|The very best posts from KUMB over the years ...
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
One would think so. But the "Dorrans" press conference clearly suggests otherwise...
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.
Build something resembling a decent football team, with players that looked like they could play Premiership football, perhaps?
Zola had 2 years P.M.
And all this, "he didn't have money" stuff is simply untrue.
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.
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.
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?
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.
No they haven't. I refer:
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..
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.
He clearly has not unless you're trying to base it on the bemusing "how many windows under the Gullies" thing,
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.
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.
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?
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
Another simple question Chuck - are you prepared to give Grant 2 years irrespective of the consequences?
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests