living than pay his fines. Not one has lasted the course apart from Kone but that's only because we recived no bids(Confirmed by Grayson) In addition he'd lodged bids for Papy and Ndong before leaving. I just don't believe he was the safe pair of hands everybody assumed, add the shocking conditions our managers get to work with is why I had us tipped for relegation even when he was still in charge cause when he has the budget he ****ed things up.
Keep bringing in new managers and they each have their own ideas of the type of player they want, what they expect from a player and what they won't accept. Should have stuck with PDC. I think he would have sorted it and we'd long since had a squad who would run through wall regardless of what league we were in. Yep, It's all down to Short imo. I know it may look like I'm bashing Sam, my point is he was only human like the other managers who went. Even dick quit cause of a lack of funds. He didn't have much money. 8m for Lens was the big signing yet teams were paying that for squad players and prospects at the time. I think he's handicapped every manager since O'Neil and scapegoated them when things went wrong.
Precisely, which is why you need a long term plan. Clubs like Southampton do that by having a certain profile of manager that they stick to, meaning that disruption is minimised. Despite it being right under his nose, Short doesn't seem to have spotted that example. I have more faith in Bain and Grayson to get such planning right. I agree, PDC should have stayed. He's one of the most dedicated professionals out there and his standards are set very high. Too many people can't see past his supposed politics though. Dealing with the open mutiny in the squad required backbone though, and while I reckon he would have stuck it out, Byrne and Short didn't have what was required unfortunately.
But Short doesn't have clue about the game. So there's no hope of continuity front. He couldn't even get the right football men to help him make the decisions. Should have kept Paulo and backed him(instead of drafting defanti in). We'd be running through walls now, maybe not in the prem initially but the rot would have been cleared out sooner, the debt less and the recovery easier.
I agree about Short completely, but you'd have thought some things would be obvious even to someone who doesn't know the game. De Fanti has claimed that he was just doing what Short told him so it seems that Short needed a fall man because if he'd backed Di Canio it would have been harder for him to do things on the cheap.
Oh I beleive Di Fanti, you only need to look at the money spent that window compared to how many players we needed to see he was working with very little. But he knew jot all about the English game and brought in average players off the continent and they were miles off adapting to the English game. Poor appointment. Just one of the many cost cutting exercises to go wrong.
I've never got the desire to still have Di Canio in charge, yes he was hardline and that's good but you need a bit more than that. His results with us were ****e and he hasn't had a management job since we sacked him years ago. I wouldn't like to hazard a guess where we'd be now if he was still here. He certainly doesn't strike me as a safe pair of hands to rebuild anything.
Think that's got more to do with the media facist angle and how they made everything he did about that(Conte runs Chelsea to the same ethic). No club will touch him because he's now a PR disaster. His record at Swindon was exceptional, failing at a Prem club after that would not keep him from employment imo. It was all blown out of proportion to make the media money and it cost a promising young manager his career. He built Swindon into a proper team.
It'll have a bit to do with it but I don't buy that he literally can't get a job because of it despite being mint. Even if nobody in England would take him on, although I think they would if he was good enough, I'm sure he could get work in Italy for example. He'd probably be the least fascist person at the club there.
That and the reported "mutiny" tarnished his reputation. What went on there was far worse that Khazri or Lens getting a bit sulky imo but some still don't see those players as having done any wrong. Have a read of one of his autobiographies (or have a chat with some West Ham fans- they think he walks on water). He was, and is, entirely dedicated to football and worked extremely hard to improve himself all the time. Most of the problems he encountered in his career were because other people didn't set the same ridiculously high standards as him.
He was a difficult character and outspoken even when he was playing in Italy. I wouldn't be surprised if his reputation there is similar to what it is here.
I don't buy it that because of some accusations of fascism he's literally unemployable across the globe. He's unemployed because despite being a charismatic mofo he's not a good manager. If he was good he'd be working somewhere and thriving.
I don't think the Fascism thing is the problem. He did fall out with a lot of people though. It happened throughout his playing career. I'd imagine most chairmen would regard him as loose cannon and that puts them off. I thought he did well Swindon and could have done well with us if he'd been able to build his own team.
Would you let him be the main face of your company now? I like the bloke and think he was shat on but I wouldn't.
He's adored in Italy, doesn't mean he wouldn't be a PR desaster. These teams still have sponsors, extremist links and sponsors do not mix.
Yeah I would, if my company was struggling and he was the best candidate to turn it around. I'd hire him, wait for the mini ****storm to pass by and then crack on. TBH though I can't really remember what the controversy was about specifically but I recall it being a bit of a big fuss about nothing. It's not like he was going about burning down synagogues.
It was allover the rags mate, it was a **** storm It was passages taken from his book with the connecting paragraphs omitted. Our fans swallowed it hook line.
I remember the level of fuss the media made about it just not what was said specifically although I do recall reading about it and thinking what's the big deal. Now it's years later I don't think the media would go nuts about it again.
