• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

New New Manager Poll (The Lets Get It Right This Time Edition)

Who Do You Want Then?

  • Poch

    Votes: 58 43.3%

  • Gallardo

    Votes: 7 5.2%

  • De Zerbi

    Votes: 2 1.5%

  • Enrique

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Carrick

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Kompany

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 23 17.2%

  • Tuchel

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Nagelsmann

    Votes: 24 17.9%

  • Slot

    Votes: 17 12.7%
  • Total voters
    134
AdamB said:
I said 'IF' and was relating it to any manager. Whether its Slot, frank, de zerbi, Amorim or whoever, a fee will be needed. Can debate what number that is but PL clubs have enough cash to hold out for something meaningful and Portuguese clubs get big fees for players so I'm sure would do the same for a manager

So there's two options:
- accept the need to pay a fee and then potentially get someone in a job
- avoid the fee but narrow the field considerably to only those out of work
Click to expand...
We laughed at Chelsea for paying a big fee for Potter, so we'd have to laugh at ourselves as well.

I'm not sure how the finances (compensation on the way in and pay offs on the way out) for managers are dealt with? Are they similar to players?.

As, unlike a player, if a manager fails you don't sell him on...all those fees and payoffs get rolled into one direct cost to the business. Is it amortisised?

Potter cost Chelsea a fortune for example (but can probably afford it, perhaps). I wonder how that translates (affects) to your transfer funds on the playing side?
 
Last edited:
AdamB said:
I said 'IF' and was relating it to any manager. Whether its Slot, frank, de zerbi, Amorim or whoever, a fee will be needed. Can debate what number that is but PL clubs have enough cash to hold out for something meaningful and Portuguese clubs get big fees for players so I'm sure would do the same for a manager

So there's two options:
- accept the need to pay a fee and then potentially get someone in a job
- avoid the fee but narrow the field considerably to only those out of work
Click to expand...

You said "we're happy to pay to sack managers but not to hire them."
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
We laughed at Chelsea for paying a big fee for Potter, so we'd have to laugh at ourselves as well.

I'm not sure how the finances (compensation on the way in and pay offs on the way out) for managers are dealt with? Are they similar to players?.

As, unlike a player, if a manager fails you don't sell him on...all those fees and payoffs get rolled into one direct cost to the business. Is it amortisised?

Potter cost Chelsea a fortune for example (but can probably afford it, perhaps). I wonder how that translates (affects) to your transfer funds in the playing side?
Click to expand...

I'd imagine that it gets expensed

Digging into the depths of my mind from my accounting qualification, if you buy or build an asset (eg factory or player) you can include costs relating to putting that asset in place on the balance sheet when you capitalise the spend

With a manager, I doubt their transfer fees are capitalised with them being an asset, and therefore any cash payments to get them released are immediately expenses in teh year incurred
 
Gah. I've allowed myself to get swept up by media and online hype so now have a feeling of loss and disappointment over something that was never there in the first place.
 
AdamB said:
I'd imagine that it gets expensed

Digging into the depths of my mind from my accounting qualification, if you buy or build an asset (eg factory or player) you can include costs relating to putting that asset in place on the balance sheet when you capitalise the spend

With a manager, I doubt their transfer fees are capitalised with them being an asset, and therefore any cash payments to get them released are immediately expenses in teh year incurred
Click to expand...
So a big hit? Especially if they don't see out the season as well:)
 
tommysvr said:
You said "we're happy to pay to sack managers but not to hire them."
Click to expand...

Well we dont have a track record of paying to get managers released do we? Poch we paid something presumably given he was in work.

But (excluding caretakers) Jose, Nuno, Conte, AVB, Redknapp, Santini, Pleat, Hoddle, Graham etc were all out of work if I recall correctly. Sherwood and Hughton were free too. That's a really long list of free managers!! Jol came from some small team in NL so if there was a fee, I'd imagine it was small.

I then said: there's two options which I think holds:
- accept the need to pay a fee and then potentially get someone in a job
- avoid the fee but narrow the field considerably to only those out of work
 
JerusalemMan said:
Gah. I've allowed myself to get swept up by media and online hype so now have a feeling of loss and disappointment over something that was never there in the first place.
Click to expand...
It's great the way the world works these days, innit.

Imagine how much human time is consumed on things that aren't real, aren't really happening or never actually happened.
 
Tottenham walk away from Slot deal
Sky Sports News' senior reporter Rob Dorsett:

Tottenham didn’t progress their interest in the Feyenoord manager Arnie Slot because officials felt misled about the terms of his buy-out clause, Sky Sports News has been told.

Tottenham have always stressed that they had no conversations directly with Slot or Feyenoord, and never comment publicly on employees of other football clubs.

Slot’s statement this morning stresses the same - that there was no direct contact between him and any other club.

However, Sky Sports News understands that Slot has a clause in his current contract that dictates it would cost £5m for any other club who wants to take him - but crucially, that clause doesn’t come into effect until next summer.

When intermediaries made it clear it would cost Spurs double that amount, around £10m, if they wanted to employ Slot now - and a further £5m+ for his backroom staff - the Spurs hierarchy decided to walk away from any potential deal, and told intermediaries they were no longer interested.

We’ve been told that Spurs’ bosses feel Slot used their interest in him to get an improved contract in the Netherlands - and it’s fully expected that Slot will now sign a new deal with Feyenoord.
 
AdamB said:
Well we dont have a track record of paying to get managers released do we? Poch we paid something presumably given he was in work.

But (excluding caretakers) Jose, Nuno, Conte, AVB, Redknapp, Santini, Pleat, Hoddle, Graham etc were all out of work if I recall correctly. Sherwood and Hughton were free too. That's a really long list of free managers!! Jol came from some small team in NL so if there was a fee, I'd imagine it was small.

I then said: there's two options which I think holds:
- accept the need to pay a fee and then potentially get someone in a job
- avoid the fee but narrow the field considerably to only those out of work
Click to expand...

I think Levy would pay whatever was needed if it's he thinks that person is the best candidate for the job.

I don't see any evidence of it being relevant in this discussion because it never even got to the point. Slot decided to sign a new contract.

Edit: that Sky Sports article points at it being an issue, but still nothing confirmed obviously.
 
AdamB said:
Well we dont have a track record of paying to get managers released do we? Poch we paid something presumably given he was in work.

But (excluding caretakers) Jose, Nuno, Conte, AVB, Redknapp, Santini, Pleat, Hoddle, Graham etc were all out of work if I recall correctly. Sherwood and Hughton were free too. That's a really long list of free managers!! Jol came from some small team in NL so if there was a fee, I'd imagine it was small.

I then said: there's two options which I think holds:
- accept the need to pay a fee and then potentially get someone in a job
- avoid the fee but narrow the field considerably to only those out of work
Click to expand...

We have paid a fortune on managers though regardless what element you want to focus on be that paying managers to leave or basic salaries, I am not sure the manager process is one that can be levelled as us ever being frugal.
 
tommysvr said:
I think Levy would pay whatever was needed if it's he thinks that person is the best candidate for the job.

I don't see any evidence of it being relevant in this discussion because it never even got to the point. Slot decided to sign a new contract.

Edit: that Sky Sports article points at it being an issue, but still nothing confirmed obviously.
Click to expand...

That Sky report is a joke though, typical of stuff that is there to presumably wind people up. Effectively the report says both clubs have confirmed exactly the same story but Sky knows better....truly remarkable reporting
 
AdamB said:
Well we dont have a track record of paying to get managers released do we? Poch we paid something presumably given he was in work.

But (excluding caretakers) Jose, Nuno, Conte, AVB, Redknapp, Santini, Pleat, Hoddle, Graham etc were all out of work if I recall correctly. Sherwood and Hughton were free too. That's a really long list of free managers!! Jol came from some small team in NL so if there was a fee, I'd imagine it was small.

I then said: there's two options which I think holds:
- accept the need to pay a fee and then potentially get someone in a job
- avoid the fee but narrow the field considerably to only those out of work
Click to expand...
That's all fine, but if you compare what we were paying Conte and Mourinho to what we would be paying someone like Slot then the difference in salary would more than cover buying out a lesser name from their contract.

Also, it shouldn't be about if they are in a job or not, it's whether they are the best person for the job and can we get them.
 
DubSpur said:
That's all fine, but if you compare what we were paying Conte and Mourinho to what we would be paying someone like Slot then the difference in salary would more than cover buying out a lesser name from their contract.

Also, it shouldn't be about if they are in a job or not, it's whether they are the best person for the job and can we get them.
Click to expand...

I agree
 
What does feel like the Nuno situation is that, whoever it is, he will have to deal with the disappointment of having so many names linked and written off. Regardless of whether that's a good idea, you know fans will get invested in this or that candidate when they read or hear stories: some will want Nagelsmann, others will be keen on Slot, do some research on the internet, and so on.

Even if the new guy hits the ground running, it might not be enough. Nuno had a decent reputation and he beat ManCity in his first game but that wasn't enough. Someone at the club obviously like to take their sweet time before making an appointment and while that might be a good idea in a different environment, I don't think they're doing the club any service in this case.

It's almost impossible to predict whether manager X or Y will be a success. Only thing you know for sure is that appointing Frank Lampard is the football equivalent of putting a bullet through your own head. It's like kicking a penalty: pick a side and stick to it. No point in beating around the bush for three months.
 
So another couple of days from the media of "We were never interested", "We were interested but walked away", "Slot wasn't interested and walked away", "Feyenoord wouldn't let him go", "Levy is a cheapskate and wouldn't pay". Pick whatever suits your agenda...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back