Freedman out!

[BWFC_Insane]

Shortly arriving on Platform Three, eight people suggesting Billy Davies.

I hope we bring Davies in. It would at least end the tedium of "anyone is better than Freedman". And we could then all see what an experienced manager in this division would do for us, or not. And it would be interesting. He doesn't have a very long fuse......

[Lord Kangana]

He'd deserve to be sacked the same if he didn't do any better. So I wouldn't find it interesting if he did, just more tedium.

[Tombwfc]

Billy Davies wouldn't be my pick, but he wouldn't be the worst. Seven more to go...

If all Eddie is concerned about is losing less money (and therefore can't be bothered to fork out on a new manager), why does he continue to invest in the squad? Why didn't we just pocket the money we saved by getting rid of Ngog and Craig Davies, instead of using it to fund deals for Danns, Mason, Juke, Trotter and Hutton?

[BWFC_Insane]

Billy Davies wouldn't be my pick, but he wouldn't be the worst. Seven more to go...

If all Eddie is concerned about is losing less money (and therefore can't be bothered to fork out on a new manager), why does he continue to invest in the squad? Why didn't we just pocket the money we saved by getting rid of Ngog and Craig Davies, instead of using it to fund deals for Danns, Mason, Juke, Trotter and Hutton?

Because those deals were already in budget once those players went? Eddie wouldn't have needed to invest anything. And presumably he isn't actually taking money back out of the club.

[SmokinFrazier]

Oh, well, f*ck it then. Let's be all happy clappy with being lower table in the Championship, 'cos God forbid we should target a Premier League return. Let's put up with the f*ckwit in charge, 'cos it's absolutely impossible that a team with a Premier League stadium and facilities could get anybody better.

Or we accept there isn't money get on with things, stop stamping our feet every week and try and rebuild in this division in the manner of Burnley, Derby, Leicester etc etc.

The decision isn't mine or yours it is Eddie's. And I'm merely trying to show why he might be reticent to make another change and throw yet more money at it in the process.

There comes a point where you have to concede that changing managers isn't halting the slide. IT COULD be that Eddie is at that point now.

Why would we rebuild when we already have a talented squad? If Coyle was one goal away from preventing relegation and Freedman was a tactical mistake away from getting us into the play offs, what would this team be capable of under a manager who knows what they're doing? We clearly have a very strong squad for this division and whilst you might choose to get rid of a couple, bring one or two in, there doesn't need to be a massive overhaul to get into the play offs. Appoint the right manager and we'd finish there quite easily, I think.

[BWFC_Insane]

Oh, well, f*ck it then. Let's be all happy clappy with being lower table in the Championship, 'cos God forbid we should target a Premier League return. Let's put up with the f*ckwit in charge, 'cos it's absolutely impossible that a team with a Premier League stadium and facilities could get anybody better.

Or we accept there isn't money get on with things, stop stamping our feet every week and try and rebuild in this division in the manner of Burnley, Derby, Leicester etc etc.

The decision isn't mine or yours it is Eddie's. And I'm merely trying to show why he might be reticent to make another change and throw yet more money at it in the process.

There comes a point where you have to concede that changing managers isn't halting the slide. IT COULD be that Eddie is at that point now.

Why would we rebuild when we already have a talented squad? If Coyle was one goal away from preventing relegation and Freedman was a tactical mistake away from getting us into the play offs, what would this team be capable of under a manager who knows what they're doing? We clearly have a very strong squad for this division and whilst you might choose to get rid of a couple, bring one or two in, there doesn't need to be a massive overhaul to get into the play offs. Appoint the right manager and we'd finish there quite easily, I think.

So Billy Davies then?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Well, it'd be interesting, judging by this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... kouts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Oh, well, f*ck it then. Let's be all happy clappy with being lower table in the Championship, 'cos God forbid we should target a Premier League return. Let's put up with the f*ckwit in charge, 'cos it's absolutely impossible that a team with a Premier League stadium and facilities could get anybody better.

Or we accept there isn't money get on with things, stop stamping our feet every week and try and rebuild in this division in the manner of Burnley, Derby, Leicester etc etc.

The decision isn't mine or yours it is Eddie's. And I'm merely trying to show why he might be reticent to make another change and throw yet more money at it in the process.

There comes a point where you have to concede that changing managers isn't halting the slide. IT COULD be that Eddie is at that point now.

Why would we rebuild when we already have a talented squad? If Coyle was one goal away from preventing relegation and Freedman was a tactical mistake away from getting us into the play offs, what would this team be capable of under a manager who knows what they're doing? We clearly have a very strong squad for this division and whilst you might choose to get rid of a couple, bring one or two in, there doesn't need to be a massive overhaul to get into the play offs. Appoint the right manager and we'd finish there quite easily, I think.

So Billy Davies then?

I so wish we could have you two in as joint manager. Stick BL3 in as customer service manager whilst we're at it. We'd be pissing ourselves that much we wouldn't notice the league position

[Lord Kangana]

Well, it'd be interesting, judging by this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... kouts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He used the phrase #unfinishedbusiness in the first sentence. I'm struggling to take him seriously, let alone Billy Davies.

[Tombwfc]

Billy Davies wouldn't be my pick, but he wouldn't be the worst. Seven more to go...

If all Eddie is concerned about is losing less money (and therefore can't be bothered to fork out on a new manager), why does he continue to invest in the squad? Why didn't we just pocket the money we saved by getting rid of Ngog and Craig Davies, instead of using it to fund deals for Danns, Mason, Juke, Trotter and Hutton?

Because those deals were already in budget once those players went? Eddie wouldn't have needed to invest anything. And presumably he isn't actually taking money back out of the club.

Our income has reduced dramatically since relegation. Therefore to keep the wage bill at the level it was, Eddie is going to have to put his hands in his pockets. This has been part of your own line of argument for weeks now.

There is nothing in our transfers to suggest any great savings on wages since the last accounts, therefore somebody is going to have to continue to invest in order to keep our brave lads in Range Rovers and Dre Beats. That man is Eddie.

[BWFC_Insane]

Billy Davies wouldn't be my pick, but he wouldn't be the worst. Seven more to go...

If all Eddie is concerned about is losing less money (and therefore can't be bothered to fork out on a new manager), why does he continue to invest in the squad? Why didn't we just pocket the money we saved by getting rid of Ngog and Craig Davies, instead of using it to fund deals for Danns, Mason, Juke, Trotter and Hutton?

Because those deals were already in budget once those players went? Eddie wouldn't have needed to invest anything. And presumably he isn't actually taking money back out of the club.

Our income has reduced dramatically since relegation. Therefore to keep the wage bill at the level it was, Eddie is going to have to put his hands in his pockets. This has been part of your own line of argument for weeks now.

There is nothing in our transfers to suggest any great savings on wages since the last accounts, therefore somebody is going to have to continue to invest in order to keep our brave lads in Range Rovers and Dre Beats. That man is Eddie.

I'm going to wager that the combined wages of those loan deals are about half what we paid NGog.

To be compliant with FFP we have to essentially lose no more than 8M. So Eddie couldn't prop us up by any more than that amount. And we are in the accounting period that will be the first that could carry FFP penalty.....

[Tombwfc]

Billy Davies wouldn't be my pick, but he wouldn't be the worst. Seven more to go...

If all Eddie is concerned about is losing less money (and therefore can't be bothered to fork out on a new manager), why does he continue to invest in the squad? Why didn't we just pocket the money we saved by getting rid of Ngog and Craig Davies, instead of using it to fund deals for Danns, Mason, Juke, Trotter and Hutton?

Because those deals were already in budget once those players went? Eddie wouldn't have needed to invest anything. And presumably he isn't actually taking money back out of the club.

Our income has reduced dramatically since relegation. Therefore to keep the wage bill at the level it was, Eddie is going to have to put his hands in his pockets. This has been part of your own line of argument for weeks now.

There is nothing in our transfers to suggest any great savings on wages since the last accounts, therefore somebody is going to have to continue to invest in order to keep our brave lads in Range Rovers and Dre Beats. That man is Eddie.

I'm going to wager that the combined wages of those loan deals are about half what we paid NGog.

To be compliant with FFP we have to essentially lose no more than 8M. So Eddie couldn't prop us up by any more than that amount. And we are in the accounting period that will be the first that could carry FFP penalty.....

I would find it incredible that those five players are on half of what we were paying Ngog (if we were paying Ngog 40k a week, which we weren't, that means they're on an average of 4k a week. That's not even getting into the fact that it's five lots of bonuses to pay etc. etc.), but neither of us really know so I won't argue. The point is that we're not going down and not going up, and so any money at all spent on the likes of Hutton is money we could have saved if we'd really wanted to.

And of course, you assume we intend to comply with FFP at all.

It's now just over three months until the end of the next financial year, the point where we need to have our losses under control. You tell me where we've saved £40m. Start here... http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd ... =transfers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SmokinFrazier]

Oh, well, f*ck it then. Let's be all happy clappy with being lower table in the Championship, 'cos God forbid we should target a Premier League return. Let's put up with the f*ckwit in charge, 'cos it's absolutely impossible that a team with a Premier League stadium and facilities could get anybody better.

Or we accept there isn't money get on with things, stop stamping our feet every week and try and rebuild in this division in the manner of Burnley, Derby, Leicester etc etc.

The decision isn't mine or yours it is Eddie's. And I'm merely trying to show why he might be reticent to make another change and throw yet more money at it in the process.

There comes a point where you have to concede that changing managers isn't halting the slide. IT COULD be that Eddie is at that point now.

Why would we rebuild when we already have a talented squad? If Coyle was one goal away from preventing relegation and Freedman was a tactical mistake away from getting us into the play offs, what would this team be capable of under a manager who knows what they're doing? We clearly have a very strong squad for this division and whilst you might choose to get rid of a couple, bring one or two in, there doesn't need to be a massive overhaul to get into the play offs. Appoint the right manager and we'd finish there quite easily, I think.

So Billy Davies then?

He's a better manager than Freedman but we'd never appoint someone like him. There's no way Gartside will appoint someone who ruffles feathers.

[BWFC_Insane]

Billy Davies wouldn't be my pick, but he wouldn't be the worst. Seven more to go...

If all Eddie is concerned about is losing less money (and therefore can't be bothered to fork out on a new manager), why does he continue to invest in the squad? Why didn't we just pocket the money we saved by getting rid of Ngog and Craig Davies, instead of using it to fund deals for Danns, Mason, Juke, Trotter and Hutton?

Because those deals were already in budget once those players went? Eddie wouldn't have needed to invest anything. And presumably he isn't actually taking money back out of the club.

Our income has reduced dramatically since relegation. Therefore to keep the wage bill at the level it was, Eddie is going to have to put his hands in his pockets. This has been part of your own line of argument for weeks now.

There is nothing in our transfers to suggest any great savings on wages since the last accounts, therefore somebody is going to have to continue to invest in order to keep our brave lads in Range Rovers and Dre Beats. That man is Eddie.

I'm going to wager that the combined wages of those loan deals are about half what we paid NGog.

To be compliant with FFP we have to essentially lose no more than 8M. So Eddie couldn't prop us up by any more than that amount. And we are in the accounting period that will be the first that could carry FFP penalty.....

I would find it incredible that those five players are on half of what we were paying Ngog (if we were paying Ngog 40k a week, which we weren't, that means they're on an average of 4k a week. That's not even getting into the fact that it's five lots of bonuses to pay etc. etc.), but neither of us really know so I won't argue. The point is that we're not going down and not going up, and so any money at all spent on the likes of Hutton is money we could have saved if we'd really wanted to.

And of course, you assume we intend to comply with FFP at all.

It's now just over three months until the end of the next financial year, the point where we need to have our losses under control. You tell me where we've saved £40m. Start here... http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd ... =transfers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The club (or to be accurate Gartside and Freedman) have both stated several times that the aim is to be FFP compliant. I don't know whether they are telling the truth or not, I accept that. But I'm going off what they said.

As for the players, they are loan deals so there will be no bonuses. And it doesn't matter what those players are "on" it is what deals we have struck with their respective clubs. We will not be paying for them in full. The other thing to remember is that we have Hutton for a month. Mason goes in a few weeks. So that is offset against losing the NGog wages from the wage bill for a longer period. Possibly.

It may well be that Eddie has forked out for them from his own purse, my bet, based on the timings of the deals is that they were funded by the players we have let go throughout the season.

[BWFC_Insane]

He's a better manager than Freedman but we'd never appoint someone like him. There's no way Gartside will appoint someone who ruffles feathers.

Allardyce and Megson, both were forthright, both had strong opinions and neither backed down when cornered. So I'd not agree with that as a blanket statement.

But ignoring that, Eddie Davies can appoint whomever he likes. There is absolutely nothing stopping him should he so wish.

[Tombwfc]

The club (or to be accurate Gartside and Freedman) have both stated several times that the aim is to be FFP compliant. I don't know whether they are telling the truth or not, I accept that. But I'm going off what they said.

As for the players, they are loan deals so there will be no bonuses. And it doesn't matter what those players are "on" it is what deals we have struck with their respective clubs. We will not be paying for them in full. The other thing to remember is that we have Hutton for a month. Mason goes in a few weeks. So that is offset against losing the NGog wages from the wage bill for a longer period. Possibly.

It may well be that Eddie has forked out for them from his own purse, my bet, based on the timings of the deals is that they were funded by the players we have let go throughout the season.

Again, neither of us have any idea of the inner details of these players contracts. It seems absurd to me why any of these club's (some of them fellow Championship sides) would send us their players for nothing, but there you go. Presumably despite this, you assume Brighton are paying the full amount of Keith Andrews' contract.

My point is that if we haven't reduced our outgoings to the point where they are covered by our incomings (and we quite obviously haven't, by a long stretch), then Eddie has to continue fork out for the difference. He was having to fork out for Ngog and now he's having to fork out (possibly slightly less) for the small army of loanees. If he was tired of putting his own money in, he wouldn't have spent the money we saved from Ngog at all, just like he wouldn't have allowed Dougie to bring in the likes of Beckford, Spearing, Baptiste and Hall in the summer.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Well, it'd be interesting, judging by this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... kouts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He used the phrase #unfinishedbusiness in the first sentence. I'm struggling to take him seriously, let alone Billy Davies.

It was quite the popular phrase among Forest fans when "King Billy" was reappointed. Has somewhat bounced back now.

Yon journo's certainly got an axe to grind but so have half the country. I never used to mind Forest till the last year. Of course, some will rock gently in their corner and mutter that Allardyce wasn't popular with others, but popularity isn't in inverse proportion to success. Ask King Billy.

[LeverEnd]

Billy Davies is a prize bellend. He could turn us into a bunch of time-wasting cheats while starting fights with Marc Iles and Neil Bonnar I suppose. I'd rather keep Dougie.

[Lord Kangana]

The club (or to be accurate Gartside and Freedman) have both stated several times that the aim is to be FFP compliant. I don't know whether they are telling the truth or not, I accept that. But I'm going off what they said.

As for the players, they are loan deals so there will be no bonuses. And it doesn't matter what those players are "on" it is what deals we have struck with their respective clubs. We will not be paying for them in full. The other thing to remember is that we have Hutton for a month. Mason goes in a few weeks. So that is offset against losing the NGog wages from the wage bill for a longer period. Possibly.

It may well be that Eddie has forked out for them from his own purse, my bet, based on the timings of the deals is that they were funded by the players we have let go throughout the season.

Again, neither of us have any idea of the inner details of these players contracts. It seems absurd to me why any of these club's (some of them fellow Championship sides) would send us their players for nothing, but there you go. Presumably despite this, you assume Brighton are paying the full amount of Keith Andrews' contract.

My point is that if we haven't reduced our outgoings to the point where they are covered by our incomings (and we quite obviously haven't, by a long stretch), then Eddie has to continue fork out for the difference. He was having to fork out for Ngog and now he's having to fork out (possibly slightly less) for the small army of loanees. If he was tired of putting his own money in, he wouldn't have spent the money we saved from Ngog at all, just like he wouldn't have allowed Dougie to bring in the likes of Beckford, Spearing, Baptiste and Hall in the summer.

I thought the general moan at the time of Keith Andrews' departure was that we were paying a substantial proportion of his wages? Of course, one could be cynical and suggest this no longer suits the narrative, but there you go.

[Bruno3]

I haven't passed comment on Dougie so far as I can understand where both sides of the debate are coming from. However his comments on Baptiste's sending off have raised him to dizzy heights in my estimation. Baptiste is a shocking full back (as I've said on other threads) but for Dougie to tell him he can go and sulk for 3 weeks if he wants to hits the nail right on the head.