Or not so much money and they asked us to keep quiet?
Quote from: Risso on July 12, 2011, 10:21:04 AMYes, being a demanding bugger and winning the Champions League as a result must be a nightmare for an owner. Far better to appoint somebody much more manageable with two Premier League relegations to his name.I know you'll take the anti-board line on most things right now, but in truth he wasn't about to win the CL with us. My own reading of the situation is that we wanted too much cash for players and control on how and where it was spent. And haven't we said that the board were complacent for allowing MON to do similar with deals like Harewood and Beye?It would've all ended in tears, IMO.
Yes, being a demanding bugger and winning the Champions League as a result must be a nightmare for an owner. Far better to appoint somebody much more manageable with two Premier League relegations to his name.
It would've all ended in tears, IMO.
Quote from: Chris Smith on July 12, 2011, 10:30:54 AMOr not so much money and they asked us to keep quiet? Possibly but, as you said, we're the ones who did the tapping up so that strikes me as unlikely.
Quote from: hilts_coolerking on July 12, 2011, 10:36:57 AMQuote from: Chris Smith on July 12, 2011, 10:30:54 AMOr not so much money and they asked us to keep quiet? Possibly but, as you said, we're the ones who did the tapping up so that strikes me as unlikely.As I also said, it was in their interests to settle too so the most likely outcome is a compromise figure that both sides are happy(ish) with.
...why does it have to be a good deal? Blues wanted the full payout, we said no, they met somewhere in the middle that alleviated the need for further distraction and cost. However you want to cut it, the end result is that it puts an end to this affair, and hopefully we can get on with preparing for the season. Today's announcement doesn't change a thing in my eyes. We got a manager that most of us didn't endorse, but he's the manager and that's that. Had we got an employed manager like Moyes that was popular we'd have likely paid even more in compensation. All I know, at least from my persepective is that we now we have to get behind the club and hope that the decision made by the board is justified.
Quote from: Chris Smith on July 12, 2011, 10:41:06 AMQuote from: hilts_coolerking on July 12, 2011, 10:36:57 AMQuote from: Chris Smith on July 12, 2011, 10:30:54 AMOr not so much money and they asked us to keep quiet? Possibly but, as you said, we're the ones who did the tapping up so that strikes me as unlikely.As I also said, it was in their interests to settle too so the most likely outcome is a compromise figure that both sides are happy(ish) with.The Blues had nothing to lose, we did. I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.
The Blues had nothing to lose, we did. I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.
Quote from: Risso on July 12, 2011, 10:47:54 AMThe Blues had nothing to lose, we did. I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.I agree. While a compromise figure may have been reached, I think that Blues will have got the better end of the deal.
If you'd have said a couple of months ago that we would be tapping up Alex McLeish and paying through the nose for the pleasure, you'd have been carted away by the whitecoats.It defies belief.
Quote from: Risso on July 12, 2011, 10:47:54 AMThe Blues had nothing to lose, we did. I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.Aprt from McLeish's constructive dismissal case, that is.
Quote from: John M on July 12, 2011, 10:33:50 AMIt would've all ended in tears, IMO.As opposed to appointing McLeish, which has all started in tears.