permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/2772089
Buddy Posted on 07/08/2011 11:33
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Quick transcript of part of Danny Baker's show yesterday, after a quick discussion about whether Strachan would rather be talking or managing:

Baker: "But you can't stop...I'm just picking a club out of the air here, but if you hear so-and-so's gone at Ipswich, do your eyes go towards the phone or do you think "oooh...""

Strachan (interrupts): "No, I've proved I'm no' very good in the Championship I'm afraid, I think I've proved that I'm no' very good there."

Moggas_Mules Posted on 07/08/2011 11:36
Respect to Gordon Strachan

So he accepts he was shyyyte.

Doesn't change the fact he not only gave us crap football but left us with an overpaid overrated squad and wasted millions of pounds that we evidently couldn't afford.

So much so we are still fixing his wrongs !

I am still fuming that he was appointed and was allowed to do what he did. [:(!]


Marvanelli Posted on 07/08/2011 11:37
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Gets no respect from me even though he did walk out without any compo.

He was and is a shocking manager[V]

CornwallBORO Posted on 07/08/2011 12:02
Respect to Gordon Strachan

There is no pleasing some people. He spent millions because he was encouraged to by Gibbo. Strachan, is the only manager, EVER, i have heard be so humble and honest. Integrity is in short supply in the game, full marks to the man. Stupid people on this board, just stupid.

Space_Face Posted on 07/08/2011 12:07
Respect to Gordon Strachan

He was a complete disaster for us, hardly surprising people don't speak highly of him.

Moggas_Mules Posted on 07/08/2011 12:11
Respect to Gordon Strachan

CornwallBORO fudge off

I can assure you I'm not stupid I just don't forgive him for what he did to us. Respect for walking away without compo but thats the least he could do. He set us back years in my opinion !

jimmy_james Posted on 07/08/2011 12:29
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I think he was a disaster for Boro, but the people at Celtic say similar things about Mogga.

So it is a time and place at a club for everyone from manager to grounds man. I blame a lot of the problem on appointing Gate as a manager.

QPR 1 - 5 BORO
BORO 2 - 2 NUFC

a lot sang his praises on the few times he got it correct.

Marvanelli Posted on 07/08/2011 12:32
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'There is no pleasing some people. He spent millions because he was encouraged to by Gibbo. Strachan, is the only manager, EVER, i have heard be so humble and honest. Integrity is in short supply in the game, full marks to the man. Stupid people on this board, just stupid.'

Yes you are stupid.

Remember the comments after a defeat 'I'll go home become and alcoholic and take drugs'

Ohh yes he deserves 100% respect!!

[:o)][:o)][:o)]

Chappy112 Posted on 07/08/2011 12:34
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"I can assure you I'm not stupid I just don't forgive him for what he did to us."

You're talking as though he did it on purpose FFS.

Sitrep Posted on 07/08/2011 12:34
Respect to Gordon Strachan

he was a disaster, but i have far more respect for the man than Southgate, who done far more damage

plazmuh Posted on 07/08/2011 12:35
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Did not like him whilst he was our Manager but it has to be said he redeemed himself in my eyes at his departure..
He could have been a proper nobber and gone looking for compo from the club but did not..
That makes him alright in my eyes..
Regards
Plazmuh
[:D][:D][^]

addison-road Posted on 07/08/2011 12:35
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I got the impression he would take a job in the top flight but couldn't do it in the championship.

Moggas_Mules Posted on 07/08/2011 12:39
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Chappy112 he did do it on purpose. He was sent by the Leeds hierarchy to kill us from the inside.

Chappy112 Posted on 07/08/2011 12:40
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Haha you doyle [:D][^]

sasboro1 Posted on 07/08/2011 12:52
Respect to Gordon Strachan

worst boro manager in my life time. [V]

colinmilk Posted on 07/08/2011 13:29
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I know I'll take the job, do it really badly and render myself unemployable and feel like a failure!

Of course he ballsed up but he hardly meant to people don't set out to fail. Just a costly appointment that didn't work out. Had the dignity to walk away with nothing and that counts for a lot.

oooooo Posted on 07/08/2011 14:29
Respect to Gordon Strachan

It counts for NOTHING. Financially, we were XXXXXXed. Him turning down his compo is a tiny gesture considering how much the rest of his experimentation cost.

And humble? Jesus XXXXXXing christ - he was a total asrehole.

Buddy Posted on 07/08/2011 14:32
Respect to Gordon Strachan

The bit in the transcript was the only thing he said in the whole half hour that I particularly agreed with. He did also say that he treated post-match interviews as a war.

Come to mention it, he also complained about all the build-up that football gets in the media and that he'd prefer to just see the games. Must be a different bloke in the ITV studio.

captain5 Posted on 07/08/2011 14:36
Respect to Gordon Strachan

We've just made two bad managerial apoointments at key times.

We shouldn't have given the job to a manager with no experience when we were looking to cut costs and we shouldn't have gone for someone who was so different in manner to the bloke he was replacing and hadn't managed at that level for a long time.

Capybara Posted on 07/08/2011 14:46
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I don't suppose for a minute that he set out to do a bad job. Quite the reverse in fact. So for him to admit that he wasn't up to the job he deserves respect. Too many people don't realise their limitations.

Anyroad, it's a shame the Sausage Sandwich Game has gone because I, for one, would be intrigued to know whether he prefers brown sauce, red sauce, or no sauce at all.

stedontsurf Posted on 07/08/2011 14:53
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I'm far from his biggest fan and don't really have any time for the guy but as someone already pointed out, he didn't fućk us up intentionally.

"I'll never forgive him for what he did to us" or something. You sound like a kid talking. Grow up.

Like him or loathe him (and I fall somewhere in between), he's a character who says and does what he thinks unlike a lot of the people involved in the game.

diggerman Posted on 07/08/2011 14:56
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Strachan only spent what he was allowed to , and surely no one could have expected that the likes of Boyd would be such a failure here.
He was signed as the record goalscorer in the SPL - at the time he was seen as a great signing.

jimmy_james Posted on 07/08/2011 14:57
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"CELTIC were last night counting the cost of Tony Mowbray's ill-fated spell as manager - after taking a £40million hit.

Mowbray, 46 - known as Mogga - was sacked yesterday after a crisis summit with chief executive Peter Lawwell.

And the Englishman's dismissal - following Celtic's humiliating 4-0 loss to St Mirren on Wednesday - ended one of the costliest reigns in Scottish football history." [Sic}

We love him (ATM) but Celtic really saw him as a massive drain on resources. Mogga came to us at the right time for him but he is well paid .

To admit his mistakes and walk away was a thing most of you would not have done, Mogga did not at Celtic.


Link: mogga

atomicloonybin Posted on 07/08/2011 14:59
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"Come to mention it, he also complained about all the build-up that football gets in the media and that he'd prefer to just see the games. Must be a different bloke in the ITV studio."

Quite, Buddy. I heard a bit of the interview yesterday, and he always sounds irritated and annoyed by the mere fact he's doing an interview - and this was genial, jokey with Danny Baker. Danny was asking him about being captain of Aberdeen at the age of 19 and it was almost as if the question was beneath him answering it. Very condescending. It's clear he hates all this stuff - so why do it? I'm sure he doesn't need the money.

One interesting thing he did say was that he wants to be friends with the people he works with and coaches; the flip side of that seems to be that if you're not his friend, he won't give you the time of day. I'm sure there's a few Boro players who would testify to that.

Buddy Posted on 07/08/2011 15:03
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Here's the show. 25 minutes' worth.


Link: Danny n' Gord

jimmy_james Posted on 07/08/2011 15:06
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"The ex-boss was quoted as saying: "One of the players bought himself a Ferrari just as 2,000 folk were losing their jobs in the steel industry.

"I said to him: 'You come from the area where these redundancies are hitting hardest - are you off your head?'" The launch of the Premier League and Sky's TV cash in the 1990s transformed football's finances - and players' wages. "[SIC]


It would seem at least one player was not happy with him. If you also add in the 7 or 8 players who he saw as not fit enough pre season, just who were they, then we started last season with a massive split in the dressing room.


Link: gazette

stedontsurf Posted on 07/08/2011 17:01
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Cheers Buddy.

A good listen.

Corcaigh_the_Cat Posted on 07/08/2011 17:34
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'Doesn't change the fact he not only gave us crap football but left us with an overpaid overrated squad and wasted millions of pounds that we evidently couldn't afford.'

I think you'll find he inherited the majority of the overpaid and over rated squad. Wheater, O'Neil, Arca, Taylor, Hoyte, Lita, Digard etc. were here before Strachan got here and have since been scattered, along with Strachan's mistakes, Boyd and Flood. Strachan's signings in the main have been kept by Mowbray, have a look at yesterday's team sheet.


Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 07/08/2011 17:37
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Many of WGS's signings have added to an already top heavy wage bill.

But that's not his fault I suppose, the club gambled and it didn't pay off.

Some of his signings are good players, but very few - if any - represent good value.

jimmy_james Posted on 07/08/2011 19:28
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Now if Mogga is 20% cheaper than WGS that is a saving on 200k but where have we lost money like we did under Mclaren and Gate.

I thought we started with a 50M debt and got it down to a figure that we can cope with for the next 2 seasons bearing in mind we get 6M next may and 6M the may after that.

The football was cr4p under Strachan and Mogga tried the same and it was still cr4p. Mogga then turned it around by not playing all the "best" players at the same time but Tommo was also a big plus when he came back.

How much debt did WGS incur bearing in mind he saved us 3M by not taking his wages!

mooghead Posted on 07/08/2011 19:29
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Kudos to Strachan for the way he parted company with the club when it was apparent his ideas were not working. Very few people in football would tear up their contracts and give it up as a bad job.

jimmy_james Posted on 07/08/2011 19:59
Respect to Gordon Strachan

You would need to count Adam Johnson's transfer fee as a plus to WGS even if he did not approve of it .

Brad Jones 2.3M. edit

It is even open to debate if Emnes going to Swansea on loan was down to WGS as he went on loan the day WGS left.

To blame the debt on WGS is wrong, to blame the cr4p football on WGS is correct but the debt came from Gate and Mclaren.

ABCD Posted on 07/08/2011 20:33
Respect to Gordon Strachan

none

ABCD Posted on 07/08/2011 20:41
Respect to Gordon Strachan

no

jimmy_james Posted on 07/08/2011 20:49
Respect to Gordon Strachan

WGS players still at the club

McManus
McDonald
Thomson
Bailey
Kink
R Williams Feb 2010
Miller
Robson
Haliday
L Williams May 2010
Grounds June 2010
McMahon ???
smallwood ????
Gibson ????

I am not sure on all of them but it is a lot of the current team and not an expensive part.

Adi_Dem Posted on 07/08/2011 20:57
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Strachan cost us millions and put us in this financial position?

Rubbish.

His biggest expense was Boyd. All of the other players we have had to offload were signed by Southgate.

Buddy Posted on 07/08/2011 20:57
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Not totally sure about counting the academy ones, especially as he whinged about having to use them.

jimmy_james Posted on 07/08/2011 21:04
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Buddy he signed them.

and the players who left that we got fees for are down to him aswell.

The football was cr4p under WGS but his bit of the finances were in the black.

Boyd cost us 8 months wages only!

jimmy_james Posted on 07/08/2011 21:46
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Gary O'Niel went for a FEE not disclosed
Brad Jones 2.3M
Adam Johnson 7M
write off of WGS contract 3M
StLedger released


I think we made money on players during WGS reign and were left with a squad that forms the basis of Moggas team.

Buddy Posted on 07/08/2011 21:48
Respect to Gordon Strachan

If you think about it for a moment, that makes it much worse. Because he couldn't make the team he inherited, that was winning football matches, win football matches, and he couldn't make the team he created win football matches, which they started doing as soon as he left.

So, on balance, his self-assessment is probably spot on.

HolgateCorner Posted on 07/08/2011 21:51
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Strachan is a convenient scapegoat for a club, and a support, that was in a serious downward spiral.

He gave it his best shot but it didn't work out, in some respects he tried too hard and it is noticeable that Mogga is doing much better with much less pressure on him in terms of the club having to get promoted to survive.

I think Strachan should be given credit for giving the players and coaches the kick up the backside they needed, some of them behaved as if relegation had just been one of those things.

He shouldn't be blamed for the deep rooted problems he inherited and which Gibson has only recently faced up to.

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 07/08/2011 21:55
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Not sure I agree with that HC, the belief from some I've spoken to inside the club is that he was disliked by many if the staff, some coaches included, and seemed to get things wrong from almost day one.

There were very few people sad to see him go I think.

jimmy_james Posted on 07/08/2011 21:59
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Think about it!

On the footballing front Johnson was the key player and we got the money instead of goals.

I am saying his football was cr4p but his finances were probably spot on at the time.

The team we have ATM is based on the WGS team and now plays well. Mogga when he first took over could not get the team to perform any better than WGS could. It was one of those playing too many good players who did not make a team together things and it took Mogga about 3 months to get the team right.

The team ATM is basically the WGS team, just playing a whole lot better.

Adi_Dem Posted on 07/08/2011 22:01
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I think there are two threads here.

On the one hand I think it is undeniable that he was a disaster on the coaching or managerial side. His results tell you that.

However, to suggest that his transfers were disastrous or that he was in some way culpable for our financial problems is absolutely incorrect in my view.

Many of his buys form the nucleus of the current squad and, in fact, represent some of our better players.

What he did was push an already rolling ball a bit further down the path. The person that got that ball rolling was Southgate, who was also partly responsible for some truly horrific transfers that significantly damaged the clubs finances.

sasboro1 Posted on 07/08/2011 22:01
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"I think Strachan should be given credit for giving the players and coaches the kick up the backside they needed, some of them behaved as if relegation had just been one of those things."

what you on about? in his 12 months at boro we were barely above relegation form. within a few games of mowbray coming in you could see the players were working as a team again and had respect for mowbray. Under strachan you could see that we werent playing as a team and the players didnt respect strachan. Dont htink he was a popular manager with the players. bit of an oldschool manager, teh game has moved on but strachan hasnt. Mowbray is probably more approachable. Strachan would probably bollock a player for daring to speak out. mowbray seems the sort who would sit down with a player and take on board the issues

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 07/08/2011 22:07
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I don't think you can deny he signed some decent players Adi, just than very few represented good value for money, which is another thing entirely.

Adi_Dem Posted on 07/08/2011 22:11
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I disagree Jonny. I think his signings have proven, in the main and since a change of manager (!!!!), to be good players for this level.

jimmy_james Posted on 07/08/2011 22:12
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"within a few games of mowbray coming in you could see the players were working as a team again and had respect for mowbray."[SIC]

no you could not 17 dec we were still below sheff utd and fourth from bottom.

After the Leeds match we were 5th from bottom.

Mogga had a struggle when he first arrived possibly from those coaches and players who were glad to see WGS go.

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 07/08/2011 22:13
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I agree they are good players, my point is they don't all represent good value for money, given their wages and in some cases transfer fees.

HolgateCorner Posted on 07/08/2011 22:17
Respect to Gordon Strachan

sasboro - my view is that the club had gone soft from top to bottom under southgate, culminating in the most embarrassing non fight against relegation you could ever wish to see.

And then when we'd gone down it was as if nothing had happened at the club. The supporters were devastated, you only had to look at this board for ten minutes to see that, and yet nobody was shown the door, nobody fell out, nobody felt uncomfortable, what the hell was going on?

It didn't work for strachan but he did take action, he cleared players and coaches out, he brought new blood in, he questioned the academy players (nothing wrong with that) and made the club think again.

He wasn't all bad, he did a lot of things that needed doing and just because a few people at the club didn't like him is no problem for me.A relegated club should not be a happy place in my view.

Adi_Dem Posted on 07/08/2011 22:18
Respect to Gordon Strachan

That's where I disagree. I think in terms of fees and wages, with the exception of Boyd, none of his signings are outwith the structure and budget that the club are trying to implement. Most therefore represent value for money.

jimmy_james Posted on 07/08/2011 22:21
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"I agree they are good players, my point is they don't all represent good value for money, given their wages and in some cases transfer fees."[SIC]

What were WGS high transfer fees?

degsyspesh Posted on 07/08/2011 22:23
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Strachan's signings weren't his problem, his problem seemed to be a complete inability to organise and motivate his players.

Compared to those signed during Southgate's tenure, Strachan's signings were generally utter genius.

How much Southgate ever had to do with "his" signings is very much open to debate (my guess is very little) but taken together they were by far the worst that I think that I have ever seen at any club.

Fair play to Strachan, a bit of humility is something that you very rarely see in football.

Adi_Dem Posted on 07/08/2011 22:24
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Transfer fees don't cause us a financial problem anyway. Wages are the key.

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 07/08/2011 22:24
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Scott MacDonald £3.5m, that's serious money at this level. Thomson at £2m?

Boyd earning £30k p/w, MacDonald on £27k p/w.

Have no idea how much the others are on tbh.

Adi_Dem Posted on 07/08/2011 22:30
Respect to Gordon Strachan

McDonald doesn't earn that.

Transfer fees aren't a problem for us and those levels aren't outlandish at this level and both are amongst our best players.

Can't agree with you.

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 07/08/2011 22:33
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I know for a certain fact MacDonald does earn that Adi.

Those sort of wages are huge at this level, for where we are now.

The last two signings we have made are costing the club about £10k p/w between them.

It's nonsense to suggest that transfer fees don't impact upon finances, any fee increases the debt, which the lenders aren't too enthusiastic about increasing in recent times.

Adi_Dem Posted on 07/08/2011 22:35
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Well I know different.

Let's just agree to differ.

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 07/08/2011 22:39
Respect to Gordon Strachan

You often post a bit of 'inside knowledge' on here Adi, I'm wondering how genuine some of it is now, because the point about MacDonald I know is accurate, despite what you claim.

Capybara Posted on 07/08/2011 22:46
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I've just listened to the interview. I liked him before he became our manager, didn't like his appointment, didn't like him at all when he was the manager, and now find I'm liking him again.

[wiggly line for a mouth]

degsyspesh Posted on 07/08/2011 22:50
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I haven't got a clue what MacDonald is on - and I am pretty confident that nobody on here knows either, although it is probably a fair assumption that he is now one of highest earners.

Adi, I simply don't understand your insistence that transfer fees and wages can be treated entirely separately when it comes to the clubs finances and that wages are a problem and fees are not. You simply can't divorce capital and revenue issues like that.

Taking MacDonald as an example, when we bought him for £3.5M we will have, in effect, taken out a repayment mortgage over a fixed period which probably equates to his contract duration (3 1/2 years?) - so we will pay roughly £5k a week in interest payment to start with plus about £20k a week over that period to repay the debt.

redwurzel Posted on 08/08/2011 03:07
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I was reasonably happy with Strachan as an appointment, but was very disappointed in his poor ability to get the best out of the players.

He hardly played Emnes and Bennett.

He over paid for Scott M. Miller was a mistake as was Boyd. Thomson and Flood were plagued with injuries. On the plus side he was right to sell Yeates and got a great price for Jones. I also think he was right to send St Ledger back. His loan signings were generally poor such as Tavares, Kilgannon, Marshall, Bent, Kitson. McManus and Naughton were OK.

I will always respect him for walking out without compensation which was generous and dignified.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 08:07
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Jonny, haven't posted anything like that for a while because of the reaction it brings. As I always say, it's up to you whether you believe it or not. I know it's true and I am not a liar so it's a matter for you really.

degsy, that's not the way that our debt package works in actual fact. I can divroce the two because I'm right.

degsyspesh Posted on 08/08/2011 08:37
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Ah yes Adi, apologies - I'd forgotten that our debt finance was structured under the "money tree principle"

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 09:31
Respect to Gordon Strachan

No need for sarcasm.

1. Our debt is a variable facility that we can draw down on, debt is not linked to the length of a players contract.

2. Transfer fees are paid in instalments. It is those instalments that tend to be paid over a players contract.

3. We are still owed £18m in transfer instalments. Payments on those continue to come in.

4. A detailed study showed that over time clubs, almost invariably, break even on incoming and outgoing transfer fees.

That's why I'm saying that transfer fees aren't the concern in respect of our finances, wages are.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 09:34
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Adi how much is Macdonald on? he must have had a decent wage at celtic... did he drop wages to move here or is he on a high wage?

degsyspesh Posted on 08/08/2011 09:56
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Adi.

1) True, but what you are referring to is an agreed ceiling which we have to operate beneath. The fact is that the more we borrow within the facility the more we pay back. When you sign a player, at some level there will be a mechanism in place as to the period you pay the debt back over whether that is the contract duration or not - you don't just borrow indefinitely.

2. Generally true, but whether you have to stump up the cash on day one or not it is still a financial liability that you are contracted to pay. It is still debt.

3. That may well be true - but how much money do we still owe out on other players?

4. Can't say I've ever seen such a study, but I would say that if you look at MFC's income and expenditure relating to transfer fees over the last 10-20 years I would think that we are a very very long way from breaking even.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 11:06
Respect to Gordon Strachan

You'd be surprised then!

My original point remains the same for all those reasons. Transfer fees are not a concern to the club, wages are.

Midosparmo Posted on 08/08/2011 11:08
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Have you not heard of the concept of cashflow Adi?


If we have money to pay out before transfer money comes in and the banks wont lend the money we have a problem.

Im not saying we do have a problem but to try and make out transfers and running costs have no connection is plain wrong.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 11:20
Respect to Gordon Strachan

i read somewhere that Macdonald doubled his wages to join us from Celtic.

how much does Macdonald earn?

Dibzzz Posted on 08/08/2011 11:25
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Jesus, he almost got us relegated, and would have if Mogga wasn't brought in.

Just co's he admits he was shyte we all shouldn't jump to suck his dick.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 11:26
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I work with cashflows every day Midos. I haven't mentioned cash-flow and that isn't the way in which our debt package is structured hence what I am saying.

I will repeat - transfer fees are not a concern to the club, salary payments are and that is the driver of the clubs financial policy currently.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 11:27
Respect to Gordon Strachan

this was the risk in bringing a manager in that had NO experience at the level we are at.

we paid out a lot of money for a manager with no experience, so we may as well have kept Southgate!

it was another huge financial f*ck up by middlesbrough fc

gravyboat Posted on 08/08/2011 11:28
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Transfer fees must be of SOME concern.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 11:29
Respect to Gordon Strachan

is adi stating that we can easily pay out another 10million in transfer fee as long as the wage is low?

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 11:35
Respect to Gordon Strachan

No, see above, I said 'within reason'.

I'm not saying we can simply spend as much as we want on transfer fees, simply that our finances are driven by wage spend and that is the focus.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 11:40
Respect to Gordon Strachan

but dont our finances govern the amount of money if any we can spend on transfer fees?

so if for example Mowbray said he wanted £1million for a transfer fee for a player, gibson or whoever holding the purse may say no as financially we do not have the funds to support the transfer fee.

It isnt as simple as saying transfer fees dont matter.

They are part of the reason why we are in so much debt in the first place - a clear over spend in this area.

degsyspesh Posted on 08/08/2011 12:02
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"...transfer fees are not a concern to the club, salary payments are..."

In which case it is interesting that we are looking to resign Arca, have extended Emnes' contract and are being strongly linked with a couple of free transfers.

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 08/08/2011 12:02
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Adi, I dont mind reading your posts generally speaking, but I have to say you've lost all credibility in my eyes as a result of your insistance that you are right over the MacDonald issue [rle]

I can only think you are a bit of a fantasist, becuase I know you're wrong on this one and no matter how many times you repeat youself that won't change.

otto62 Posted on 08/08/2011 12:15
Respect to Gordon Strachan

QUOTE FROM ADI: "No, see above, I said 'within reason'."

No, see, you didn't. You said as follows in 5 seperate posts:

"Transfer fees don't cause us a financial problem anyway."
"Transfer fees aren't a problem to us ..."
"... transfer fees aren't the concern ..."
"Transfer fees are not a concern to the club ..."
"I will repeat - transfer fees are not a concern to the club ..."

Nowhere do you mention 'within reason', despite 5 opportunities to do so.
(I particularly like your insistence in the last post, in case we hadn't heard you correctly! [:D])

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 12:16
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Jonny, you're writing that as if it is of any concern to me whatsoever. If I've lost credibility in your eyes then so be it, I doubt I'll lose any sleep over it. Incidentally, I don't know what McDonald earns, I just know what he doesn't earn, if that makes sense. Anyway, just let it go safe in the knowledge that you are right, if that's how you feel.

Raz - I have not said that transfer fees don't matter, not once. I have said that they are not a concern to the club currently and are not what is driving or recruitment policy. Wage spend is. Wages needed to be brought under control.

degsy - I'm not sure the point you're arguing there. All of those are happening after we have brought the wage level into our comfort zone, which is why we can do those deals. Extensions of contracts in respect of Emnes and Arca are going to be within our wage budget, as are the transfer signing, if any are made.

We will no doubt choose to sign loan players or free players. What I have never said is that transfer fees cost the club nothing. All I have said is that they are not currently driving policy and are not of concern to the club, not that we can just spend what we want on such fees. Don't forget this all started with a value for money argument. Simply put, my point in response was that the transfer fees paid out for the players mentioned (McDonald, Thomson etc) haven't caused us a financial problem and are not of any concern to the club. That seems to have been lost somewhere in here and interpreted as me saying that we can spend money on transfer fees willy nilly.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 12:21
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Yes, you're right otto, it was a separate thread in which I said that. My apologies.

In any event, each of those sentences you have just quoted are exactly right. Please see my previous post. Perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough but what I am very definitely not saying is that we can spend what we like on transfer fees.

What I am saying though is that the transfer fees paid in respect of those players are not causing us a problem, that transfer fees are not the driver of the club's financial problems or financial policy and that that is why the two can be divorced.

Wage spend is key.

otto62 Posted on 08/08/2011 12:30
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I actually agree with you Adi, transfer fees (within reason, and the reasonable limit is very low) are not the main concern of the club at the moment. I just noticed the sneaky insertion of your caveat.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 12:33
Respect to Gordon Strachan

adi - wage structure will always be a concern, our drive to get the wage down has coincided with our policy on putting our transfer budget right down.

3.5million just over a season ago for a player was fine, however that is a transfer fee that no longer fits with the structure we have.

Please do not dismiss transfer fees as if the spend on them in the near future is no issue to us, and the high spending on them in the recent past has had no consequence with regard to our financial situation

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 12:38
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Those transfer fees continue to be paid now and are not what is driving the financial cuts at the club. We were trying to cut wages when we paid those fees for those players. It was a stated aim.

The key element of our finances that was crippling us was wage spend. Transfer fees paid out historically are not what has driven the sales of various players.

Howeverm if you're saying that we are spending less on transfer fees as a conscious decision then yes, of course we are, and I've never argued otherwise.

By the way, transfer fees quoted in the press are usually wrong.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 12:40
Respect to Gordon Strachan

otto i agree at the moment you spend no money on transfer fees then it isnt an issue.

You spent huge amounts in the past it creates and issue.

You spend huge in the future it creates issues.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 12:43
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Not really Raz. As I've said, a study has shown that by and large most clubs break even on transfer spend over a longer period.

I haven't worked it out but I would bet we're not too far off that since, say, 1994.

It is the huge wage bill over a number of years that has put us in the position we are in, not the transfer fee spend.

Borocelt Posted on 08/08/2011 12:44
Respect to Gordon Strachan

At least he acknowledges his mistakes. That clown Southgate blames everyone but himself, and landed himself in a comfortable FA job since somehow.

The terminal decline started long before Strachan. He just tried to reverse it and unfortunately got it wrong. In hindsight, he shouldn't have had that money before last season, which is another reason we are so cautious now.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 12:53
Respect to Gordon Strachan

adi you think since 1994 we have broken even on our transfers bought and sold fees?

you are fecking taling the pish now.

how long have you followed boro to come out with something as crazy as that!!

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 12:57
Respect to Gordon Strachan

It's a guess Raz and I think you might be surprised. Calm down and have a think about it.

On Academy graduates alone in the last few years we've raised, what, £30m+?? We made significant money on some key players.

Just a guess but our deficit, spread over a 15 year period won't amount to a massive sum of money.

Work it out if you can be bothered, I'd be interested.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 13:03
Respect to Gordon Strachan

is a lot of what you say guess work?

yes in recent years we have made money on some academy players but that is soon wiped out with the like of southgate, mido, alves, barmby, Rav, Emerson etc etc.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 13:06
Respect to Gordon Strachan

No Raz, it isn't.

Then you have to look at how much we got for those players. We took some losses on Alves and Rav but did get fees in for them, we made £250K on Emerson and then there are the players sold for profit like Juninho and Merson.

As I say, it would be interesting to work it out.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 13:11
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Southgate Ugo Mido we all made massive losses on.... nice of you to only think of two players.

maccarone?!?

have a rethink mate and stop second guessing Middlesbrough FCs finances based on 2008 stats.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 13:17
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Why the aggression? You really need to calm yourself down.

I didn't think of only two players, I mentioned the ones from your list that weren't just straight losses, that's all. There are many, many others that you need to include like Ziege (profit), Gascoigne (loss). It was a rudimentary guess and I never dressed it up as anything else. Work it out if you want to.

If you're referring to previous threads on this subject I was using the latest, published accounts of the club to answer questions raised by others. Those accounts went through to the end of 2009 and are the most accurate source of information that we currently have.

Now, I suggest you have a re-think, start acting like and adult and get a grip. I am not second guessing anything or using stats from 2008.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 13:26
Respect to Gordon Strachan

so you base all your things and say everything you state is accurate and true when in fact it is based on figures that are around 2 years old [^]

and you have no issue over transfer fees and money we have spent on them - because you think we break even. But i guess if we didnt break even then maybe it would worry you.

all robson first signings cost us with no fees back... Neil Cox, Nigel Pearson... You really havent a clue on this matter.

the_dude_abides Posted on 08/08/2011 13:29
Respect to Gordon Strachan

it was obvious from strachans first team selections, playing 4 central midfielders with no pace, slow strikers, dropping emnes from the squad altogether he quite simply didnt have a XXXXXXign clue what he was doing

some of his team selection and style of play were baffling, considering the money he spent it was just proof of how comically easy an average manager can take over rangers or celtic and win the league a few times

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 13:33
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'just proof of how comically easy an average manager can take over rangers or celtic and win the league a few times'

Mowbray must be sh*t then [:D]

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 13:37
Respect to Gordon Strachan

No Raz, you are showing yourself up again. As usual.

1. I used the 2009 accounts (since which there has been no restructurng and so the fundamental principles haven't changed) on a different thread to answer very specific questions. Go and have another read of that thread if you wish.

2. I did not say whether I had any issue with transfer fees or not. What I did say was that transfer fees are not the root cause of our financial problems and that they were not the focus of our recent cost cutting.

3. I don't know whether we have broken even. I already said that it was a complete guess. What I did say was that transfer fees over the years have not created the financial problem, high wages have. Whether we have or haven't doesn't change the overall view I expressed in point 2 above.

Now stop just making up what you think I have posted and actually read it please.

Incidentally, the net cost of Pearson and Cox in terms of transfer fees was nil.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 13:45
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'"Transfer fees don't cause us a financial problem anyway."
"Transfer fees aren't a problem to us ..."
"... transfer fees aren't the concern ..."
"Transfer fees are not a concern to the club ..."
"I will repeat - transfer fees are not a concern to the club ..."
'

above is what you have stated you have never said 'transfer fees are not the root cause of our financial problems '

If you dont not know what sort of effect our transfer spending has had over the years then how can you KNOW that it is not at least a contributing factor for our current financial situation?


r00fie Posted on 08/08/2011 13:47
Respect to Gordon Strachan

100

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 13:48
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Raz, read my post of 07/08/2011 22:24 please.

I am not going to repeat the reason that transfer fees aren't the problem again. Just re-read the many, many posts above.

We always end up here Raz, simply because you don't seem to have any comprehension skills at all.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 13:49
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Or just read the fecking accounts, which are available for a quid below:


Link: Here

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 13:58
Respect to Gordon Strachan

no we end up here because you relate everything to 2009, and then state transfer fees have never been a problem, then go on to admit that your knowledge of transfer fees since gibson appointed robson is pure guess work.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 14:00
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Which is not anywhere close to what I have said Raz. As I said, your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Put simply, you don't understand. That's fine but don't get annoyed about it.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 14:05
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'Transfer fees aren't a problem to us ...'

thats is your quote.

you then go on to say about transfer fees braking even being a guess.

so that was a bit close... idiot

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 14:07
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Hmmmm. Raz, it's because whether we broke even or not is irrelevant to the point as to what has caused our financial problem. So I say again, you're having a bit of trouble with your comprehension. And now you're resorting to name calling. Very telling.

Incidentally, just have a look at the net position between our top ten transfers in terms of value in and out. You might be a bit surprised by the result.

bear66 Posted on 08/08/2011 14:08
Respect to Gordon Strachan

What were they?

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 14:10
Respect to Gordon Strachan

We made a 'profit' of over £7m. Does that surprise you?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 14:10
Respect to Gordon Strachan

so if we made a 50million loss on transfer fees over the years under gibson that wouldnt matter at all?

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 14:12
Respect to Gordon Strachan

That's not what I said either Raz. Try again.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 14:12
Respect to Gordon Strachan

adi where is the link for that?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 14:15
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'it's because whether we broke even or not is irrelevant to the point as to what has caused our financial problem.'

you replied by saying the above when i suggested that the transfer fees could have been maybe a contributing factor.

you claim that even a 50million loss (as its all guess work) would be irrelevant?

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 14:15
Respect to Gordon Strachan

For what?

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 14:16
Respect to Gordon Strachan

No Raz, that isn't what I said. Re-read it please.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 14:16
Respect to Gordon Strachan

adi where is the link for that 7million profit stat?

cheers

bear66 Posted on 08/08/2011 14:17
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"We made a 'profit' of over £7m. Does that surprise you?"

It does a bit. Does that assume players like Downing cost nothing? If so, I'm a little less surprised.

The link below suggest we mad about a £2m profit . . . but doesn't include the possible Euro / pound fluctuation of the Alves purchase


Link: Top 10 transfers

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 14:23
Respect to Gordon Strachan

did we really get 6million for Alves!?!

well done us for that deal.

skiprat Posted on 08/08/2011 14:24
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Was the Alves thing ever true anyway, I've only ever seen it reported half-heartedly in the Gazette.

The transfer thing going back over I can think will be a lot closer than people think, it's not like we've only spent money in the last 15 years and not recouped anything, we've sold a lot of players in that time.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 14:28
Respect to Gordon Strachan

bear - we hedge foreign currency transfers anyway so the fluctuation doesn't really affect us.

If you look at that list there are a couple of mistakes. Alves wasn't that high, Juninho was more like £3.8m when we signed him 2002 and Woodgate's transfer out isn't included at all and the price Spurs paid was actually over £8m.

Even if you use the wiki figures though, it's better than a break even position. i was always including the sale of Academy graduates which are pure 'profit' I suppose. You can add the £20m+ made on the likes of Cattermole, Morrison, Johnson, Wheater etc as well then there is the likes of Tuncay and Lita who were pure profit.

Of course, you offset that with some big losses on players that retired or had no sell on value.

That's why my 'feel' for it was that we'd be just about breaking even over the longer term.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 14:30
Respect to Gordon Strachan

adi where is your link that showed a 7million profit?

that would be helpful.

cheers

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 14:31
Respect to Gordon Strachan

There isn't one. It's based on my simple maths. Have a look at the wiki link and just add it up. That's all I did.

bear66 Posted on 08/08/2011 14:32
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Those wiki figures + Johnson and Woodgate work out at about £7m for the top 10 in, top 10 out

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 14:35
Respect to Gordon Strachan

i did that and got a 2 million profit, not the 7 million profit.

can you forward the link regarding the 7million profit from top ten transfers, you told me to look it up but i cant find that one.

Thanks [^]

Algarve Posted on 08/08/2011 14:48
Respect to Gordon Strachan

The problem with the Wee Ginge was his inability to manage anything, his small man syndrome, personality took care of that. had to be constantly in the spotlight, pre season training that took part when the season was 1 week over, dropping players off at service stations, his handling of the media, total joke, and made a joke of anybody with any feelings for the club. I started watching Boro when Bob Dennison was manager, i think ive seen them all, some good, some bad, but that Ginger chunt was the worse ever, in every aspect, by a mile. Those bad mouthing Southgate need to wake up to the fact that he was a totally honest guy who did his best,,, and as the guy who lifted our first ever trophy should for that alone be regarded as a legend not a laughing stock. Wee Ginge in contrast put us were we are now.
As a final thought in view of the sexism remarks that saw the end of Gray and Keys, IMHO his remarks to a female reporter on you explaining childbirth to me, should have been enough to get him fired from us.

Buddy Posted on 08/08/2011 15:09
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Adi - when you quote the profit/loss from the top ten transfers, are you using the widely reported figures that you stated are usually wrong?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 08/08/2011 15:10
Respect to Gordon Strachan

the purchase of rochemback wont be considered either yet it was rumoured to be a large fee.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 16:31
Respect to Gordon Strachan

No I didn't Raz, I told you to have a look at it. I very much doubt there is an online calculation. I know you're just being your usual self but just do the maths yourself if you can't find it online. See my post above in response to bear66 as to where the £7m came from.

The Rochemback fee in was less than £2.5m by the way.

Buddy - I was using the figures as I know them to be as you will see from the posts above. Even if you want to use the quoted figures on wiki there is still a better than break even position, as I also said above.

It seems that posts on here get scrutinised to the extent that semantics become more important than the overall point being made. It's very odd.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 16:51
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Algarve, you said "Those bad mouthing Southgate need to wake up to the fact that he was a totally honest guy who did his best,,, and as the guy who lifted our first ever trophy should for that alone be regarded as a legend"

I agree completely with you and that's how I prefer to remember him.

However, to suggest his management was anything short of a disaster is wrong. Strachan didn't put us where we are, he just pushed the ball that Southgate had started rolling. Southgate mis-used our scarce resource and got us relegated. What he did for us on the pitch is completely separate to that.

Buddy Posted on 08/08/2011 16:52
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"It seems that posts on here get scrutinised to the extent that semantics become more important than the overall point being made. It's very odd."

It's a useful way of working out if somebody's talking shyte.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 16:54
Respect to Gordon Strachan

No it isn't, it's a means to try and trip someone up. Incidentally, I stand by everything I've posted, nothing wrong with my wording, it was more of a general point.

I've answered your particular question.

Buddy Posted on 08/08/2011 16:56
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I didn't say you WERE dear boy, I said it's a useful way of establishing it.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 17:29
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I know, just clarifying, that's all!!

SidSnot Posted on 08/08/2011 18:00
Respect to Gordon Strachan

If wages are all that matters (and transfer fees are largely irrelevant), then surely the blame for bankrupting the club goes to the Chief Executive and Owner as they negotiate salaries and not any particular Manager. Given that it was the same CEO and Owner that provided the money and opportunity in the first place, then no one's really to blame... not MacLaren, Southgate or Strachan.

Adi_Dem Posted on 08/08/2011 18:09
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Partly yes but ultimately the wage bill wasn't sustainable because of relegation, a global financial crisis and not gaining promotion within the first two years.

As a result the managers Strachan and Southgate are very much part of the blame equation.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 07:27
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'Southgate mis-used our scarce resource and got us relegated. '

as pointed out, Southgate never negotiated wages, so you cannot blame Southgate for any waste in wages.


Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 08:08
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Yes I can. He chose which players the club should sign. He chose poorly.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 08:10
Respect to Gordon Strachan

agreed. but that has nothing to do with finances.

The club could have said 'this is the wage we can afford and think you are worth' rather than braking the bank.

Mowbray may want to re-sign Arca does that mean Gibson should give Arca the wage he wants?

Please think before you choose to blame someone for the financial mess.

degsyspesh Posted on 09/08/2011 08:18
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"He chose which players the club should sign"

Hmmm, interesting one.

I can't for one second believe that Gibbo / Lamb just gave him a transfer kitty of £30M+ and let him get on with it. If they did then they are as culpable as he would have been for the signings.

You simply just wouldn't hand a centre back with zero managerial experience a blank chequebook. Not in a million years.

I think a far more likely scenario was that the club gave Southgate a very short list of players that they could get and asked him if he wanted them.

Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 09:38
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Then you'd be wrong degsy. Southgate identified the players and then Keith Lamb went out and tried to get them within the club's budget. As has been discussed on here thousands of times, Southgate, Lamb and Gibson all carried responsibility but don't think that Southgate didn't identify the players because he most certainly did.

Raz - your lack of understanding is truly incredible. Please, please, please read what I post before making yourself look even dafter. I'll try and do it Janet and John style for you.

1. Relegation was a big factor in the financial position we are currently in.

2. Southgate, in my view, was the most culpable party for relegation since he chose to sell the wrong players and replaced them with inferior players.

3. On that basis, my view is that Southgate bears a lot (not all) of the responsibility for our current financial predicament.

4. What I am not saying is that Gareth forced the club to overspend. What I am saying is that he knew the club had a budget in terms of wages and chose to direct those resources into players like Digard and Emnes, which has proven to be a huge mistake.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 09:54
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'What I am saying is that he knew the club had a budget in terms of wages and chose to direct those resources into players like Digard and Emnes, which has proven to be a huge mistake.'

you mean it was southgates fault we paid digard, emnes, mido, alves etc too much money in wages?

Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 10:08
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Jesus wept.

No, that is not what I am saying. Read my last post again. It's really quite simple.

The club had a budget.

Southgate chose to use that budget to sign players like Digard and Emnes and he chose to sell players like Cattermole, Rochemback and Boateng.

Those were bad decisions.

Those bad decisions caused our relegation.

Relegation is one of the fundamental causes of our financial problems.

On that basis, Southgate is partly culpable for our current position.

I really can't make it any simpler for you.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 10:27
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'Southgate chose to use that budget to sign players like Digard and Emnes and he chose to sell players like Cattermole, Rochemback and Boateng. '

do you really think he chose, or was forced into selling the players on massive wages and players where we got a decent transfer fee for, in place of lesser players?


Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 10:31
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I know he chose. You think Digard was a cheaper option than Cattermole, for example?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 10:40
Respect to Gordon Strachan

no i think he is cheaper than boateng.

i think cattermole went because it was a good offer and we needed ths cash.

but i guess if you just say 'i know' to everything we wont get anywhere.


skiprat Posted on 09/08/2011 10:44
Respect to Gordon Strachan

FFS Raz. You get thicker by the day.

Is it the correct decision in anyones mind to replace Boateng, Cattermole and Rochemback, who probably played well in advance of 50/60 games between them with a young lad who we saw as a developing talent and a French player who had glass leg syndrome?

Even replacing 3 players with 2 is daft enough with the squad we had, no matter who he brought in.

captain5 Posted on 09/08/2011 10:46
Respect to Gordon Strachan

They made over 8 appearances between them in the league the previous year.


Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 10:49
Respect to Gordon Strachan

We won't get anywhere anyway Raz. I've given you my opinion on it and have not simply given an 'I know' response. You think selling players was forced upon him. I don't. That's what it boils down to.

Putting to one side the discussions we've already had on transfer fees versus wage spend for a moment, you say that Cattermole went because it was a good offer and we needed the cash and yet we then went off and paid Digard a king's ransom and spent transfer fees of over £7m on two players that were, quite simply, terrible for us that season.

That's before we talk about dropping £12m and massive wages on a striker rather than beefing up other areas of the team.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 10:58
Respect to Gordon Strachan

i agree just as it was daft bringing in an inexperienced manager rather than an experienced manager.

it was cost cutting and you cant blame southgate for cost cutting

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 11:04
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'That's before we talk about dropping £12m and massive wages on a striker rather than beefing up other areas of the team.'

agreed and i totally blame Lamb and Gibson for that transfer.

even if the player was southgates idea, how that player was paid for and funded was down to gibson and lamb.

agreed?

skiprat Posted on 09/08/2011 11:12
Respect to Gordon Strachan

80 Captain?

Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 11:13
Respect to Gordon Strachan

No, not agreed.

Southgate knew how much we were going to spend on him. In his position as manager he should have identified that dropping such a big chunk on one player wasn't the wisest move.

As I said before, every transfer was a three way discussion. Southgate identified players and their purchase was discussed by Gibson, Lamb and Southgate. That's what Gibson said in his radio interview and I don't doubt it.

Getting back to the original point, they all bear a collective responsibility for our relegation, which is the single biggest factor in our financial position. That's why my view is that Southgate is, indeed, partly culpable for where we are today financially.

I'm not blaming Southgate for cost cutting. I'm blaming him for the policy he adopted during a period of cost cutting, which was rank bad management.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 11:19
Respect to Gordon Strachan

who doy you blame for cost cutting?

Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 11:20
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I don't blame anyone. It was the right thing to do and has since become even more vital post relegation.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 11:24
Respect to Gordon Strachan

so you dont blame anyone for sanctioning the 12million for one player whilst at the same time cost cutting?

someone sanctioned those funds and that certainly was not Southgate.

Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 11:28
Respect to Gordon Strachan

That's not what you asked.

I've already said that there is a collective responsibility for decisions like that.

I'm not sure what more you want me to say.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 11:30
Respect to Gordon Strachan

you dont see how difficult it is for a manager to manage under those circumstances.

You still think it is southgates fault aswell for sanctioning the 12million for one player?

you kid asks you for 1million pounds because something is really good, you cant afford that, do you say yes because it must be good or do you say you cant afford that??


Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 13:18
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Again, you're either deliberately ignoring what I am actually saying or you just genuinely don't understand it. Either way I can't put it any more simply than I already have.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 13:22
Respect to Gordon Strachan

adi i have put it as simply as i can.

You can blame southgate for his football management, you can blame him if it was he who spotted Alves and wanted to sign him.

Not so sure you can blame him for the club agreeing to 12.8million fee and high wages.

But i guess you think southgate was part of any financial discussion, and if that is correct then thats bad management from the board.

ZappBrannagan Posted on 09/08/2011 13:26
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Wow, Raz is running rings around you here Adi.*





*In his own mind.

Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 14:15
Respect to Gordon Strachan

09/08/2011 11:13

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 14:22
Respect to Gordon Strachan

give it a rest now.

'In his position as manager he should have identified that dropping such a big chunk on one player wasn't the wisest move.'

again the blame on the amount we spent on him you have put fully against southgate. If that is true then thats a management issue. Gibson should have the say on finances and he should have stepped in and said 'we have 12million to spend, i dont want that risked on just one signing'

you know about financial management and clearly know that a football manager knows football but that does not mean this know and should be accountable for transfer fees and wages.

Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 14:26
Respect to Gordon Strachan

09/08/2011 11:13 Third paragraph

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 14:33
Respect to Gordon Strachan

oh as a football manager that relegation didnt help and he has to take part responsibility for that, but he was under constraints as i have highlighted, with gibson sanctioning crazy transfers whilst cutting costs. To be fair to southgate he did a decent job for us in the championship before his sacking, and his sacking has proved to be costly.

you could say collective responsibility, but not equal collective responsibility. Lamb and Gibson financially messed up more times than one cares to remember, and dont forget they signed up the rookie manager in the first place.

Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 14:39
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"as a football manager that relegation didnt help"

It more than 'didn't help', it is the root cause of what you're seeing now.

"but he was under constraints as i have highlighted"

Yet, knowing that he was under those constraints he gambled much of the budget on one player, replaced 3 experienced midfielders with a guy with glass legs and a 'project'

"gibson sanctioning crazy transfers whilst cutting costs."

How do you know they were crazy? Woodgate had just left remember. What was sustainable in the Premier League wasn't sustainable post relegation and that's why you saw a lot of players offloaded.

"you could say collective responsibility, but not equal collective responsibility"

I agree, it was mainly Southgate's fault.

"Lamb and Gibson financially messed up more times than one cares to remember, and dont forget they signed up the rookie manager in the first place"

Please list the ways in which Gibson and Lamb messed up financially.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 14:42
Respect to Gordon Strachan

ok.

one last thing - was it southgate's fault that alves contract had no relegation clause in it?

Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 14:48
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Firstly, how do you know that it didn't and secondly why does it have to be anyone's fault Raz?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 14:51
Respect to Gordon Strachan

you dont think its anyones fault... but some like Tony Mowbray class that as bad financial management.

It was what he said WBA had in place, and he could not understand why we did not employ the same system.

Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 14:54
Respect to Gordon Strachan

No, I asked why it has to be anyone's fault. There are two parties involved in any agreement. What if it boils down to a choice between signing a player or not for the sake of a relegation clause?

Ideally, you'd want one in everyone's contract but what if the player won't agree? Do you scrap the deal?

It is nowhere near as simple as you seem to think it is.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 09/08/2011 14:58
Respect to Gordon Strachan

god knows how wba managed it.

but to sign a player like alves in the situation we were in showed real financial risk, and then not to put such a clause in showed either desperation for the player or bad financial management.

at least you think relegation clauses are a good idea even if you think they are not possible.

Algarve Posted on 09/08/2011 15:30
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Adi
let me sum it up for you, as you are becoming increasingly boring on the subject as well as being totally incompetent on understanding the financial running of something that is after all a rich mans toy.
I do admit to having a small bit of inside info on the situation but bear with me because some of this is a little speculative.
1) When Southgate was sacked we were in the top 4 of the division
2) The chairman took ( by his own admission) an emotional decision to sack Southgate as he could envisage the financial meltdown if we didnít get back up first attempt
3) He put his trust in the wee ginge chhunt and rolled the dice one more time.
4) he made a major error in the appointment and by the time the wee ginger chunt left after spending the majority of the parachute money in the belief that the Ginger chunt was going to get us back up , we were not going to get promoted and we had a relegation dogfight to contend with.

The Forbes rich list will show you, that the chairman currently has considerably more wealth than when he took over the club, however he has realized from Strachans time that it is not for him, to put that money into a football club.
He was a respected chairman, idolized by the people of his home town. Strachan changed all that. not only did that Ginger chunt take us to the depths, he also made us and Sir Steve look like idiots in the eyes of the national media. Thats why we are struggling,. This great chairman destroyed in football by this mindless 2 foot XXXXXX all of a pretend football manager.

Rant Over


Adi_Dem Posted on 09/08/2011 17:51
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Again Raz your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Given Woodgate's departure and the fact that we were still in the Premier League how on earth do you know that Alves represented a huge financial risk?

Also, please show me where I posted that relegation clauses are impossible.

Algarve - I don't think I've ever read as much drivel in one post as that which you just posted. You are barely coherent and so before having a go at someone else, at least put up a decent argument.

"let me sum it up for you, as you are becoming increasingly boring on the subject as well as being totally incompetent on understanding the financial running of something that is after all a rich mans toy."

Please explain what I don't understand.

1) Top 4 of the division he took us down into
2) Not sure what you're on about with this 'emotional decision' nonsense. he sacked him because he, quite rightly, lost faith that he could get us promoted.
3) Yep and that trust was misplaced. Strachan was a disaster from start to finish.
4) Not sure what different point you're trying to make there.

"The Forbes rich list will show you, that the chairman currently has considerably more wealth than when he took over the club, however he has realized from Strachans time that it is not for him, to put that money into a football club.
He was a respected chairman, idolized by the people of his home town. Strachan changed all that. not only did that Ginger chunt take us to the depths, he also made us and Sir Steve look like idiots in the eyes of the national media. Thats why we are struggling,. This great chairman destroyed in football by this mindless 2 foot XXXXXX all of a pretend football manager."

Gibson's business is growing having taken a huge hit in 2008 post financial crisis. Again, I haven't a clue as to the point you're trying to make.

I don't think any less of Gibson today than I did 5 years ago. 10 years ago. Only the mindless idiots do.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 10/08/2011 11:56
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'I don't think any less of Gibson today than I did 5 years ago. 10 years ago. Only the mindless idiots do.'

yet you blame him along with others for our financial mess and relegation. You must have not thought a great deal of him 10 years ago then.

Adi_Dem Posted on 10/08/2011 15:24
Respect to Gordon Strachan

So because I think he's made some mistakes and bad choices I think less of him?

You married Raz?

Deary me.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 10:24
Respect to Gordon Strachan

you consider the financial mess we are in ok then and even compare that to a marriage.

you really dont like that southgate fella at all then if you are trying to lump the majority of the blame on him but just think mr gibson made bad choices as if thats ok.

Adi_Dem Posted on 11/08/2011 10:33
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I wasn't comparing the financial mess to a marriage. I was pointing out that your view that thinking someone has made bad choices is the same as thinking less of them. If that's your attitude when married you won't last long.

It assumes that your starting point is a belief that Gibson is infallible. I never believed that. What I do believe is that he makes what he considers to be the best decisions for the football club and supports it in the very best way he can. That much hasn't changed throughout his reign.

I do like Southgate actually. I think what he did on the pitch for us deserves nothing but praise. However, I think he was a terrible manager and made some dreadful decisions. I never doubted that his heart was in the right place though.

Again, you simply don't seem to be able to grasp what I'm saying.

It was a simple question as to who was responsible for our current financial predicament.

My view, is also relatively straightforward. Relegation is the overriding and single biggest cause of our current financial situation. Not one of the decision makers was blameless, however, I consider that Southgate carries the lion's share of the blame.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 10:48
Respect to Gordon Strachan

do you think Southgate was a terrible choice of manager?

he had no experience in management and we had just had our european runs and doing well in the league, we could have had a decent choice of a number of experienced managers.

i consider that not just a bad choice from Gibson but a devastating choice.

Also the January before relegation when we were desperate for players i think only Marlon King was brought in on loan, that weak reaction to our position cost the club dearly.

Appointing Strachan at a time when Southgate was doing relatively well, was another bad decision. Couple that with the fact that Strachan had no experience at championship level, and then gave him millions to spend on the scottish players which we are still trying to either off load or recoup that money in other ways.

its just had that you make out gibsons bad choices are small ones, when really they had a massive affect

the_dude_abides Posted on 11/08/2011 10:51
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Anybody suggesting lee cattermole was the reason we got relegated needs to be commited to a mental hospital

especially adi, who called him worse than shyte and posted that we had commited fraud by getting 3.5 million for him from wigan

i see you have changed your mind yet again adi, and are rating cattermole again

boateng was finished and has done nothing since except pick up a wage, rochembacks release was more of a financial problem, and yes, we all agree digard didn't work out



Adi_Dem Posted on 11/08/2011 11:18
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Raz - I thought at the time he was the wrong appointment, yes. I thought it was right to get rid of him and I thought Strachan was a good appointment, the latter turned out to be completely wrong.

I was answering a particular question, which was what has caused our financial positionand my view is relegation is the biggest single cause, which is why Southgate ought to have the lion's share of the blame. If you want to lay the blame at Gibson for appointing him in the first place then fair enough, there's certainly merit in that.

Dude - simply making stuff up again I see. I thought you'd have been embarrassed about those threads you tried to resurrect to prove you 'right'. I change my mind if I'm proven wrong Dude, it's what us grown ups do you see.

Lee Cattermole wasn't the reason we got relegated. As I've said before, selling Lee Cattermole would have been fine, same with Rochemback and Boateng but only if he had replaced them properly. He didn't, he got rid of 3 players that had made over 80 appearnances between them and replaced them with a project and a glass legged Frenchman.

That's one of the mistakes that caused our relegation.

No I suggest you get back to what you're good at which is calling people names and mocking mental disability.

the_dude_abides Posted on 11/08/2011 11:22
Respect to Gordon Strachan

i havent made it up at all, you did post that we had commited fraud by getting 3.5 million for cattermole and you even stated his replacement gary o'neil was twice the player


if you need remining of your inconsistent claptrap just let me know and i'll catflap it for you

it isnt a case of grown ups and changing there minds, your the worst kind, somebody who uses hindsight as a platform to criticise others with, after initially agreeing with there actions

your the worst kind of hypocrite, always have been and always will be adi

skiprat Posted on 11/08/2011 11:22
Respect to Gordon Strachan

There are some utter idiots on here that cannot read. I don't think I've ever seen a poster on here say that losing Cattermole was the reason we got relegated.

The main reason was NOT REPLACING HIM (or Boateng and Rochemback).

[:D] @ Algarves random outburst as well.

UAUA Posted on 11/08/2011 11:26
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"Lee Cattermole wasn't the reason we got relegated. As I've said before, selling Lee Cattermole would have been fine, same with Rochemback and Boateng but only if he had replaced them properly. He didn't, he got rid of 3 players that had made over 80 appearnances between them and replaced them with a project and a glass legged Frenchman."

That really should be the end of the argument as it is so blindingly obvious and correct.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 11:28
Respect to Gordon Strachan

you lay the blame mainly with southgate but dont consider other mistakes mad by others.

Mowbray highlighted the relegation clauses that we lacked, and said WBA insisted on them, so that if they did get relegated they were in a good position to go straight back up.

Also not signing anyone in January when we were desperate for players, i guess that was southgates fault aswell?

you may have agreed with southgate sacking, but do you really agree with the timing of his sacking? if he was sacked in the summer giving a new manager time to put things in place i could have understood, but giving southgate more funds (albiet a small amount) and letting him set things in motion for the new season then a handful of games in sacking him had a devastating affect on the club.

Adi_Dem Posted on 11/08/2011 11:28
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Ahhh, that's better Dude back to the pathetic insults.

Catflap away old son, it just makes you look more desperate and foolish than ever. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. There are far more embarrassing posts on there for you to worry about than me. For example calling people some quite dispicable things because they don't understand what the word 'euphemism' means whilst also proving that you, yourself didn't know waht it meant either.

It is exactly a case of grown ups and changing their minds dude. Taken to its logical conclusion you believe that anyone that changes their mind in the face of evidence that proves them wrong is a hypocrite. That providing an opinion in 'hindsight' is somehow wrong whereas in actual fact it's all we all do, including you.

I'll keep making you look daft all day if you wish.

sasboro1 Posted on 11/08/2011 11:31
Respect to Gordon Strachan

in the end strachan was a disaster and would have sent us down to league one. an outdated manager who took a huge dent to his ego after failing at boro. although peopel were a bit slow on here to realise he was rubbish. good riddance[^]

the_dude_abides Posted on 11/08/2011 11:31
Respect to Gordon Strachan

you applauding the clubs decsion to sell cattermole on a post, and then in hindsight criticising it doesnt make me foolish at all adi

it just makes you a hypocrite

the end

Adi_Dem Posted on 11/08/2011 11:35
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"you lay the blame mainly with southgate but dont consider other mistakes mad by others."

Raz, for god's sake read what I post. I said that all three were responsible. I've said it numerous times now.

"Mowbray highlighted the relegation clauses that we lacked, and said WBA insisted on them, so that if they did get relegated they were in a good position to go straight back up."

So WBA made the choice that if a player didn't agree to a relegation clause they wouldn't be signed. Let me tell you if we had adopted that policy we wouldn't have signed a quarter of the players we did. It's a question of which policy you believe to be correct. I can't back a policy that says this is what we do in every negotiation, no matter the player. Sometimes, players just won't accept these clauses and you have a decision to make. Hardly the biggest error in the world.

Equally, such clauses wouldn't have made a big difference to us anyway. The high earners have been shipped out one way or another and wouldn't have stayed in any event and so the financial impact wasn't as great as you seem to think.

"Also not signing anyone in January when we were desperate for players, i guess that was southgates fault aswell?"

Yes, it was. Money was available to spend (we agreed a £5m fee for Harper for example). Southgate couldn't find anyone.

"you may have agreed with southgate sacking, but do you really agree with the timing of his sacking? if he was sacked in the summer giving a new manager time to put things in place i could have understood, but giving southgate more funds (albiet a small amount) and letting him set things in motion for the new season then a handful of games in sacking him had a devastating affect on the club."

I understand why he was given a chance but I would have sacked him in the summer. Those few months barely had a devastating effect, look at what Mowbray managed to do. I don't think the timing did us major damage, what is clear now is that it was more about the choice of replacment than the timing of his appointment.

Adi_Dem Posted on 11/08/2011 11:36
Respect to Gordon Strachan

No it doesn't Dude. Are you seriously saying that you've either never been wrong about something or have never admitted to being wrong about something.

I don't think you even understand half the words you're using.

And yes, your posts make you look very, very foolish.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 11:40
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'which is why Southgate ought to have the lion's share of the blame. '

'I said that all three were responsible. I've said it numerous times now'

so you now say the blame is equal or that southgate should take the lion share of the blame?

UAUA Posted on 11/08/2011 11:51
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"Also not signing anyone in January when we were desperate for players, i guess that was southgates fault aswell?"

Southgate specifically said that he hated the transfer window and was glad when it closed. He repeatedly stated that he didnt want to lose his "best players", i.e. O'Neil and Downing, who were not performing and it cried out to sell them and do some dealing in the transfer window. He siad time and time again that he didnt want to do that. So it was EXACTLY his fault for not wheeling and dealing.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 11:57
Respect to Gordon Strachan

but southgate, if his fault, was ok with us signing Marlon King on loan in that same period?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 11:59
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'Hardly the biggest error in the world.'

you dont class putting financial precautions in place much of an error. Yet you class relegation of the biggest thing to hit our finances.

the_dude_abides Posted on 11/08/2011 12:01
Respect to Gordon Strachan

so your hypocrisy makes me look foolish


yawnnnnnnnnnnnn

i have no idea who your trying to convince, but your not doing a very good job if it

0/10

sasboro1 Posted on 11/08/2011 12:04
Respect to Gordon Strachan

why do these strachan arguements always end up dragging in southgate? strachan had a decent squad to work with, he turned us into a bottom 6 side and since mowbray has come in we have seen how bad strachan was doing with what he had available.

Adi_Dem Posted on 11/08/2011 13:58
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Raz:

1. so you now say the blame is equal or that southgate should take the lion share of the blame?

Raz, come on now, is this deliberate? It must be. OK, here we go, one last time. All three carry blame. Southgate carries the lion's share. Clear? Good.

2. you dont class putting financial precautions in place much of an error. Yet you class relegation of the biggest thing to hit our finances.

Is that what I said? No. Read the whole thing again. The bit about why a failure to have relegation clauses didn't actually do that much financial damage.

And yes, relegation did have the biggest impact on our finances.

Dude:

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything Dude. I couldn't care less what someone like you thinks of me to be honest but I must admit that I find it funny the extent to which you're prepared to expose yourself.

To summarise, you consider me admitting that I got a few things wrong and then giving an opinion as to what should have happened instead is hypocrisy.

I say that's utter gibberish.

No comment on the vulgar insults you've thrown around on here I see. Conveniently ignoring that part. I would too because let's face it if I admitted I was wrong for posting such things I'd be a hypocrite.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 14:04
Respect to Gordon Strachan

so even after listing all these gibson errors in financial management regarding the club with any potential relegation and then after that. The person you still blame the most is Southgate, not equally with the others... unless you dont know what 'lions share' means

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 14:07
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'Is that what I said? No. Read the whole thing again. The bit about why a failure to have relegation clauses didn't actually do that much financial damage.'

so you are saying that any clause that would have reduced the wages etc would not have had any great financial impact?

high wages are not an issue now?

Adi_Dem Posted on 11/08/2011 14:08
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Believ me Raz, it isn't me that needs a lesson in what things mean.

I think you've finally got it now though except that I don't see major errors in financial management and I've never said otherwise.

Relegation is the biggest cause of our financial problems. Errors were made throughout the club that lead to that relegation. However, the lion's share (the biggest bit) of blame lies with Southgate.

That is my view.

Adi_Dem Posted on 11/08/2011 14:10
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"so you are saying that any clause that would have reduced the wages etc would not have had any great financial impact?

high wages are not an issue now?"

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!

Just when I thought you'd clicked it. Look, just read my post above on why I think that a lack of relegation clauses won't have had that big of an impact.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 14:14
Respect to Gordon Strachan

finally glad you admit that you are not saying it was an equal sharing.

Because if you considered relegation clauses, and the fact we didnt add to the squad in january and to the fact the chairman used a rookie manager at a time when we needed experience, add that to the fact the chairman was pushing cost cutting through whilst sanctioning a whole 12million of our budget on one player with big wages you may realise that a football manager makes mistakes but he doesnt make the financial mistakes that the chairman in this case did do.

WBA when mowbray got them relegated werent crippled financially when they went down, which helped them to chase promotion again, not because mowbray is a good or bad manager but because the board above him were financially acute.

Capybara Posted on 11/08/2011 14:18
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Fair play to him for accepting he wasn't up to it.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 14:18
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'we agreed a £5m fee for Harper for example'

how did you know we did?

because as you put it southgate couldnt find anyone. and Harper was a better player at the time than King. King of course was a much cheaper option, and if we did get relegated we could easily get shot of him.

Adi_Dem Posted on 11/08/2011 14:21
Respect to Gordon Strachan

"finally glad you admit that you are not saying it was an equal sharing."

For god's sake, I never said anything other than that!!!!

"Because if you considered relegation clauses, and the fact we didnt add to the squad in january and to the fact the chairman used a rookie manager at a time when we needed experience, add that to the fact the chairman was pushing cost cutting through whilst sanctioning a whole 12million of our budget on one player with big wages you may realise that a football manager makes mistakes but he doesnt make the financial mistakes that the chairman in this case did do."

1. Relegation clauses wouldn't have made much of a difference. All of our top earning players wanted to leave as soon as relegation hit.

2. That we didn't add in January was down to the manager. Funds were available and he had offers on some of our players.

3. The Alves transfer a whole 18 months prior to relegation. Woodgate left at the same time and therefore the financial impact of that was negligible.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 14:24
Respect to Gordon Strachan

so all our top earners left, which meant wages werent a problem, we still received the para payments.

what was the real financial impact of the relegation, and why was southgate given no cash to spend after relegation if we sold players and in the previous Jan he had 5million to spend?

Adi_Dem Posted on 11/08/2011 14:33
Respect to Gordon Strachan

See above Raz. I'm sick of answering the same stuff.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 14:38
Respect to Gordon Strachan

'Southgate,who was also partly responsible for some truly horrific transfers that significantly damaged the clubs finances.'

i think it doesnt help that you talk such rubbish.

it would seem you blame southgate for everything and gibson for nothing. Nothing specific have you contributed to Gibson and his handlings.

As long as you feel everything done is in the main southgates fault we'll never move on.

Your biggest issue at the moment with the finances has been the wages, but you've just pointed out that on relegation most of our high earners left, so clearly wages isnt an issue afterall.

Adi_Dem Posted on 11/08/2011 14:40
Respect to Gordon Strachan

See above. Already answered. Several times.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 14:43
Respect to Gordon Strachan

never asked a question, i simply pointed out facts.

Adi_Dem Posted on 11/08/2011 14:44
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Yes, wrongly. Again.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 14:47
Respect to Gordon Strachan

no not at all... maybe you now have no issues with the wage structure and wages we came down to the championship as all the big earners had gone.

Adi_Dem Posted on 11/08/2011 14:57
Respect to Gordon Strachan

I am bowing out now Raz safe in the knowledge that you don't get it.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 11/08/2011 14:59
Respect to Gordon Strachan

dont worry adi i am well aware that when you are wrong you find the best conclusion is to just put the other person down.

TheBadGuy Posted on 11/08/2011 15:20
Respect to Gordon Strachan

Raz you are so stupid it's unreal