Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Plonk said:

I grant you he was playing three at the back. But what if it didn’t work and we needed to change? He left himself with no where to go. Starting the season without a left back and a striker was negligent and has caused massive prombles for us. 

But was that Monks doing?.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 83owl said:

It doesn’t matter if you, Monk or anyone else thinks Rhodes or the fullbacks are any good. We signed 2 players in January, neither of which were a striker or a left back and we signed these players without a permanent manager in place.
That means somebody is making the decisions somewhere and whoever that is obviously doesn’t see the full back or striker positions as a priority.

 

As I have said repeatedly, the ultimate responsibility lies with the owner & whoever he chooses to advise him on recruitment. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

As I have said repeatedly, the ultimate responsibility lies with the owner & whoever he chooses to advise him on recruitment. 

That at least we can agree on....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OWL1969 said:

Although it was plain to see Pulis was the wrong choice (a disaster) some of the noises he was making were much more worrying than the error in his appointment.

 

Yep.

 

He might have failed to get a tune out of our squad, but I can't help but feel that he wasn't too far wide of the mark with lots of what he said...

  • “There’s been a lot of sugar-coating going on, putting teams and squads together at this football club, and they are reaping the rewards."
  • “Whether there have been people here who will say things just because he’s the chairman and are frightened to say other things because he’s the chairman, I don’t know."
  • "There are players that we need and players we have to try and get and that’s my responsibility. It’s my job to convince the powers that be of the situation and what we need to give us as good a chance as possibly can. I have that on my shoulders."
  • "If you look at it, we've got six centre-halves. We've got no left-back. We've got five number tens and not really a centre-forward. It swirls around, whatever you're trying to do."
  • “People think Paterson is a forward but I’m not so sure that he is the forward that everyone thought he was going to be."
  • "I think the biggest issue is can we work together to get the club moving in the right direction."

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Fair enough, as I said and as we agree on, the ultimately responsibility can't lie with the managers.

 

In terms of Nuhiu, I just don't feel it is one that Monk pushed for. As you said previously, Monk made a lot of noise publicly about trying to keep Fox and especially Fletcher but 99% of us felt that Fletcher was never likely to stay. He was understandably not going to get anything like his previous contract and he could see how the club was crumbling. He had a good season prior to getting injured and would likely get more attractive offers.

With that in mind, plus the impending points deduction which hit early and the clear lack of resources, more focus should have been put on keeping Nuhiu but it was clear that Monk didn't really fancy him going forward from the way he used him after lock down. If he had shown more faith in him and pushed for him to stay then perhaps he would have. 

Once that had been decided literally any walking striker with a bit of mobility and presence should have been a priority. Instead we turned to Kachunga, who is probably on a wage at least comparable to what Nuhiu was getting, Paterson and Marriott, who are both thought to be on a higher salary, none of which truly fit the role which is pivotal to us having any kind of chance of being competitive.

 

I personally thought there was nothing to gain by moving Dave on,he was a good impact player to bring on against tired legs,to try to get (or keep)something  out of a game....What we dont know however is to what scale GM may have been told to move on Players who had been here for some time....

Dave may have been caught  up in that,in the expectation he would have been able to replace him,that as we know simply didnt happen.

I  dont myself believe any Manager would willingly go into a campaign without a known striker,s 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Yep.

 

He might have failed to get a tune out of our squad, but I can't help but feel that he wasn't too far wide of the mark with lots of what he said...

  • “There’s been a lot of sugar-coating going on, putting teams and squads together at this football club, and they are reaping the rewards."
  • “Whether there have been people here who will say things just because he’s the chairman and are frightened to say other things because he’s the chairman, I don’t know."
  • "There are players that we need and players we have to try and get and that’s my responsibility. It’s my job to convince the powers that be of the situation and what we need to give us as good a chance as possibly can. I have that on my shoulders."
  • "If you look at it, we've got six centre-halves. We've got no left-back. We've got five number tens and not really a centre-forward. It swirls around, whatever you're trying to do."
  • “People think Paterson is a forward but I’m not so sure that he is the forward that everyone thought he was going to be."
  • "I think the biggest issue is can we work together to get the club moving in the right direction."

 

 

This is glaring. Everyone who knows anything about us knew we needed a proper left-back. We have more than enough CB's but signed one in the summer when he still hadn't recovered from a broken leg so goodness knows what a thorough fitness test entails at that stage and we then backed that up by signing another one on loan who got injured after a couple of games. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

Fair enough, as I said and as we agree on, the ultimately responsibility can't lie with the managers.

 

In terms of Nuhiu, I just don't feel it is one that Monk pushed for. As you said previously, Monk made a lot of noise publicly about trying to keep Fox and especially Fletcher but 99% of us felt that Fletcher was never likely to stay. He was understandably not going to get anything like his previous contract and he could see how the club was crumbling. He had a good season prior to getting injured and would likely get more attractive offers.

With that in mind, plus the impending points deduction which hit early and the clear lack of resources, more focus should have been put on keeping Nuhiu but it was clear that Monk didn't really fancy him going forward from the way he used him after lock down. If he had shown more faith in him and pushed for him to stay then perhaps he would have. 

Once that had been decided literally any walking striker with a bit of mobility and presence should have been a priority. Instead we turned to Kachunga, who is probably on a wage at least comparable to what Nuhiu was getting, Paterson and Marriott, who are both thought to be on a higher salary, none of which truly fit the role which is pivotal to us having any kind of chance of being competitive.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Monk believed that we'd sign a better striker than Nuhiu, and was therefore not pushing too hard for him to stay, only for it to become apparent too late in the day that the chairman wasn't going to be able to close the deal on the kind of player we needed.

 

I don't suppose we'll ever find out the real ins and outs of it all, but it seems pretty clear that Paterson wasn't our first target and we only turned to him after Zahore (among others, I'd wager) turned us down and Nuhiu had moved to Cyprus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, parajack said:

I personally thought there was nothing to gain by moving Dave on,he was a good impact player to bring on against tired legs,to try to get (or keep)something  out of a game....What we dont know however is to what scale GM may have been told to move on Players who had been here for some time....

Dave may have been caught  up in that,in the expectation he would have been able to replace him,that as we know simply didnt happen.

I  dont myself believe any Manager would willingly go into a campaign without a known striker,s 

 

Possibly. Though with Nuhiu being out of contract, there was no reason for Monk not to play him in order to move him on. He was the one picking the side in the last 9 games and he was the one who turned to Wickham who was half fit at best, Da Cruz and Windass before Nuhiu. It was clear he didn't really value him enough to want to keep him and if he thought by that stage that we were going to have any room to do anything significant regarding transfers in then he needed to open his eyes to the situation.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the managers having their hands tied behind their back completely, and I’m in agreement 

 

But how many managers actually have complete freedom and license to do that they want, with no blockers? 
 

Im sure every manager would say ‘if I had this’ or ‘if I was able to do that’ things would be different 

Edited by FreshOwl
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

This is glaring. Everyone who knows anything about us knew we needed a proper left-back. We have more than enough CB's but signed one in the summer when he still hadn't recovered from a broken leg so goodness knows what a thorough fitness test entails at that stage and we then backed that up by signing another one on loan who got injured after a couple of games. 

 

And yet we sacked the bloke who seemed to be pushing to address these issues and opted instead for a January transfer window where we re-signed Hutchinson and welcomed Green to the treatment room.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Monk believed that we'd sign a better striker than Nuhiu, and was therefore not pushing too hard for him to stay, only for it to become apparent too late in the day that the chairman wasn't going to be able to close the deal on the kind of player we needed.

 

I don't suppose we'll ever find out the real ins and outs of it all, but it seems pretty clear that Paterson wasn't our first target and we only turned to him after Zahore (among others, I'd wager) turned us down and Nuhiu had moved to Cyprus.

 

How late in the day though did it become apparent that we couldn't attract a better player really? We were hardly an attractive proposition before the end of the season having taken a few hammerings along the way to 17 points from 23 games in 2020. We had a dressing room with players the manager had put to one side which wouldn't look great for prospective signings and the points deduction hit as soon as the season ended. We were under investigation for breaking financial regulations, were not filing our next accounts on time and the previous transfer windows were a clear indication on where we were going on that front. Even if we had have signed 1 striker like Zahore, Nuhiu would still have been an asset to the squad. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never wanted Monk, felt there was something slightly underhand about him and I never warmed to the man whilst he was here.  I think he must take some of the blame for our current position, but the club’s been set up to fail for a number of years.  Moore seems a decent bloke but I fear we might be too much of a challenge for him at this current time.  I think we’re in for another couple of years struggling to reverse the downward trend, and the blame for that rests 100% with Chansiri.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

And yet we sacked the bloke who seemed to be pushing to address these issues and opted instead for a January transfer window where we re-signed Hutchinson and welcomed Green to the treatment room.

 

Yep, failing to take any action to address the clear issues in the squad in January was ridiculous and if Moore was the man we have turned to then why couldn't we have turned to him 2 months ago rather than letting things drift. 

 

I don't blame Chansiri for sacking Pulis based on results and performances - our academy coach made a better fist of it. Pulis was also an advocate of bringing back Hutchinson but that doesn't mean he was wrong on everything. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

How late in the day though did it become apparent that we couldn't attract a better player really? We were hardly an attractive proposition before the end of the season having taken a few hammerings along the way to 17 points from 23 games in 2020. We had a dressing room with players the manager had put to one side which wouldn't look great for prospective signings and the points deduction hit as soon as the season ended. We were under investigation for breaking financial regulations, were not filing our next accounts on time and the previous transfer windows were a clear indication on where we were going on that front. Even if we had have signed 1 striker like Zahore, Nuhiu would still have been an asset to the squad. 

 

Yep, a more mobile target man plus Nuhiu as backup would have been great.

 

The fact we were after Zahore and offered Nuhiu a new deal suggests that could well be what Monk wanted, but the mobile target man never arrived and the deal on offer wasn't enough to tempt Nuhiu to stay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, FreshOwl said:

I get the managers having their hands tied behind their back completely, and I’m in agreement 

 

But how many managers actually have complete freedom and license to do that they want, with no blockers? 
 

Im sure every manager would say ‘if I had this’ or ‘if I was able to do that’ things would be different 

 

I don't think any managers has full licence, they'll tell the owner/s who they'd  like and sometimes they'll permission to approach the player and other times due to financial restraints they won't.  

The question here at Hillsborough is does the Manager have ANY Influence or is recruitment from some other source? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Yep, a more mobile target man plus Nuhiu as backup would have been great.

 

The fact we were after Zahore and offered Nuhiu a new deal suggests that could well be what Monk wanted, but the mobile target man never arrived and the deal on offer wasn't enough to tempt Nuhiu to stay.

 

I would still disagree on Monk wanting to keep Nuhiu. I think the club made him a basic offer. Nuhiu weighed it up and took into account that Monk turned to the likes of Da Cruz before him and thought he wasn't really valued. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, OWL1969 said:

 

I don't think any managers has full licence, they'll tell the owner/s who they'd  like and sometimes they'll permission to approach the player and other times due to financial restraints they won't.  

The question here at Hillsborough is does the Manager have ANY Influence or is recruitment from some other source? 

 

I think its a disjointed and unsuccessful mix. We have recently signed players when not having a manager in place but also signed players like Kachunga whose decision to join us was clearly influenced by the coaching staff at the time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have it on good authority that Garry Monk is also responsible for the state of the club's online shop

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Possibly. Though with Nuhiu being out of contract, there was no reason for Monk not to play him in order to move him on. He was the one picking the side in the last 9 games and he was the one who turned to Wickham who was half fit at best, Da Cruz and Windass before Nuhiu. It was clear he didn't really value him enough to want to keep him and if he thought by that stage that we were going to have any room to do anything significant regarding transfers in then he needed to open his eyes to the situation.  

TBH based on his interviews and body language i believe myself he had enough ,and just wanted off.....seemed very ****ed off to me....who can blame him really? and again under such circumstances who can give of their best?...even when you try....he seemed to me very frustrated towards the end....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, parajack said:

TBH based on his interviews and body language i believe myself he had enough ,and just wanted off.....seemed very ****ed off to me....who can blame him really? and again under such circumstances who can give of their best?...even when you try....he seemed to me very frustrated towards the end....

 

He did seemed hacked off - you would do if the manager picked Da Cruz ahead of you!

 

He still gave his all, played on when others packed in and came off the bench to score 2 in his penultimate game. He didn't sign for anyone else until very late in the day and never said he was open to staying. He just wasn't valued. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...