Burke and barber

[Bold Seagull]

Why not? Throughout recent history people have been making similar suggestions - that bergkamp wasn't wanted by gus, that Murray was forced on Wilkins, and so on.

It's a collaborative process. Managers come and go so the club needs to have continuity in it's recruitment structure. Sometimes scouts will find a player that the club will feel strongly enough to sign on even if the manager doesn't agree - Murray proved to be a great signing.

Likewise, a manager will attract players and the club will sign those.

To conclude suddenly that Burke has OVERALL control of all signings, and the manager has to live with them is just ludicrous. Burke will have given Oscar profiles of everyone they currently have their eye on, and after seeing his team in action, no doubt Oscar has given his own list, or his own requirements of what he thinks we need.

It's just spurious claims and hearsay to suggest otherwise. Since the buses went, it seems people have heightened their need to tear strips off the football club.

 

[Acker79]

It's a collaborative process. Managers come and go so the club needs to have continuity in it's recruitment structure. Sometimes scouts will find a player that the club will feel strongly enough to sign on even if the manager doesn't agree - Murray proved to be a great signing.

Likewise, a manager will attract players and the club will sign those.

To conclude suddenly that Burke has OVERALL control of all signings, and the manager has to live with them is just ludicrous. Burke will have given Oscar profiles of everyone they currently have their eye on, and after seeing his team in action, no doubt Oscar has given his own list, or his own requirements of what he thinks we need.

It's just spurious claims and hearsay to suggest otherwise. Since the buses went, it seems people have heightened their need to tear strips off the football club.

But equally, to write off that it happens at all when it seems accepted that it has happened before is equally ludicrous.

 

[Bold Seagull]

But equally, to write off that it happens at all when it seems accepted that it has happened before is equally ludicrous.

I'm now completely lost on what your point is...

 

[Acker79]

I'm now completely lost on what your point is...

I was responding to the comment that "the set up hasn't changed" and that "there was not a chance" the club are signing players that oscar doesn't want.

My point is that the set up has previous for supposedly signing players the manager doesn't want (giving the examples of Agdestein and Murray - two players who were allegedly not wanted by then managers), that a) this isn't a new allegation, b) that if it were true before there's a chance it's true now.

I'm not saying every signing is the club deciding they want a player regardless of the manager, but that it supposedly happened under gus, under wilkins, that it probably happens more frequently than fans realise (one of the palace chairmen openly spoke about enquiring about a player that Freedman had already said he didn't want). So dismiss it as an impossibility is as wrong as claiming every signing occurs that way.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I was responding to the comment that "the set up hasn't changed" and that "there was not a chance" the club are signing players that oscar doesn't want.

My point is that the set up has previous for supposedly signing players the manager doesn't want (giving the examples of Agdestein and Murray - two players who were allegedly not wanted by then managers), that a) this isn't a new allegation, b) that if it were true before there's a chance it's true now.

I'm not saying every signing is the club deciding they want a player regardless of the manager, but that it supposedly happened under gus, under wilkins, that it probably happens more frequently than fans realise (one of the palace chairmen openly spoke about enquiring about a player that Freedman had already said he didn't want). So dismiss it as an impossibility is as wrong as claiming every signing occurs that way.

I was only dismissing the idea that Burke has complete control over signings and the manager is told who he has got and who he is getting. This is simply not true.

As we have both pointed out, there maybe incidents where the club want to sign someone they've been watching a long time even if the manager doesn't approve, afterall managers come and go, however I know that for the most part it is a collaborative process with the manager, with ultimately the manager's say being the most important in the majority of cases.

 

[les dynam]

My concern is that it seems like most clubs are completely ignoring FFP. And i'm talking about big spending Euro clubs like Monaco, PSG, Real Madrid etc as well as our championship rivals like Forest and Boro.

FFP only arrived because the big boys agreed to it (mainly out of greed, but that's a different thread perhaps). However now faced with the realities of FFP it seems that the big boys have decided that FFP isn't in fact what they'd voted for, and have therefore decided to ignore it - which makes it redundant in the long term.

And even if it does stick around for a few years the punishments for breaking the rules are laughable. If you get promoted you have to pay a fine which is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the riches you'll earn from promotion. And if you don't go up, you have a pointless transfer embargo which is, in reality, no such thing: look at Watford or Brum, two clubs who have signed loads of new players whilst under embargo.

I honestly can't see FFP lasting for more than 2 seasons before it's scrapped.

 

[sydney]

it's a load of BOLLOX.

how and why can there be a ffp agreement where the three relegated teams have 20million quid to play with for the next three seasons...at what point does this become fair...?

 

[marshy68]

If Barber = Bloom why do we need Barber?

Cos bloom likes to go on holiday and play lots of poker rather than be bothered to run a football club full time - cant say I blame him reading what muppets write on here.