Got a feeling Thorn will walk !! (10 Viewers)

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Ha, Thorn 'promised the same transfer budget as last year' - City had a summer of free transfers in 2010. He knew what he was getting into.

Do you have anything sensible to say?
Boothroyd signed
Keogh
Platt
Juke
All for cash probably mounting to 1 million with add ons
King 8k p/w
Carsley 6k p/w
Mcsheffery 5k p/w
O'donovan 2k p/w
Danny Ward loan

Andy Thorn has had no new signings so his budget is obviously significantly smaller than the one Boothroyd was given.
Thorn was stitched up with the board knowing he won't walk as this is his chance to make a name for himself.
All the wages are estimates.

 

---

[rob9872]

Plus all the promised budget to hold King Gunnar and Westy. Heart and sould ripped out from under him and with no resources, significantly weaker squad and no replacements. He has inexperienced kids, a weak dressing room, I would imagine confidence and team morale at rock bottom and no signs of looking likely to improve. It's a disgrace and the guy has no chance. He either needs to get talking to other clubs before his reputation is completely tarnished or look forward to the sack and a 12 month pay-out. Such a shame because we will lose his black book of contacts too and they have been worth millions.

 

[ashbyjan]

Has AT got the hardest job in football or the easiest? Hardest because he is trying to win matches with a painfully inadequate squad of players, no money to recruit new ones and any decent ones are sold from under him. Easiest because no City fan expects us to do anything this season except maybe get relegated and no one is blaming AT for the current poor results so no pressure from the fans, and no pressure from the board as they don't give a toss about results

 

[rob9872]

The thing is that we lose money on running costs. Surely they're savvy enough to realise that we've actually made money out of Thorn's signings?

If they gave him a budget to invest he would have made them money which suggests to me they really are about to pull the plug. I don't think we would mind losing any of the players we have or those about to go, if the purse strings had been loosened over the summer to allow him to find his gems in replacements. I don't think anyone is under any illusions that we pay the most wages or are not a selling club, but many good players will see us a stepping stone and at a good level playing good footballer. If they had long term plans it would have been a no brainer to open up the cheque book and trust AT's judgement.

I would imagine this is probably his biggest frustration.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Do you have anything sensible to say?

I know the difference between a transfer budget and wages for starters...

Yes, Keogh and Juke were signed, but you'd be nuts to think that it was anything more than a nominal fee for Keogh (from Carlisle) and a small downpayment for Juke. This, incidentally, came after a year in which Simpson, Best, Dann, and Fox had all been sold.

As for your questionable use of wage guesstimates, City had Hall, Wright, Ward, Morrison and, infamously, Doyle all come off the books; I'd be surprised if that didn't pretty much even out the incoming wages of King and co.

That SISU are tight? Sure. Is it the wrong strategy? I think so. But please don't imply that Thorn was promised some kind of warchest when SISU had shown a track record of thrift and downsizing for two full years. Everybody knew what SISU's transfer budget was.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Ok Mustard-has he had either the same wage budget or transfer kitty? No, he's had much much less on both scores. Season tickets were sold under this lie/promise too, remember.

:blue::blue::blue:

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

I know the difference between a transfer budget and wages for starters...

Yes, Keogh and Juke were signed, but you'd be nuts to think that it was anything more than a nominal fee for Keogh (from Carlisle) and a small downpayment for Juke. This, incidentally, came after a year in which Simpson, Best, Dann, and Fox had all been sold.

As for your questionable use of wage guesstimates, City had Hall, Wright, Ward, Morrison and, infamously, Doyle all come off the books; I'd be surprised if that didn't pretty much even out the incoming wages of King and co.

That SISU are tight? Sure. Is it the wrong strategy? I think so. But please don't imply that Thorn was promised some kind of warchest when SISU had shown a track record of thrift and downsizing for two full years. Everybody knew what SISU's transfer budget was.

We were told Thorn would have the same transfer budget as Boothroyd. Fact- has he had that same budget? No. Fact
We offered new contracts to King, Westwood and Gunnar- Fact. Have all these wages been used else where? No- Fact

Thorn did know he would be working on a tight budget nobody told him he would be working on next to no budget.

I am not saying Thorn was promised a warchest but he was promised more than what he has been given. Fact

Don't pretend Thorn hasn't been shafted by the board and SISU.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Ok Mustard-has he had either the same wage budget or transfer kitty?

How do I know? Only AT and the board are privvy to that information. What I will say is that in the case of CCFC, it's been clear for a couple of years now that the 'transfer budget' is based on player sales, and it was a pretty lean summer for that. We also know that a substantial offer was made to Marlon King, so obviously there is/was some wage flexibility there.

No, he's had much much less on both scores. Season tickets were sold under this lie/promise too, remember.

Season tickets were sold the year before that on the back of lies/promises about X-factor players and whatnot. People have been griping about SISU for three years now, so why on earth is anybody surprised? And that was really my whole point - if Thorn thought he was getting a warchest, then he was a fool. But I don't think he did and I don't think he is.

 

[@richh87]

I know the difference between a transfer budget and wages for starters...

Yes, Keogh and Juke were signed, but you'd be nuts to think that it was anything more than a nominal fee for Keogh (from Carlisle) and a small downpayment for Juke. This, incidentally, came after a year in which Simpson, Best, Dann, and Fox had all been sold.

As for your questionable use of wage guesstimates, City had Hall, Wright, Ward, Morrison and, infamously, Doyle all come off the books; I'd be surprised if that didn't pretty much even out the incoming wages of King and co.

That SISU are tight? Sure. Is it the wrong strategy? I think so. But please don't imply that Thorn was promised some kind of warchest when SISU had shown a track record of thrift and downsizing for two full years. Everybody knew what SISU's transfer budget was.

It's ok to be wrong sometimes mate

You can twist it as much as you like but Thorn WAS promised the same budget and it hasn't been delivered - not even close.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

You are a fool if you think the board made it clear to Andy Thorn that the situation would be like this.
SISU "Hey Andy, would you like to be our new manager. We will give you no budget to bring new players in whilst we sell the core of the Coventry City squad at the same time."
AT "Sure where do I sign up"
You only have to see Andy Thorn's body language and how he came across at the fans forum to realise he is less than happy with the board and the ownere. Why is this? Because they lied to him about budgets.

 

[Otis]

I am pretty sure that the board will have made some half-hearted promises to AT about what he can expect in terms of transfer budget etc. i am also pretty sure he wouldn't have been told that he would have to work with a squad of about 19 players and have to blood 17 year old kids week in week out probably all season long.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

We were told Thorn would have the same transfer budget as Boothroyd. Fact- has he had that same budget? No. Fact

1. Not 'facts' at all, but suppositions. Unless you have access to the boardroom and their Powerpoint slides.
2. The budget is likely determined by player sales, eg if Thorn can sell a player then he gets X% back to spend. That would be keeping the consistency of the transfer budget, and also reflects the actions of the past two years.

We offered new contracts to King, Westwood and Gunnar- Fact. Have all these wages been used else where? No- Fact

So you're complaining about AT not having the same wages to play with, yet then readily admit that he was given the wages to offer big contracts to Marlon King, Aron Gunnarsson, and Kieren Westwood. Don't you think that's a contradiction?

Thorn did know he would be working on a tight budget nobody told him he would be working on next to no budget.

You're just creating a story instead of looking at the 'facts'. If, say, Thorn was told that transfer funds were dependent on player sales, then he would have known exactly what he was working with. I don't understand why you'd think SISU would have to lie about the available funds to a cheap, rookie manager who must be eager for his first job. It's not like they were trying to tempt Fergie away from Utd.

I am not saying Thorn was promised a warchest but he was promised more than what he has been given. Fact

Not a fact.

Don't pretend Thorn hasn't been shafted by the board and SISU.

That's just it - I don't know. Nor do you. Maybe, just maybe, he was promised more money to spend than he was given. But all things considered, I'd be very surprised if a) Thorn was promised any money without player sales first, and b) as somebody who scouted for the club and saw what the SISU transfer policy was like, Thorn expected anything more.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

It's ok to be wrong sometimes mate You can twist it as much as you like but Thorn WAS promised the same budget and it hasn't been delivered - not even close.

See, this is what I don't get. We, as fans, have been complaining for two or more years about SISU's unwillingness to dip into their pockets. We know that they only buy once they've sold. So why should Thorn, of all people, have believed any different? I don't think there's any 'twisting' in suggesting that the transfer budget is based on money-in/money-out...

 

[Sub]

they only buy after they have sold ? ok but they buy crap and take the extra cash which is left inturn making us weaker and weaker, this is where the issue is there is no investment just a steady decline!!

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Scramble all you like fella, the facts are clear. AT had the wool pulled over his eyes as much as us fans, any one with their eyes open can see that. Running around with fingers in ears shouting "I can't hear you, SISU are good, I can't hear you, SISU are good"..won't change the facts.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Scramble all you like fella, the facts are clear. AT had the wool pulled over his eyes as much as us fans, any one with their eyes open can see that. Running around with fingers in ears shouting "I can't hear you, SISU are good, I can't hear you, SISU are good"..won't change the facts.

C'mon man, I'm making an effort to have a discussion here. That doesn't help.

 

[andyboy81]

Ok Mustard-has he had either the same wage budget or transfer kitty? No, he's had much much less on both scores. Season tickets were sold under this lie/promise too, remember.

:blue::blue::blue:

Does that mean we can get our season ticket money back due to "False Advertising"?? YOU FUCKING WISH!!

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

1. Not 'facts' at all, but suppositions. Unless you have access to the boardroom and their Powerpoint slides.
2. The budget is likely determined by player sales, eg if Thorn can sell a player then he gets X% back to spend. That would be keeping the consistency of the transfer budget, and also reflects the actions of the past two years.



So you're complaining about AT not having the same wages to play with, yet then readily admit that he was given the wages to offer big contracts to Marlon King, Aron Gunnarsson, and Kieren Westwood. Don't you think that's a contradiction?



You're just creating a story instead of looking at the 'facts'. If, say, Thorn was told that transfer funds were dependent on player sales, then he would have known exactly what he was working with. I don't understand why you'd think SISU would have to lie about the available funds to a cheap, rookie manager who must be eager for his first job. It's not like they were trying to tempt Fergie away from Utd.



Not a fact.



That's just it - I don't know. Nor do you. Maybe, just maybe, he was promised more money to spend than he was given. But all things considered, I'd be very surprised if a) Thorn was promised any money without player sales first, and b) as somebody who scouted for the club and saw what the SISU transfer policy was like, Thorn expected anything more.

Yea I guess when Paul Clouting said " Andy will have the same budget as last year." I guess that does not mean it is fact that Thorn was told he would have same the budget and actually means you are not getting a penny.

I acknowledge that contracts were offered to King, Westy and Gunnar but now these wages seems to have vanished off the earth and certainly don't seem as if they are available now.

I am not creating a story these are facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
if Thorn can sell a player then he gets X% back to spend. That would be keeping the consistency of the transfer budget, and also reflects the actions of the past two years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is speculating and making stories now? where has a member of the board stated this. You are just plucking random excuses out of the sky now.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Yea I guess when Paul Clouting said " Andy will have the same budget as last year." I guess that does not mean it is fact that Thorn was told he would have same the budget and actually means you are not getting a penny.

You'd have a point if we were talking about a dollar amount. What I have repeatedly said is that the transfer budget is likely entirely dependent on player sales. In that respect it would be no more or less than what Aidy got.

I acknowledge that contracts were offered to King, Westy and Gunnar but now these wages seems to have vanished off the earth and certainly don't seem as if they are available now.

The point is that the sizable wage packets were made available under Thorn's watch. It completely dismisses the theory that AT hasn't had wage flexibility to play with.

Who is speculating and making stories now? where has a member of the board stated this. You are just plucking random excuses out of the sky now.

I will happily admit that I am speculating; the big difference is that I don't suffix my speculation with 'fact'. I may be wrong and I'd be happy to admit that if the actual facts ever emerged, but do you really think it's unreasonable to assume that the manager's budget has been dependent upon player sales over the last three off-seasons?

 

[TommyAtkins]

Thorn might well decide to walk but as posted previously, this is his first chance at management and no one will blame him if it goes wrong. If he does well and keeps us up, he will have a boost to his reputation. If we get relegated no one will blame him.

More importantly, why should he quit when the consequences would be losing money? Some fans forget that Thorn sees this as a job and a job he may enjoy but without the same fanaticism for CCFC that fans share.

What some fans don't understand is that circumstances change. That isn't necessarily "lying". Clouting may have promised Thorn the same budget as last year but Clouting may have had to admit to Thorn - sorry, the rules have changed, your budget is reduced.

All credit to Thorn for accepting a reduced budget without whining like a child about it.

Who knows - Thorn might actually agree with what SISU are doing.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

But it is a fact Andy Thorn was told he would have the same budget as Boothroyd. It is also a fact that he obviously hasn't had the same budgets. What don't you understand about that.
It is a fact there were wages available to sign Westwood, Gunnarson and King. It is also a fact that those wages are not available now.
What about when Brody told us there would be money made available for a "franchise" signing to replace King. Thorn was promised at least some budget but he has had none up to date.


Thorn's body language at the fans forum tells you that he was not happy with the board and owners, there is no other reason to be unhappy with them except they hadn't lived up to their promise to provide him with at least some sort of budget. Also I am sure he wasn't told the core of his squad would be flogged off on the cheap, obviously AT knows that all players have a price but we are just offering anyone of value to the highest bidder no matter what the price.

Andy Thorn is just as much of a victim of SISU as the club and the fans.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Clouting may have promised Thorn the same budget as last year but Clouting may have had to admit to Thorn - sorry, the rules have changed, your budget is reduced.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is most likely what happened, what I was arguing is that Thorn when he first became manager was under the impression that he would be getting the same budget as Boothroyd.

 

[TommyAtkins]

So? Perhaps Thorn was told his budget was reduced? That doesn't mean he was lied to, that happens all the time in business. Thorn has been in football long enough to be realistic and cynical.

When Ranson and Hoffman left, it became obvious that SISU wanted to cut costs. Thorn would have known that when he was offered the job.

Credit to Thorn for accepting the change in circumstances and getting on with his job instead of whinging.

 

[TommyAtkins]

Clouting may have promised Thorn the same budget as last year but Clouting may have had to admit to Thorn - sorry, the rules have changed, your budget is reduced.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is most likely what happened, what I was arguing is that Thorn when he first became manager was under the impression that he would be getting the same budget as Boothroyd.

I agree - Thorn may have been told this when he was offered the job but Thorn has been in football a long time. He will have known or at least suspected the problems when he accepted the job.

If stories are true, Ranson and Hoffman were fairly close to Thorn. Thorn will know the limitations and so far, he is doing what he is paid for: managing the resources available to him.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

But it is a fact Andy Thorn was told he would have the same budget as Boothroyd. It is also a fact that he obviously hasn't had the same budgets. What don't you understand about that.

I've explained my position several times - the transfer budget is likely dependent on player sales, as it was under Aidy. You define the transfer budget as £Xm, but I define it as wheeling-and-dealing. For example, if Parkin comes in as Juke and Turner go out, that is an example of some reinvestment. No, I wouldn't rather have Parkin than those other two, and I don't vouch for the strategy, but it illustrates my point I hope.

It is a fact there were wages available to sign Westwood, Gunnarson and King. It is also a fact that those wages are not available now.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. We don't know for a fact. But again (and we're just going around in circles here), you can't say that AT wasn't given wage space when you acknowledge that good contracts were put on the table for those three guys.

What about when Brody told us there would be money made available for a "franchise" signing to replace King. Thorn was promised at least some budget but he has had none up to date.

No idea. All I know is that they attempted to keep King and Westwood, and have a history of being tight with money. As Tommy has reiterated above, Thorn would have been exceptionally naive to take this position thinking otherwise. Regardless, he made the right decision to manage a good-sized club in the second-tier of English football. He went from scout to boss. I doubt he regrets it...


Thorn's body language at the fans forum tells you that he was not happy with the board and owners, there is no other reason to be unhappy with them except they hadn't lived up to their promise to provide him with at least some sort of budget. Also I am sure he wasn't told the core of his squad would be flogged off on the cheap, obviously AT knows that all players have a price but we are just offering anyone of value to the highest bidder no matter what the price.

Andy Thorn is just as much of a victim of SISU as the club and the fans.[/QUOTE]

 

[sky blue john]

Maybe they have told Thorn the budget has changed, well I like to think they would have !!!
At the end of the day the fact is Clouting told the fans and the media That the same budget as last year was available when obviously it wasn't !!!!!
Which in my book makes it a lie on top of lie after lie.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Anyway we have to agree to disagree, naturally I think I am right as do you.

I don't think it was a case of lying to Thorn to get him too take the job. More of failing to live up to promises made to him. Just a few more points to your last post though
1) Who did Aidy sell then to raise a budget? Dann/Fox/ Best were all sold under the Coleman era.
2) It is obvious to me the wages available for Westwood and King etc. the full amount are no longer available as I doubt AT would go into the last day of the window signing nobody as of yet if the wages were still available.
3) Obviously Thorn knows budgets and aims can change but I don't think he could predict the situation now when he took over that it would change this drastically.

 

[ajsccfc]

I see it that Thorn is in a no lose situation, if he gets relegated he can say that it was lack of backing, everyone being sold and having to throw in a bunch of kids, If he keeps us up, it will be seen as a miracle and he will be given the tag as one of the "next great managers".

Second this. Without doing much at all, he's already one of the most supported managers we've had. Even relegation wouldn't really see people turn on him.

 

[rswxite]

Colonel mustard has made some good points, we don't know anything about the budget! Past or present!!

People seem to assume that because King, Gunnar and westy were offered new deals that this meant we could afford to keep all 3! I don't think we ever intended to keep all 3!

Take into account all 3 would have been offered significally improved deals, and I suspect the club were only really looking to keep only 1 or possibly 2 of those 3 at a push! Knowing that at least 1 or 2 were gonna go anyway meaning that they could offer improved deals to all 3 implying to the fans there is actually a bigger wage budget than there really was/is!!

No ones mentioned Murphy and Dunn, I would imagine Murphy would be on a similar amount to what Westwood was on before he left!

Bear in mind all the youngsters that have resigned and are guaranteed to be on an improved wage, turner also likely increased his wage when he resigned a few months ago also!!

So to say the big 3's wages that left the club is unspent is total bollocks!!

I believe there is still money in the pot for wages, not a huge amount but certainly not the sums people think we offered to those departed!

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

So to say the big 3's wages that left the club is unspent is total bollocks!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only those 3 we also released Mcindoe, Osbourne, Ohalloran, Carsley and Quirke. Those 5 players wages would cover Murphy and the improved deals 3 times over. So to say the wages for King, Gunnar and Westy is left unspent is not total rubbish.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Don't forget Doyle-on big money and in the team until he was released.