There's a few people come on here & ask who would replace SB if he went, the answer usually seems to be Martin O'Neill, but why him. Is he really strong enough for a job like this, is he really the man to take Sunderland forward, yes he did well with Celtic, but can he actually build a top class EPL team or take a half decent one & make it better.
that's a multi million dollar question, i'm sure he could do a decent job somewhere, but with the actual amount of money he would want, to build his team, i expect a lot of managers could build a team that would suceed to a certain level. maybe MoN would not want to come to sol, especially if short didn't promise him enough funds. (just a thought like) so with that amount of money, i'm sure bruce could build a team just as good..
well he took Villa to 2 consective 6th place finishe's & a Cup Final. Won the cup with Leicester, let's not mention his time at Celtic in the League & cup as they are expected to do well but he did take them to a UEFA Cup Final. Yes he did spend a lot of money at Villa but Bruce has spent a bit, as did Keane. I don't want to get rid of Bruce but im not as much a fan of his as i was prev, this excuse for injurie's been used already for next season has pissed me off abit . If we did get rid of Bruce, the two people i would like to see us go for would be MON or David Moyes at the top of the list.
Porto's manager Andre Villas Boas is the next big thing, would be on incredible wages, but I'd bet my house on him turning us into a regular EU qualification team. Give Bruce another season at least, though. MoNs name is constantly bandered around because he almost took Villa into the CL, and he's a SAFC supporter.
Why? Simples. Took Wycombe to the football league for the first time in their histoy then gained a successive promotion at the first time of asking. Leicester: He led them to 4 succesive top ten finishes and TWO league cups in 1997 and 2000 Celtic: took over team that finished 20 points behind Rangers the previos seasom yet went on to win the domestic treble in his first season. Went on to take them to the uefa cup final. in total won 3 league titles 3 scottish cups and a league cup in 5 years. also including 7 consecutive old firm wins. Aston Villa. Took over a team that finished 16th then led them to 11th in his first season then THREE consecutive 6th place finishes in the premier league and a cup final.
Why? Simples. Took Wycombe to the football league for the first time in their histoy then gained a successive promotion at the first time of asking. Leicester: He led them to 4 succesive top ten finishes and TWO league cups in 1997 and 2000 Celtic: took over team that finished 20 points behind Rangers the previos seasom yet went on to win the domestic treble in his first season. Went on to take them to the uefa cup final. in total won 3 league titles 3 scottish cups and a league cup in 5 years. also including 7 consecutive old firm wins. Aston Villa. Took over a team that finished 16th then led them to 11th in his first season then THREE consecutive 6th place finishes in the premier league and a cup final.
someone'a been doing their homework, congrats. but if MoN took over any club now, he would expect a large transfer kitty, he couls spend a lot of money, but would he spend it any more wisely than bruce is going to? do you think MoN could attract a higher calibre of player than bruce?, now that's a difficult question..
We have been saying on here just this week we hope for a big transfer kitty. Bruce has also hinted that he will have to bring in cover for the long-term injuries and that won't be cheap. Its all been said in this article about what O'Neill has done and I would like him to be given the role.
You could ask if anyone would spend it more wisely - even Ferguson has made howlers in the transfer market. I also think MoN has a bigger reputation than Bruce. He has taken teams to Europe. He might even use the talent we have better than Bruce is.
People are continually suggesting that MON would want a large transfer kitty if he took over the job. I don't think that's the case at all, because when you give some thought to the clubs that he has managed, he's only had one club with any significant funds available for transfers, Villa. He was very successful with Leicester and Celtic without having a pot to piss in really, so I don't buy these thoughts that he would want mega bucks to come to our club.
Well.... Leicester, spent about 30 million in 5 years, which was from 1995-2000, we spent 21 mil in that time but 10 mil of that was in 1999-2000 Celtic they spent 18 million in the 99-00 season but not sure if that was him or not. If it wasnt then he spent 47 million in 5 years, if it was he spent 65 million in 5 years, but still if thats not a pot to piss in.... and Villa was ã139 million so he has had a pretty penny to spend, he hasnt been on a shoestring budget and not a pot to piss in thats for sure.
Hmmmm... Perhaps I should have done some research first, like you obviously have! Of course, what those figures don't tell us, is how many players he had to sell in generating those sums of cash to purchase players. Leicesters budget was really quite megre compared to what other teams were probably spending during that period, but to be honest, I'm astonished that Celtic had anywhere near that amount of money to spend! He must have had to sell before buying, because Celtic just don't have that sort of cash. As for Villa, that is a mind blowing amount of money, but again, how much did he rake in from player sales, I wonder? Time for some research I think, after the matches of course!
thats funny, i agree with you on the players out, but most on here dont even consider that for Bruce, they just look at his spend and say short has spent a fortune lol anyway not going to do this by year. Leicester: players out 25 revenue 7 million Players in 35 expenditure 32 million The year after which may be telling out 16, 23 million in 17, 10 million Celtic not counting 99-00 season out 72 revenue 13 million in 65 expenditure 47 million year after he left out 18 1.3 million in 18 11 miilion Villa players out 29 revenue 39 million Players in 30 expenditure 120 million (Was 20million out before sorry) The year after which may be telling out 22, 25 million in 18, 33 million (this should include bent as well) so in his time as manager he has out 126 revenue 59 million in 140 expenditure 199 million hope all that makes sense cant do html tables on here to make it look neat and tidy
