permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/2828418
OneEye Posted on 02/09/2011 10:12
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Steve McClaren's 'representatives' are meeting with the Forest board today over McClaren's frustration at the lack of transfer activity at the club.

Who does he think he is? Why his representatives? Why the hell doesn't he go and talk to the board himself? The man isn't god for crying out loud.

I'm so thankful we've got Mogga, a straight-talking man who would simply go to Gibson himself if he wanted to ask about future transfers/funds etc. I doubt Mogga would send in his representatives, and neither would another 99% of managers in the country.

McClaren and Forest, it will all end in tears within a few weeks. McClaren will never get another manager job again. That's my prediction.

sasboro1 Posted on 02/09/2011 10:15
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

maybe forest promised him money available when he was appointed.

anyway shouldnt believe what the papers write

RenzoRosso Posted on 02/09/2011 10:15
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

he's trying to position himself as an elite coach in the same bracket as Capello, Fergie, pep, jose etc who will all have "reps" sent to such meetings. however Smac makes himself look silly

kernaghanscodpiece Posted on 02/09/2011 10:16
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Most successful Boro manager of all time. We all owe him a debt of gratitude.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 10:16
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

aye maybe contractually they promised him funds that up to now they have been reluctant to release to him.

OneEye Posted on 02/09/2011 10:23
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

sasboro wrote,

"maybe forest promised him money available when he was appointed.

anyway shouldnt believe what the papers write"

Papers write? Where did I say I read it in a paper like [smi] It's a live report now on SSN.

I think you've entirely missed the point also. It's not about what Forest promised him. Fair does if McClaren feels they have gone back on a promise or whatever, that's fine to have a moan at that. The point is, why doesn't he go and talk to the board himself, why doesn't he talk to his chairman himself, like 99% of every other managers would. Why send his representatives in to talk to the board?

Too big for his boots because he's managed England perhaps. Like I say though, I expect SM to be sacked well before Christmas.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 10:25
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

maybe he has tried to talk to the board, i imagine he will have at least once before the transfer deadline.

But if they is a contractual obligation that they have failed to meet he may need his 'representatives'

mind i do agree that is animosity between him and the board could be his downfall (but maybe thats what he wants now)

sasboro1 Posted on 02/09/2011 10:28
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

SSN always believe what they speculate on [^]

1finny Posted on 02/09/2011 10:30
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

most managers (even mogga)have have 'representatives'.
The skill of a manager is in 'managing' the team.
Their representatives provide other expertise i.e. negotiation.

Supermac Posted on 02/09/2011 10:30
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

so you believe its written in his contract that he will get x amount to spend? doubt it, needs to man up and talk to them himselves

tarquin_foxglove Posted on 02/09/2011 10:30
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

"...why doesn't he talk to his chairman himself, like 99% of every other managers would. Why send his representatives in to talk to the board?"

Perhaps he already has, was given promises over spending etc and they haven't been delivered.

Also his representatives will be able to meet with the board and discuss subjects and take a strong position that either he isn't confident on (legal/contract) or feels he couldn't without jeopardising his future working relationship, if any, with the board.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 10:32
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Maybe his representatives are his lawyers and maybe they are going in because it's a legal issue over what McClaren sees as a breach of contract or constructive dismissal. In those circumstances with the amount of money at stake he'd be well advised to send his 'representatives' in.

Midosparmo Posted on 02/09/2011 10:34
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

If he was such a great coach he would be able to work with the players he has and improve them.

Moggas not had twopence and has improved us from a shower of shyte to a good team.

SGATE_NOSE_BEST Posted on 02/09/2011 10:36
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

maybe schteve realises he his in over his head and is looking for a quick way out.[^]

Revol_Tees Posted on 02/09/2011 10:37
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

His arrogance is astounding. There's being ambitious, and then there's being a total charlatan. As Steve Gibson said: "If Steve McClaren said to me the grass is green, I would go out and check ... Managing England should be your last job, not your next job. Steve’s ambition couldn’t see that.”

gravyboat Posted on 02/09/2011 10:39
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Midos [^]

Sea_Harrier Posted on 02/09/2011 10:39
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

If McClaren walks and demands a pay-off, sighting "contract difficulties", then his next job on football management will be very far distant.

Supermac Posted on 02/09/2011 11:21
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

he hasnt the guts to walk as he wont get a pay off, he will wait for the chop

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 11:24
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

It's interesting what pre-conception does isn't it.

None of us know what McClaren was promised when he joined Forest and if his employers have broken promises that were made to induce him to sign the contract then why doesn't he have a right to be hacked off with that?

Nero Posted on 02/09/2011 11:25
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

He's already signed 5 players, so can hardly say he hasn't been given funds.

He'll be looking at Leicester thinking why can't I have that level of financial backing.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 11:27
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

agree adi.

if any one in any industry joined a company on the condition of promises made and then those promise werent kept i am sure they too wouldnt be happy.

Sven wouldnt hang around at leicester if they funds he was promised hadnt materialised.

The_263 Posted on 02/09/2011 11:28
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Just goes to show that Smac would have been an abject failure had he been in charge of Boro when the cloth cutting started in earnest. Whether or not he'd have been a bigger flop than Southgate is another matter, but in Southgate's defence, evidence suggests that he was completely micro-managed by Lamb and Gibson.

Nero Posted on 02/09/2011 11:29
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

On the flip side, none of know if he wasn't promised anything and is now realising it's too much of a job.

sasboro1 Posted on 02/09/2011 11:30
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

haha, funny all these ex-smac lovers are now enjoying seeing him fail. but lets not get carried away until the end of the season when we see where we finish.

Midosparmo Posted on 02/09/2011 11:40
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Would Smac have achieved what he did without being able to pay vast wages to mature internationals?

Doubtful. He doesnt like the idea of not having that facility.

sambaDTR Posted on 02/09/2011 11:44
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

It's his Mam and Dad.

DearChicago Posted on 02/09/2011 11:59
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

'Would Smac have achieved what he did without being able to pay vast wages to mature internationals?'

Almost ever PL manager pays vast amounts to mature internationals. Why do people feel the need to belittle Smacs achievements because he used the resources available to him well. I would not change anything about his time with us. Gibbo backed him, he delivered, simple.

League Cup, Uefa Cop x2 (including final) and highest PL finish. The record speaks for itself.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 12:02
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

he was backed more than any other middlesbrough manager has been financially

MawTheMerrier Posted on 02/09/2011 12:11
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Maybe his representatives are his lawyers
-----
[^] Adi Dem

Some ridiculous posts on here belittling his achievements at Boro. Whatever he spent here was tiny compared to what the likes of Dalgliesh is spending now. You wont slag him off if he wins a cup will ya?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 12:18
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

bit of perspective please. If Dalglish finishes 12th and wins the league cup he'll probably get sacked to be fair

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 12:34
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Bit of perpsective. Here it is:

Smac's wage budget was around £5m more per annum at its peak than other Boro managers (not now of course).

League Cup winner
7th place in the PL qualifying for the UEFA Cup via league position for the first time
Last 16 of first venture into the UEFA Cup
UEFA Cup Finalists
Left to become England manager.

Now that's perspective.

Supermac Posted on 02/09/2011 12:41
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

he was great at boro, im not disputing that at all. However , he knew what the deal was at forest, he has signed 5 experienced players and is now looking for an easy way out

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 12:41
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

no wonder lennie never won the league cup.

'Left to become England manager.'

thats means very little, especially considering what he did for england.

at the end of the day he had a much larger wage budget compared to any other boro manager before and after him.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 12:45
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

So it means little that what he achieved led to his appointment to one of the biggest jobs in world football? Really?

And you're willing to dismiss all his achievements because he spent £5m more per season on wages? Really?

It wasn't 'much larger' at all and part of the reason it was larger was because of the size of squad we needed because of the number of games we had to play. Why was that? Because he was successful.

Edwin Posted on 02/09/2011 12:45
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Mac strikeforce - Viduka (£3m), Yak (£7m), JFH (free), Maccarone (£8m)
Southgate - Alves (£12m), Mido (£6m), Aliadiere (£3m)

Budget wasn't that much bigger if at all! Maybe he just bought better.

WANNAS Posted on 02/09/2011 12:47
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Firstly - Grateful for the Euro runs BUT some of the football we played under him was turgid. Succesful : Yes. Popular : No? (Certainly not with me)

Secondly - McClaren is a Fcuking idiot with what appears to be an over-inflated sense of his own self-worth. My own nickname for him was

Emmersons_BrazillianDong Posted on 02/09/2011 12:48
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Sometimes boards and other club officials p!ss managers off or undermine them.

Whilst Mogga is undoubededly doing a fantastic job, there was a whisper about 6 weeks ago that Mogga was undermined by Bouser.

Another FMTTM poster will back me up on that but if it is true, given the astounding job Mogga is doing then it goes to show that members of the board could be sniping Schteeve already

Midosparmo Posted on 02/09/2011 12:49
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Smac bought proven players to achieve his own goals and to be fair it worked.

However it left us in the financial shyte and lamb said as much.

But considering people try to tell us he is a marvelous coach,anyone think its a bit odd that he would need to go down that route? Unless he is not a marvelous coach or unless all he was bothered about was quick results to further his career.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 12:49
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

The point is no-one knows the reasons for it and no-one knows what was promised or what he has a problem with. Indeed, we don't really know if it's true do we?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:03
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

we only know from his quotes regarding his dislike at the lack of transfer funds.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 13:04
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Lamb was arse covering. He sanctioned every deal the club did and it wasn't McClaren's reign or the amount spent during that reign that put us in a financial mess.

There were three factors:

1. Spending more than our income for over 13 years.
2. Relegation.
3. Global financial crisis.

Anyone really think McClaren had any control over budget and the deals we agreed? That was Gibson and Lamb's remit and who can criticise it? Gibson decided to go for it and overspend and it worked over a 15 year period. We're now paying for that but I'm happy to pay for it because I loved what we achieved over the period and I'm loving Mowbray trying to get us back in a different way.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:07
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

gibsons over spending increased upon SMACs arrival and we can now see what happens when SMAC doesnt get the funds he wants, he has a little grump.

maybe gibson thought SMAC knew best regarding the signings he wanted and SMAC promised him much more than he infact left us with.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 13:11
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

I love how it shifts on here. Gibson signed Alves (so it wasn't poor Gareth's fault) but McClaren forced Gibson to spend the money during his tenure.

Amazing stuff.

Overspending wasn't just under SMAC, it happened from day one and as I've said it was the combination of three things that has ultimately led to where we are financially today.

heaton_mersey_boro Posted on 02/09/2011 13:15
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

McClaren, nothing to do with his tenure at Boro at all, comes across as a bit of a bell who believes he is far better than he actually is.

In reality a club like Boro will be about his level.

Did Forest write in his contract "Mr McClaren, we shall give you £8,987,855.56 to spend on transfers circa Jun - Aug 11".

Course they did'nt.

All that will of happened is that during talks they would have promised that "funds would be available" for players.

McClaren spends said funds, goes back for more, no money, rattle comes out of pram.

Have'nt got a bad squad Forest, so he should earn his fóóking money by getting the best out of what he has - like 95% of managers throughout the world.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:15
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

but comparing robsons first season in charge and his over spend to SMACs over spending even you will see a great difference.

mitch_at_merseyside Posted on 02/09/2011 13:16
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

It is pretty obvious what is going on.

Prior to taking the job, he must have negotiated with Forest he would have funds available to strengthen the squad.

He has taken the job, confident of their word, he signed a few free transfers and did some business.

Became apparent that the board were unable to back him further, obviously Smac is going to be well cheesed off with this and rightly so is considering his position, he has been lied to or deliberately misguided.

I had a funny feeling this would happen, after all, Billy Davies washed his hands with them.

I thought Forest would be a major threat this season, McClaren or no McClaren so to see them get off to a false start is only good for us in my opinion, although I would have liked to applaud our most successful manager on his return.

I think the whole 'representatives' idea is a bit far fetched, the gentlemen's agreement in place was broken, I think personally he will walk.

McClaren isn't the only one that needs funds to gather momentum with a club, Martin O'Neill, Sven and Mark Hughes are managers who have based their managerial career through financial backing than working next to nothing or organically developing a club.

Some people can't let it go and want to see him fail and have such a bitter chip on their shoulder, let it go.
[^]

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:17
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

i imagine he has spent very little so far, especially with 9 players leaving the club this summer and only 5 players being brough in

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 13:19
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Not really Raz, yes, salaries across the board went through the roof but then so did revenue, it also increased greatly over that period. So in comparative terms the difference isn't that great. As a percentage of revenue our spend didn't really change that much.

So as I say, it's the over spend over a sustained period that led to where we are today along with relegation and a global financial crisis.

heaton - how on earth do you know that? No-one knows the promises that were made or what the issue is.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:19
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Martin O'Neill???

took Wycombe from non-league to league 1 in consecutive seasons, spending next to nothing.

spent very little with Leicester and won the league cup along the way.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:22
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

are you saying that during SMACs tenure our over spend was very little due to revenue going up?

i presume in that case that we must have had no over spend when robson took over because robbos army and the subsequent move to the riverside was a major time for the club?

mitch_at_merseyside Posted on 02/09/2011 13:23
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Yes, the same Martin O'Neill who kicked up a fuss at both Villa and Celtic over transfer funds available to him.

McClaren if I can recall didn't have too much to spend when he took the Twente job.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 13:24
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

No Raz, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that our overspend comparative to revenue has been pretty consistent over the piece. Of course it went up under McClaren but not significantly. The point is that it wasn't just McClaren's tenure that caused the financial position we're in, it was a sustained overspend over a sustained period of time.

Pogatetz_Ate_My_Hamster_ Posted on 02/09/2011 13:24
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Here's what Gibson thought of the wretch


Link: McClaren

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:25
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

o'neill took over a villa side near relegation and took them to top half with a few signings, the club then wanted him to take them to the next level i.e. champions league place so he said he needed extra funding for that instead the club agreed to sell milner etc.

Boromart Posted on 02/09/2011 13:27
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

I remember having a chat on here in the summer with someone. They said Forest would spend big SMac wouldn't have gone there without that assurance.

I said, I doubt that Forest would spend big, Davies had nearly got them up 3 times on a budget, if they had money they would have let him spend and tweek the side to get up.

Looks like we might have BOTH been right.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:28
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

did we over spend in the early years of robson then if you are also considering the revenue the club must have brought in with his appointment and the excitement that brought and subsequent move to the riverside?

mitch_at_merseyside Posted on 02/09/2011 13:29
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

You have to remember that O'Neill was appointed by Doug Ellis the then chairman but the new owner Randy Lerner took over days later and gave him a pot of gold, I think it was 85 million he spent during his tenure at Villa.

He spent a fortune and walked away when he couldn't have any more, as well as the Milner thing.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 13:30
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Raz, I will not do this again. An idiot could understand what I've written. It answers the question you're asking. I suggest you re-read it.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:36
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

'The point is that it wasn't just McClaren's tenure that caused the financial position we're in, it was a sustained overspend over a sustained period of time.'

you are right an idiot can read into that that robsons first year in charge and then the move to the riverside was part of the sustained overspend.

ffs a sustained period fair enough, but that does not mean that robsons early tenure was part of that period.

a sustained period could have started with SMAC and ended with Strachan. to be fair.

It was an honest question i asked because i dont know the answer but if i had to guess i imagine we didnt overspend in robsons first and maybe 2nd season.

heaton_mersey_boro Posted on 02/09/2011 13:42
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

"heaton - how on earth do you know that? No-one knows the promises that were made or what the issue is."

[?]

The figures I wrote down were guesswork, sorry......[rle]

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 13:42
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

"1. Spending more than our income for over 13 years."

"Overspending wasn't just under SMAC, it happened from day one and as I've said it was the combination of three things that has ultimately led to where we are financially today."

"So as I say, it's the over spend over a sustained period that led to where we are today along with relegation and a global financial crisis."

"No Raz, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that our overspend comparative to revenue has been pretty consistent over the piece. Of course it went up under McClaren but not significantly. The point is that it wasn't just McClaren's tenure that caused the financial position we're in, it was a sustained overspend over a sustained period of time."


UAUA Posted on 02/09/2011 13:43
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Groundhog anyone?

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 13:43
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

I wasn't having a go heaton, I was simply saying that it's not right to draw conclusions about what is going on based on a pre-conception of the type of bloke he is.

Midosparmo Posted on 02/09/2011 13:44
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

"It was an honest question i asked because i dont know the answer but if i had to guess i imagine we didnt overspend in robsons first and maybe 2nd season. "


I dunno about that we definately pushed the boat out on big signings at the time. The likes of Cox & Jan. The season after £5 mill on Barmby. Compared to the peniies we spent under Lennie it was a big increase.

We almost certainly spent more then we brought in.


Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:46
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

ok it has nothing to do with most of robsons early tenure then. Thats really good news as i was comparing robsons early years to SMACs regarding spend much earlier in this thread [^]

UAUA Posted on 02/09/2011 13:46
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

"It was an honest question i asked because i dont know the answer but if i had to guess i imagine we didnt overspend in robsons first and maybe 2nd season."

Of course we overspent in those seasons. Are you stupid?

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 13:47
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that he is UAUA and I can only apologise because I just keep going back for more inanity.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:49
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

mido that first season those were our only two big signings 1million and 1.3million but the extra revenue from the extra support that from the "robbos army" following must have brought a great revenue in that season.

and the next season we had the riverside creating extra revenue and more sponsorship deals.

maybe we did overspend, i asked because i wasnt sure, but imagined we didnt.

heaton_mersey_boro Posted on 02/09/2011 13:50
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

No worries, just my opinion.

It does look as though the Forest board has renaged on what they somewhere, somehow, sometime told him would be available.

And he's not happy.

But, unless it is something very bad (which it may be, none of us know) he should get back to getting the best out of the squad he has.

Far too early to judge him after half a dozen games, and honestly beleive he will do a decent job there.

But the bloke is still a bit of a bell IMO.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 13:51
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Weren't you telling us on another thread that it was a big mistake to have built the Riverside at that capacity because of the cost of running it Raz?

I'll spell it out. In terms of percentage of revenue we have consistently overspent since day one of Robson's reign. It went up slightly under McClaren but that didn't make a material difference to the overall position which was caused by, I repeat, 13 years of overspend.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:51
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

adi why are you being abusive?

i asked you a simple question you thre quotes back at me the top one spoke about 13 years, which doesnt go back to when robson first took over.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:53
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

adi 13 years ago is 1998 and robson first season was 1994 ffs!

UAUA Posted on 02/09/2011 13:54
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Pearson - £3/4m
Miller - £0.425m
Blackmore, Fuchs, Robson himself - all big wages, signing on fees, agents fees.

All from a lower division club with average crowds.

A blidingly obvious statement to say that we "overspent".

Midosparmo Posted on 02/09/2011 13:55
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

"but the extra revenue from the extra support that from the "robbos army" following must have brought a great revenue in that season."

That was the days of £4 tickets and they only sold out once.


Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:55
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

wasnt Fuchs on loan?

UAUA Posted on 02/09/2011 13:56
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Who cares? Youre talking gibberish as usual. Good afternoon to you.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 13:57
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

only sold out once?? was that the luton town game?

i remember going to a midweek game against Barnsley and we couldnt get in cause it was full, walking away i heard someone score ffs [|)]

Midosparmo Posted on 02/09/2011 13:58
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

"officially" only sold out once then [;)]

Still cheap tickets and big transfers for the time, meant an almost certain overspend.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 13:59
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

I'm not being abusive Raz. I didn't say 13 years ago, I said over a period of 13 years. We haven't overspent to anywhere near that extent for the last three seasons.

That takes us back to circa 95ish.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 14:00
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

ok probably an overspend. I'm sure that season Gibson ploughed a shed load of money into the club.

whatabout the Cellnet deal and the Dickens deal and that foreign company who made the shirts etc they all signed up that season?


Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 14:01
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

So Gibson pumping a shed load of money in is what if not a massive pointer to an overspend?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 14:02
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

so since 2008 we havent overspent?

didnt we get relegated within that time?

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 14:03
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

'So Gibson pumping a shed load of money in is what if not a massive pointer to an overspend?'

yes as i started that para with 'ok probably an overspend.'

The_263 Posted on 02/09/2011 14:13
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

The point is: surely considering the status some on here foolishly grant him - ie coaching/management demi-god - he should be top of he Championship by now with only a 10 man squad with a number of injuries.

I for one was always convinced that our success was bought and bought at dangerously expensive levels. Smac needs to get on planet earth as football is going through a massive financial transition, especially for smaller professional clubs. Where the fcuk has he been? But I suppose that isn't documented in his Prozone manual

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 14:18
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Except that it simply isn't borne out by the facts 263. Also, loads of managers overspend and achieve nothing.

Raz, you need to stop calculating dates and time and take it for the general statement it was meant to be.

I'll make it a bit clearer. Whilst we were in the Premier League and in the seasons under Robson outside of the PL we overspent. That sustained overspend coupled with relegation and a global financial crisis got u where we are today.

The_263 Posted on 02/09/2011 14:23
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

The facts are: no money for Smac = no success. He's been found out again and still you think he's the messiah.

Emmersons_BrazillianDong Posted on 02/09/2011 14:24
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

This is quite a statement from Gibbo:

"if you can make enemies at a club like ours, you're going to be in trouble when things go wrong."

Nostradamus like

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 14:26
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

I don't think he's the messiah. I don't think he's the devil either.

i think he's a pretty good manager that did a cracking job at my football club. I'm sorry that others seem to want to belittle those achievements as solely down to money but as I've said the facts don't bear you out. He didn't spend significantly more than anyone else, he had success at Wolfsburg and my impression is that he didn't have loads of money there (but I could be wrong) and there is plenty of evidence of managers that have had much more money than McClaren did and achieved far less.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 14:31
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

adi you mentioned 13 years, which is what confused the situation.

are you saying since robson took over in 1994 we have sustained debt each year and that continued after relegation?

i would have thought with the high wage after relegation we cant have made a profit that year.

i wasnt sure when you said 13 years you meant since robson got us back into the premier league, because that was in 1998.

how much did we make in the opening season for the sponsorship deals Dickens, Errea, and Cellnet? not sure if we signed up to other major deals in 1994. must have been some big profits there

UAUA Posted on 02/09/2011 14:34
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Do you know what, I think that is absolutely proof positive you take the p!ss with your stupid replies as it is quite evident what Adi meant and means.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 14:35
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

No-one else was confused Raz, no-one.

I'm saying we spent more than we brought in from 1994/5 right through until last season.

Following our recent relegation we've cut overhead spend and dealt with the problem and so the impact of the last couple of seasons wasn't as great as the preceding 13 years.

In a nutshell, it is absolutely incorrect to say that McClaren single handed caused our financial predicament. It's wrong for loads of reasons.

Midosparmo Posted on 02/09/2011 14:42
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Smacs not the Messiah, just a very naughty boy.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 14:42
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

so since relegation our over spend has not been that bad?

the strachan signings and high wages etc, and signing him as a manager, the southgate signings, the half full stadiums.

Mowbray has stated that players like Boyd have crippled the club and yet our over spend hasnt been that bad.

I would suggest you'd be right if we had got our house in order as soon as we had got relegated and sacked Southgate and brought someone like Mowbray in and been as shrewd then as we are now, instead of spening more money under Strachan on big money signings.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 14:44
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

'McClaren single handed caused our financial predicament.'

who has said that?

if i had to blame a manager for our mess it'd firstly be Southgate. But ultimate responsibility has to be the chairmans as he has the overall say as to where the finances go.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 14:44
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Yep, he's on a wind up and I've been sucked in well and truly.

[|)]

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 14:50
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

'Spending more than our income for over 13 years.'

no i think it was i who was sucked in.

that was a wind up.

because we all know we have overspent since relegation [|)]

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 14:51
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

I think I'll let everyone else be the judge raz.

I'll stand behind my posts that everyone except you seems to have grasped, even if they don't necessarily agree.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 14:56
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

agreed some of your stuff is spot on. Like about relegation being the biggest factor why we are in the mess we are in, we over spent after relegation due the premier league wages we had and the players we signed up strachan.

Gibson has been a saviour to this club at times regarding the injection of funds into the club.

boro74 Posted on 02/09/2011 14:57
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

"Bit of perpsective. Here it is:

Smac's wage budget was around £5m more per annum at its peak than other Boro managers (not now of course).

League Cup winner
7th place in the PL qualifying for the UEFA Cup via league position for the first time
Last 16 of first venture into the UEFA Cup
UEFA Cup Finalists
Left to become England manager.

Now that's perspective."

Now if you REALLY wanted to put things in perspective, then you'd point out that under McClaren we were paying top ten wages and that under Southgate we were paying bottom four.

The_263 Posted on 02/09/2011 14:58
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Apart from spending more on wages for his squad he assembled a very expensive background team, including Beswick ffs. He's a charlatan.

Why can't he get the results at Forest if he's so good?

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 14:58
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Except that that isn't true boro74 (the McClaren bit).

boro74 Posted on 02/09/2011 15:00
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Obviously I don't know if it's true. How would I?

It's something that Gareth Southgate said. I believe him. No reason not to.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 15:01
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Our overhead expenditure is a total, it doesn't exclude coaches or sports scientists. Our wage bill didn't vary wildly under Robson, McClaren or Southgate. The figures are there for all to see.

And how long has he been at Forest?

Surely a better barometer would be how he did at Wolfsburg but then of course that doesn't fit your argument.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 15:01
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

'McClaren we were paying top ten wages '

adi you just put in another thread the fact we could afford wages back then for zenden who was on big wages at big spending chelsea.

now you suggest we didnt have players on top ten wages?

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 15:02
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Southgate wouldn't have any motive for spinning the story that way?

Bit like the Alves nonsense he came out with.

Midosparmo Posted on 02/09/2011 15:02
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

"Surely a better barometer would be how he did at Wolfsburg but then of course that doesn't fit your argument. "

He got sacked within a season for being a bit rubbish, didnt he?


Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 15:02
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

That's right Raz, yes.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 15:03
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Sorry midos, not Wolfsburg, FC Twente

[:I]

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 15:03
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

but zenden at least will have been on top ten wages.


Midosparmo Posted on 02/09/2011 15:05
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

At last Adi admits error.

Theres hope for him yet [^]

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 15:06
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

didnt SMAC take a team that finished 2nd the season before to 1st?

he hardly transformed them [:D]

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 15:06
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Nice one Raz.

midos - you must either miss them or just ignore them but I've been wrong and admitted being wrong on here more times than I care to remember.

I'm just not wrong about some things, that's all!!

The_263 Posted on 02/09/2011 15:07
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Even Alves did well in the Dutch league [:D]

boro74 Posted on 02/09/2011 15:07
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Just did a quick bit of googling and came up with this...

"Wages were cut so severely that when Boro were in talks to sign Ben Watson from Crystal Palace, in the January transfer window, they offered no increase in pay even though he was moving from the Championship to the Premier League. Watson joined Wigan Athletic instead with Boro's wage bill dropping to among the five lowest in the top flight."


Midosparmo Posted on 02/09/2011 15:08
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

I dont keep a diary of your failings Adi. [;)]

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 15:09
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

aye 13 years over spend was wrong [^] imho

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 15:11
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

That's not true and I know exactly why Ben Watson didn't sign - we refused to pay his agent the fee he wanted. It was that simple.

Nice one Raz.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 15:12
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

how do you know that your version of events is true?

boro74 Posted on 02/09/2011 15:15
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

I'm wasting my time.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 15:15
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

A psychic at Yarm Fair told me just before that January transfer window.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 15:16
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

aye seems adi can never back up his so called facts.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 15:17
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

And I'm not saying that bit about us being 4th bottom in terms of wage spend was wrong boro74, that's absolutely right. So you'renot wasting your time, I'm just correcting you on something that I know not to be right.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 15:18
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Nice one Raz.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 02/09/2011 15:19
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

however the zenden loan signing shows we had some financial clout with our wage budget back then.

boro74 Posted on 02/09/2011 15:20
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

So what exactly are you saying? That we weren't paying top ten wages under McClaren?

The_263 Posted on 02/09/2011 15:24
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Adi should be in Nottingham looking after his client

superstu Posted on 02/09/2011 15:24
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Maybe McClaren's representatives are going because he's busy getting his team ready for their next match?

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 15:30
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Good comeback 263!

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 02/09/2011 17:15
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

"That's not true and I know exactly why Ben Watson didn't sign - we refused to pay his agent the fee he wanted. It was that simple"

Then why was Gibson quoted to say Wigan offered wages we couldn't?

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 17:17
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

No idea.

boro74 Posted on 02/09/2011 18:44
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

My mental image of Adi_Dem...


Link: ...

outmac Posted on 02/09/2011 18:50
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

"as with all new relationships there are
teething problems....."

They've kissed and made up.


Link: I'm going nowhere.

Edwin Posted on 02/09/2011 19:53
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

Smac was funded. And was a success.

Lets not prented The Gate wasn't. £12m on Alves. £6m on Mido. Replacing Cattermole with Digard.

If we had spent £18m on 2 good strikers & kept Cattermole, we'ld still be in the PL.

Adi_Dem Posted on 02/09/2011 19:57
Steve McClaren's 'representatives'

The salaries of those players was frightening as well.