Freedman out!

[BL3]

Say he turns up for work tomorrow, f*cked off we wont even back him to compete with barnsley and burnley and jacks it in.

He knew what the position was when he took the job. He was appointed to 'get us back on track'. He's failed to do that and hiding behind the players' shortcomings, in an attempt to disguise his own, is only going to work for so long.

[BWFC_Insane]

Say he turns up for work tomorrow, f*cked off we wont even back him to compete with barnsley and burnley and jacks it in.

He knew what the position was when he took the job. He was appointed to 'get us back on track'. He's failed to do that and hiding behind the players' shortcomings, in an attempt to disguise his own, is only going to work for so long.

I don't know for a fact, but I would be surprised if when he joined he knew or expected that we'd lose out on loan deals to Barnsley and Burnley.

Marc Iles has always toed the club line, never criticised them, but even he seemingly is saying Freedman is not being backed and is "frustrated". I can well imagine that having got Palace to third in the league on a shoestring budget and coming here he expected a little more backing than he's getting.

I don't know for a fact of course, but my suspicion is he did. And the snippets we are hearing from Iles, who may know nothing, but did actually speak to Freedman last night seem to indicate that.

If the club are working on the principle that he did a good job at Palace with no budget then for your sake, you'd best hope he's pissed off and leaves of his own accord. As there is precious little chance of him being sacked if that is the clubs line of thinking.

[a1]

he'll take the capt off knight , and give it to spearing. and drop wheater.

or summat

[Lord Kangana]

Sorry, he got palace to third in the league but expected more here? Surely we doubled his contract for preciselyt for that reason? Are you suggesting because we haven't given him wads of cash he can't achieve what he did at palace, where he didn't have wads of cash? That makes no sense.

[BWFC_Insane]

Sorry, he got palace to third in the league but expected more here? Surely we doubled his contract for preciselyt for that reason? Are you suggesting because we haven't given him wads of cash he can't achieve what he did at palace, where he didn't have wads of cash? That makes no sense.

There is somewhat of a circular argument though. The players are good enough to go up they were 7th last season with a similar group of players it is the managements fault. This management team had Palace in 3rd therefore it must be our players aren't good enough....etc etc

My point is I think he came here expecting to have greater resources at his disposal. It may be that he expected to be able to sell players, or he expected Eddie to offer up more. Whatever, I think he is frustrated with the situation.

[Lord Kangana]

Eddie doubled his wages, I'm sure that wasn't because all managers who's name begins with a D were due a payrise that day.

[LeverEnd]

Sorry, he got palace to third in the league but expected more here? Surely we doubled his contract for preciselyt for that reason? Are you suggesting because we haven't given him wads of cash he can't achieve what he did at palace, where he didn't have wads of cash? That makes no sense.

He came here for a longer contract as well as the salary, their chairman more or less said so in an interview I heard. He said he'd been under pressure to sack DF after a poor start last season and a miserable dogfight the year before. So he was hedging his bets and we showed faith in him. That may well have been misplaced, but he has consistently said he's not about splashing the cash, and that he likes to work with with players and improve them. Well, here's his chance. Time to tell those players to work hard and prove him wrong, show some leadership and get stuck in.

[BWFC_Insane]

Sorry, he got palace to third in the league but expected more here? Surely we doubled his contract for preciselyt for that reason? Are you suggesting because we haven't given him wads of cash he can't achieve what he did at palace, where he didn't have wads of cash? That makes no sense.

He came here for a longer contract as well as the salary, their chairman more or less said so in an interview I heard. He said he'd been under pressure to sack DF after a poor start last season and a miserable dogfight the year before. So he was hedging his bets and we showed faith in him. That may well have been misplaced, but he has consistently said he's not about splashing the cash, and that he likes to work with with players and improve them. Well, here's his chance. Time to tell those players to work hard and prove him wrong, show some leadership and get stuck in.

Their chairman is hardly going to come out and say "he wanted to sign players but we blocked it, that is why he's left".

At the fans forum Dougie was very clear that one of the reasons he left Palace was that they didn't "do the deals he thought they should have".

Claimed he could have signed Jordan Rhodes for £800K or something but the Palace board wouldn't allow it.

I think he's said he would prefer to work with young players and develop them than have to go and buy players but I think the message is clear from him that he doesn't think we have enough young players of sufficient quality to throw them in the team and expect a promotion challenge.

[jimbo]

My reading of the situation was that he was probably sold a half truth when he took over along the lines of 'big club, biggest wage budget in the league, ambition to get back up'. At the time that will have been more attractive than Palace, and he'll have been excited at what he could achieve with twice the wage budget.

In reality he wasn't told that the majority of that big wage budget is tied to half a dozen or so big earning, low achieving players. Until they go, it leaves him in the situation of having to work on the proverbial shoe string while also having a seemingly enormous wage bill.

I've been watching Saints go through similar for the last couple of years. Successful team broke down with a generation of players reaching the end of careers and a coach moving on. Following that there were several disappointing big name signings who haven't lived up to the bill tied to long term deals who we can't shift. That's led to a few years now of nothingness, with a few different coaches unable to bring in the players needed to turn things around as the majority of resources are tied to a select few. Thankfully I think that may be about to change from next season, but it's where I feel BWFC are at at the moment.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

It's not hard to imagine that while we hiked Freedman's wages (and gave him the length he desired, fnurk) we also seemed to have more market power.

It's still hard to imagine why we felt the need to treble Megson's wages to tempt him from a club two divisions lower.

And yes, I know that's comparisons to pointless past, but I do get the feeling our club has regularly paid over the odds, and that it's coming back to bite us in our sorry relegated arse.

[thebish]

Say he turns up for work tomorrow, f*cked off we wont even back him to compete with barnsley and burnley and jacks it in.

He knew what the position was when he took the job. He was appointed to 'get us back on track'. He's failed to do that and hiding behind the players' shortcomings, in an attempt to disguise his own, is only going to work for so long.

I don't know for a fact, but I would be surprised if when he joined he knew or expected that we'd lose out on loan deals to Barnsley and Burnley.

I'm not 100% sure why you think it is outrageous that we lose out on transfer deals to barnsley and burnley... BOTH of them are above us in the league... if dougie has taken us to a position below both those clubs - then he can hardly complain if they look a bit more attractive than us - we are BOTTOM!!

[thebish]

At the fans forum Dougie was very clear that one of the reasons he left Palace was that they didn't "do the deals he thought they should have".

we've already cleared this up more than once - he left because his family were in danger...

[Lord Kangana]

It's not hard to imagine that while we hiked Freedman's wages (and gave him the length he desired, fnurk) we also seemed to have more market power.

It's still hard to imagine why we felt the need to treble Megson's wages to tempt him from a club two divisions lower.

And yes, I know that's comparisons to pointless past, but I do get the feeling our club has regularly paid over the odds, and that it's coming back to bite us in our sorry relegated arse.

Do you think that because we spent so long in the prem, and so long of that paying very little in fees, that a large wage culture developed unchecked, and over time became institutionalised, if you will? Pwrhaps you could call it a carelessness brought on by the massive amounts of cash sloshing through our accounts whilst the going was good, from sky, eddie and gate/stadium/hotel revenue?

[BWFC_Insane]

Say he turns up for work tomorrow, f*cked off we wont even back him to compete with barnsley and burnley and jacks it in.

He knew what the position was when he took the job. He was appointed to 'get us back on track'. He's failed to do that and hiding behind the players' shortcomings, in an attempt to disguise his own, is only going to work for so long.

I don't know for a fact, but I would be surprised if when he joined he knew or expected that we'd lose out on loan deals to Barnsley and Burnley.

I'm not 100% sure why you think it is outrageous that we lose out on transfer deals to barnsley and burnley... BOTH of them are above us in the league... if dougie has taken us to a position below both those clubs - then he can hardly complain if they look a bit more attractive than us - we are BOTTOM!!

The information out there about these deals is that both players wanted to come here, if we could find the money for it. We couldn't. Barnsley and Burnley could.

Now that comes from Marc Iles, who claims it is direct from Freedman himself.

Perhaps it is made up. But it is the only information out there as to what happened.

So seemingly the position of the club in the league table wasn't the issue.

[Lord Kangana]

Maybe after the poor results the club's board weren't prepared to back him with further outlay?

[BWFC_Insane]

It's not hard to imagine that while we hiked Freedman's wages (and gave him the length he desired, fnurk) we also seemed to have more market power.

It's still hard to imagine why we felt the need to treble Megson's wages to tempt him from a club two divisions lower.

And yes, I know that's comparisons to pointless past, but I do get the feeling our club has regularly paid over the odds, and that it's coming back to bite us in our sorry relegated arse.

Do you think that because we spent so long in the prem, and so long of that paying very little in fees, that a large wage culture developed unchecked, and over time became institutionalised, if you will? Pwrhaps you could call it a carelessness brought on by the massive amounts of cash sloshing through our accounts whilst the going was good, from sky, eddie and gate/stadium/hotel revenue?

Is that not what the premiership and its money train does to teams after a while? Hoodwinks them into ever increasing wages to stay on the gravy boat?

I think for a year or two it is easy to be sensible and relatively frugal. But then what? It is a side effect of the very strong correlation to wages paid and points gained.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Say he turns up for work tomorrow, f*cked off we wont even back him to compete with barnsley and burnley and jacks it in.

He knew what the position was when he took the job. He was appointed to 'get us back on track'. He's failed to do that and hiding behind the players' shortcomings, in an attempt to disguise his own, is only going to work for so long.

I don't know for a fact, but I would be surprised if when he joined he knew or expected that we'd lose out on loan deals to Barnsley and Burnley.

I'm not 100% sure why you think it is outrageous that we lose out on transfer deals to barnsley and burnley... BOTH of them are above us in the league... if dougie has taken us to a position below both those clubs - then he can hardly complain if they look a bit more attractive than us - we are BOTTOM!!

Do we even know if we bid for either of these players? I know Nixon/Iles said so, but that don't make it fact. Even if we did bid, sounds like we left it too late. I think yesterday was more about shipping players out than in anyway.

[thebish]

The information out there about these deals is that both players wanted to come here, if we could find the money for it. We couldn't. Barnsley and Burnley could.

Now that comes from Marc Iles, who claims it is direct from Freedman himself.

Perhaps it is made up. But it is the only information out there as to what happened.

So seemingly the position of the club in the league table wasn't the issue.

that's not quite what i am saying - I am saying that we have to recognise that we are BELOW both barnsley and burnley - the idea that they (of all clubs) might perform better than us in the transfer market seems to betray an unwarranted (given the league table) belief that we are somehow automatically superior... when you yourself have said that as a club we are utterly and totally fecked...

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

It's not hard to imagine that while we hiked Freedman's wages (and gave him the length he desired, fnurk) we also seemed to have more market power.

It's still hard to imagine why we felt the need to treble Megson's wages to tempt him from a club two divisions lower.

And yes, I know that's comparisons to pointless past, but I do get the feeling our club has regularly paid over the odds, and that it's coming back to bite us in our sorry relegated arse.

Do you think that because we spent so long in the prem, and so long of that paying very little in fees, that a large wage culture developed unchecked, and over time became institutionalised, if you will? Pwrhaps you could call it a carelessness brought on by the massive amounts of cash sloshing through our accounts whilst the going was good, from sky, eddie and gate/stadium/hotel revenue?

Is that not what the premiership and its money train does to teams after a while? Hoodwinks them into ever increasing wages to stay on the gravy boat?

I think for a year or two it is easy to be sensible and relatively frugal. But then what? It is a side effect of the very strong correlation to wages paid and points gained.

Think you're both right. But the upsetting thing is that we didn't wake up when we got relegated. I keep coming back to those four contracts given to unwanted players last summer - unattached Knight, Ricketts, Andrews and Leicester outcast Mills. Not to pin it on Coyle, because I'm so f*cking tired of that type of your-manager's-worse-than-mine blamestorming, but to wonder if the money gambled then isn't a large part of the reason we're now being outbid by Barnsley. From profligacy to parsimony.

[BWFC_Insane]

It's not hard to imagine that while we hiked Freedman's wages (and gave him the length he desired, fnurk) we also seemed to have more market power.

It's still hard to imagine why we felt the need to treble Megson's wages to tempt him from a club two divisions lower.

And yes, I know that's comparisons to pointless past, but I do get the feeling our club has regularly paid over the odds, and that it's coming back to bite us in our sorry relegated arse.

Do you think that because we spent so long in the prem, and so long of that paying very little in fees, that a large wage culture developed unchecked, and over time became institutionalised, if you will? Pwrhaps you could call it a carelessness brought on by the massive amounts of cash sloshing through our accounts whilst the going was good, from sky, eddie and gate/stadium/hotel revenue?

Is that not what the premiership and its money train does to teams after a while? Hoodwinks them into ever increasing wages to stay on the gravy boat?

I think for a year or two it is easy to be sensible and relatively frugal. But then what? It is a side effect of the very strong correlation to wages paid and points gained.

Think you're both right. But the upsetting thing is that we didn't wake up when we got relegated. I keep coming back to those four contracts given to unwanted players last summer - unattached Knight, Ricketts, Andrews and Leicester outcast Mills. Not to pin it on Coyle, because I'm so f*cking tired of that type of your-manager's-worse-than-mine blamestorming, but to wonder if the money gambled then isn't a large part of the reason we're now being outbid by Barnsley. From profligacy to parsimony.

And to an extent Kevin Davies too. I realise he's gone but I'm guessing still cost a fair bit last year.

I think the mistake was made, and I was as guilty and wrong as the club were, of thinking that we had a squad more than good enough to storm the championship. So they backed the manager who told them that was the case, and it was a poor judgement call, as you say keeping those expensive players on.

I remember the Southampton fan I know upon our relegation warning me that "the championship is a much tougher league than you think to get out of". Should have listened. So should Phil, Eddie and Owen. In hindsight, is easy though!