Football is broken isn't it?

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

From a business point of view, asset point of view and even a footballing point of view if you include the off-field improvements etc

That's arguable. Yes, the training ground has improved considerably; however, a lot of that was already in flow.

At the point when he took over, we undoubtedly had an unsustainable wage budget, but we also had some mega assets sat in the squad; Maddison, both Murphys, Godfrey, Pritchard, all of whom would net eight-figure sums. Yes, they developed under the regime of the man Webber would appoint, but they were already at the club. I'm not convinced we've anyone in the squad we could get £10 million plus for, either right now or in a season or two. And we're currently lower in the league table than we finished the 16/17 season. McNally got us two promotions, doesn't mean there wasn't a time when he needed shifting.

Unfortunately for McNally, he had accountability. He wasn't overseen by an Executive Board that not only he sat on, but also his wife, plus a handful of other people he was directly involved in appointing. It's an insane system to have allowed to come to fruition. And @nutty nigel is right when he says that no one would care if things are going well, BUT THAT IS THE POINT OF ACCOUNTABILITY; sensible corporate structures exist so that the correct decisions can be made when the chips are down.

The Sporting Director position should be restricted to the sporting areas of the club; they need to be held accountable to either a CEO, Chairman, MD or Executive Board and, if the latter, the Sporting Director should not have an influential role in appointing that board.

[nutty nigel 7,596]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

Nope.

So we need to seriously think about Attanasio and his family BEFORE they take over. Or is it already too late...

As far as I'm aware Mr and Mrs Webber were both appointed to their roles on merit. The time to stop the husband and wife scenario would have been when Stuart was appointed. 

Unless you know that they didn't merit their positions.

[hogesar 9,722]

30 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Unfortunately for McNally, he had accountability. He wasn't overseen by an Executive Board that not only he sat on, but also his wife, plus a handful of other people he was directly involved in appointing. It's an insane system to have allowed to come to fruition. And @nutty nigel is right when he says that no one would care if things are going well, BUT THAT IS THE POINT OF ACCOUNTABILITY; sensible corporate structures exist so that the correct decisions can be made when the chips are down.

 

Didn't he sack himself essentially after the whole Twitter thing...he certainly resigned. I'm not sure that's got much to do with accountability beyond himself.

Although saying that,  I wouldn't have sacked McNally for any footballing reasons. The weird social media stuff, perhaps.

[canarydan23 4,060]

10 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

So we need to seriously think about Attanasio and his family BEFORE they take over. Or is it already too late...

As far as I'm aware Mr and Mrs Webber were both appointed to their roles on merit. The time to stop the husband and wife scenario would have been when Stuart was appointed. 

Unless you know that they didn't merit their positions.

Eh? The Webbers are not owners of the club, they are employees. You're conflating two entirely different things, I assume in an attempt to make some sort of point.

And Zoe Ward/Webber was not "Executive Director", which is the closest thing we currently have to a CEO, until last year. That is when the whole corporate governance structure got, quite frankly, laughable.

Add to the fact that at the same time the board was expanded to include millennial trio Jeffrey, Hall and Richens, two of whom the Webbers were involved in the recruitment of, and it should start to dawn upon you why engaging in any meaningful Webber out campaign would be an exercise in futility.

If you think any other football clubs, sports organisations, or even the Milwaukee Brewers, have similar setups then you need to do a bit more research.

I would have zero problem with a Sporting Director and a Commercial Director and whatever else being husband and wife. The problem you have is when the Sporting Director is either married to, recruited or good friends with all of the people who ultimately decide if he is doing a good job or needs the old heave-ho. Guess what, you don't need Mystic Meg to be able to tell you that they will never, ever decide on the latter.

[shefcanary 2,444]

21 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

So we need to seriously think about Attanasio and his family BEFORE they take over. Or is it already too late...

I would spend hours arguing with you Nutty like Dan is, because you simply ignore the point that the club is a Public Limited Company and should be subject to higher levels of governance and scrutiny than it currently is. BUT as you imply in the above, what's the point, when we know eventually the dynasty that is the Attanasio family will take over and all bets over governance are off.

Instead my efforts are being directed at putting in orders for new bed sheets and smoke bombs whilst taking a correspondence course with the anti-Glazer Group at Old Trafford so I can lead a pressure group for when Attanasio et al lose the plot! 😉  

[canarydan23 4,060]

19 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Didn't he sack himself essentially after the whole Twitter thing...he certainly resigned. I'm not sure that's got much to do with accountability beyond himself.

Although saying that,  I wouldn't have sacked McNally for any footballing reasons. The weird social media stuff, perhaps.

I genuinely can't remember how I felt about McNally at the time, but in hindsight the job he did overall was superb. At this moment in time, an objectively better job than Webber. He took over the club when we had just had our lowest finishing position in the pyramid in decades and decades, a threadbare squad that had been dependent on several loanees to fill the starting lineup that was on a financial precipice. He delivered us two promotions and three seasons in the Premier League and almost eradicated our debt. Yes, we were relegated and the nature of several contracts meant that debt would start to shoot up again, but he came in with us 42nd in the football league ladder and left with us in 19th.

At the moment, Webber came in when we were 28th and we are currently 29th. But we do have a lovely training ground.

[nutty nigel 7,596]

3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Eh? The Webbers are not owners of the club, they are employees. You're conflating two entirely different things, I assume in an attempt to make some sort of point.

And Zoe Ward/Webber was not "Executive Director", which is the closest thing we currently have to a CEO, until last year. That is when the whole corporate governance structure got, quite frankly, laughable.

Add to the fact that at the same time the board was expanded to include millennial trio Jeffrey, Hall and Richens, two of whom the Webbers were involved in the recruitment of, and it should start to dawn upon you why engaging in any meaningful Webber out campaign would be an exercise in futility.

If you think any other football clubs, sports organisations, or even the Milwaukee Brewers, have similar setups then you need to do a bit more research.

I would have zero problem with a Sporting Director and a Commercial Director and whatever else being husband and wife. The problem you have is when the Sporting Director is either married to, recruited or good friends with all of the people who ultimately decide if he is doing a good job or needs the old heave-ho. Guess what, you don't need Mystic Meg to be able to tell you that they will never, ever decide on the latter.

So what is it you want to happen and where will you turn next if results disappoint you.

Since Smith was replaced we've...

P6 W3 D1 L2 F11 A7 PTS 10

Why disrupt that for yet another pound of flesh. Could you explain the reasoning apart from a weird husband / wife prejudice.

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

So what is it you want to happen and where will you turn next if results disappoint you.

Since Smith was replaced we've...

P6 W3 D1 L2 F11 A7 PTS 10

Why disrupt that for yet another pound of flesh. Could you explain the reasoning apart from a weird husband / wife prejudice.

I want a competent Sporting Director who does the role of a Sporting Director, with accountability from either a CEO, MD, Executive Director, etc, who isn't married, the parent of, the child of, the brother, sister of said Sporting Director.

What do you want to happen if we end up comfortably missing out on the playoffs after losing the majority of the rest of our games? Just shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh well, we got rid of Smith didn't we, so keep Webber" or something equally illogical?

By the way, one of us is incorrect about what the definition of prejudice. I hope it's you; I am on the board of a financial cooperative and there are occasions when discussions take place that might involve the spouse of a present board member. I didn't realise it was prejudice to deny that spouse a vote and tell them to temporarily excuse themselves from the meeting. I thought we were just following FCA guidelines.

[nutty nigel 7,596]

7 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I want a competent Sporting Director who does the role of a Sporting Director, with accountability from either a CEO, MD, Executive Director, etc, who isn't married, the parent of, the child of, the brother, sister of said Sporting Director.

What do you want to happen if we end up comfortably missing out on the playoffs after losing the majority of the rest of our games? Just shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh well, we got rid of Smith didn't we, so keep Webber" or something equally illogical?

By the way, one of us is incorrect about what the definition of prejudice. I hope it's you; I am on the board of a financial cooperative and there are occasions when discussions take place that might involve the spouse of a present board member. I didn't realise it was prejudice to deny that spouse a vote and tell them to temporarily excuse themselves from the meeting. I thought we were just following FCA guidelines.

The end of the season isn't now is it? What would be gained by sacking Webber in the current circumstances. You refuse to answer that. But just to play on with your new goal posts it would probably be best to still give Wagner next season. 

As to your other point how do you know Mrs Webber isn't asked to  excuse herself if her husband's performance is being discussed?

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by nutty nigel

[First Wazzock 904]

[king canary 7,654]

It is a shame this thread has spun somewhat off course into another Webber in/out debate which is largely irrelevant to the wider issues prevalent in football as a whole.

Focusing on the easy scapegoat of 'fans just want instant gratification' is to ignore the wider structures within football that allow the fairly common demand from fans in all sports that their team win games to morph into excusing the actions of repressive theocracies. The fan attitudes are the symptoms, not the cause here. 

I know I can be a stuck record on how much better I think American sports are structured but you don't see fans of even the worst NFL or MLB franchises begging for investment from Middle Eastern dictatorships, because the whole sport is structured in a way that it wouldn't make a difference. Football isn't ****ed because fans can be impatience, football is ****ed because the governance of the game from the top downwards has prioritised money over sporting integrity for years. 

[nutty nigel 7,596]

23 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I would spend hours arguing with you Nutty like Dan is, because you simply ignore the point that the club is a Public Limited Company and should be subject to higher levels of governance and scrutiny than it currently is. BUT as you imply in the above, what's the point, when we know eventually the dynasty that is the Attanasio family will take over and all bets over governance are off.

Instead my efforts are being directed at putting in orders for new bed sheets and smoke bombs whilst taking a correspondence course with the anti-Glazer Group at Old Trafford so I can lead a pressure group for when Attanasio et al lose the plot! 😉  

But you are a bit obsessed with this governance malarkey Sheff. However if you look it isn't what I'm arguing. It's peripheral to my main point which was always...

What's the point of letting Webber appoint a manager and then sacking him a few games later? Where is any possible gain apart from giving people another pound of flesh?

 

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

The end of the season isn't now is it? What would be gained by sacking Webber in the current circumstances. You refuse to answer that. But just to play on with your new goal posts it would probably be best to still give Wagner next season. 

As to your other point how do you know Mrs Webber isn't asked to  excuse herself if her husband's performance is being discussed?

 

There wouldn't be a huge amount of benefit in sacking him now, although it would give the new guy time to assess the squad and get a feel for the club and have them in well before the next transfer window. 

I suspect he'll disappear once Attanasio completes the take over anyway.

And to your final point, I don't know, just like you don't know that she is. But given the fact that the Sporting Director is one of the most important positions at a football club, having an "Executive Director" who has to excuse themselves for one of the most important parts of the job seems a bit silly, does it not? What next, ask Santa Claus to get involved in gift delivery?

[nutty nigel 7,596]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

There wouldn't be a huge amount of benefit in sacking him now, although it would give the new guy time to assess the squad and get a feel for the club and have them in well before the next transfer window. 

I suspect he'll disappear once Attanasio completes the take over anyway.

And to your final point, I don't know, just like you don't know that she is. But given the fact that the Sporting Director is one of the most important positions at a football club, having an "Executive Director" who has to excuse themselves for one of the most important parts of the job seems a bit silly, does it not? What next, ask Santa Claus to get involved in gift delivery?

Indeed and I didn't claim to know she does. Making such claims would be ridiculous.

Now back to the point Dan.. 

Why should a new sporting director be hamstrung by having to have a head coach appointed by his predecessor?

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Why should a new sporting director be hamstrung by having to have a head coach appointed by his predecessor?

Eh? That generally happens in 99% of Sporting Director appointments, they come into clubs where a head coach is already in place. If they don't like them or think the performance could be improved by making a change, they make a change.

Do you really think Sporting Directors should only be replaced when there is a Head Coach vacancy? Very bizarre.

[Robert N. LiM 4,464]

@king canary you might be interested in this. New club founded by an Arsenal fan who clearly felt much the same as you:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64641090

"Something has happened in the modern elite game that just doesn't sit right with a lot of fans," Morgan says. "There's this feeling in your gut, it's deep inside you, that you know isn't right.

"It's the money. It's the greed. It's the way fans are treated as customers. We're made to feel that the only reason we exist is to spend more money.

"A lot has changed and it's not all for the good. The club badge, the stadium, ticket prices, there seems to be a new kit every other week. It's not the Arsenal I fell in love with.

"So, rather than just mope about it, I decided to do something."

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Robert N. LiM
added quote from the piece

[king canary 7,654]

3 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

@king canary you might be interested in this. New club founded by an Arsenal fan who clearly felt much the same as you:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64641090

"Something has happened in the modern elite game that just doesn't sit right with a lot of fans," Morgan says. "There's this feeling in your gut, it's deep inside you, that you know isn't right.

"It's the money. It's the greed. It's the way fans are treated as customers. We're made to feel that the only reason we exist is to spend more money.

"A lot has changed and it's not all for the good. The club badge, the stadium, ticket prices, there seems to be a new kit every other week. It's not the Arsenal I fell in love with.

"So, rather than just mope about it, I decided to do something."

 

I saw 'Arsenal fan' and 'Morgan' and shuddered as I assumed this was Piers...

United fans did similar- FC United of Manchester. Lot of respect for the people who have get up and go to do this.

Edited February 20, 2023 by king canary

[Robert N. LiM 4,464]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

I saw 'Arsenal fan' and 'Morgan' and shuddered as I assumed this was Piers...

haha. I would definitely have included a content warning if Piers Moron was featured...

[canarydan23 4,060]

13 minutes ago, king canary said:

It is a shame this thread has spun somewhat off course into another Webber in/out debate which is largely irrelevant to the wider issues prevalent in football as a whole.

Focusing on the easy scapegoat of 'fans just want instant gratification' is to ignore the wider structures within football that allow the fairly common demand from fans in all sports that their team win games to morph into excusing the actions of repressive theocracies. The fan attitudes are the symptoms, not the cause here. 

I know I can be a stuck record on how much better I think American sports are structured but you don't see fans of even the worst NFL or MLB franchises begging for investment from Middle Eastern dictatorships, because the whole sport is structured in a way that it wouldn't make a difference. Football isn't ****ed because fans can be impatience, football is ****ed because the governance of the game from the top downwards has prioritised money over sporting integrity for years. 

You're right, back on topic...

There is a bit of a patronising view about American sports over here. I think by and large that is down to the franchise system, we look aghast as sports teams abandon a city and pop up somewhere else, sometimes hundreds and hundreds of miles away. But that ignores the wider picture of sports in the US. Yes, there are examples of big franchises moving homes and that idea is an anathema to us in Britain, but that's because we're almost completely Football oriented. In Norwich, we have Norwich and pretty much nothing else. If the club left to set up in Lincolnshire, we'd have nothing. Football clubs here are seen as constants, and irreplaceable part of the local community.

But these exist in the US as well. People will have an affinity to their local high school teams and it's not uncommon for a few thousand people to turn out to watch their high school football team, or for a few hundred to pack out their high school sports hall to watch a Basketball match. And high schools don't move towns. Neither do colleges, and I don't know if it has been beaten, but the highest recorded attendance for an American Football match was a College match, not an NFL one.

So when Baltimore Colts swanned off to Indianapolis amidst an avalanche of brown envelopes from, yes there fans were livid and devastated but they still had an MLB franchise in town and could still catch in person American Football in a 50,000 seater stadium at the University of Maryland.

We are also pretty in love with the idea of promotion and relegation so struggle with the idea of the closed shop system of American sports.

But those aside, they get so much right. Athletes who by and large enter professional sport with academic qualifications, no 16-year-olds on seven-figure contracts, the draft system that means lower performing teams could end up with the hottest prospect (for example, in Basketball one of the greatest young talents for a generation in Wembanyama will later this year end up at a team who have struggled this season) and perhaps the best bit is the salary cap which prevents the same clubs dominating sport like we have here.

Look at NFL. Since 2010, 11 different franchises have won the Superbowl. That's 11 sets of supporters experiencing the equivalent of winning the Premier League. And at least two of those franchises have also experienced ending the season with the worst record in their conference. So imagine how much more the successes mean. It'd be like Man Utd winning the Premier League one year and then finishing 20th within just half a dozen seasons.

[Capt. Pants 4,274]

21 hours ago, TheDarkKnight said:

In fairness, according to a poll on Redcafe:

22.4% are fine with no reservations

14.8% Not happy, will seriously consider my continued support

30.6% Not happy, will still support the club

32.2% fine, but have some reservations

Only 22.4% are absolutely fine with it. I do think if the Glazers do sell to the Middle East then a chunk of United fans will stop supporting the club, same way as some did when the Glazers bought the club.

If Manchester United (and Liverpool) go into the hands of the Middle East, English football has completely sold its soul and will never recover.

Even if 15% of their fans walk, they will be easily replaced by glory hunters who can't get a season ticket.

Kane to Man Utd as a starter for ten.

[nutty nigel 7,596]

13 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Eh? That generally happens in 99% of Sporting Director appointments, they come into clubs where a head coach is already in place. If they don't like them or think the performance could be improved by making a change, they make a change.

Do you really think Sporting Directors should only be replaced when there is a Head Coach vacancy? Very bizarre.

Well, we got it the right way around in 2017. In 2009 we sacked the manager after one game. I'm afraid it is usual for a sporting director to appoint his own man. Which brings me back yet again to the point about sacking Smith and keeping Webber if Webber was the change you really wanted.

The six games before Webber appointed Wagner were...

P6 W1 D1 L4 F4 A8 PTS 4

So compare that with the six since Webber appointed Wagner and explain why we would sack Webber apart from to give his critics a pound of flesh.

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Well, we got it the right way around in 2017. In 2009 we sacked the manager after one game. I'm afraid it is usual for a sporting director to appoint his own man. Which brings me back yet again to the point about sacking Smith and keeping Webber if Webber was the change you really wanted.

The six games before Webber appointed Wagner were...

P6 W1 D1 L4 F4 A8 PTS 4

So compare that with the six since Webber appointed Wagner and explain why we would sack Webber apart from to give his critics a pound of flesh.

You've had your explanation. The fact you choose to ignore them is entirely your prerogative, but I'm not going to continually address the same point because you either don't like or can't counter the replies I give you.

Have a good evening and enjoy the game tomorrow.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

Eh? The Webbers are not owners of the club, they are employees. You're conflating two entirely different things, I assume in an attempt to make some sort of point.

And Zoe Ward/Webber was not "Executive Director", which is the closest thing we currently have to a CEO, until last year. That is when the whole corporate governance structure got, quite frankly, laughable.

Add to the fact that at the same time the board was expanded to include millennial trio Jeffrey, Hall and Richens, two of whom the Webbers were involved in the recruitment of, and it should start to dawn upon you why engaging in any meaningful Webber out campaign would be an exercise in futility.

If you think any other football clubs, sports organisations, or even the Milwaukee Brewers, have similar setups then you need to do a bit more research.

I would have zero problem with a Sporting Director and a Commercial Director and whatever else being husband and wife. The problem you have is when the Sporting Director is either married to, recruited or good friends with all of the people who ultimately decide if he is doing a good job or needs the old heave-ho. Guess what, you don't need Mystic Meg to be able to tell you that they will never, ever decide on the latter.

I think you may be getting confused between the executive group, which includes Webber, and the board of directors, which does not. Webber is answerable to the board of directors, and that is the body that decides whether or not he is doing a good job. Not the executive group.

[king canary 7,654]

25 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

We are also pretty in love with the idea of promotion and relegation so struggle with the idea of the closed shop system of American sports.

One of my most 'controversial' opinions is that a closed shop isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't think you could go as small as the 32 teams in America and I think you'd need more than one division still but if you reordered the pyramid to have 3 leagues of 18 teams, with money spread more evenly and no promotion/relegation from this group of 54 then you remove the issue of 'if we get relegated we're financially ****ed' that causes so much panicked spending. 

In my view there are too many professional football clubs to actually be sustainable. Look in the area around Manchester- you've got United, City, Bolton, Oldham, Stockport, Blackburn, Rochdale, Preston, Burnley and Huddersfield all within a not huge geographical radius. Are there enough football fans to keep that many professional clubs going?  

Edited February 20, 2023 by king canary

[Commonsense 638]

9 minutes ago, king canary said:

One of my most 'controversial' opinions is that a closed shop isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't think you could go as small as the 32 teams in America and I think you'd need more than one division still but if you reordered the pyramid to have 3 leagues of 18 teams, with money spread more evenly and no promotion/relegation from this group of 54 then you remove the issue of 'if we get relegated we're financially ****ed' that causes so much panicked spending. 

In my view there are too many professional football clubs to actually be sustainable. Look in the area around Manchester- you've got United, City, Bolton, Oldham, Stockport, Blackburn, Rochdale, Preston, Burnley and Huddersfield all within a not huge geographical radius. Are there enough football fans to keep that many professional clubs going?  

Frankly that’s not controversial, it’s simply wrong. Take away the dreams of promotion ( and the fear of relegation) and you get a sterile product. Why is it up to you to decide there are too many teams in a particular place.? Burnley almost dropped out of the football league, yet recently they’ve spent time in the Premier. Brighton we’re a basket case not that long ago.  Every club deserves to dream, but we have to accept that if clubs are going to rise others will fall. Bury and Macclesfield are recent examples.

[canarydan23 4,060]

10 minutes ago, king canary said:

One of my most 'controversial' opinions is that a closed shop isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't think you could go as small as the 32 teams in America and I think you'd need more than one division still but if you reordered the pyramid to have 3 leagues of 18 teams, with money spread more evenly and no promotion/relegation from this group of 54 then you remove the issue of 'if we get relegated we're financially ****ed' that causes so much panicked spending. 

In my view there are too many professional football clubs to actually be sustainable. Look in the area around Manchester- you've got United, City, Bolton, Oldham, Stockport, Blackburn, Rochdale, Preston, Burnley and Huddersfield all within a not huge geographical radius. Are there enough football fans to keep that many professional clubs going?  

I think there are enough fans, it's just top heavy because of the continual dominance of Man Utd and Man City. If there was a salary cap that meant they couldn't continually hoard all the best players, nor could they just go a nick the best players from lower Premier League teams, they wouldn't have had the long term success that sucked fans from Bolton, Oldham, Stockport, Blackburn, Rochdale, etc, away. Those clubs have existed a long time in their current geography, most of them enjoyed success in the past. I also think a lot of current fans of the lesser clubs listed don't bother going anymore as what's the point? They'll never reach the big leagues, never have a chance at a major trophy, so why bother? But a salary cap that rotates the teams who dominate means Stockport fans could genuinely start to dream about one day becoming on of the top clubs.

I'm probably being a bit idealistic bringing clubs that far down the pyramid into it. But I certainly think a sporting environment could be created in this country where across a 20 year period, 14 or 15 clubs out of a possible 50 or 60 win the league and another 10-20 would have FA Cup success. It might mean clubs like Man Utd can't sustain the 70,000 attendances anymore as a lot of those are glory-hunting plastics who won't stick around for a few seasons of misery, but it might mean Bolton and Blackburn start to become clubs that can regularly sustain 30,000 attendances.

[king canary 7,654]

7 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

Take away the dreams of promotion ( and the fear of relegation) and you get a sterile product.

I'd argue that is as wrong as anything in my post. Loads of sports don't have promotion or relegation without them being sterile.

Interesting point about Burnley and Brighton though.

[repman 635]

I think football is broken but that doesn't mean we can't succeed, the club clearly had an edge over most back in 2018 in terms of recruitment. Buendia now would probably cost 5x the price than what we paid. It's just that every team has caught up plus brexit took away most of the markets we shopped in and also made it much harder to sign players who don't have international/top level experience. It's clear we're ahead of most other teams in this country re South America and scouting there but the prices have already inflated a significant amount as clubs understand the value of their players better. 

I think the club realises that we can't compete in recruitment anymore, we simply don't have the money to do so. I hope this leads to a greater focus on player development, it's one area we can control and are actually decent at already even if we can be better. By my count we have 12 players 23 and under who have played a league game for us, some at the club and others out on loan. 

[nutty nigel 7,596]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

You've had your explanation. The fact you choose to ignore them is entirely your prerogative, but I'm not going to continually address the same point because you either don't like or can't counter the replies I give you.

Have a good evening and enjoy the game tomorrow.

That's strange because I don't think you have explained. You've just continually moved the goal posts whether by bringing the wife into it or another sidetrack. The question is clear, well to me it is, what is to be gained by sacking Webber after he's just been allowed to appoint a new coaching team?

I've given you reasons why it looks ridiculous to me. You've pretty much ignored them and countered with prejudice or imaginations of what happens with board meetings that discuss the sporting director. So we're at an impasse really. 

So it's best left, have a good evening and enjoy the game tomorrow.

Edited February 20, 2023 by nutty nigel

[littleyellowbirdie 2,580]

15 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

That's strange because I don't think you have explained. You've just continually moved the goal posts whether by bringing the wife into it or another sidetrack. The question is clear, well to me it is, what is to be gained by sacking Webber after he's just been allowed to appoint a new coaching team?

I've given you reasons why it looks ridiculous to me. You've pretty much ignored them and countered with prejudice or imaginations of what happens with board meetings that discuss the sporting director. So we're at an impasse really. 

So it's best left, have a good evening and enjoy the game tomorrow.

I think you're asking the wrong question, Nutty. The right question is why they think they know enough about the off-field workings of the club to have such strident views regarding off-pitch and non-coaching personnel decisions.