[Albion] Garcia's reasons for leaving (from today's Argus, per Andy Naylor)

[Machiavelli]

Those saying we have to be aware of FFP, why is it we're the only ones losing two managers in two years then? Surely this should be happening at every club?

That question can easily be answered: we're the club who has a chairman who favours young, ambitious, up-and-coming, highly-rated managers with potential rather than favouring a track record; such a profile will automatically become disappointed when it becomes abundantly apparent that parachute payments, Leeds' extra TV money, etc, means that finances are skewed against them.

 

[Bwian]

The new training ground will help, or at least make it a possibility, but I agree it'll take time and lots of luck.

I was being facetious about administration.

I knew that. It worked well for Palace though.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

The idea of a Football Director, and a Head Coach free to do the coaching is not a bad set up, IF they work well together and consult at every step.

Perhaps this is a personality thing, does Burke hold all the cards close to his chest and dictate to the coach rather than liaising with him?

Whatever, this needs sorting out NOW ! The loss of two manager/coaches in two years is untenable.

 

[Machiavelli]

One other thing about Oscar: when he joined, there was a post from a Maccabi supporter telling us that we shouldn't get too attached, as he'd be off at the earliest available opportunity. It's entirely plausible that he's viewed as a stepping-stone in his career. He can't keep on doing this but, then again, his next job will probably be in either the Premier League or La Liga, which will enable him to commit for longer.
On this, we should be grateful that managers are willing to come to us, even if it is as a stepping-stone. But it might be the case that what we need now is stability and a longer-term commitment as a manager. There are quite a few managers that have done good jobs, and been released at the earliest opportunity by ruthless chairmen. This experience will make them reflect on whether they want to reciprocate a longer-term relationship with a chairman and club, so that they can build something. Among many others, Mackay and Sherwood fill this particular bill.

 

[kevo]

It all sounds so similar to last year - Oscar's frustrations surely reflect Poyet's, in not having enough say in players we were signing/retaining and being frustrated by the budget limits on who we could afford. Also hints that Burke had more of a say in the players we signed than either Oscar or Gus wished.

 

[RexCathedra]

The idea of a Football Director, and a Head Coach free to do the coaching is not a bad set up, IF they work well together and consult at every step.

This model -- general manager, and coach, or general manager and manager, is nearly universal in the American big three -- NBA, MLB, NFL. There are occasional exceptions -- Belichick is effectively the GM for the New England Patriots, e.g. -- but no one thinks twice about franchises so structured.

There's no necessity, and no guarantee, that you'll always find top talent in talent identification, player development, dealing with agents, and the actual coaching of a squad located under the same hat.

These are businesses with turnover in the scores of millions a year. I would expect some differentiation in the executive function.

 

[Miffy]

I think I must be missing something. Firstly our target this year was top 6 and we made top 6 despite a quite unbelievable number of injuries to key members of the squad. Therefore the only conclusion is that the target IS realistic and we CAN compete at this level under the current financial structure.

Secondly, and this is where I am not entirely unconvinced that Oscar's interview isn't somewhat of a smokescreen, we didn't lose to Derby because they had bigger names and more expensive players than us. Ignoring the score in the second leg which was very heavily influenced by GG's injury, the only way Derby were better than us was because they were very well organised and when they broke they did so with speed and efficiency and attacked in numbers. All the things we've been moaning all season that we don't do. Bringing in a list of Spanish targets with no English football experience was not likely to fix that problem. The difference was footballing style - is that down to the club dictating it or to OG and his footballing philosophy?

Of the players we brought in Ward and Stephens were excellent moves. Agustien is a bit of a mystery - you don't have his cv if you're so crap you can't even make the bench. Be interesting to see if anyone else gets more out of him so the jury is out on that one. Lita should have been given more opportunities and the lack of chances was bewildering, as was the refusal to use Kaz more and the reluctance to start Stephens at one stage. Andrews started well and then turned crap, possibly around the same time our Head Coach started to be unhappy by the look of it. And OG still picked him no matter what - maybe he was obliged to? He has good argument on Obika but that one looks like it came through the coaching teams contacts more than DofF? As for Monakana & Chicksen - we took the same chance on Ince and Solly March last year so its difficult to criticise whoever made those decisions until we see how it pans out.

Then we have Rodriguez - the article says he was the bottom of the list. Who's list? If OG identified him as being one of the Spanish targets then thank god we didn't get the others. If that was down to Burke et al then they need to answer some serious questions. Either way Hoskins would have been a much better bench filler once back and OG didn't use him.

Yes we need to strengthen in some areas and Grabban would have been a good purchase but not at any price .. Signing him on a long contract at what was presumably a significant salary would have left us with an expensive subs bench when CMS is back 100%. Criticising the club for not bringing in better strikers after giving interviews to the media stating that you will never play two up front and thereby limiting the appeal of that position and the wage we could justify under those circumstances is unfair and for me OG has to take a share of responsibility for the problems that created.

As for this head coach business .. He was head coach for the Barcelona youth team (left after 2 seasons), head coach at Maccabi (left after 1 season) and if the reports at the time are true it was HIS choice to be head coach here. To be saying he didn't want to be head coach with that set up now seems somewhat disingenuous.

I would have loved him to stay and see what he could do with a full squad and a season's experience of English football and I do think the way we work at the moment needs some review and tweaking (I still haven't forgiven them for Harley!) but I think that looking it as a whole the jury is very much out on OG's own level of culpability for me.

 

[London Irish]

Kudos to Andy Naylor. With the power and influence of Bloom's money the new fact of life in recent years, it would be very easy for journalists to always sail with that wind.

But the Argus had published plenty of detail there that the club won't like.

It proves once again the benefit of independent journalistic scrutiny of football clubs, something that the plethora of blogs and messageboards like this one can't provide in the same rigorous way.

It's good to have the detail confirmed, although the overalll picture is not a massive surprise.

I think it's a shame if fans scapegoat Burke though, like Paul Barber he is just doing the job the board are asking him to do.

Criticism should be aimed at the collective entity of the board if you want that situation to change and you want the manager given the traditional full power over transfer policy.

I still think the existing structure can work with the right manager/head coach in place.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I think I must be missing something. Firstly our target this year was top 6 and we made top 6 despite a quite unbelievable number of injuries to key members of the squad. Therefore the only conclusion is that the target IS realistic and we CAN compete at this level under the current financial structure.

Secondly, and this is where I am not entirely unconvinced that Oscar's interview isn't somewhat of a smokescreen, we didn't lose to Derby because they had bigger names and more expensive players than us. Ignoring the score in the second leg which was very heavily influenced by GG's injury, the only way Derby were better than us was because they were very well organised and when they broke they did so with speed and efficiency and attacked in numbers. All the things we've been moaning all season that we don't do. Bringing in a list of Spanish targets with no English football experience was not likely to fix that problem. The difference was footballing style - is that down to the club dictating it or to OG and his footballing philosophy?

Of the players we brought in Ward and Stephens were excellent moves. Agustien is a bit of a mystery - you don't have his cv if you're so crap you can't even make the bench. Be interesting to see if anyone else gets more out of him so the jury is out on that one. Lita should have been given more opportunities and the lack of chances was bewildering, as was the refusal to use Kaz more and the reluctance to start Stephens at one stage. Andrews started well and then turned crap, possibly around the same time our Head Coach started to be unhappy by the look of it. And OG still picked him no matter what - maybe he was obliged to? He has good argument on Obika but that one looks like it came through the coaching teams contacts more than DofF? As for Monakana & Chicksen - we took the same chance on Ince and Solly March last year so its difficult to criticise whoever made those decisions until we see how it pans out.

Then we have Rodriguez - the article says he was the bottom of the list. Who's list? If OG identified him as being one of the Spanish targets then thank god we didn't get the others. If that was down to Burke et al then they need to answer some serious questions. Either way Hoskins would have been a much better bench filler once back and OG didn't use him.

Yes we need to strengthen in some areas and Grabban would have been a good purchase but not at any price .. Signing him on a long contract at what was presumably a significant salary would have left us with an expensive subs bench when CMS is back 100%. Criticising the club for not bringing in better strikers after giving interviews to the media stating that you will never play two up front and thereby limiting the appeal of that position and the wage we could justify under those circumstances is unfair and for me OG has to take a share of responsibility for the problems that created.

As for this head coach business .. He was head coach for the Barcelona youth team (left after 2 seasons), head coach at Maccabi (left after 1 season) and if the reports at the time are true it was HIS choice to be head coach here. To be saying he didn't want to be head coach with that set up now seems somewhat disingenuous.

I would have loved him to stay and see what he could do with a full squad and a season's experience of English football and I do think the way we work at the moment needs some review and tweaking (I still haven't forgiven them for Harley!) but I think that looking it as a whole the jury is very much out on OG's own level of culpability for me.

Agree with all of that.

Kudos to Andy Naylor. With the power and influence of Bloom's money the new fact of life in recent years, it would be very easy for journalists to always sail with that wind.

But the Argus had published plenty of detail there that the club won't like.

It proves once again the benefit of independent journalistic scrutiny of football clubs, something that the plethora of blogs and messageboards like this one can't provide in the same rigorous way.

It's good to have the detail confirmed, although the overalll picture is not a massive surprise.

I think it's a shame if fans scapegoat Burke though, like Paul Barber he is just doing the job the board are asking him to do.

Criticism should be aimed at the collective entity of the board if you want that situation to change and you want the manager given the traditional full power over transfer policy.

I still think the existing structure can work with the right manager/head coach in place.

and with most of this.

(But not with this line: "It's good to have the detail confirmed, although the overalll picture is not a massive surprise." How can an interview giving one of the people involved, the opportunity to give only their side of the story, possibly be considered 'the overall picture'?)

 

[Lady Whistledown]

It mildly amuses me to see that the Poyet story seems to be being rewritten on here to suit the agenda of certain posters.

Poyet left for one reason: Gus Poyet. We lost that play off game because of his decision making, and he decided he didn't fancy another season of effort when he knew there would be a Premier League job waiting for him as soon as he made it known he was available. Why risk his reputation going down and diminishing his chances of a better job later, when he could just take one now?

I see the whole budget thing was a smokescreen as far as Poyet is concerned.

 

[London Irish]

(But not with this line: "It's good to have the detail confirmed, although the overalll picture is not a massive surprise." How can an interview giving one of the people involved, the opportunity to give only their side of the story, possibly be considered 'the overall picture'?)

It's the way most journalists work, Naylor would not have gone to print without running all that past the club. If there was some big factual inaccurracy in Oscar's account, the club would have made the Argus correct it by now.

 

[Bozza]

It's the way most journalists work, Naylor would not have gone to print without running all that past the club. If there was some big factual inaccurracy in Oscar's account, the club would have made the Argus correct it by now.

He would and he did.

The Argus would have corrected an article that has been in print alone?

There's a lot wrong in that article, and Naylor himself will be aware he has presented a very one-sided view of the story. Take this for example:

"He regarded the sale of Barnes...as a blow but the real blow was not adequately replacing him. Bournemouth's ... Grabban was Oscar's choice. He feared wages would be a stumbling block and his fears were realised. ... "

That all seems very curious when:

1. The article does not say that Grabban was not signed due to the Albion not being able to meet Grabban's wage expectations.
2. The Albion offered Grabban a very significant pay rise on his already decent pay down at Bournemouth. (Source: Grabban's agent)

 

[spring hall convert]

It mildly amuses me to see that the Poyet story seems to be being rewritten on here to suit the agenda of certain posters.

I'm bored of it to be honest - it's been going on since GP said we'd "hit the ceiling."

 

[London Irish]

It mildly amuses me to see that the Poyet story seems to be being rewritten on here to suit the agenda of certain posters.

Poyet left for one reason: Gus Poyet

No, you are demonising him by pretending it's an ego thing and that doesn't add to Albion fans' understanding of what has happened at the club. It was a business disagreement with Bloom, nothing more nothing less.

Everyone is motivated to a degree by self interest. I'm sure you don't do your job entirely for the greater glory of humanity, you expect it to provide you with certain things that keep your career and livelihood going and it was the same with Gus.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

It's the way most journalists work, Naylor would not have gone to print without running all that past the club. If there was some big factual inaccurracy in Oscar's account, the club would have made the Argus correct it by now.

That's not true.

He might ring the club and ask for a comment, which they may or may not offer him depending on the circumstances.

But it's entirely his choice whether he runs the story or not. He's not a complete lap dog of the Albion, you know. It's just sometimes he may tailor what he puts in print because he knows that many Argus readers only but the paper for the Albion news, so he doesn't necessarily want to alienate them.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

No, you are demonising him by pretending it's an ego thing and that doesn't add to Albion fans' understanding of what has happened at the club. It was a business disagreement with Bloom, nothing more nothing less.

Whilst you're deifying him by suggesting that his departure was entirely down to business reasons and a disagreement with Bloom

 

[Bold Seagull]

Appears to be dealt with by the club pretty well so far.

Risky appointment of an inexperienced manager delivers play off place (pre-season target). Doesn't fit in / want to manage at the club anymore (reasons from both sides no doubt), amicably resigns giving plenty of time to source a replacement.

Club has structure in place to keep everything moving along while new man (or women...) is identified.

Within 24 hrs makes statement to communicate to fans what is currently happening, but asks for understanding on confidential matters (understandable).

Club now operating within FFP, achieves it's 2nd play off position in 2 seasons, new training ground about to open, lots of quality candidates to take the 'managers' job.

What am I missing?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Appears to be dealt with by the club pretty well so far.

Risky appointment of an inexperienced manager delivers play off place (pre-season target). Doesn't fit in / want to manage at the club anymore (reasons from both sides no doubt), amicably resigns giving plenty of time to source a replacement.

Club has structure in place to keep everything moving along while new man (or women...) is identified.

Within 24 hrs makes statement to communicate to fans what is currently happening, but asks for understanding on confidential matters (understandable).

Club now operating within FFP, it's 2nd play off position in 2 seasons, new training ground about to open, lots of quality candidates to take the 'managers' job.

What am I missing?

A load of hysteria?

 

[London Irish]

He would and he did.

The Argus would have corrected an article that has been in print alone?

There's a lot wrong in that article, and Naylor himself will be aware he has presented a very one-sided view of the story. Take this for example:

"He regarded the sale of Barnes...as a blow but the real blow was not adequately replacing him. Bournemouth's ... Grabban was Oscar's choice. He feared wages would be a stumbling block and his fears were realised. ... "

That all seems very curious when:

1. The article does not say that Grabban was not signed due to the Albion not being able to meet Grabban's wage expectations.
2. The Albion offered Grabban a very significant pay rise on his already decent pay down at Bournemouth. (Source: Grabban's agent)

So we'll see a correction tomorrow then?

I'm not quite sure what point you are making here?

Oscar is saying we didn't offer Grabban enough to break him from his existing set-up in Bournemouth, which is predominantly about wage packet but also about other contributory things like existing home situation, maybe certain ties to people at AFC etc etc. This is beyond dispute surely? We didn't offer Grabban enough premium to break him from that package of benefits?

If that's not the case, what are the more pertinent facts?

 

[London Irish]

That's not true.

He might ring the club and ask for a comment, which they may or may not offer him depending on the circumstances.

But it's entirely his choice whether he runs the story or not. He's not a complete lap dog of the Albion, you know. It's just sometimes he may tailor what he puts in print because he knows that many Argus readers only but the paper for the Albion news, so he doesn't necessarily want to alienate them.

OK. It would genuinely surprise me if Naylor wasn't in fairly constant contact with Albion reps, his entire job revolves around maintaining workable relationships with them.