Freedman out!

[Lord Kangana]

This thread isn't just about you you know. If you'll care to read the post above where you jumped in two footed, you'll note a1 making a point of Burnley's relegation. That'd be the Burnley that needed to be promoted in order to be relegated. I don't wish you to feel embarassed or anything, just perhaps pay a little more attention before firing off on your hobby horse in future.

[CrazyHorse]

You're glossing over the fact that it takes years to turn around the mess that Owen Coyle gifts clubs with.
Look at Burnley. Look at Wigan. I'm just glad we've got a manager who knows what he's doing otherwise we'd be in the mess they're in.

you're talking like burnley got relegated last year. it were nearly four (?) years ago. neither brian laws or eddie howe got burnley back up, that could be evidence enough that coyle gifts clubs with a mess. carnt see you sorts being happy if freedman 's still here in four years time. not even thinking about what division we'd be in.

wigan carnt even beat a team 17th in the championship managed by a man allegedly with all the management skills of a paper plate with a face drawn on it.

fecking up a team that were in the top flight for that long still pisses me off . It were like the grinning bastard were doing it on purpose. There's trying to find subtext and perceived slights in owt megson/allardyce/freedman say or did, but excusing that gormless get because he hasn't fecked up burnley or wigan as much as here is something else.

jesus christ

I'm not defending Coyle. I think he were the worst thing to happen to Bolton by miles. It's just that the current clueless prick is only about five centimetres behind him.

[bobo the clown]

↑↑↑↑

Yay. .... & is somehow more frustrating due to his constant contradictions.

[Worthy4England]

Some people must be smoking some bizarre brand of skunk on here methinks.

Coyle took over a team in a relegation spot which had finished 14th the season before. we knew it was underperforming, despite the investment being made in it on salaries that went up under Coyle, as the team went backwards. Despite being told that Coyle was "halving the wage bill", there's not one shred of evidence to support this.

What is clear, is that the year we got relegated, the wage bill was somewhere up in the late teens in the Prem (13th/14th).

What I conclude from that is that he got rid of some players capable of holding a team in the Prem (who were apparently shit and past it, despite half of them now playing for a team that's sat in Prem), and replaced them with some Championship players for more salary.

Then he took them down. To the lowest point we'd seen in 10? 13? years.

Whatever Freedman has or hasn't done (and he clearly hasn't done much of anything this season), it pales into insignificance.

I'm not sure Coyle had much time to fcuk over Wigan - only one transfer window - it took him a few to collect all the pub players he left us with. Dave Whelan is many things I don't like. Judging that he'd make the wrong pick 10 games in, was way ahead of our fcuking clueless Board.

[Prufrock]

So in conclusion we're holding Freedman to a much lower standard than Coyle. I'm glad we've addressed that particular elephant in the room.

In an absolute sense, yes. I don't expect a guy who takes over a team in the bottom half of the Championship to have to get it in the Premiership in order to be said to be only doing as good a job as someone who took over team already in the Premiership.

Otherwise, no. I don't know how many times more I need to say Freedman isn't doing a good enough job.

To accept both aren't doing/ didn't do well enough isn't the same as saying they're both equally shit though.

[BWFC_Insane]

Some people must be smoking some bizarre brand of skunk on here methinks.

Coyle took over a team in a relegation spot which had finished 14th the season before. we knew it was underperforming, despite the investment being made in it on salaries that went up under Coyle, as the team went backwards. Despite being told that Coyle was "halving the wage bill", there's not one shred of evidence to support this.

What is clear, is that the year we got relegated, the wage bill was somewhere up in the late teens in the Prem (13th/14th).

What I conclude from that is that he got rid of some players capable of holding a team in the Prem (who were apparently shit and past it, despite half of them now playing for a team that's sat in Prem), and replaced them with some Championship players for more salary.

Then he took them down. To the lowest point we'd seen in 10? 13? years.

Whatever Freedman has or hasn't done (and he clearly hasn't done much of anything this season), it pales into insignificance.

I'm not sure Coyle had much time to fcuk over Wigan - only one transfer window - it took him a few to collect all the pub players he left us with. Dave Whelan is many things I don't like. Judging that he'd make the wrong pick 10 games in, was way ahead of our fcuking clueless Board.

Good summary, though I believe it was a 13th placed finish the season before Coyle arrived.

[Lord Kangana]

So in conclusion we're holding Freedman to a much lower standard than Coyle. I'm glad we've addressed that particular elephant in the room.

In an absolute sense, yes. I don't expect a guy who takes over a team in the bottom half of the Championship to have to get it in the Premiership in order to be said to be only doing as good a job as someone who took over team already in the Premiership.

Otherwise, no. I don't know how many times more I need to say Freedman isn't doing a good enough job.

To accept both aren't doing/ didn't do well enough isn't the same as saying they're both equally shit though.

I think what's becoming frustrating (an I lay the blame squarely at thebish's door for opening this particular pandorra's box) is that the argument, largely uncontested, seems to have taken the form of "change is risk" (add an exclamation mark and you've got Daily Mail headlines from now 'til eternity, but I digress...). When, as bright enough as you are, you will have worked out that no change is an equal and commensurate risk, for the simple expedient of no-one knowing the future. Indeed, we ourselves have experienced, only recently, the affects of holding on well past a manager's sell-by date. Lumped on top of this, the whole notion that our previous manager was a failure and then this therefore exonerates our current manager is just nonsense. It's got bugger all to do with what went on before. We're failing now. (Try to imagine that scene from the Life of Brian at this point "somethings actually happening Reg!! Can't you understand?!").

Anyway, I fear we're in danger of going round in circles, so yeah I understand your point, I don't wholeheartedly agree with it though.

[BWFC_Insane]

So in conclusion we're holding Freedman to a much lower standard than Coyle. I'm glad we've addressed that particular elephant in the room.

In an absolute sense, yes. I don't expect a guy who takes over a team in the bottom half of the Championship to have to get it in the Premiership in order to be said to be only doing as good a job as someone who took over team already in the Premiership.

Otherwise, no. I don't know how many times more I need to say Freedman isn't doing a good enough job.

To accept both aren't doing/ didn't do well enough isn't the same as saying they're both equally shit though.

I think what's becoming frustrating (an I lay the blame squarely at thebish's door for opening this particular pandorra's box) is that the argument, largely uncontested, seems to have taken the form of "change is risk" (add an exclamation mark and you've got Daily Mail headlines from now 'til eternity, but I digress...). When, as bright enough as you are, you will have worked out that no change is an equal and commensurate risk, for the simple expedient of no-one knowing the future. Indeed, we ourselves have experienced, only recently, the affects of holding on well past a manager's sell-by date. Lumped on top of this, the whole notion that our previous manager was a failure and then this therefore exonerates our current manager is just nonsense. It's got bugger all to do with what went on before. We're failing now. (Try to imagine that scene from the Life of Brian at this point "somethings actually happening Reg!! Can't you understand?!").

Anyway, I fear we're in danger of going round in circles, so yeah I understand your point, I don't wholeheartedly agree with it though.

So a previous manager's performance at a club never has an influence on the performance of the next?

Is it not plausible that inheriting a club 20 league places lower with a smaller budget a reduced turnover and players who are synonymous with failure is at least some mitigation for a poor performance?

Or are we saying that literally every manager is not excused at all by what went on before.....

[CrazyHorse]

Nope.
The whole point of changing a manager is to improve things.

If we'd have wanted someone who was clueless in the transfer market, who didn't know anything about tactics and formations, who signed players and didn't play them, who flirts with relegation, breaks all the wrong records and delivers the worst start in 100 years we may as well have kept Coyle.

Besides, even if you're right it's been 18 months and nothing's changed. How long does he need?

[Worthy4England]

Nope.
The whole point of changing a manager is to improve things.

If we'd have wanted someone who was clueless in the transfer market, who didn't know anything about tactics and formations, who signed players and didn't play them, who flirts with relegation, breaks all the wrong records and delivers the worst start in 100 years we may as well have kept Coyle.

Besides, even if you're right it's been 18 months and nothing's changed. How long does he need?

A reasonable point, well made.

[SmokinFrazier]

Who cares about what Coyle did when he was our manager? It's got nothing to do with the situation we're currently in. It's in the past, it doesn't matter how far we regressed under him. What worries me right now are the useless tactics by Freedman, the stubbornness to stick with things that don't work, the constant changes in personnel, the awful substitutions, the refusal to play certain players, the blacklisting of others who'd help our team out...that's what worries me. I want a manager who comes in and gets the best out of the players rather than whine about what happened before him.

Coyle was a failure and so is Freedman. Whether you think he's better or worse doesn't change the situation we're in or the need to replace Freedman if we're going to get anywhere.

[Worthy4England]

I agree with lots of the above, but not the bit about Coyle having nothing to do with the situation we're currently in.

We've let one £4m? striker head off coz he's shit. Another £3.5m? striker been out on loan all season. I'm assuming we get some contribution to the wages when we let them out on loan, no guarantee that it's 100%. That has a clear impact on how much Freedman has left to work with.

[Lord Kangana]

We could follow that line logically back through all our signings from long before Coyle got here. Whatever your thoughts on our wage bill, its incontestable that Megson before him had significantly more to spend in the transfer market. Moreover, we aren't (and haven't since him) paid anyone the wage that Elmander received. But then, you could extrapolate that back through to Allardyce. I suspect our top earners then were earning more collectively between them than under any of our subsequent managers. Its the job of the man in the hot seat to deal with the position we're in.

And besides, it'd take a fool to argue that what money he has had has been spent wisely by Freedman. We're still encountering the same problems.

[Worthy4England]

We could follow that line logically back through all our signings from long before Coyle got here. Whatever your thoughts on our wage bill, its incontestable that Megson before him had significantly more to spend in the transfer market. Moreover, we aren't (and haven't since him) paid anyone the wage that Elmander received. But then, you could extrapolate that back through to Allardyce. I suspect our top earners then were earning more collectively between them than under any of our subsequent managers. Its the job of the man in the hot seat to deal with the position we're in.

And besides, it'd take a fool to argue that what money he has had has been spent wisely by Freedman. We're still encountering the same problems.

We could follow any line back as far as you want. Allardyce clearly left a better squad for Lee, than the one Lee left Megson. Megson got rid of some shite signed by Lee and improved the squad left for Coyle, but nowhere near the one that Allardyce left. Coyle signed some blokes from the Pub and people that his mates knew.

I believe you're correct (by some measure) that Megson had more to spend than Coyle on Transfer funds. We know, you regularly roll out Elmander as some sort of case in point. We don't know whether we were paying Elmander more than Anelka (for example) - well I don't anyhow. Allardyce's total salary as a proportion of income was generally pretty good, until we added Anelka - it certainly got bent out of shape significantly under Megson - another bloke who said he'd had to cut the wage bill.

Allardyce's proportion of salaries to income, was nowhere near either Megson''s or Coyle's.

[Lord Kangana]

We also paid off Danny Shittu whilst we're at it. He cost a lot of money. I "roll out" Elmander because, well, its true. We haven't paid that money to anyone since. Why wouldn't that be a case in point? And no, all reported figures show Elmander to be earning less than Anelka.

Also, Holden may have come from the pub, but its clearly a Carlsberg pub compared to say, I don't know, just about any other signing since Allardyce's time, isn't it?

Now, at this point, there'll be the usual clutch of posters with steam coming out of their ears, red faced ready to bash the keypad with the same stuff. Try to relax, I'm trying to save pages and pages of the internet. Nothing is as black and white as presented, and our club has managed to piss £165m down the drain and we're still repeating the same mistakes and adding to the debt. We're making little progress if we're still blaming the ex-employee 19 months down the line.

[LeverEnd]

The thing is that between Coyle leaving and the current shite position we are in, we nearly got into what would have been a very winnable promotion playoff. Since then he has taken us backwards. That's from a good position that he got us into. He's signed what look like good players but they haven't worked out. that's not Coyle's fault either. His budget has been slashed, but is still greater than a number of teams that are outperforming us. The excuses don't wash for me.
We'll still have him next season though, so let's see. I think he'll get the duration of his contract and then be released.

[Hoboh]

We also paid off Danny Shittu whilst we're at it. He cost a lot of money. I "roll out" Elmander because, well, its true. We haven't paid that money to anyone since. Why wouldn't that be a case in point? And no, all reported figures show Elmander to be earning less than Anelka.

Also, Holden may have come from the pub, but its clearly a Carlsberg pub compared to say, I don't know, just about any other signing since Allardyce's time, isn't it?

Now, at this point, there'll be the usual clutch of posters with steam coming out of their ears, red faced ready to bash the keypad with the same stuff. Try to relax, I'm trying to save pages and pages of the internet. Nothing is as black and white as presented, and our club has managed to piss £165m down the drain and we're still repeating the same mistakes and adding to the debt. We're making little progress if we're still blaming the ex-employee 19 months down the line.

Sense !

[Worthy4England]

We're making little progress if we're still blaming the ex-employee 19 months down the line.

Which wasn't what I said in the first place. I agreed with most of what SF said, apart from it all being nothing to do with Coyle. The wage bill we were left with on relegation was clearly too high for the division we're now in, and needed to be cut. That would have happened whoever took us down. It just happened to be Coyle what did it.

On the Holden front, I'm not quite as convinced - Megson made some good signings, just didn't have a clue what to do with them - Cahill, Chungy, Mavies, Klasnic.

[a1]

Sense !

if you believe that we've got nowt to show for that money.

surprised none of the paranoiacs havent made more of the "dougie's been told to get to ready for a ten point deduction when we go bankrupt before the tax years out" rumour .

[Hoboh]

Sense !

if you believe that we've got nowt to show for that money.

surprised none of the paranoiacs havent made more of the "dougie's been told to get to ready for a ten point deduction when we go bankrupt before the tax years out" rumour .

We have,

Relegation and shit weekends!!