Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
The club won't sign chosen targets, yet you assert he must 'cope' yet equally claim he had free rein?
How contrived can you get?
Every manager misses out on targets and must cope accordingly. My McGoldrick post was made before he signed and not as dismissive as you imply.
I could do that....
The club won't sign chosen targets, yet you assert he must 'cope' yet equally claim he had free rein?
How contrived can you get?
The club won't sign chosen targets, yet you assert he must 'cope' yet equally claim he had free rein?
How contrived can you get?
Um, funding was made for as many freebies as he wished once the embargo was lifted.
If collins was one of his targets are you using that in support of Thorn?
Surely working within their means is what makes a good manager?
Give me an example
There are many examples. Moyes at Everton has over achieved relative to spend at the top end. Ronnie Moore at Tranmere certainly fits the bill in our league.
Brilliant two examples of managers who have over-achieved.
So you want me to list how many under-achieve? I could fill a thread with Anfield alone.
Do you have a right to expect a manager to over-achieve?
No but if you end up in the worst league position in 50 years it is ludricous to then give any credit to the manager at the helm. It's so ridiculous it's not worth debating.
For the record I believe Thorn wanted McGoldrick in January - and I suspect he would have been a poor championship player as he was at Forest and Baker was for us.
But it relative terms, we were funded within the worst of the last 50 years. There may have been times when, in team terms, we were equally poorly funded. But that harks back to my incessant question; do you, or I have a right to an expectation that every CCFC manager has a right to over-achieve and beat the odds? No.
As for McGoldrick? He was identified in January. Waggott, despite being bought in to help in the transfer market, oversaw a net migration of talent; and failed to deliver again in the summer.
Accordingly, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the 'free reign' claim is the work of pantomime?
But it relative terms, we were funded within the worst of the last 50 years. There may have been times when, in team terms, we were equally poorly funded. But that harks back to my incessant question; do you, or I have a right to an expectation that every CCFC manager has a right to over-achieve and beat the odds? No.
As for McGoldrick? He was identified in January. Waggott, despite being bought in to help in the transfer market, oversaw a net migration of talent; and failed to deliver again in the summer.
Accordingly, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the 'free reign' claim is the work of pantomime?
But it relative terms, we were funded within the worst of the last 50 years. There may have been times when, in team terms, we were equally poorly funded. But that harks back to my incessant question; do you, or I have a right to an expectation that every CCFC manager has a right to over-achieve and beat the odds? No.
As for McGoldrick? He was identified in January. Waggott, despite being bought in to help in the transfer market, oversaw a net migration of talent; and failed to deliver again in the summer.
Accordingly, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the 'free reign' claim is the work of pantomime?
Nice. So, once an embargo had prevented him signing his chosen players, and excepting those Waggott wouldn't sign (like McGoldrick, except to appease the fans following the farcical sacking), and provided those left were on free, and fitting within our lowly wage structure; then, thereafter, he enjoyed 'free reign'?
Your notion of freedom being akin to Robert Mugabe's
Football is a ruthless business - or it should be. Our passive to weak management is partly responsible for our current plight.
But who sits ultimately accountable? F & W?
Football is a ruthless business - or it should be. Our passive approach to weak management is partly responsible for our current plight.
But others see our approach to perceived weak managers as being aggressive...& judging by managerial turnover since Snozz - they might have a point.
If being allowed to sign 10 players unopposed isn't free rein I don't know what is. As per usual MMM you take any criticism of the messiah to OTT proportions.
For sticking by Thorn, yes. That has never been in dispute.
grendel, ref osb previous thread, let it lie,
otherwise ken dulieu will come & see you
The average shelf life of a manager is 17 months I believe so Thorn lasted the average - and he was very below average.
The average could just be a reflection of knee-jerk reactions to a bad run, or megalomaniacs that wish to delegate responsibility whilst retaining too much decision-making capability, or indeed that there are some very poor managers out there.
You claimed his choice was free. I, again, highlighted the folly of your latest childish hyperbole.
You deal in opinions and I in facts. No need for theatrics
This is getting confusing...I thought that only Waggot was responsible for players brought into the club? Now it seems that Thorn was able to dictate who was brought in?
The only logical conclusion is that either those furiously defending him are related to him, or these people are able to identify with him in some way. He should never have been appointed in the first place, it was another poor decision by the club. Yet it seems that there are some who believe that the club showed great vision to appoint him as manager but still criticise the board.
Hardly hyperbole MMM. The fact is he was allowed a summer to bring in largely his first choice players-and his successor is doing a better job.
No he wasn't. He was allowed 0% of his preferred strike force for example. Hardly freedom of the city, eh?
And his successor's success has been greatly assisted by virtue of one if the players arriving Waggott was unwilling or unable to secure during Thorn's tenure.
As I state, myopic hyperbole
You're obviously quite easily confused
It was a quite reasonable decision to appoint Thorn after the way he turned around a side that had looked destined for relegation (in my view).
The problem was that the Board then decided to drastically cut the playing squad.
The second decision undermined the first.
Perhaps Thorn would have failed with a side that included King, Turner, Juke and a decent player to replace Gunna (who I thought was always going to leave) and perhaps he'd have succeeded. We'll never know.
Hardly hyperbole MMM. The fact is he was allowed a summer to bring in largely his first choice players-and his successor is doing a better job.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?