Shopping at via this link helps to support NSC

[Football] Scott Parker sacked

Welcome to North Stand Chat - the biggest and best Brighton & Hove Albion fan site.

Go on - join - you know you want to! (Pssst: you'll get fewer ads too!)

Stato

Members
Dec 21, 2011
5,410
Far from it. We have one owner who's been here for years and is a football man. He's put plenty into the club and taken absolutely nothing out, its all friendly debt. If you'd seen Parkers comments over the last few months you'd happily have binned him off. Parker was heavily backed in January and this summer we've signed four decent players.

Parker presumably tried saying what he thinks in private before saying it in public. Since the big money Sky & BT TV deals started in 2016, only two promoted club have spent less in the summer window than Bournemouth have this year. Norwich spent only £3.75m in 2019/20 and finished bottom of the EPL with 21 points: the second lowest points total acheived by a newly promoted team, beaten only by Derby's infamous lowest ever points season. Watford spent £16.92m last summer. They spent another £22m in the January window, but were still relegated in 19th with 23 points.

The 'heavy backing' that Parker got in January 2022 was EFL Championship level backing. He spent £7.24 million. If you add this to what Bournemouth have spent this summer, they would still be the third lowest spending promoted club of recent times and in the bottom three EPL spenders this summer. I've no objection to this 'Norwich model' as a sustainable strategy, but you have to accept the likely consequences of being the whipping boys in the top division every other year. Parker obviously didn't want to accept that he was being set up to fail. He could have resigned, but instead he has voiced his opinions to the point where Bournemouth have essentially paid him to shut up and go away.
 


LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
43,120
SHOREHAM BY SEA
Parker presumably tried saying what he thinks in private before saying it in public. Since the big money Sky & BT TV deals started in 2016, only two promoted club have spent less in the summer window than Bournemouth have this year. Norwich spent only £3.75m in 2019/20 and finished bottom of the EPL with 21 points: the second lowest points total acheived by a newly promoted team, beaten only by Derby's infamous lowest ever points season. Watford spent £16.92m last summer. They spent another £22m in the January window, but were still relegated in 19th with 23 points.

The 'heavy backing' that Parker got in January 2022 was EFL Championship level backing. He spent £7.24 million. If you add this to what Bournemouth have spent this summer, they would still be the third lowest spending promoted club of recent times and in the bottom three EPL spenders this summer. I've no objection to this 'Norwich model' as a sustainable strategy, but you have to accept the likely consequences of being the whipping boys in the top division every other year. Parker obviously didn't want to accept that he was being set up to fail. He could have resigned, but instead he has voiced his opinions to the point where Bournemouth have essentially paid him to shut up and go away.

Lost quite a bit of dough in the last three years
 

Baldseagull

Members
Jan 26, 2012
9,714
Crawley
Of course I hope you're right. But Villa do seem to have a bigger budget than us, and if he actually is a fan and is promised more than we can offer (whatever recruitment setup he wants, better budget for players, and a better personal salary), then would you not be a bit worried?

I think the fact that a club would consider replacing the manager, after 4 games of a season would be a red flag in itself for Potter. I also don't think we would have prised him away from Swansea if they had developed the same level of trust that there is between Potter and Bloom, and he didn't make the decision alone, Billy Reid, Bjorn Hamberg and Kyle Macaulay all came with him, and would likely go with him, and relocating to Birmingham may not be quite so interesting to them.
 

Stato

Members
Dec 21, 2011
5,410
Lost quite a bit of dough in the last three years

Fair enough. I'd never criticise a club for not spending if they don't think they can. I was only indicating that whereas the Bournemouth board's job is to run the football club and to try to balance atainment with ambition, Parker's was to keep them up. His quotes indicated that he didn't believe that he could do that with the squad he had and that he didn't want to pretend otherwise to his players. His football assessment will probably be proven correct, but the board's business assessment trumps this. He had the option to resign if he thought his position untenable, but was instead presumably trying to pressure the board in public. He overplayed his hand, but he ends up with a pay off that he wouldn't have got had he resigned.
 

Swansman

Pro-peace
May 13, 2019
21,363
Sweden
When you sack managers on a yearly basis you're effectively telling the players that "you're doing well enough, we blame the manager" and very quickly there will be a nasty club culture filled with content underperforming players who knows that if things go poorly they will still be around while the next coach gets thrown out the window. Once you turn into a sack-the-manager club, there's a very very long way up. Though Parker showed some poor, borderline unacceptable defeatist attitude, Bournemouth are now going to hire their 4th manager in two years and that is a clear sign of a poorly run club.
 

Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
68,388
When you sack managers on a yearly basis you're effectively telling the players that "you're doing well enough, we blame the manager" and very quickly there will be a nasty club culture filled with content underperforming players who knows that if things go poorly they will still be around while the next coach gets thrown out the window. Once you turn into a sack-the-manager club, there's a very very long way up. Though Parker showed some poor, borderline unacceptable defeatist attitude, Bournemouth are now going to hire their 4th manager in two years and that is a clear sign of a poorly run club.

Hopefully on their way back to League 2 where they belong. Tinpot FFP breaking club
 

Triggaaar

Members
Oct 24, 2005
45,676
Goldstone
Seven players in January including a few decent loans, Cantwell & Phillips (from Liverpool) we basically scooped up everyone we could within reason and we got the usual parachute payment flak for it.
I asked "Exactly how much was spent on how many players?" I'm not trying to take the piss, it's a genuine question.

We are what we are, we're building an academy, we can't keep blowing money on players.
I agree. Clubs should spend within their means, not do a Palace/Pompey. But if you do a Norwich, then you get relegated.

Parker must have known what he had to work with.
How would he know that nothing much would be spent if you got promoted?

Parkers comments over the last few months have been completely unacceptable, not just to the board but about the players (many of whom he signed).
I believe you, and understand if the club had to get rid of him. But I am questioning whether the owners have given you a chance of survival, and if not, why a manager would want to stay.
 

Triggaaar

Members
Oct 24, 2005
45,676
Goldstone
I think the fact that a club would consider replacing the manager, after 4 games of a season would be a red flag in itself for Potter.
What if the club haven't considered it, but instead contacted him after half the season?

and he didn't make the decision alone, Billy Reid, Bjorn Hamberg and Kyle Macaulay all came with him, and would likely go with him, and relocating to Birmingham may not be quite so interesting to them.
Maybe they are the exception, because I don't think a managers team ever really get a say.
 


MJsGhost

Remembers
Jun 26, 2009
3,594
East
The 9-0 is just a cover for a summer long dispute with the owners and his frustration at his squad and transfers that boiled over in his post match/Liverpool interviews . They aren't exactly pulling punches in the statement
" it is unconditional that we are aligned in our strategy to run the club sustainably. We must also show belief in and respect for one another.'That is the approach that has brought this club so much success in recent history, and one that we will not veer from now"

The statement is so clear that it's not even as if they are trying to use the 9-0 as 'cover'. It's nothing to do with the result and, as you say, everything to do with misalignment of thoughts on strategy.

Parker has gone full Conte, which is all very well if you have the successful track record of, y'know... Conte, but if you're a cardi-bothering rookie manager at a tin-pot club it's not going to get you very far.

His outburst after the Liverpool game would have destroyed any remaining morale in the squad and royally f***ed off the owner, so I'm not surprised he has been given the boot. It's possible that his contract has a clause about not criticising the board, so he may not even get much of a payoff, or even a payoff at all.

Keeping them up was always going to be a HUGE challenge, but you at least need your manager to make the right noises about it being possible, rather than taking pot-shots at the board (even if they are justified).

Wazza Rooney in next? A massive long-shot to keep them up, but he did a very good job at Derby (in the circumstances), so would be well-placed to get them back up next season.
 

Baldseagull

Members
Jan 26, 2012
9,714
Crawley
I think they were probably right to shift him, and given that the other two promoted sides and the rest of the division are spending so much or are already at a higher level and don't need to, they would be in trouble even if they did spend quite large on improved players, probably right not to bother too much from a cost benefit point of view.
Considering the parachute payments for clubs that are relegated though, should parachute payments be reduced for failing to invest, or failing to achieve a minimum points total, or some other measurement of failing to really try and stay up?
 

Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
28,391
Hove
I think they were probably right to shift him, and given that the other two promoted sides and the rest of the division are spending so much or are already at a higher level and don't need to, they would be in trouble even if they did spend quite large on improved players, probably right not to bother too much from a cost benefit point of view.
Considering the parachute payments for clubs that are relegated though, should parachute payments be reduced for failing to invest, or failing to achieve a minimum points total, or some other measurement of failing to really try and stay up?

The integrity of the competition and a key marketing point is the competitiveness of most of the games. The PL don’t want sides coming up being reluctant to spend, they want sides to strengthen and be competitive from the get go. They’d increase parachute payments before they reduce them as they don’t actually want Norwichs coming up and stinking the place out.
 

Baldseagull

Members
Jan 26, 2012
9,714
Crawley
What if the club haven't considered it, but instead contacted him after half the season?

Maybe they are the exception, because I don't think a managers team ever really get a say.

I don't think he would be too interested in a mid season switch either, that situation is usually an emergency, fairly quick turn around in gaining points required to avoid relegation, Potter had 2 seasons here without much of a change in points tally over Hughton.
I might have him wrong, but I would be very surprised if his next job came about like that, he seems to be much more interested in being allowed to work through a process of steady improvement in performances which eventually should lead to a more reliable form of success, and building something, doesn't strike me as the man to go in and shake up a demoralised squad and breath fire into them. Maybe he could do it, but I can't see him enjoying it.

I really can't imagine Potter just saying to the guys that have been at his side for 12 years now, "I am off to Villa, I can get you a job there too if you fancy it, if not, see ya." It seems clear that there is much more respect and recognition of their importance to him and the work they do for that to be the case, and he would want them on board.
 

MJsGhost

Remembers
Jun 26, 2009
3,594
East
Your owners want nothing more than dividends on their investments. Just like the Glazers and the former owners of Burnley.

Be very careful who you side with, very careful indeed.

You still have a Championship squad unlike Fulham and especially Forest who have a clear transfer strategy.

Unless you get Dyche, you are looking at 20th place for most of the season. The responsibility for this will sit squarely with your owners who have a profound love and need for money alongside an ignorant knowledge of the football world. Blame them, not Scotty Parker whom only a couple of Months ago, gave you your second EPL promotion. Get in your lane!

In fairness (and I've no idea if this is true or not), if the strategy is similar to Norwich's - i.e. not to spunk a load on players in an attempt to stay up, but to accept that yo-yoing up and down is a better (lower risk) strategy toward eventually establishing as a more permanent fixture in the premier league, then maybe they have a point. A failed 'moon shot' only leads to debt and/or a fire-sale of players, so a few years of overall improvement in the squad & infrastructure financed by the yo-yoing without overstretching seems like a more sensible move.

It's possible that this Maxim chap just wants to trouser the PL revenue and not build the club of course. BUT, if he's only in it for the money then establishing Bournemouth in the prem in the medium term is surely the best way to achieve this anyway?

There's obviously a sweet spot somewhere between squirrelling away cash for the future and spending it all (and more) trying to stay up, but in general my personal view is that the Norwich approach is better than that of Forest for example. If they don't manage to stay up, they are going to do a Leeds / Bolton / Pompey, so the fans had better enjoy this season as they'll be back playing Burton Albion (or maybe even Notts County) before they know it.
 
May 1, 2016
10,432
Oxton, Birkenhead
I think they were probably right to shift him, and given that the other two promoted sides and the rest of the division are spending so much or are already at a higher level and don't need to, they would be in trouble even if they did spend quite large on improved players, probably right not to bother too much from a cost benefit point of view.
Considering the parachute payments for clubs that are relegated though, should parachute payments be reduced for failing to invest, or failing to achieve a minimum points total, or some other measurement of failing to really try and stay up?

A move like that by the PL wouldn’t surprise me. It would be the greedy edifice feeding itself and the whole money frenzy that is all that matters to our game. For myself I don’t see anything wrong with a club working within its own limits and growing at its own pace. Money can be spent on more than just players. Not every club has an academy and ground given to it for free by a wealthy fan.
 

Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
Oct 8, 2003
40,668
Faversham
Good to read your point of view. If he was indeed manufacturing his own departure, is that not a worry in itself? I can't imagine he'd do that without reason, so he's come to the conclusion that the owners just want the money from the club and won't invest in players, and a season managing Championship players would be futile.

You say he was "heavily backed in the January transfer market". Exactly how much was spent on how many players?

It may simply be lack of judgement.

One thing I have found peculiar is that in the couple of interviews I have heard with him recently his diction seems to have become coarser that in was a year or so ago, wiv his replies not fort out well I don't fink. Like he'd spent the last few months slowly turning into Paul Sitton :shrug:
 


Triggaaar

Members
Oct 24, 2005
45,676
Goldstone
I don't think he would be too interested in a mid season switch either, that situation is usually an emergency, fairly quick turn around in gaining points required to avoid relegation, Potter had 2 seasons here without much of a change in points tally over Hughton.
I might have him wrong, but I would be very surprised if his next job came about like that, he seems to be much more interested in being allowed to work through a process of steady improvement in performances which eventually should lead to a more reliable form of success, and building something, doesn't strike me as the man to go in and shake up a demoralised squad and breath fire into them. Maybe he could do it, but I can't see him enjoying it.
I agree he'd only be interested if he was convinced it was a long term project, with things done his way. If they were likely to go down, I doubt he'd risk it, but if they were just lower table - probably safe but with poor football given the players they have, he wouldn't be fire fighting.

I really can't imagine Potter just saying to the guys that have been at his side for 12 years now, "I am off to Villa, I can get you a job there too if you fancy it, if not, see ya."
Obviously it wouldn't be like that. If he was convinced that the backing was there for a project like ours, but with more money and a higher ceiling, then he'd sell that to his colleagues.
 

Baldseagull

Members
Jan 26, 2012
9,714
Crawley
The integrity of the competition and a key marketing point is the competitiveness of most of the games. The PL don’t want sides coming up being reluctant to spend, they want sides to strengthen and be competitive from the get go. They’d increase parachute payments before they reduce them as they don’t actually want Norwichs coming up and stinking the place out.

That was my point, if the Parachute payments are in place, but a club fails to spend and improve to be competitive, should they still receive the same sized parachute payments as a club that has invested to be competitive and still ends up relegated?
 

afcb

Members
Dec 14, 2007
392
Parker presumably tried saying what he thinks in private before saying it in public. Since the big money Sky & BT TV deals started in 2016, only two promoted club have spent less in the summer window than Bournemouth have this year. Norwich spent only £3.75m in 2019/20 and finished bottom of the EPL with 21 points: the second lowest points total acheived by a newly promoted team, beaten only by Derby's infamous lowest ever points season. Watford spent £16.92m last summer. They spent another £22m in the January window, but were still relegated in 19th with 23 points.

The 'heavy backing' that Parker got in January 2022 was EFL Championship level backing. He spent £7.24 million. If you add this to what Bournemouth have spent this summer, they would still be the third lowest spending promoted club of recent times and in the bottom three EPL spenders this summer. I've no objection to this 'Norwich model' as a sustainable strategy, but you have to accept the likely consequences of being the whipping boys in the top division every other year. Parker obviously didn't want to accept that he was being set up to fail. He could have resigned, but instead he has voiced his opinions to the point where Bournemouth have essentially paid him to shut up and go away.

We've spent £24 million this summer plus three free transfers. The issue is with players winding down contracts and getting them cheap or on a free is you don't have a level playing field of how much they're worth in an open market, especially when a PL club comes knocking. So that figure could conceivably be £35 million with Fredericks, Rothwell, Neto I dunno, also the window isn't shut and there was talk of more coming in this week.

I guess you're looking at transfer markt for your figures. In that case last season (including January) we spent £11.3 million however the total market value of those players is far in excess of that. We were known as big spenders in the Championship, with a squad valued at £144 million (apparently) . As I said we're trying to grow off the pitch building the new academy etc, we have few expectations in the PL other than give it a go, personally if we could be a competitive championship club most of us would be happy with a bit of yo yo 'ing with odd dabble at the top table.

Although we thought we'd struggle we thought we had enough to make a proper go of it and still do, however that's the managers job to motivate. Instead he did a brilliant job of belittling them and slagging off the board...nah sod him.
 
Last edited:

Baldseagull

Members
Jan 26, 2012
9,714
Crawley
A move like that by the PL wouldn’t surprise me. It would be the greedy edifice feeding itself and the whole money frenzy that is all that matters to our game. For myself I don’t see anything wrong with a club working within its own limits and growing at its own pace. Money can be spent on more than just players. Not every club has an academy and ground given to it for free by a wealthy fan.

But then there are owners like the Oystons too.
I would be happy for Stadium improvements, and academy improvements to be considered as investing in being competitive, I just don't like the idea of a club owner potentially being rewarded for a relegation they could have tried better to avoid, I know staying up pays more than going down, but if it costs £50M to even try and stay up, but you are still likely to go down, it could be a safer bet to spend nothing and get your £90M over 3 years in parachute payments, than try but fail to stay up with higher paid players that came on large fees, and see that cash evaporate on their wages if you can't shift them.
 
May 1, 2016
10,432
Oxton, Birkenhead
But then there are owners like the Oystons too.
I would be happy for Stadium improvements, and academy improvements to be considered as investing in being competitive, I just don't like the idea of a club owner potentially being rewarded for a relegation they could have tried better to avoid, I know staying up pays more than going down, but if it costs £50M to even try and stay up, but you are still likely to go down, it could be a safer bet to spend nothing and get your £90M over 3 years in parachute payments, than try but fail to stay up with higher paid players that came on large fees, and see that cash evaporate on their wages if you can't shift them.

I would worry about further inflationary pressures in an already ridiculous market which just moves the goalposts even further for promoted teams. Selling clubs would have them over a barrel knowing they are required to spend. The problem with attaching strings to the payments is clever accounting practices and this applies to infrastructure spend as well. Personally, I like the Norwich model. There is nothing wrong with relegation for a well run club. It’s also worth noting that the year Fulham got promoted and spent £100m they were rubbish.
 

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Top