permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/1563957
onthemap Posted on 02/12/2009 19:14
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Wheater being brought through and Downing being developed as a player - other than that?

Talking about positive things here. Posting the negatives is a whole volume of work.

TheBadGuy Posted on 02/12/2009 19:16
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

The 8-1 win

AlBoro1984 Posted on 02/12/2009 19:21
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Signing Woodgate (lets not mention selling him a few months later)

Signing Luke Young (lets not mention selling him 1 season later)

Signing errr...struggling now.

onthemap Posted on 02/12/2009 19:23
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Signing Luke Young was, for me, when I thought he'd finally woken up.

Then he sold him and bought Hoyte.

Towell Posted on 02/12/2009 19:23
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Signing Huth (Let's not mention selling him)

boksic Posted on 02/12/2009 19:23
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Mappy - there's an elephant in the room. It's money, specifically the amount available to spend on players wages.

GGGG Posted on 02/12/2009 19:25
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

He dressed well [sad]

onthemap Posted on 02/12/2009 19:27
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

This money thing always rears it's head.

30M plus wasted, but lets list the positives, this is proving difficult

AlBoro1984 Posted on 02/12/2009 19:28
Southgates legacy - as a manager.


"Signing Huth (Let's not mention selling him)"

McClaren's signing.

pierrequiroule Posted on 02/12/2009 19:38
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Strange world football eh mappy, but not the black and white world that you and your kind inhabit.

From an article on Mowbray today:

Tony Mowbray has given the latest indication that he will seek rapidly to overhaul the Celtic squad he largely inherited from his predecessor as manager, Gordon Strachan, having already questioned the quality of the players.





Link: Guardian

boksic Posted on 02/12/2009 19:42
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

As I keep telling you the amount spent on transfer fees is a red herring. The barometer of team strength is spending on players wages. The pots that the money for both budgets come from can be quite different - debt versus revenue essentially - so they are not connected.

UKLL1981 Posted on 02/12/2009 19:43
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Other than Huth I can't remember one Southgate signing that I thought we couldn't afford to lose.

EDIT

Yep, now that I remember it the Huth deal was in place when McClaren left.

Wow, that's even worse.

Towell Posted on 02/12/2009 19:43
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Smac wasn't manager when Huth was signed.
Signed Huth on 31st August 2006


Change the record boksic, the more you say something doesn't mean that people become more interested in what you're saying you know.

I think in fact the opposite is true

UKLL1981 Posted on 02/12/2009 19:46
Southgates legacy - as a manager.


I believe the deal was already in place though.

Didn't we try to sign him earlier but it was scuppered by an injury so delayed?

mickymacc Posted on 02/12/2009 19:48
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

He made your prediction about avoiding relegation wrong.[FACT][^]

Towell Posted on 02/12/2009 19:49
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Yer you're right.

He's worse that I thought.

Mr_Holgate Posted on 02/12/2009 20:00
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Positives???????? when he was sacked?

Corcaigh_the_Cat Posted on 02/12/2009 20:01
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Burnley getting promoted with Williams in the team while we dropped with Hoyte.

onthemap Posted on 02/12/2009 20:03
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

"He made your prediction about avoiding relegation wrong.[FACT][^]"

Funny that, 3 years of warning about this mess and It's thinking that he couldn't possibly be even worse than I thought.

Come on, for 3 years you told me how good he was, let's see the positives.

24_Briggsy Posted on 02/12/2009 20:07
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Apparently everyone at the club learnt a lot, or so his post match interviews would imply....

mickymacc Posted on 02/12/2009 20:10
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I didn't tell anyone how good he was,but he made the self appointed expert on everything, WRONG.[^]
"3 years of warning",fcuk me,even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
the mappy school of predictions,"rain makes you wet".[:D]

onthemap Posted on 02/12/2009 20:13
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Yes Micky, you told me I was an idiot 3 years ago.

Come on, for 3 years I argued now's your big chance, tell me all about the positive legacy he left.

Fair enough if you can't but three years ago you'd have filled this thread with what he was about to do.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/12/2009 20:27
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

There are two elephants in the room boksic, the other is wearing a big fat sign that says a club with a higher wage bill is likely to be able to pay a top manager.

You're also wrong about the transfer fee/wage pots too - they are inextricably linked in terms of a club's budget, if not their accounting treatment.

But anyway, that's been done to death.

McClaren arranged the Huth transfer and so Southgate can't really have that one.

I'd also disagree that he developed Downing at all.

Wheater. That's probably it. However, when you think that Wheater was one of the reasons he sold Woodgate perhaps it isn't all that positive?

24_Briggsy Posted on 02/12/2009 20:28
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I remember having many argumenys with people on here who wanted our most succesful manager sacked...

boksic Posted on 02/12/2009 20:44
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Adi - as we have already established managers salaries don't corelate to anything. Poor teams can pay a coach a huge salary and get no success and the top teams in the premier league all pay the managers about the same, only 1 team wins it.

I am not talking about accounting treatment and fortunately I know far more about football finance than anyone on here ever will. Do you seriously think premier league clubs have a single line of funding for all their activities and all spending is funded in the same way???

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/12/2009 20:51
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

There you go again. Arrogance and presumption. You don't know my background or my involvement with a football club's finance.

'We' haven't established anything. My argument is that teams generally have a manager that accords with their spend on wages. On that basis, unless there is a study you can point me to, I can't see how you can divorce a team's wage spend from their equivalent spend on a manager.

Finally, I'd like to know how you interpreted my post to mean that I thought that "premier league clubs have a single line of funding for all their activities and all spending is funded in the same way". That's not what I posted and you know it.

AlBoro1984 Posted on 02/12/2009 21:09
Southgates legacy - as a manager.


"I am not talking about accounting treatment and fortunately I know far more about football finance than anyone on here ever will."

Modest as well as a financial genius I see [rle]

bear66 Posted on 02/12/2009 21:27
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Interesting comments from Mowbray in our paper today on the mess of a squad he's been left with . . . if only Southgate had the money that Celtic has had over the last three years . . . . .


Link: things aren't always greener

erimus74 Posted on 02/12/2009 22:10
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

. if only Southgate had the money that Celtic has had over the last three years . . . . .

The money that soutgate did have he spent it badly, very badly[V]

Gillandi Posted on 02/12/2009 23:29
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

His legacy for me will always be representing the club with great dignity and no little ability through a difficult transitional period when the club re-positioned itself commercially.

Well done that man.




BenGee Posted on 02/12/2009 23:43
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

"His legacy for me will always be representing the club with great dignity and no little ability through a difficult transitional period when the club re-positioned itself commercially"

This is a joke right?

bear66 Posted on 02/12/2009 23:54
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

In three years you'll see how good the last three and a quarter have been . . . .

boroandproud2 Posted on 03/12/2009 00:14
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Agree with Gillandi.

plazmuh Posted on 03/12/2009 02:56
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

FAO ON THE MAP
This is a XXXXXX thread Just another chance to have a pop at a boro player and
in a very underhand way, A bit similar to the treatment of Gate by Gibson
Not to worry you can,t blame Gate FOREVER
it will be strachens fault in a years time
but you will Never see it

onthemap Posted on 03/12/2009 04:27
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

So Plazmuh, you can't list any positives?

Btw, Gibson is the reason you have a club to follow at all.
Southgate is sueing the club (rightly so in my opinion) but he should wake up every morning and thank Steve Gibson for the chance he gave him and the amount of time his employer persevered hoping he'd learn from his mistakes.

Forget that, just list the positives - or STFU.

Adi_Dem Posted on 03/12/2009 07:42
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I disagree Gillandi, as you kinow. However, what I would prefer to remember him as is one of the greatest players and captains I've ever had the privilege to watch in a Boro shirt.

kermit Posted on 03/12/2009 07:58
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

If you have no money I wouldn't advise spending 3m on someone like Marvin Emnes who you deem a 'project'.

That money woulda been better served on someone for the now, who could have contributed to keeping us in the premier league.

zeddog Posted on 03/12/2009 08:56
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Being the first captain in our club's history to lift the league cup [^]

WestStandGeorge Posted on 03/12/2009 09:19
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Beating Mourhino's Chelsea in his first month as manager. Beating Arsenal the next season. Beating Liverpool last season.

JonJon Posted on 03/12/2009 09:25
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Yes, he had exceptional media skills.

If Strachan doesn't work out maybe next time we can get Alastair Campbell to do the job, or maybe even Ant and Dec.

captain5 Posted on 03/12/2009 09:32
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Would you accept similar success from any new manager then; one good win a season??

At the end of the day, we're fans. We judge what happens on what we can see on the pitch.

Boksic can keep wittering on about money all he likes but it just shows how removed he is from being a normal fan.

Those of us who go to a lot of games both home and away saw a load of baffling decisions in selection, tactics and substitutions, a team that was good enough to take a lead but not good enough to hold it and an inability to come back once we were behind ourselves.

He had a pretty strong base from which to build no matter what anyone says. Nobody in the lower half of the table started with a better front two and supply line of Yak, Viduka and Downing.

Adi_Dem Posted on 03/12/2009 09:46
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Exactly right captain. Could not agree more.

billybob Posted on 03/12/2009 10:04
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

When Southgate took over we had a front 4 of Viduka, Yakubu, Hasselbaink and Maccarone. We now have Lita, Alliadere and 2 loan signings.

We had a midfield of Downing, Cattermole, Rochemback, Morrison and Boateng. We now have 2 centre halfs competing for places, oh and a loan signing.

We had Schwarzer in goal - I'll end it there.

So hearty congratulations I think are in order for Southgate who got rid of some top class talent, replaced it with kids and unknown quantities and took us from being UEFA Cup finalists to Championship also rans in 3 seasons - quite an achievement.

But hey, we were one point off the top of the Championship when he was sacked and he looked good on the telly so he deserved to stay for longer.

FFS.

onthemap Posted on 03/12/2009 10:38
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

"Being the first captain in our club's history to lift the league cup [^]"

Exactly which part of "as a manager" causes you problems?

erimus74 Posted on 03/12/2009 11:43
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

billybob top post mate [^]

sitheman Posted on 03/12/2009 12:04
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I dont know how people can fault Strachans record from Celtic either. He won the title 3 years on the spin. Mowbray has had a bad start at Celtic but to put blame on Strachan is unfair.

bear66 Posted on 03/12/2009 13:05
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I hadn't realised Southgate was the chairman and 'got rid' of anybody

And for Mowbray to blame the Strachan legacy . . . when we all know Southgate is to blame for everything, including the talentless, unde-rperforming players at Celtic

boksic Posted on 03/12/2009 13:42
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Much as Steve Archibald made the telling comment that "team spirit is an illusion glimpsed in the aftermath of victory" there is a telling parallel with struggling teams. We the fans see "baffling decisions in selection, tactics and substitutions" we can muse on the manager's "inability to motivate the players" but these are just fleeting shadows of the fact that the squad was not good enough last season and that was because the wage bill was trimmed to a point where all 3 of Boateng, Rochemback and Cattermole had to go along with Schwarzer.

In the final analysis good teams have better players and better players cost more in terms of wages.

Things like tactics only really make a difference if you come up with an innovation that no one else is using yet. While we believe there may be a "right time" to make a substitution in the long term those decisions have no real impact on how many points you get over the course of the season.

If you subscribe to the "if only" model - if only he had picked so and so, if only he had brought so and so on as a sub, if only we had signed a 30 goal a season stiker for 500 grand - then you are berating Southgate for not being lucky enough.

AlBoro1984 Posted on 03/12/2009 13:50
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Luck has nothing to do with it. To be able to assess a player's ability and potential is a skill in itself.

For instance look at Wigan, a similar club to ourselves financially, then compare their signings in the last few years with ours. The results suggest a more competent manager and if you want to look at it holistically, a better scouting network too.

bear66 Posted on 03/12/2009 13:53
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Their results suggest a much, much richer chairman

boksic Posted on 03/12/2009 13:55
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

It might appear that way but Wigan spent more on players wages than we did.

plazmuh Posted on 03/12/2009 14:40
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

FAO ONTHEMAP
Yea we were 1 point off top before Gibson knifed gate in the back. Oh and for your information Gibson wasn,t the only guy to save us a deal would have been done with or without him, just get your head out of his arse fella.
We are in big XXXXXXe and putting strachen in charge is not helping

Adi_Dem Posted on 03/12/2009 14:51
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I think we're going over a lot of old ground here but boksic you still haven't come up with any kind of clear argument in response to my point about the cost of a teams manager being directly related to their overall wage budget.

Equally, you posted a league table and a wages table for 2006 (I think) on another thread and I pointed out a number of things that undermined your argument. You didn't reply and so I wondered if you could put it up again.

Is there a website anywhere with such information on?

captain5 Posted on 03/12/2009 14:56
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Is Newcastle the exception that proves your 'rule' then, Boksic??

Is there any correllation between the levels of experience of managers/coaches and their end finished position, allied with the money thing??

Adi_Dem Posted on 03/12/2009 14:58
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

No, Gibson wasn't the only one that saved the club but if you think that it would have happened without him then I disagree completely.

boksic Posted on 03/12/2009 14:58
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Adi - if you look up I point out yet again why your manager argument carries little or no weight, if you go back to that other thread you are on about you will see my response to the bits you didn't understand. The hard data you are after is either on companies house or in the hard copy of the deloitte annual football finance survey that you have to pay for, not in the free bits they let you download off the web.

Anyway, the more you post your argument about teams with bigger wage budgets paying their manager's more the more I think it sounds like a nonesense. If you are saying that the teams with the biggest wage budgets can afford to pay their managers more, that reinforces the argument that the teams with the biggest wage budgets accrue the most points, it doesn't detract from it.

Adi_Dem Posted on 03/12/2009 15:09
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I understand everything perfectly well thank you boksic. It's getting to the point where you're just simply unpleasant to have any kind of communication with.

If I can cut through all the sarcasm, arrogance and condescension which has become the hallmark of most of your posts towards me on this subject (take note those posters on the FAO Adi thread!!) you clearly have misunderstood the point I am making completely.

Firstly, I agree with you, and always have, that finance is the single most important factor in professional football. It, genreally, always has been. The point I disagree with, that you seem to have got round your neck, is that a manager is irrelevant and makes no difference. You use the wage table as evidence of that. I have identified a flaw in that argument, namely that those clubs that spend more on wages probably pay for the better managers and therefore you can't draw a conclusion one way or the other.

What I am not arguing, and never have, is that success, by and large, is determined by spend. It clearly is.

Thanks for the concern as well but I have the paid copy of the Deloitte report thanks boksic. I also have all of MFC's accounts too.

boksic Posted on 03/12/2009 15:19
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I never say a manager is irrelevant, which is what some people now say about coaches in US NBA basketball, what I say is the importance and influence of a manager is - wait for it - overstated.

Adi_Dem Posted on 03/12/2009 15:23
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

You said precisely that in at least one thread. Either way, you still can't draw a definitive conclusion on that from the 'wages table'. That's the only point I have ever made. You can hold that view, of course, but to mock people for taking a different view is entirely wrong since there is that fundamental flaw in the evidence you're using.

It's a shame you can't post in a respectful manner but that's a matter for you, I guess.

wokingmassive Posted on 03/12/2009 15:24
Southgates legacy - as a manager.












.

Corcaigh_the_Cat Posted on 03/12/2009 15:36
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

'influence of a manager is - wait for it - overstated'

I think the transistions from Anderson to Charlton, Robson to Venables, McLaren to Southgate all disprove that theory within ine particular club.

boksic Posted on 03/12/2009 15:45
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Corcaigh - with all due respect, see my comment above about the elephant in the room. The theory I am talking about is that performance (points accrued over the course of a season) is linked to the amount the club pays on players wages relative to the other team in its division.

Hercules Posted on 03/12/2009 16:19
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I know I said I was done with this topic but this intrigues me...

Firstly, I agree with you, and always have, that finance is the single most important factor in professional football. It, genreally, always has been. The point I disagree with, that you seem to have got round your neck, is that a manager is irrelevant and makes no difference.

He doesn't mean that a manager is irrelevant. All hes ever done is say that the manager is not as culpible/responsible for a teams success/failure as most seem to think. Then hes presented facts about the correlation between managers wages and league position (there is very little), transfer spend and league position (there is very little) and total wage spend and league position (a 92% correlation).

So while everybody is laying the blame for relegation 100% at Southgates feet they are very very wrong to do so. In fact 92% of the reason for relegation is the fact that we couldn't afford to pay the wages required to stay in the Premier League.

In 2007/8 we were the 17th highest wage payers in the PL.

I don't know for sure what position we were in the wage table in 2008/9 but its quite easy to make an educated guess.

The 3 teams relegated in 2007/8 were Reading, Derby and Birmingham. They were all lower in the wage table than we were in 2007/8. Therefore none of the teams above us in the wage table were removed from the PL wage table for 2008/9. The only way they could have dropped below us is for them to reduce their wage bills, which is perfectly possible. The teams who were close enough to realistically reduce their wage bills enough to go below us were Bolton, Blackburn, Fulham, Sunderland and Wigan. We were paying 34m in wages in 2007/8. Bolton, Blackburn and Fulham were paying 39m. Sunderland were paying 37m and Wigan 38m.

IMO there is no chance Suderland reduced their wage bill in 2008/9 as they signed several players.

The other four could quite possibly have reduced their wage bills. But I see no evidence to suggest they would have shed 4-5m.

I'll let you decide whether our wage bill went up or down that summer. We shed the wages of Mendieta, Rochemback, Boateng, Cattermole, Schwarzer and Young. We added the wages of Hoyte, Emnes and Digard.

By my estimations that would result in a drop of about 5m per season/100,000 per week. That would leave our wage bill around 29m.

According to Adi_Dem that is an overstatement. But he refuses to tell us by how much the wage bill dropped, without a reason why he won't.

The teams that were promoted to the PL for the 2008/9 were Hull City, Stoke City and West Bromwich Albion. Stoke's and Hull's wage bills were 11m in 2007/8. West Brom's was 21m. I will not argue that either Stoke or Hull will have increased their wage bill sufficiently to surpass ours. I do however think there is a genuine possiblity that West Brom's wage bill for the 2008/9 season was equal to or greater than our own. They signed 12 players (10 permanently, 2 on loan) for a total of around 23m. I would expect that such an outlay was accompanied by some quite large wages. This was somewhat offset by the wages of 12 players leaving the squad. However with the exceptions of Kevin Phillips and Zoltan Gera they were mainly younger players, likely to have been earning lower wages.

Assuming they did not spend more on wages than us in 2008/9 the highest we could reasonably be in the league table is 17th, although quite possibly 18th, IMO. Therefore an expectation of 17th at the highest is reasonable. Southgate failed by 2 positions at the very worst.

So yes, Southgate's legacy will be relegation, a poor squad, 10,000 off the gate, some shocking buys and baffling selections, substitutions and tactics. But put into the context that the above statistics (taken from the Deloitte Annual Football Finance Review 2009), my calculations and the information provided by boksic regarding correlation between wages and league position it isn't quite as bad as it looks at first sight.

Ponderosaheadboardbasher Posted on 03/12/2009 16:29
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

"Southgates legacy - as a manager."

Got the wage bill down to a level commensurate with the crowds we can maintain.

boksic Posted on 03/12/2009 16:41
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Herc - you and me should write a book mate. Pity someone else got there before us.


Link: book

onthemap Posted on 03/12/2009 16:44
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

All very commendable but what does that have to do with persevering with Ali up front, signing Alves for 12m and playing Matthew Bates in midfield?

captain5 Posted on 03/12/2009 16:48
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

All it does is highlight how foolish we were to sign an inexperienced manager who would waste even a small amount of money.

Hercules Posted on 03/12/2009 17:07
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

All very commendable but what does that have to do with persevering with Ali up front, signing Alves for 12m and playing Matthew Bates in midfield?

Ali up front - If we could have afforded it, I'm sure we'd have had Torres instead.

Alves - A gamble that most of us agreed with taking. Shame our finances allowed us only 1 chance.

Bates in midfield. If we could afford 2 central midfielders I'm sure they would have played.

But you don't care about any of those things really. You're just trying to move the emphasis away from the overall picture I've outlined above. The issues you mentioned are just snippets of the big picture.

captain5 Posted on 03/12/2009 17:08
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Maybe he could have signed one instead of buying Emnes and got someone other than Digard.

Hercules Posted on 03/12/2009 17:11
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Like who? You have a go.

Bear in mind you're restricted by transfer fees and wages.

Again a distraction from the big picture.

captain5 Posted on 03/12/2009 17:15
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

You seem to be suggesting that Gareth wouldn't have an idea who to buy.

Was that not in his remit. If he couldn't pick up a couple of signings for that money, I wouldn't trust him to spend a record transfer fee on a striker.

Ok, for argument's sake and off the top of my head, Sean Davis or Hayden Mullins instead of Digard.

Ponderosaheadboardbasher Posted on 03/12/2009 17:46
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I would believe that both Davis and Mullins earn significantly more than Digard. Certainly enough to make a difference to our wage bill. And both would probably be unwilling to come this far oop North

Adi_Dem Posted on 03/12/2009 18:40
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Do you really believe that Digard plays for peanuts? That the likes of Davis and Mullins are on significantly more?

I'm not sure how many times I can answer the same post Hercules. We disagree. I have no problem with it and yet you seem to want to change my mind every time we're on the subject.

Firstly, boksic has said on more than one occasion that he believes his evidence proves that managers make no difference, that they are irrelevant. To be honest it doesn't matter. The point I made and continue to make remains unanswered because it can't be answered. It is the one big flaw, or elephant in the room if you will.

I disagree with you about the culpability of the manager. The less money we had, the more culpable Southgate becomes. It beggars belief that a manager faced with a financial strait jacket, as you suggest he was, should then go on and sign Alves for 14m, a project for 3.5m and a French crock for 4.5m.

I have repeatedly said that I am not willing to explain why I believe your figures to be wrong. I have therefore accepted that both your figures and my own can only be seen as geusswork. I'm not sure I can say any more than that. I'm not even arguing that we weren't in the bottom 3 for wages. We probably were.

I will try to summarise my points as succinctly as I can:

1. I don't believe that the evidence presented proves that a manager's influence is marginal. I don't believe that to be the case. I think a manager is of fundamental importance and becomes even more important the less money he has to spend.

2. I believe our budget was grossly mismanaged by Southgate. I firmly believe that as a club we had a big enough budget to stay up. Different decisions could and should have been made.

Hercules Posted on 03/12/2009 18:58
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

We disagree. I have no problem with it and yet you seem to want to change my mind every time we're on the subject.

You say this to everyone who has you at a loss to explain yourself. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me at all.

The point I made and continue to make remains unanswered because it can't be answered. It is the one big flaw, or elephant in the room if you will.

What point is this?

I disagree with you about the culpability of the manager. The less money we had, the more culpable Southgate becomes.

I realise that if we have less money it has to be spent more wisely. But you've got it all backwards. You're essentially saying that the clubs with less money should have better managers than those with lots of money.

It beggars belief that a manager faced with a financial strait jacket, as you suggest he was, should then go on and sign Alves for 14m, a project for 3.5m and a French crock for 4.5m.

Distracting from the big picture.

1. I don't believe that the evidence presented proves that a manager's influence is marginal. I don't believe that to be the case. I think a manager is of fundamental importance and becomes even more important the less money he has to spend.

So is a manager or finance more important? Your earlier post contradicts this one.

It becomes more important to have a good manager when you have less money but a lack of excellence shouldn't be used as a stick to beat an average manager with.

2. I believe our budget was grossly mismanaged by Southgate. I firmly believe that as a club we had a big enough budget to stay up.

It was mismanaged. But no more so than alot of other clubs.

If we had a big enough budget to stay up, given that you've acknowledged we had some of the lowest wages in the league, you're implying that we have a right to have a better manager than our competitors as you expect our manager to get more out of lesser players than another manager is getting out of superior players.

Different decisions could and should have been made.

That can be said of any organisation in any industry.

Adi_Dem Posted on 03/12/2009 19:10
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Deary me. I must be posting this wrongly. I'll try again. For the umpteenth time.

"You say this to everyone who has you at a loss to explain yourself. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me at all."

I am never at a loss to explain myself and I'm certainly not this time. You just seem to keep going over the same points ad infinitum.

"What point is this?"

The one about the fundamental link between a team's wage spend and their proportionate spend on a manager. Boksic, despite your assertion to the contrary, has never given any evidence one way or the other onthe correlation between manager's salaries and performance.

"I realise that if we have less money it has to be spent more wisely. But you've got it all backwards. You're essentially saying that the clubs with less money should have better managers than those with lots of money."

No I'm not and it just proves that you're misunderstanding the point. See point above for what I am actually saying.

"Distracting from the big picture."

Distracting? Inconvenient more like.

"So is a manager or finance more important? Your earlier post contradicts this one."

No it doesn't at all. I've already said that finance is the most important thing. The only other argument I've made is that a manager is an important and fundamental part of a football club.

"It becomes more important to have a good manager when you have less money but a lack of excellence shouldn't be used as a stick to beat an average manager with."

I don't believe Southgate was an average manager. I believe he was a downright poor one.

"It was mismanaged. But no more so than alot of other clubs."

I don't care about other clubs.

"If we had a big enough budget to stay up, given that you've acknowledged we had some of the lowest wages in the league, you're implying that we have a right to have a better manager than our competitors as you expect our manager to get more out of lesser players than another manager is getting out of superior players."

No I'm not. I'm implying that we had a right to a better manager than Southgate. We needed an experienced hand to manage our budget, even more so if we were in the financial strait jacket you suggest.

"That can be said of any organisation in any industry."

Yes, you're right. So what? This wasn't one or two poor decisions, it was a catalogue of gross errors.

Holgateoldskool Posted on 03/12/2009 19:13
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

He was a good orator when interviewed,nice guy,loyal that's about it. And none are attributes for becoming a successful manager.

Hercules Posted on 03/12/2009 19:26
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

You just seem to keep going over the same points ad infinitum.

I'm forced to as you constantly miss the point, deliberatley or otherwise.

The one about the fundamental link between a team's wage spend and their proportionate spend on a manager. Boksic, despite your assertion to the contrary, has never given any evidence one way or the other onthe correlation between manager's salaries and performance.

The evidence is all in the book boksic posted a link to above. There is no correlation.

No I'm not and it just proves that you're misunderstanding the point. See point above for what I am actually saying.

I totally understand what you're saying. What you don't seem to understand is the implication of what you're saying.

I don't believe Southgate was an average manager. I believe he was a downright poor one.

He was a poor manager. But to maintain our Premier League status he would have had to achieve results above what could reasonably be expected of him. The fact that he didn't achieve better than expected results is being used as a stick to beat him with. Its like criticising Wenger for never winning the Champions League.

I don't care about other clubs.

How flippant of you. Its a shame you don't care about other clubs as they are what we are competing against. You know the point I was making. You deliberately miss the point. Something I've heard you preach about in the past.

No I'm not. I'm implying that we had a right to a better manager than Southgate. We needed an experienced hand to manage our budget, even more so if we were in the financial strait jacket you suggest.

I agree we did. But that was a factor beyond Southgates control.

Yes, you're right. So what? This wasn't one or two poor decisions, it was a catalogue of gross errors.

Again missing the point on purpose. You expected our manager to achieve a success rate above what was reasonable.

I suggest you think long and hard about whether you want to conduct this in a grown up manner before you post anymore obnoxious remarks.

Adi_Dem Posted on 03/12/2009 22:36
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

You accuse me of deliberately missing the point, which I don't and then end with a line like that! How utterly ridiculous of you. Point me to one obnoxious remark please. Also point me to where I have not been "grown up".

It's like I said, you seem to have a real problem with the fact that I disagree with you. You're getting hot under the collar because I won't accept what you're saying and choose to hide behind the idea that I am deliberately missing the point.

No-one is forcing you to keep repeating the same points, which I've answered repeatedly.

Look, it's very, very simple. You believe that finance was the reason that we went down and that whilst Southgate made mistakes he wasn't entirely culpable and therefore the criticism of him is unfair. You believe, as you have just said, that he was expected to achieve better than the resource he hadf at his disposal.

I don't accept or agree with the notion that finance was to blame and I have identified what I consider to be more than one flaw in the argument that there is a correlation between wages and success that proves that a manager's role is overstated. I do believe that Southgate was given the resource to stay up, I do believe that he made very poor decisions throughout his reign and I do believe he was the main reason we got relegated.

There is nothing wrong with us disagreeing and I don't see anything too complex about anything that's being argued here. I respect your right to hold that opinion, even if I disagree with it. I am not missing the point, deliberately or otherwise, I am not being obnoxious and I am not being anything other than grown up about it.

SidSnot Posted on 04/12/2009 03:41
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Of course Finance is the most important indicator of a team's performance. I think you say the correlation is 90%, which sounds about right. Although it depends on what you measure. The more teams / divisions you include the stronger the correlation will be.

However, the correlation you describe still leaves the possibility that we could have escaped relegation without being a statistical outlier. This gives weight to Scoea's point - which in a nutshell is that, had Southgate done a bang up job, then he had enough money to survive.

In the end you're both right.

onthemap Posted on 04/12/2009 04:54
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

"The issues you mentioned are just snippets of the big picture."

No actually they are the big picture, Southgates tactical incompetence cost us our Premier League place, nothing else.

There's a strong argument that no matter how much money Southgate had he'd have wasted it, he just couldn't manage, he didn't learn from his mistakes - despite declaring on a weekly basis that he would - and he had no idea how to respond to opposition managers when they changed their tactics, as they invariably did once they'd worked out he was incapable of responding.

The finance argument may be valid on a level playing field but Southgate was so out of his depth that it was largely an irrelevance.

Those, like Hercules, banging this particular drum are doing so to try and regain some credibility having championed the guy for 3 years despite irrefutable evidence that we may as well have given the transfer kitty to Mark Page.

The_263 Posted on 04/12/2009 07:54
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Boksic .. we should have given the likes of Arca, Hoyte, Ali, DGL, Alves a massive pay rise - just might have been the missing ingredient to save Southgte's neck.

Said it before and will say it again, in terms of the correlation between a club's financial muscle and position in the P league Southgate was statistical outlier that was punching well below his weight.

Legacy: reinforces the concept that nice men of football STILL do not necessarily become good managers. Other club's will benefit from Gibson's gamble.

bear66 Posted on 04/12/2009 08:11
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

There are very few 'good managers' - it's mainly luck, run of the ball and financial muscle to buy and buy again - Southgate wasn't a good manager which is typical of most managers and very unlucky that the purse strings were tied compared with the previous 10 seasons. Strachan isn't a good manager either . . . and looks more like a 'bad manager' proving the point that awkward men don't necessarily become good football managers

24_Briggsy Posted on 04/12/2009 08:46
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

On that note bear66, quite alot of our fans were so adamant on forcing our last 'good' manager out and were pleased to see the back of him. Cant say I've had much faith in our fans since then.

Football a fickle game? You bet!

reckre Posted on 04/12/2009 08:56
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Bored of this argument.

Southgate was XXXXXXe at everything be it man management, tactical awareness or his player purchases.

Southgate could have had Roman's millions to spend, and we still would have been relegated. John Terry would have been centre mid and we'd have been playing long balls for Kalou to win in the air. The guy was shocking, regardless of finance.

How anyone can justify the 30m he spent on Mido, Alves, Emnes, Aliadiere, Digard, Hoyte etc is beyond me! You could get rid of all of those, and the squad WOULDN'T be any weaker! Complete and utter waste and he systematically dismantled all that has been established over the last 10 years.

At least we have years of Championship football to look forward to now.

Adi_Dem Posted on 04/12/2009 09:10
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

That lot actually cost closer to 35m!!

reckre Posted on 04/12/2009 09:22
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

You can add St Ledger to that list as well. 3.5m [V][:o)][cr]

Not_Smog Posted on 04/12/2009 10:07
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I see the Southgate apologists are out in force again. Making excuses for a man who's incompetence and ineptness ripped up a decade of hard work.

Southgates legacy will be to have inherited a team that played in the UEFA Cup final, FA Cup semi finalists and finished 14th in the Premier League.
When he left we were 3rd in the second teir of English football.

He sold the most talented group of young Boro footballers in years. Cattermole, Downing and Morrison all sold for peanuts while he wasted money on garbage like Emnes, Aliadamare, Digard, Hoyte etc

He is the worst Boro manager of my lifetime and i suspect possibly the worst ever.


plazmuh Posted on 04/12/2009 12:19
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

FAO ONTHEMAP
Why start a tread about Gates Legacy and just use it to have a pop fella.
If you burned the guy at the stake mate you can only do it once.
What a few people want to know is since he left has it got any better and NO it has not.
Infact its getting worse by the day.Why cant you see it.

onthemap Posted on 04/12/2009 12:40
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

If you don't want to post on the thread Plazmuh just XXXXXX off elsewhere, I'm not fussed.

I've asked you to post the positives and you can't - if you can do so, here now is your chance.

Mumble about 35m being peanuts somewhere else.

bear66 Posted on 04/12/2009 12:48
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

After a few initial goes at Gibson, he seems to have fared very well in having a scapecoat to take all the blame for the policy decision to "cut our cloth" - very clever . . . . .

Genghis_Khan Posted on 04/12/2009 12:50
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I can't be bothered to read the thread but his legacy as I have said many times before is to rid us of the best bunch of youngsters we have since 86.

By the end of this season we'll lose, or already have lost...

Downing, Johnson, Turnbull and Wheater.

Well done Gareth.


hoops Posted on 04/12/2009 12:53
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I can't think of many things less productive than arguing with people on the internet, so I'm not going to get tit for tat with anyone.

But I would just like to say that boksic appears to be one of the few people on this thread with an understanding of the financial restrictions that were put on Southgate.

skiprat Posted on 04/12/2009 13:00
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Although I agree with the overall structure of what Boksic says, if the finances were that tight then why risk the largest amount of money we have EVER spent on one player?

If we'd spent the Alves money on 2 decent midfielders instead of Digard and Emnes we'd still be in the Premier League now.

Genghis_Khan Posted on 04/12/2009 13:03
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

We all know Southgate had a tough job... that doesn't excuse the fact that he wasted most of the money he had.

Had he spent 12m on Bent instead of Alves and 3m on Beattie instead of Emnes... We'd have stayed up... simples and it didn't take hindsight.

hoops Posted on 04/12/2009 13:06
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

@ Genghis Khan "We all know Southgate had a tough job... that doesn't excuse the fact that he wasted most of the money he had.

Had he spent 12m on Bent instead of Alves and 3m on Beattie instead of Emnes... We'd have stayed up... simples and it didn't take hindsight."

This is the point. We did agree a deal with Tottenham to sign Darren Bent (and Jermaine Defoe for that matter) but could agree personal terms with neither of them.

I'd be pretty confident that Marvin Emnes earns less than James Beattie and there's absolutely no way to be certain that signing Beattie (or any other player) would've kept us up.

captain5 Posted on 04/12/2009 13:09
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

hoops, he has an understanding of the financial and statistical side of things, which is obviously what got us all interested in football in the first place............

Anyone who actually watched the games knows that the margins between staying up and going down were so small and Gareth was the difference.

bear66 Posted on 04/12/2009 13:12
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

luck was the difference, bad luck

captain5 Posted on 04/12/2009 13:15
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Yeah, look at all those away games in a row we were unlucky in.

bear66 Posted on 04/12/2009 13:17
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

and yet the difference was very small - Hull away was a travesty and that was bad luck

24_Briggsy Posted on 04/12/2009 13:18
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

It was bad luck we got smashed by West Brom last jan? who were then bottom of the league.

That should have got alarm bells ringing. The warning signs were there.

Bad luck? My arse.

captain5 Posted on 04/12/2009 13:20
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Hull away was indicative.

If we don't get two goals clear we fold as soon as they pressurise us.

Still haven't won in the league by a single goal in more than a year.

We let in twice as many late goals as we score.

sasboro1 Posted on 04/12/2009 13:25
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

one of the best moments when i realised southgate had lost the plot was when he was seriously thinking of doing away with having a captain.

bear66 Posted on 04/12/2009 13:29
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Huth and Wheater certainly let us down defensively . . even though Huth would have been OK in the Champiuonship, unlike Wheater - losing Riggott was really bad luck

glover_elbow Posted on 04/12/2009 13:30
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

according to boksic's theory its all about wages ,well why bother having a scouting network at all then.

Southgate took over and his scouting network was poor hence the dud buys, you think someone like redknap given the same transfer/wage constraints would have bought the same duds. Buying a bad player is more damaging than not buying at all. We have players like hoyte aliaidire who costs the club millions with no benefit and little resale value. Southgates legacy is to saddle us with overpaid overpriced substandard players we will struggle to get of the books.

bear66 Posted on 04/12/2009 13:37
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

"you think someone like redknap given the same transfer/wage constraints would have bought the same duds."

err I don't think he'd have taken the job or has ever worked under such wage constraints - Now 60m wages and 50m per year, that's what he manages to play with

Genghis_Khan Posted on 04/12/2009 13:40
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

"This is the point. We did agree a deal with Tottenham to sign Darren Bent (and Jermaine Defoe for that matter) but could agree personal terms with neither of them.

I'd be pretty confident that Marvin Emnes earns less than James Beattie and there's absolutely no way to be certain that signing Beattie (or any other player) would've kept us up."

Sorry but I find it very hard to believe we agreed terms with Bent and Defoe and we fans were not aware of it. I'd remember, especially Defoe.

Emnes will be on less than Beattie... but 15k a week more would have kept us up, look what he did for Stoke when he signed in Jan.

Many of us on here said at the time that's them staying up instead of us.

Emnes and Alves were a total waste of money, in fact Southgate never bought 1 good forward,that's why we were relegated.

captain5 Posted on 04/12/2009 13:40
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

So, Southgate was the best we could have hoped for then??


bear66 Posted on 04/12/2009 13:42
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Either Southgate was 'the plan' to 'cut our cloth' or, more likely, no one else would come

captain5 Posted on 04/12/2009 13:48
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

It was the wrong plan clearly.

bear66 Posted on 04/12/2009 13:55
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

As I said, it probably wasn't the plan

captain5 Posted on 04/12/2009 13:57
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

So, a PL club that had just been in the UEFA Cup Final had no one wanting the job at all??

24_Briggsy Posted on 04/12/2009 14:01
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

There has been some utter tosh written on here this afternoon.

bear66 Posted on 04/12/2009 14:17
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I think there may have been people interested, but on their terms - change of backroom staff, commitment to spend etc. The Gibson principles of keeping the status quo, young players, reduced wages bill, 'cutting cloth' precluded an established manager taking the risk - Southgate was probably as shocked as we were that he was being given the job . . these principles wouldn't have been an issue as he didn't know the ropes. He surprised everyone by keeping things 'steady' for two years with a fraction of the quality of the aging UEFA Cup side - even after the away wins in the Autumn, thins were going surprisingly well . . till a gutless negative display against Newcastle . . . . eventually things caught up wuth Southgate as he wasn't able to handle the pressure of a young side which quicly got demoralised. All this was the risk Gibson took and Southgate more than delivered for 2.5 seasons . . he should have gone in January or May but he didn't . . and again did surprisingly well in the Championship when he shouldn't have gone if we had any hope of a quick return to the Premiership.

hoops Posted on 04/12/2009 14:23
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

@ Genghis_Khan

I hate playing the "I'm in the know" card, which is one of the reasons I don't post on here often, but we did have deals in place to sign Defoe or Bent (not both, obviously), but could afford the wages of neither. Alves was third choice, Wagner Love fourth. Should you doubt me - and why wouldn't you? - have a check of some of my other posts; there aren't many to sort through.

Why or how the press never got wind of the transfers I don't know, but I can assure you it's true.

Adi_Dem Posted on 04/12/2009 16:24
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Hoops is on the money in that respect. The wages being demanded were huge and we couldn't afford them. Emnes certainly is on less than Beattie. I'd be surprised if he wasn't. None of that really matters though. He had a budget and singluarly mis-managed it.

There were plenty of people willing to take the job. Gibson made a conscious choice to appoint Southgate. Im not going to criticise him for it. It was done with the best of intentions. However, no matter which way you cut it it was the wrong decision.

I have said a number of times that maybe the quality of manager becomes all the more important the less money you have.

Having said that, none of these players play for free. Alves was on huge wages. Same for Mido. In fact, Gareth spent more money on our strikeforce than any manager in our history. I think we all now know that it was our biggest weakness. That's telling.

bear66 Posted on 04/12/2009 16:28
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

So we couldn't afford the player Southgate wanted and we bought the player that 'the board' wanted. Southgate goes up in my estimation for such a rookie manager, with his arms tied, got our club punching above their weight (our weight is about where we are now; mid-table Championship, based on the wealth of the chairman -hopefully Strachan doesn't continue to have us punching below our weight)

hoops Posted on 04/12/2009 16:36
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

@ Adi_Dem

"In fact, Gareth spent more money on our strikeforce than any manager in our history."

Sorry to harp on, but I seriously doubt that's correct. In terms of transfer fees, yes, Southgate's expenditure would probably just about eclipse any other Boro manager's but I'd be almost certain that cumulatively the total cost of bringing in and keeping Viduka, Yakubu, Maccarone and Hasselbaink on their contracts was far, far higher than all of the misfiring strikers that Southgate brought in.

Adi_Dem Posted on 04/12/2009 16:37
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

I was talking about transfer fees.

hoops Posted on 04/12/2009 16:42
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

@ Adi_Dem

"I was talking about transfer fees."

Which, as boksic said some 100-odd posts ago are irrelevant when viewed in isolation.

Wages and signing on fees have to be considered for the figure to have any meaning.

Adi_Dem Posted on 04/12/2009 16:45
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

As I've already said I disagree with boksic.

captain5 Posted on 04/12/2009 16:46
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Well, Boksic doesn't agree with you and Adi does.

He thinks that it's just wages.

If we're thinking that they're even in the same ballpark then it shows how poorly Gareth recruited strikers.

If only he'd been given time for Caleb Folan to prove his critics wrong.

hoops Posted on 04/12/2009 16:49
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

@ Adi_Dem

Sure, I won't go through it again since you don't seem willing to budge from your mindset.

But for the benefit of anyone else still reading... Let's say:

Manager A signs Player A - Fee 100, Wages 10 per week
Manager B signs Player B - Fee 0, Wages 100 per week

Both on 4-year deals.

According to your logic, Manager A spends more.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 04/12/2009 16:50
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

hoops whats the agents fee for both?

hoops Posted on 04/12/2009 16:51
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

@ Razmond_HWDR

Hehehe!

I don't have agent fees or image rights %ages to hand.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 04/12/2009 16:52
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

what about goal and assist bonus's like on old skool champ manager?

Adi_Dem Posted on 04/12/2009 16:58
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Hoops, I struggle to see why you consider that I'm not willing to change my mindset and yet don't say the same thing in respect of boksic. The reason is that you disagree with what I am saying. It's extremely dismissive and disrespectful.

To be clear, I have long since argued that transfer fees, wages and other related expenditure all has to be taken into account. I have had many a discussion on that very point. That's exactly why I do not believe that Southgate had the financial rug pulled from under him to the extent that most appear to.

hoops Posted on 04/12/2009 17:12
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

@ Adi_Dem

"It's extremely dismissive and disrespectful."

Eh? I was being perfectly polite and respectful. Look, I've no gripe with you and no particular reason to champion boksic.

All I can see is that he/she appears to make an allowance for wages when considering Southgate's expenditure and you don't seem to. In that case, I agree with him/her and disagree with you.

And it's not accurate to state with any certainty - as you have above - that Southgate's total expenditure on strikers was greater than McClaren's because I think we all know that Hasselbaink, Viduka and Yakubu were earning a great deal more than Alves, Mido and other jokers Southgate signed.

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 04/12/2009 17:23
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Anyone who tries to argue that finances didn't play some part in our relegation is deluding themselves - too many were moves on last season and there wasn't nearly enough money invested on replacements.

In fact there wasn't any money invested on replacements, period.

I think Adi is arguing that Southgate had enough money to keep us up - well in part I agree. What money he had in the first couple of seasons was poorly spent in the main, but given the situation last season that was even more reason to bring replacements for Cattermole, Boateng, Schwarzer, Rochemback etc.

Adi_Dem Posted on 04/12/2009 17:23
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

The point is that you wouldn't have posted that I was unwilling to change my mindset had you agreed with that mindset. I know you have no gripe with me, I was just pointing out that this isn't me being stubborn, it's a validly held view.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I don't take account of wages from. That's simply not the case. My only argument with boksic has been that his view that a manager is irrelevant (using the wages table as evidence) is something that I can't agree with.

As I have already said it is entirely accurate to say that Southgate had the most expensive strikeforce, in terms of transfer fees, that the club has ever had. That's all I was saying.

When you look at the overall financial package, The difference in transfer fees between the UEFA Finalists and Southgate's relegated squad was over 6m. In terms of wages, the difference isn't that much in actual fact. On that basis I can make a pretty educated guess that Southgate's were much more expensive.

Adi_Dem Posted on 04/12/2009 17:26
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Jonny - what I have always said is that Southgate had enough money to stay up. I don't believe that finance got us relegated. That's not delusion, it's an opinion.

There was enough for replacements. Gareth wasted it. He didn't have to get rid of all three of Cattermole, Boateng and Rocky. He chose to.


hoops Posted on 04/12/2009 17:28
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

@ Adi_Dem

I think you're assuming I know the ins-and-outs of all your squabbles with boksic and all the opinions you and he/she have expressed elsewhere. I don't; I don't read this board very often. I'm basing everything I've written on this thread on what I've read on this thread.

"In terms of wages, the difference isn't that much in actual fact."

^^^ That simply isn't true but if you'd like to believe it, that's up to you.

I'm going offline for the weekend now, so I won't read your response but it's been fun chatting. Have a good weekend.

Adi_Dem Posted on 04/12/2009 17:50
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

It isn't when you throw Tuncay in.

Have a good 'en.

Hercules Posted on 04/12/2009 17:51
Southgates legacy - as a manager.

Adi, you're right. We're just repeating ourselves when essentially we agree.

Finance is the most important factor in football.

The wages available were in the bottom 4 (possibly the bottom 3) in the league and we spent precisely nothing on transfer fees in the final season.

I don't think this was enough to say that Southgate SHOULD have kept us up. You do. You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how illogical it is.

onthemap, I'm not a Southgate apologist and have certainly never championed him. All I've ever done is say how we've played. When we played well I said so. When we didn't I said so. The reason we argued about Southgate was because you took every chance you got to take a swipe at him, justifiably or not. I simply attempted to bring balance.