Kevin MacDonald the next Manager???

[Concrete John]

If Jol has ruled himself out (I haven't seen it myself) then I think it's going to be MacDonald almost by default because there don't seem to be any credible alternatives at the moment. I'm discounting some of the more fanciful names because they are not going to come here to help us reduce spending.

I must be reading different posts from the General to you, Chris.
My understanding is we want to remove off the wage list those players that never or rarely get selected and are paid high wages.
In return that money is to be given to those players "that deserve it". Included in this catagory are I suspect existing and new players.

I don't think it's not so much to reduce spending, rather to reduce waste. Too completely different things.

Yes, I agree with this.

As per the question I posted to the General earlier today, we can't stop the 'waste' by spreading the wages around less players AND address the ratio to turnover position.  So which is the problem - total wages or who they're going to? 

[Mazrim]

He doesn't actually strike me as that wily, that's the problem. He strikes me as incredibly good-natured, possibly a little shy and rather private and guarded. As Paulie said a while back, maybe too nice. That just doesn't strike me as an ideal recipe for being a top-flight manager.

You've clarified what you mean by stability, so I'll clarify what I mean by mad. I don't mean eccentric, like MON, because he was sometimes borderline certifiable. I mean this type of insane drive that means you just have to keep going, a need to succeed to coin a horrible jargon-like phrase. Ferguson is the epitome of this; when he was asked what he'd do if he won a 19th title to overtake Liverpool, he replied "try and win a 20th". I just don't see enough of that kind of character in K Mac, which probably makes him a much nicer man than Ferguson, but not a manager.

I dont see there being a Holotype for a premier league manager. It takes all sorts I suppose.
Also, I dont know enough about what drives Kevin MacDonald (I'm not sure any of us here do) but I do know the players love him and that he's tactically sound and a great motivator. That will do for me. They're the core principles I want in a manager.

I think we get hung up on terms like manager and coach and what seperates them.
It may be that he isnt up to it. I just dont see any justification for that reasoning right now.

[Mazrim]

If Jol has ruled himself out (I haven't seen it myself) then I think it's going to be MacDonald almost by default because there don't seem to be any credible alternatives at the moment. I'm discounting some of the more fanciful names because they are not going to come here to help us reduce spending.

I must be reading different posts from the General to you, Chris.
My understanding is we want to remove off the wage list those players that never or rarely get selected and are paid high wages.
In return that money is to be given to those players "that deserve it". Included in this catagory are I suspect existing and new players.

I don't think it's not so much to reduce spending, rather to reduce waste. Too completely different things.

Yes, I agree with this.

As per the question I posted to the General earlier today, we can't stop the 'waste' by spreading the wages around less players AND address the ratio to turnover position.  So which is the problem - total wages or who they're going to? 

I think the problem always was "value for money". I think Randy can manage the wage bill and increase turnover to cope accordingly, but if this wage bill is going on players that are not playing, not representing value for money, then there's a problem.

Its like running a haulage firm and having six or seven trucks driving around doing nothing.

[Chris Smith]

If Jol has ruled himself out (I haven't seen it myself) then I think it's going to be MacDonald almost by default because there don't seem to be any credible alternatives at the moment. I'm discounting some of the more fanciful names because they are not going to come here to help us reduce spending.

I must be reading different posts from the General to you, Chris.
My understanding is we want to remove off the wage list those players that never or rarely get selected and are paid high wages.
In return that money is to be given to those players "that deserve it". Included in this catagory are I suspect existing and new players.

I don't think it's not so much to reduce spending, rather to reduce waste. Too completely different things.

Yes, I agree with this.

As per the question I posted to the General earlier today, we can't stop the 'waste' by spreading the wages around less players AND address the ratio to turnover position.  So which is the problem - total wages or who they're going to? 

I think the problem always was "value for money". I think Randy can manage the wage bill and increase turnover to cope accordingly, but if this wage bill is going on players that are not playing, not representing value for money, then there's a problem.

Its like running a haulage firm and having six or seven trucks driving around doing nothing.

Don't agree, from reading their comments in recent weeks they want a lower wage bill full stop.

[Mazrim]

Which comments specifically?

[Chris Smith]

Which comments specifically?

I don't care enough to go trawling around looking for them but Randy's stuff about staying within our means and the General's about wages to turnover.

I also think Risso once mentioned something about our wage bill being higher than Spurs but I might be mistaken on that. <wink>

[Concrete John]

I think the problem always was "value for money". I think Randy can manage the wage bill and increase turnover to cope accordingly, but if this wage bill is going on players that are not playing, not representing value for money, then there's a problem.

Its like running a haulage firm and having six or seven trucks driving around doing nothing.

I think that's where we differ.

I don't think the turnover can be increased, or at least not immediately, to the point where the ratio is where they want it to be.  So are simply paying the same total to different players and rotating them more will not do the job.  I think they want it utilised better, but also reduced.

From a purely financial point of view, would Randy still see it as a problem if Martin had used the squad more last season?  I think he would have done! 

[eastie]

If luke and reo coker are being used then that's fair enough- I can see randy being worried paying big wages to players who rarely kick a ball but now o neill is gone I think luke and nige both will get a fair crack and save us replacing them.

Heskey , sidwell and davies however can all go and would clear the wage bill enough to maybe get in another striker and midfielder maybe.

keV mac will know keane from his Irish coaching but with Defoe injured harry might not part with him now , I'd like another one or two players in if possible but if not we have a decent squad and players will not be frozen out now o neill has finally gone!

[Toronto Villa]

Which comments specifically?

I don't care enough to go trawling around looking for them but Randy's stuff about staying within our means and the General's about wages to turnover.

I also think Risso once mentioned something about our wage bill being higher than Spurs but I might be mistaken on that. <wink>

Chris, that's not what he said at all. What's been suggested is that the current wage bill has got out of hand as it relates to turnover. Additionally it was a growing concern that we had spent good money on players that weren't playing. Paying hefty wages on players that provided limited return. My belief is that the board just wants to bring this under control as it relates to our place in the game which is financially responsible.

[JUAN PABLO]

Rumours down Villa...     Koeman could be the one...   

[Chris Smith]

Rumours down Villa...     Koeman could be the one...   

Do I not like that.

[Concrete John]

If it is Koeman, I'd say lets give him a chance and see what extra he can bring to us. 

[Toronto Villa]

I don't know enough about his management to comment, but you can guarantee foreign signings. Seems like an up and coming manager, and he was a seriously top player.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Rumours down Villa...     Koeman could be the one...   

Do I not like that.

Me neither. His record in management is really poor.

[Risso]

I also think Risso once mentioned something about our wage bill being higher than Spurs but I might be mistaken on that. <wink>

I may have mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.