: Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:24 am  

vbfg wrote:

Compared to the more sensible option of someone we couldn't afford?

If, as is being suggested on here, McNamara is on about £100 grand a year (!!!!!!!) and was offered a four and a half year deal, we have basically invested nearly half a million pounds on him!

Now I have no idea why you are bringing up a point I did not actually make (bar the fact that you seem to have a bit of form for this) but, I will explain. IF we are so skint (as is widely acknowledged) then why did we set aside this sort of money to pay a rookie coach over such a long time? Because now, three years down the line, with crowds dwindling and more and more people becoming disillusioned with the club, we seemingly cannot afford to pay him off. (oddly enough, this was another point I made a while back but I was shot down in flames for suggesting that McNamara would only stay in his job because we could not afford to sack him. Strange to see people taking this view now and moralising.... )

Anyway - 100 grand a year? Almost 4 grand a GAME????? Rather than say that

vbfg wrote:

Compared to the more sensible option of someone we couldn't afford?

I wonder if you could maybe argue if we have had much value for money from this appointment? And, also, maybe ask yourself if that 100 grand a year could maybe have been slightly better spent? And also, why give an unproven coach such a long and expensive contract?

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:27 am  

Highlander wrote:

Or more likely the full cap was going to be spent at the time but something has changed on the budget front (season tickets, cash flow, non returning sponsor? - I don't know) that makes it less prudent (Thank you Mr Broon) to spend the full cap now.

Or maybe the right words were used at a fan's forum in order to try and attract more people to the club based on promises that may not have been kept due to the economic situation that they could later rely on for comfort?

We are being Hoodwinked.












alledgedly

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:13 am  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

I am pretty sure he actually said the full cap was available to McNamara. We're obviously not currently spending that full amount, but where did he lie?

Maybe not. Maybe, as I keep saying, the club is having to tread a fine line on cash flow, and this restricts the opportunities (not that some people on here seem to ever listen to that argument).

Or maybe we are, or are close, but people assume we are not in comparison with the comparative perceived quality of squads. Some of the points I have raised regarding the "flexible" nature of the cap if certain devices are employed (and the naivity in assuming that players of a club spending to the cap are always actually receiving no more than the cap in total) in relevant circumstances might help explain that.

As for what head coaches get paid - I don't have any specific information. But do people expect them to do a job in the top flight - where you could get sacked at any time and where you have a very uncertain career future - for nothing? And when senior players are on substantial packages? And remember you have to add maybe 20% for NI, insurance and other on-costs. The naivity sometimes is breathtaking.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:06 am  

Bullseye wrote:

It's obvious mistakes have been made with player recruitment. Most of the players recruited over the past three years have been poor and for that McNamara needs to take the blame.

.

Unfortunately true. As for the money argument, our success since '97 was never related to the money we spent. Up until the Harris signing we were just very good at getting great value from our signings.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:14 am  

Adeybull wrote:

The meeting I WOULD love to be a fly on the wall at is the one between Macca and Hood where they discuss whats going wrong. I suspect that would give a much clearer indication of what action needs taking.

Could be along the lines of:

SM - "If you want me to go, that's how much I want to be paid"
Hands piece of paper with figure written on.
PH - "You are doing a good job, lets assess the situation at the end of the season"








maybe...

[Bullseye]

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:42 am  

Cibaman wrote:

Unfortunately true. As for the money argument, our success since '97 was never related to the money we spent. Up until the Harris signing we were just very good at getting great value from our signings.

Unfortunately the cost of running Odsal since 2003 along with some poor decisions made on signings has really cost us.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:32 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

And also, why give an unproven coach such a long and expensive contract?

Spite?

[Bulliac]

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:13 am  

Bullseye wrote:

You've put it better than I could but it adds up to the same thing - that the club doesn't have the cash or the contacts or sponsors with the cash to compete with the other top clubs.

That's why the backline is Platt, Sheriffe, Sykes, Nero, Tadulala, Jeffries and Deacon and not Withers, Vaikona, Harris, Hape, Vainikolo, Pryce and Paul.

I think we also need to add in the fact that there are now more clubs in SL and more of them are (reportedly) paying the full cap as against fewer than half a few years back.

This means that the value of a top rated player is greater than it was (even in 2005) and the cap amount has been more or less static over the same period. More clubs chasing the same number of players means that any single club will logically have fewer stars than they did. Unless, of course, you can come up with some wizard accounting method which allows the cap to be circumvented....................

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:47 am  

Bulliac wrote:

Unless, of course, you can come up with some wizard accounting method which allows the cap to be circumvented....................

Its a good job the various devices I have flagged up over the last week or so have been completely hypothetical, isn't it? After all, we can all see how the cap is now working to ensure that each team has pretty well the same average level of ability and experience in the squad, with no clubs having a surfeit of internationals, so that just goes to prove no-one CAN be up to wizard accounting tricks. Doesn't it? No, really...

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:49 am  

Okay, so while the topic is still regarding McNamara not being sacked..

While I was one of the many saying his time as head coach should come to a halt - I'm now backtracking after last night and will now reserve further judgment until after a few more games - just to see how we back it up.