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

[somerset]

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

You know, I think both camps probably have some elements of truth in their stories, they will cherry pick to suit obviously, but what irks most of us, is the less than savoury way Gus presented it, ie MOTD2. Thats what sits heaviest with me, I lost any remaining respect at that point.

 

[London Irish]

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

No, never been a big fan of Gus as a person. Grew to admire his footballing principles but even that wasn't a quick process.

I think it will be the same if we have Sherwood here. I don't think I will naturally "like" that kind of bumptious personality but I'll take it if it's entertaining and more importantly if it gets results on the pitch.

 

[edna krabappel]

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.

Of course. But it a a two way thing isn't it? They need him, he needs them.

 

[keaton]

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.

That's definetely the post of someone who doesn't have an agenda where Gus is concerned

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I'm sure FFP is and will be discussed infinitum with the clubs. It does however have to be remembered the vast majority of clubs voted for it in the guise it exists in at present. Also clubs relegated have a year to comply so this year the likes of QPR do not have the restrictions we and others have. Is it right? No I would say but I refer to vote again.

How many of the clubs who voted for it knew they could flout the rules with creative accountancy on sponsorship and/or take the chance of ignoring the guidelines altogether to achieve promotion because the sanctions are a pittance in comparison to copping £120M ?

 

[Danny-Boy]

Most of the palace fans I've spoken to don't care.

I do, I'd like to have seen Albion joining Palace in the Premiership next season.

But looking from the outside, I have to say that I think Albion did well to get to the play-offs this term. The Championship this season was far more competitive than last time, with all three relegated clubs fighting to get back up (Reading QPR and Wigan); they all finished in the top 7.

Conversely the Premiership was weak with eleven clubs at a lateish stage all trying to ward off relegation. That must be unprecedented.

The trouble is with parachute payments, it's going to get tougher for the clubs like Albion who have risen up the league or been static (Leeds, Ipswich etc.) for some years. Wolves have come up and still get parachute money. Brentford allegedly have £43m, what good that will be, who knows?

I just found the article Naylor wrote in January when Derby only won 1-0 at home, the writing was on the wall then if you read what he said then. Especially the failure to replace El-Abd, maybe not a key player but a key part of the dressing-room and a player who didn't really want to leave the club. You need to keep those players.

My own view is that Upson is too predictable and Dunk if anything not predictable enough. And do you REALLY need 3 keepers? Palace are happy with Speroni/Hennessy. Makes it easier for defenders as they know who the goalie is going to be.

I fear Albion will have to rebuild the defence now, if only to make sure you at least stay in the Championship. That MUST be the club's priority.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Exactly. Is anyone seriously suggesting that Burnley have flouted the FFP rules? They have spent reasonable money, year in, year out, and with a bit of consistency at the top put together a squad that has deservedly gone up automatically ahead of the astronomical wages being thrown around at QPR.

note: I now await someone telling me that Burnley have in fact been spending a FORTUNE on wages. I have some humble pie on hand just in case.

Burnley was receiving their final parachute payment of £8M , they could have been screwed next season having to compete in a much tougher league with Fulham , Norwich and Cardiff all receiving £23M as their first parachute payment.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

How many of the clubs who voted for it knew they could flout the rules with creative accountancy on sponsorship and/or take the chance of ignoring the guidelines altogether to achieve promotion because the sanctions are a pittance in comparison to copping £120M ?

The sanctions will hit hard if promotion is not achieved. The transfer embargo is far more stringent than been handed out before. No new signings, contract extensions, improved contracts etc until the failing clubs becomes within the FFP framework. Yes it's a gamble for some to pin hope on promotion.

 

[Gritt23]

Burnley was receiving their final parachute payment of £8M , they could have been screwed next season having to compete in a much tougher league with Fulham , Norwich and Cardiff all receiving £23M as their first parachute payment.

True, it was their last season of parachute payments, but they were insistent that they were cutting their wage bill season on season to ensure that they would be compliant with FFP, both this season, and going forward.

 

[ROSM]

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)

The rumour abounded, from sources in the club that Grabban didn't sign because Oscar refused to meet him. But in the article today it says Oscar, and Jones, met Grabban and ha was excited at their plans for him.

Does anybody know why he.didn't sign?

 

[perseus]

Wages 2012-13 https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/453796164740337664/photo/1

 

[Acker79]

Wages 2012-13 https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/453796164740337664/photo/1

I wonder how many teams included fees brought forward and redundancy payments, like ours.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Does anybody know why he.didn't sign?

Someone pivotal was abroad and unobtainable due to a time zone/biological clock issue.

 

[Sheebo]

The rumour abounded, from sources in the club that Grabban didn't sign because Oscar refused to meet him. But in the article today it says Oscar, and Jones, met Grabban and ha was excited at their plans for him.

Does anybody know why he.didn't sign?

Burke answered this question at a recent fans forum. There was some reading between the lines to be done but my interpretation was that Grabban used us to get a better deal at Bmouth...

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

But looking from the outside,

Just carry on looking. This is an Albion thread.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

I assume that as OG resigned he will not be entitled to any form of compensation on the balance of his contract?

Tendering a resignation and then this being accepted is, in affect, mutual consent to break the contract. i.e. both parties agree. No one aggrieved or left high and dry = no compo due in either direction.

 

[AZ Gull]

It takes two to tango. Poyet and Burke danced together quite well. Maybe Oscar has two left feet.

Based on the signings of Obika and Stephens this past season, I'm expecting Jones and Burke to appear together on the next Come Dancing.

 

[Mancgull]

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.

I have to agree with this. I think it's all a rather convenient excuse from OG. If he was committed to his 3 year contract, he would have seen this summer's clear out of Poyet's buys as a golden opportunity to develop his own squad. Instead, he feels he has seen his stock rise, he has heard rumour of interest from Celta Vigo and a Premier League Club, and feels that now is the right time to go. How many people resign from a well paid job without knowing that a new one is lined up or extremely likely to happen?

He's done it all gracefully, but let's not forget that he could have put his foot down and insisted on certain deals taking place or not taking place in his time with BHA. I'm pretty certain he would have had this power. He has been a little disingenuous. However, I wish him well but more importantly, I hope we make a good decision when we recruit our new manager.

 

[El Presidente]

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.

Yet Naylor chose to omit this part of the club statement in his afternoon article...

We have also read some of the more disappointing criticisms of the club in one or two areas this morning - some of it unjustified, inaccurate, and unbalanced in our opinion, prompting even more questions from our fans

 

[El Presidente]

The rumour abounded, from sources in the club that Grabban didn't sign because Oscar refused to meet him. But in the article today it says Oscar, and Jones, met Grabban and ha was excited at their plans for him.

Does anybody know why he.didn't sign?

I recall Bridcutt saying that Poyet and Tano practically kidnapped him when he was on the verge of signing for.............Torquay, and that impressed him enough to sign for us, he was made to feel wanted.

Perhaps OG didn't sell the Albion very well to Grabban? Grabban's agent is pro Albion in general, so he didn't decline due to wanting to entertain the cowsheds of Dean Court each week.