Don't sack Zola

The very best posts from KUMB over the years ...

Moderator: Gnome

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby stubbsy07 on Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:54 am

Love the arguing. Both are **** managers
User avatar
stubbsy07
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:56 pm
Location: Saying no to the Athletics Stadium

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby theflafson on Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:33 am

stubbsy07 wrote:Both are sh*t managers


Please, i could say the same about some of the posters here too... Headbanger
theflafson
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby hammerdivone on Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:37 am

Chuck D wrote:Where have I done that HD?

Could you please show me the "hatred for Zola"? Unless you are making it up again?

I'll explain the point again, cos you seem to be having trouble getting your head around it.

If you start with a very good squad, and then end up destroying the work done by the previous incumbent (by selling/releasing perfectly good players, and replacing them with foreign players who cant handle the Prem, just because you vainly thought you could play your tactics in the Prem) over a total of 70 odd games you really dont deserve the thanks of the supporters. You seem to feel differently, and thats your business.

Grant started out with a sows ear (left to him by Zola), and has - thus far - done about the same as Zola did last season, without the benefit of a season to work with his team, mould his tactics, and sign the players he wanted over a sustained period.

When Grant has had a two year tenure, its worthwhile comparing how well he has done in comparison with Zola.


As you may have mentioned a number of times Chuck, Zola (the Chelsea Chimp as you called him) had little or no say in the transfers (and should have been man enough to walk in your opinion) yet you continue to say it was he who let Bellamy, Bowyer, Neill go. Sales were forced upon him as you well know and probably until McCarthy (which I will concede was a mistake) he had little say in who came in either.He was trying to manage a club which in the background was in financial turmoil, with rumours arife of receivership etc. yet you only concede he faced some 'challenges'.

Yet with all these issues you blame Zola for Grant inheriting the 'sows ear' which clearly was not his fault. That sows ear of course contained 4 England players and various other internationals which this experienced manager, with the addition of his own players, a full pre-season and 19 league games has managed to take us to the giddy heights of 19th position.

Still you are happy to give him a two year tenure irrespective of whether includes relegation and financial disaster for the club
User avatar
hammerdivone
 
Posts: 21052
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Somewhere between here and reality

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby miles on Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:47 am

hammerdivone wrote:Sales were forced upon him as you well know and probably until McCarthy (which I will concede was a mistake) he had little say in who came in either.


One would think so. But the "Dorrans" press conference clearly suggests otherwise...
User avatar
miles
This site...
 
Posts: 3552
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:56 am

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby Zola4ever on Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:53 am

zola4ever :lol:
User avatar
Zola4ever
 
Posts: 2352
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 12:45 pm

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby prophet:marginal on Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:01 pm

Chuck D wrote:Grant started out with a sows ear (left to him by Zola), and has - thus far - done about the same as Zola did last season, without the benefit of a season to work with his team, mould his tactics, and sign the players he wanted over a sustained period.


Grant has not done about the same as Zola. Why do you keep saying that? The latter was in the bottom three for a handful of weeks. The very crux of my posts are that the replacement - who has spent the entire season there - hasn't done as well as his predecessor.

The predecessor presided over a period where any old (unusual) deal was being done so that the club could stay afloat. He didn't use the Collins' money (and he's having a very poor season anyway) to buy Diamanti, Duxbury and Straumur used this season's ST money to do that, because it was advanced to them by SBOBET.

Zola didn't allow Neill to leave on a free transfer, because that's implication that it was Zola who had final say on how much Neill could be paid (at a time when the club's finances were in bits). Neill left and frankly disappeared. You know more than me about how much Jiminez cost in wages. Jiminez was a poor signing. I don't dispute that. He was here for a short time, considerably shorter than some of the signings made apparently under Grant's guidance, who may have as limited an impact.

Did you complain about Etherington's departure at the time? Very few did. Admittedly, he has changed for the better. At the time, he was ineffective for us. We probably needed the money.

However, despite all of this argument about revisionism, my initial post in the reseurrection of this thread was to note that Grant has had a lot more time and money afforded to him by his employers. Its the owners, not Zola, who will bear eventual responsibility for all of this, if the gamble doesn't pay off.
User avatar
prophet:marginal
 
Posts: 23959
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:54 pm
Location: And I guess, but I just don't know

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby bubbles1966 on Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:02 pm

Hammer83 wrote:What influence would you have liked to see him do at the time then?


Build something resembling a decent football team, with players that looked like they could play Premiership football, perhaps?

prophet:marginal wrote:that Grant has had a lot more time and money afforded to him by his employers.


Zola had 2 years P.M.

And all this, "he didn't have money" stuff is simply untrue.

West Ham United wrote: Transfers of player registrations completed subsequent to 31 May 2009 amount to a net £5,211,000 payable by the group (2008 – £11,673,000 receivable) with a further net £3,837,000 payable (2008 – £3,754,000 receivable) contingent on certain future events.


In simple terms, we spent the Collins money, Neill's wages and added over £9 million to our potential liabilities to acquire Diamanti, Jimenez, Kovac, Dacosta etc last summer.

We paid £9 million net for the privilege of dropping from 9th to 17th, and only reached those heady heights thanks to the chaos at Pompey and Hull.
User avatar
bubbles1966
 
Posts: 41733
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: ......rockin and rollin on the Marie Celeste

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby prophet:marginal on Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:23 pm

bubbles1966 wrote:Zola had 2 years P.M.

And all this, "he didn't have money" stuff is simply untrue.



All of my posts have been about the difference in treatment handed to the coaches by the incumbent owners.

They have had a window each.

I didn't claim Zola didn't have any money - I clearly haven't said that, so stop suggesting otherwise - I claim that Grant has had more; some spent wisely, some not.
User avatar
prophet:marginal
 
Posts: 23959
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:54 pm
Location: And I guess, but I just don't know

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby Hammer83 on Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:49 pm

Hammer83 wrote:What influence would you have liked to see him do at the time then?


bubbles1966 wrote:Build something resembling a decent football team, with players that looked like they could play Premiership football, perhaps?


It is very difficult to build a team when your star player (s) get sold for financial reasons and you only get to use some of that cash.It is also hard to pick up proven premier league players when premier league clubs won't sell you their players because they are worried about how do I put this? our check's might bounce if you get me.Every club knew the state of our finances it was no secret seeing as it was very public.

This gave Nani a great chance to line his father in laws pockets in a shady Redknapp way the Savio deal the worst deal of this era I estimate a £5m loss we still probably have £1m or so to pay off with that considering the deal structured with them.

Diamanti a buy for £5.5m 2nd top scorer and a player the fans liked we got £1.8m back (which was ridiculously low amount).So he cost us £3.7m overall we made worse buys than that under the previous owners Dyer ,LBM and Faubert all cost the more and we won't receive anything back for them and have them three players have had 9 years combined and still have contributed less goals and assists than Diamanti's one and only ''bad season'' So perhaps he isn't as bad a buy as you like to make out?

Kovac £1.5m yes he is **** and I don't know why we re-signed him I am pretty sure he was intended as back up and for the amount you won't get a great player I would have preferred Mullins stay myself.

Jiminez on loan didn't work out so no big loss on that.

Da Costa part ex valued at £2m in the Savio exchange I think its fair to say this is the best purchase from this era and established himself as first choice before his injury given he is still young can turn out to be a decent player for us in the future alongside Tomkins.

So there we have it a mixed bad in terms of results but you and chuck like to compare them and the curbs era.Which isn't fair one got a unlimited check shopping at Harrods (£18m fee agreed for Bent only spurs stood in the way of that) as well as the £50m odd spent and the other was in pound stretcher.

Curbs era = open check book could sign whoever he wanted and almost bankrupted the club pompey style.

Zola era = clearing up that mess and making do with scraps like free's Tristan and Di michele and Franco and almost relegating us in the process.

Neither cover themselves in glory do they?
User avatar
Hammer83
 
Posts: 3742
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby stubbsy07 on Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:59 pm

theflafson wrote:Please, i could say the same about some of the posters here too... Headbanger


Ha ha!

Zola and Grant are both **** its quite simple really.
User avatar
stubbsy07
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:56 pm
Location: Saying no to the Athletics Stadium

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby Bobby Orangeboom on Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:06 pm

Hammer83 wrote:Jiminez on loan didn't work out so no big loss on that.



You say that though but Zola had a choice.

Him & the wages he was on or our defensive organiser & Team Captain for the previous 2 Years, which led to our defence looking shambolic at best, virtually up to this day..

He chose wrong, very wrong, to our cost ever since it seems as we know have to put up with Matthew & his organisational skills, which are non existent to be polite.
User avatar
Bobby Orangeboom
 
Posts: 34465
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:10 pm
Location: London, unfortunately.

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby QuintonNimoy on Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:04 pm

Hammer83 wrote:Jiminez on loan didn't work out so no big loss on that.

Just his entire public strategy for building the team busted, no big loss there.
QuintonNimoy
 
Posts: 8107
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby bubbles1966 on Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:31 pm

prophet:marginal wrote:
All of my posts have been about the difference in treatment handed to the coaches by the incumbent owners.


No they haven't. I refer:

He didn't use the Collins' money (and he's having a very poor season anyway) to buy Diamanti, Duxbury and Straumur used this season's ST money to do that, because it was advanced to them by SBOBET.


As I say, the accounts show that it's far from that simple - and that all told the club committed up to £9 million net.....

They could have chosen not to spend on Diamanti and keep Collins.

Ditto Jimenez, Kovac, Dacosta etc..

They have had a window each.


You seem to be saying that the board should have been completely oblivious to Zola's record and decisions beforehand and that they should have ignored them. I find that baffling.

I claim that Grant has had more;


He clearly has not unless you're trying to base it on the bemusing "how many windows under the Gullies" thing,
User avatar
bubbles1966
 
Posts: 41733
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: ......rockin and rollin on the Marie Celeste

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby bubbles1966 on Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:50 pm

Hammer83 wrote: but you and chuck like to compare them and the curbs era.


I'm really not sure why you are talking about Curbishley. The discussion, as far as I can see, is about Zola and Grant.

We have a pool of people who advocated for Zola and who were desperate for him to remain in spite of two years decline . Now some of those people desperately want to deny Grant the same amount of time and opportunity to mould his squad.

Those backing Grant, are saying that he should be afforded a similar amount of time and opportunity to mould his squad.

The only way that Curbishley enters into the debate is in terms of his legacy. He left Zola a stronger, better balanced squad than Zola has left Grant.

The money?

Chalk £52.8 million in losses down to the boardroom incompetence, then add on the financial collapse to the Icelandic banks and XL. The whole thing about wages, fees and the paucity of Zola's options has been massively overplayed, largely to deflect away from boardroom failings.
User avatar
bubbles1966
 
Posts: 41733
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: ......rockin and rollin on the Marie Celeste

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby Chuck D on Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:53 pm

Which "four England players"?

Green - Dropped and derided after a shocking world cup experience.

Upson - unlikely to play for Enhland with any regularity again.

Cole - How many games has he played? Next you'll be suggesting that Faibert is an French international.

Parker - played once for England while here I think.

Not to mention of course that all four were left to Zola, along with Ashton, Neill, Collins, Bellamy, Bowyer, LBM, Ethers, Mullins, and Noble who were all established Prem players most of who he allowed to leave for shirtbuttons, while replacing them with useless Italian based bodies.

Smple question to you, was letting Neill walk, and then giving the wages you refused him to Jiminez a good deal?

Or selling Collins to fund Diamanti?

Giving Bowyer a free, then PAYING for Kovac - who has been awful?

Selling Etherinton for £3 mil, then buying Savio for more?

Out of those four equations, which one was a work of genius that deserves my respect?

Especially considering that the net spend we laid out?
User avatar
Chuck D
Rebel without a pause
 
Posts: 13634
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Fishing

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby Chuck D on Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:57 pm

PM

Are you now saying that you only want to compare two (entirely) different transfer windows? And that we should ignore the other season and a half of prior damage?

Really?
User avatar
Chuck D
Rebel without a pause
 
Posts: 13634
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Fishing

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby kev on Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:31 pm

i agree with chucks last post entirely
User avatar
kev
Midfield enforcer
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:30 am
Location: Sunny st.neots where the sun never sets

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby hammerdivone on Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:55 pm

Well Chuck,

Green who made one mistake in the WC - was condemned forever and a day and yet is playing today as good as he ever has and was in the last squad.
Parker (yes the one cap whilst here Parker) it seems it is only Capello (and you apparently) who doesn't recognise how good he is.
Cole who played his best football under Zola and got the England call up and was in the last Squad
I would agree with you about Upson although of course when Grant took over he was a playing member of the England team.

So those four, and according to you Faubert not played for France - the things you learn on here eh?

As for the other players mentioned - Aston (retired), Neill (refused offfers), Collins (sold to meet repayments), Bellamy (sold to meet repayments), Bowyer (most agreed he should go), LBM (still here), Etherington (seemed to have his mind on other things), Mullins (useless), Noble (Still here) - not sure what point you're making here given that one of the useless Italian based bodies had a very similar record to Bellamy despite apparently playing out of position.

Simple question back to you - should we have been held to ransom by Neill when he knew we needed to cut costs and refused a reduced package?

Are you still saying that Zola had the ultimate say/sanction in the transfers you mention - really?

Are you saying that Neill was absolutely determined to stay but Zola didn't want him - really?

Are you saying that Zola sold Etherington and bought Savio instead? I think you may have mentioned us he was Bellamy's replacement?

Of course you are otherwise you wouldn't have posted what you did which is interesting seeing as you kept on saying he should walk, be a man and not a puppet for not standing up to players being sold/bought without his say so :think:

Another simple question Chuck - are you prepared to give Grant 2 years irrespective of the consequences?
User avatar
hammerdivone
 
Posts: 21052
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Somewhere between here and reality

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby prophet:marginal on Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:40 pm

Chuck D wrote:PM

Are you now saying that you only want to compare two (entirely) different transfer windows? And that we should ignore the other season and a half of prior damage?

Really?


That was my point before you got involved in the thread with your 'similar records' bull****, yes.

You still haven't answered why you claim that Zola's first half season last time around is the same or close to Grant's this. But then it was you who raised revisionism.

And Bubbles, you've extracted my response to Chuck's about Collins (whom I'd not previously mentioned, but who of course is under performing to your and his utter ignorance this season) without any context at all.

Face it both of you; we fired a novice who came unstuck - at no little expense - and recruited someone of no real or obvious superiority.
User avatar
prophet:marginal
 
Posts: 23959
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:54 pm
Location: And I guess, but I just don't know

Re: Don't sack Zola

Postby Chuck D on Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:45 pm

HD

You didn't answer the specific questions about transfers. If you would be so kind, I will address your points.

And if you really think that five penalties and a couple of other goals is comparable to what Bellamy offered the team, you must be as daft as Duxbury.
User avatar
Chuck D
Rebel without a pause
 
Posts: 13634
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Fishing

PreviousNext

Return to KUMB Hall of Fame

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests