kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,361 
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Sept 5, 2024 14:25:37 GMT
Wael ultimately made yet another disastrous decision and wanted to buy young , to develop and sell at profit. It was yet another of his bad choices. It put the club back a long way. I thought the concept was sound, the execution less so. Still needed a couple of experienced heads. Agreed but, as usual, it felt like a reactionary decision rather than a well thought out plan. I still see a couple of rovers groups on various platforms and I’m not missing it as yet. Good luck to those who still go. To see a club statement on singing just had me knowing I’m better off as I am. |
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Sept 5, 2024 14:56:16 GMT
I think you may have missed the main point I was making. This thread is set up as “Taylor recruitment v Garner recruitment” but should we see it like that if owners not managers have control of recruitment, if club has gone down the route of a powerful DOF having more say than manager on recruitment? Piece together an holistic puzzle of what’s unsaid, especially when managers walk. did Klopp walk from Liverpool because owners not allowing him to compete in transfer market and build another title winning team? It’s very hard to know from afar, its manager who turns up at press conferences, is the main media interface. As I said, as a metaphor, look closely for the strings operating the manager from above. I think Taylor and Garner did at the very least have the last say on the players brought in? If the manager takes the DOF's word and accepts the transfer on this basis, they are still responsible for the eventual outcome? And even in cases where the DOF has extensive influence, it is usually the case that the manager has the power to veto, if they so wish? Aside from anything bad, it is extremely bad practice to expect managers to work with players they did not want in the first place. I can only think of very few instances where a player was brought over the manager's objections (Shevchenko at Chelsea is the main one I can think of). It usually happens at the big, big clubs, not in L1. Klopp left because he was mentally and physically exhausted. His board had actually given him extensive support in rebuilding the team. Don’t agree with all your post. “Aside from anything bad, it is extremely bad practice to expect managers to work with players they did not want in the first place. I can only think of very few instances where a player was brought over the manager's objections (Shevchenko at Chelsea is the main one I can think of). It usually happens at the big, big clubs, not in L1.” Maybe there is more to we read into Cocko, Tis actually walking away from Rovers prematurely, to be sure they had last say on transfers, the managers either side of Ben in the “master plan” era. And maybe more to read into Pellegrini walking from Chelsea to be sure he had last say in transfers, and wonder how much influence Maresca had over this summers continued baffling recruitment. “Klopp left because he was mentally and physically exhausted. His board had actually given him extensive support in rebuilding the team.” He did say that. But taking it at face value, are we 100% sure? Rebuilding and investment has clearly hit the buffers at Liverpool, is what it looks like for several windows now. Slot looks a great fit, I love his serious demeanour, they are serious title challengers this season, and a great crop of young players, but there are reasons Alonso and Amorim turned the gig down before he was offered it, might well be linked to promise of renewal investment or lack of that assurance? I’m not sure Liverpool fans are wholly happy with their owners for a while. |
|
