rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 8,185
semantics
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] This transfer period and RDZ
- Thread starter nickjhs
- Start date
Silverhatch
Well-known member
RDZ and the club got a bit carried away and overheated following 22/23 season.
23/24 with no Mac (expected) and unexpectedly sold Cac, created choppy waters
Waters never settled
23/24 with no Mac (expected) and unexpectedly sold Cac, created choppy waters
Waters never settled
The stat "points over a large number of games" may be selective, but its frequently used to determine the outcomes of various competitions, and is likely to be of some relevence to some people involved in the football world, including Tony.
Psychobilly freakout
HellBilly
That and his absence match day due an urgent “dentist appointment“
sorry I never bought that line, from that point on he was not bothered about Brighton and it showed.
Perhaps ask yourself why Chelsea paid off Potter but Marseille had to pay Brighton.
- Jun 27, 2012
- 14,565
Anyway in lots of ways our transfer activity isn't really that different to last summer . Certainly in terms of players bought and money spent .
We spent a lot last summer.
Minteh looks similar to Pedro, Verbruggen not far off Wieffer and then a few other promising young - quite expensive players (Gomez, Dalcouye, Duberry) - similar to Osman, Mazilu, Baleba from 23/24.
And you'd expect the club to still find a Milner type figure and a couple of others (in terms of ££ spent), perhaps a loan - to match the outlay on Fati, Dahoud, Igor.
But of course more in line with the club model than experienced Bundesliga / Seria A players with little sell on - and/or at coach insistence.
thankfully There seems to be no big exit this summer in line with (Caicedo, Cucurella, White) - in the last three seasons... hopefully.
Also the key reason that RDZ was shown the door , apart from transfer policy and poor form, was the same reason Gus went . Criticising your boss in public.
Last edited:
Flounce
Well-known member
- Nov 15, 2006
- 3,457
Because Chelsea don’t think things through as well as Albion. No knee jerks from us, both CH and RDZ were dead men walking long before they departed and were not binned mid or late season.
I don't have to. The answer is obvious: Brighton could get money for RDZ (cheaper and eager to work) and Chelsea couldn't get money for Potter (expensive and eager for a sabbatical).
Roberto was never going to coach Brighton this season, because Tony Bloom didn't want him to.
So there were essentially two options: sacking him and paying the rest of his wages, or "mutually terminating" him and waiting/hoping for a club to pay the firesale price we put on him. Sacking him and losing millions of pounds or "mutual termination" and receiving millions of pounds - easy choice.
Incorrect.
There’s a legal precedent. You can’t receive compensation when someone else employs someone you’ve terminated.
Flounce
Well-known member
- Nov 15, 2006
- 3,457
Hence my comment that Albion thinks things through before acting…mutual suited both parties with RDZ. He was out anyway if he hadn’t agreed to it being mutual imo, pride may also have played a big part with RDZ too imo. TB is a hard nosed clever businessman
So you now agree it was mutual
- Jun 27, 2012
- 14,565
Not sure - apart from the massive fee we ended up securing - that anyone was surprised that Caicedo was sold last summer. We did well to hang on to him for the 2nd half of 22/23. Seemed inevitable he'd exit.
But agreed he was the biggest loss (and the injuries) of 23/24. With Baleba, Gross, Gilmour, Hinshelwood not quite able to fill the gap.
Which is why the club went with another way to sack him than to terminate his contract. We've all agreed that technically/juridically, Roberto wasn't sacked - just like most managers aren't.
Flounce
Well-known member
- Nov 15, 2006
- 3,457
Never said it wasn’t just that he would have been sacked if he hadn’t agreed to mutual. RDZ saves face, TB saves/makes moneySo you now agree it was mutual
junior
Well-known member
Most likely it's simply that his team underperformed last season, and we're at times quite crap, whilst conceding a shed loads of goals.
Sorry, but for someone who is usually so factually correct and has corrected me (rightly) in the past this is a bit lazy.
Poyet was PROPERLY sacked under employment law. RDZ was given a lap of honour and we made money out of his next gig.
I totally agree that criticising TB publicly contributed massively to him leaving, and that his time was up. But to insinuate both were shown the door in the same manner is disingenuous
Flounce
Well-known member
- Nov 15, 2006
- 3,457
Maybe TB learnt from the fallout shitfest on Poyet when deciding RDZ was going to be shown the door?
Or maybe RDZ didn’t break his employment contract.
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 8,185
he was relieved of his responsibilties, he got the bullet, the old heave
-ho, why do you care?