Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Albion] This transfer period and RDZ



N

nickjhs

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 9, 2017
1,464
Ballarat, Australia
I always assumed (as was generally reported) that the rift between TB and RDZ (if rift it was) was due to TB not being prepared to sink many millions into new signings, yet as soon as the market opened we went in guns blazing ( by our standards at least) and it looks like we are going to land Diego Gomez as well swelling our squad to bursting with new, exciting, young talent. Which is surely what RDZ wanted. So what happened to cause what appeared to be a major dummy spit from RDZ during the last months of the season. I doubt TB had a revelation that RDZ was correct all along and did a sudden 180 on his often-reported position ?
 
Last edited:






M

MTSeagulls

Well-known member
Sep 18, 2019
866
StonehamPark said:
I might be way off, but I thought a part of the issue was that RDZ wanted more personal control on signings, whereas TB & BHA are quite firm on analytical/data-based recruitment - which has mostly worked damn well for us in recent years.
Click to expand...
Which, of course, would have been explained to him before he took the job in the first place if that's the case.
 




BadFish

BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,883
StonehamPark said:
I might be way off, but I thought a part of the issue was that RDZ wanted more personal control on signings, whereas TB & BHA are quite firm on analytical/data-based recruitment - which has mostly worked damn well for us in recent years.
Click to expand...
This is the answer from what I could work out. They couldn't agree or compromise on this so they parted ways.

Maybe I am applying Occums razor where it shouldn't be but despite all the speculation and rewriting of history, this seems to be the situation, no villians just a difference of opinion.

Onwards and upwards
 




JetsetJimbo

JetsetJimbo

Well-known member
Jun 13, 2011
1,092
As OP says, we’ve signed a lot of young talent. De Zerbi wanted us to sign more established players.

This next bit is completely speculation by me: I suspect Bloom went into his meeting with RDZ wanting to hear how he was gonna evolve the tactics to account for the weaknesses we showed last season. And instead RDZ told him to sign players in their late 20s. So Tony said goodbye to RDZ and hired someone whose tactics are an evolution of RDZ’s.

Ok it probably didn’t happen like that, but I like to imagine it did.
 


Justice

Justice

Dangerous Idiot
Jun 21, 2012
20,090
Born In Shoreham
He had his chance and recommended Dahoud and Igor one worse than the other neither great.
We can’t take away his top six achievements though, the debate his tactics were worked out I don’t buy, for arguments sake Klopp didn’t change tactics he bought better players to carry them out, we sold our better players and expected miracles.
 
Last edited:


H

Han Solo

Well-known member
May 25, 2024
1,834
It needs to be said that with the league form we had from October to May, people get sacked - that's the normal. IIRC, over the last 30 league games we only took 2 more points than Hughtons side took when he was sacked. And RDZ had access to a much better squad.

Obviously transfers also played a role. RDZ wanted more control over transfers and when the club gave in, he signed players that just aren't up to our standards.

He brought in Igor and Dahoud, was heavily involved in getting Fati as well, while wanting to loan out Buonanotte and Barco as well as stopping the Dewsbury-Hall deal in January (according to @Bozza ). You say RDZ wanted "young, exciting talent". He didn't.

Unlike many other fans, Tony Bloom also probably didn't like the endless talk about what a small club Brighton is and that all the best players deserve to play somewhere else. Nor is it likely that he appreciated all the squad drama. Trossard, Sanchez, Caicedo, Dahoud.. thats four key in less than 2 years players either going on strike or fighting themselves out of the club.

Roberto De Zerbi wanted to stay. He only wanted to leave when he thought he would manage at a higher level. When the chance was gone he spent the last two weeks licking Tony's feet in public, to no avail. No manager leaves the PL for Ligue 1 (PSG being the exception) by choice. Roberto was sacked (though technically he wasn't because we wanted someone to pay for him). Disagreements over transfer policy or not, we wanted a better manager/better person so we got rid of RDZ.
 






T

Terry Butcher Tribute Act

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2013
3,500
To me, it further points to RDZ really having been sacked but dressed up as mutual.

Would it really surprise anyone if all those comments about the board needing to do business in January had pissed Tony and Barbs off, to the point that they weren't happy to disclose the true extent of the budget to RDZ?

RDZ was right in what he said, but very wrong to do it in public.
 


N

nickjhs

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 9, 2017
1,464
Ballarat, Australia
Justice said:
the debate his tactics were worked out I don’t buy,
Click to expand...
They quite obviously were. Once teams understood why we were goading them they stopped playing along with it. That being said he did change tactics and probably would have had a much better run if not for all the injuries. You can't sell two of our best players and then have so many other essential players get injured and expect to carry on as usual. I absolutely got his frustration at the time. This is why I don't understand why he carried on like he did knowing as I suspect he must, that we were taking the upcoming transfer season very seriously, giving him a much deeper squad for the 25/26 season. As has been said he probably burned his relationship with all the negative talk and it didn't matter what was said later he was history. As ever under TB it looks like onward and upward.
 




jcdenton08

jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
12,864
You don’t receive compensation from sacking someone. You generally pay compensation.
 




Hugo Rune

Hugo Rune

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 23, 2012
23,353
Brighton
nickjhs said:
They quite obviously were. Once teams understood why we were goading them they stopped playing along with it. That being said he did change tactics and probably would have had a much better run if not for all the injuries. You can't sell two of our best players and then have so many other essential players get injured and expect to carry on as usual.
Click to expand...
I was watching the goals and highlights from this season.

Last year, there were players in August and September on absolute fire! Form of their life stuff. They were Ferguson, March, Mitoma, Enciso and Estupinan.

Losing Mac and Caicedo and not spending £80m+ immediately to replace them was always going to mean we took a step back. I was fine with that. That is our strategy.

Losing the other 5 players mentioned above to injury actually makes 11th look like a good achievement.
 






H

Han Solo

Well-known member
May 25, 2024
1,834
jcdenton08 said:
You don’t receive compensation from sacking someone. You generally pay compensation.
Click to expand...
Ok, we get it, you've said this for months.

Clubs very rarely technically sack a manager, because its dumb - why would you pay the entire remainder of the contract when you can hope for some other club to pick up the manager (either for compensation or if you let another club have him for free) and get rid of sometimes years of wages that way.

Graham Potter technically wasn't sacked from Chelsea either ,and if someone wants to hire him before his contract runs out, they're going to have to negotiate compensation with Chelsea. But we all Potter was sacked regardless of this fact. Just like hundreds of PL managers before him.

What do you suggest we change the "sacked the manager" terminology to since its currently virtually always incorrect by the technical definition you keep banging on about?
 


jcdenton08

jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
12,864
Han Solo said:
Ok, we get it, you've said this for months.

Clubs very rarely technically sack a manager, because its dumb - why would you pay the entire remainder of the contract when you can hope for some other club to pick up the manager (either for compensation or if you let another club have him for free) and get rid of sometimes years of wages that way.

Graham Potter technically wasn't sacked from Chelsea either ,and if someone wants to hire him before his contract runs out, they're going to have to negotiate compensation with Chelsea. But we all Potter was sacked regardless of this fact. Just like hundreds of PL managers before him.

What do you suggest we change the "sacked the manager" terminology to since its currently virtually always incorrect by the technical definition you keep banging on about?
Click to expand...
Mutual termination, the exact term the club used.
 


H

Han Solo

Well-known member
May 25, 2024
1,834
jcdenton08 said:
Mutual termination, the exact term the club used.
Click to expand...
Alright, you go with that. I'm sticking with the old "sacked" term that has been used for mutually terminated managers since... always.
 






Hugo Rune

Hugo Rune

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 23, 2012
23,353
Brighton
jcdenton08 said:
If he was sacked, why would Marseilles pay us compensation?
Click to expand...
We didn’t want him, he didn’t want us and specifically, because he wanted to leave, there was value in us selling him on and not just showing him the door.

Mutual termination is not hard to understand unless you have an entrenched agenda against someone because he replaced and then smashed your traitorous hero 4-1 at the Amex.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here