Scholes gone

[yarddog73]

Clubs fucked with this clown at the helm, had enough to be honest and cannot see any way forward whilst he's in charge. 

[latics22]

2 hours ago, JoeP said:

 

'Kin 'ell! Scholes is back!

I was flicking through this thread, didn’t see the above question. Just saw yours and the below comment! I actually thought he was back

[Gary1906]

On 3/23/2019 at 1:28 AM, League one forever said:

Er. . Scholes??? 

 

Your telling me he didn’t know the situation given how small the profressional football world is? If you think he didn’t, your very naive. 

 

How about you offer some balance about Scholes? 

 

Why is it a outwardly shy man with millions in the bank decided after four weeks he didn’t fancy it? Why were so many fans baffled why he took the job? Is scholes so stupid/naive that he thought ‘ I tell you what my name alone will make him spend money he hasn’t got’ 

 

There is two different arguments here. 

 

1. Is AL right for us? No. 

 

2. Has Scholes got off scott free under the cloud of AL? Yes. 

What do you mean by ‘didn’t fancy it’? 

If you mean that he didn’t fancy managing a League 2 club and all that entails then I think you’re wrong.

He’s been around Latics for long enough to know that things are totally different down the leagues, and nothing like the luxuries enjoyed at United.

i happen to believe that he was aware of the rumours of interference from the boardroom - probably after speaking to Wellens and Bunn - and had insisted prior to becoming the manager that any interference must stop immediately.

He would no doubt have wanted to bring in his own players in the Summer, and yet we have heard rumours in the past week that up to 12 players had already been told that they were getting new contracts without the manager being aware!

If that doesn’t undermine the manager then I don’t know what does!!

If that has happened then he’s right to quit, and the owner and his brother will struggle to bring in an experienced manager who will be prepared to work under those conditions.

[yarddog73]

5 hours ago, Gary1906 said:

What do you mean by ‘didn’t fancy it’? 

If you mean that he didn’t fancy managing a League 2 club and all that entails then I think you’re wrong.

He’s been around Latics for long enough to know that things are totally different down the leagues, and nothing like the luxuries enjoyed at United.

i happen to believe that he was aware of the rumours of interference from the boardroom - probably after speaking to Wellens and Bunn - and had insisted prior to becoming the manager that any interference must stop immediately.

He would no doubt have wanted to bring in his own players in the Summer, and yet we have heard rumours in the past week that up to 12 players had already been told that they were getting new contracts without the manager being aware!

If that doesn’t undermine the manager then I don’t know what does!!

If that has happened then he’s right to quit, and the owner and his brother will struggle to bring in an experienced manager who will be prepared to work under those conditions.

Bang on hence why AL has gone back to Pete Wild who literally will do anything he's told.

[TheBigDog]

6 hours ago, Gary1906 said:

.. and yet we have heard rumours in the past week that up to 12 players had already been told that they were getting new contracts without the manager being aware!

 

1 hour ago, yarddog73 said:

Bang on hence why AL has gone back to Pete Wild who literally will do anything he's told.

 

 We have heard rumours - nothing more. 

And Pete Wild has said in interview that Abdallah has never told him whom to play in the first team.

 

[jorvik_latic]

6 minutes ago, TheBigDog said:

 

 

 We have heard rumours - nothing more. 

And Pete Wild has said in interview that Abdallah has never told him whom to play in the first team.

 

 

So he's told him who NOT to play then?

[True Tic]

I wonder if Scholes had won more of his games in charge would he still be here? Meddling from the clown aside. 

[Jack_The_Lad]

38 minutes ago, TheBigDog said:

 

 

 We have heard rumours - nothing more. 

And Pete Wild has said in interview that Abdallah has never told him whom to play in the first team.

 

As if Wild would actually say yes Andallah and Mo pick the team , I’m sure if he did , he’d be claim job seekers pretty quickly and   Wellens indicated that Abdallah interfered in team affairs , so who is lying ?

[TheBigDog]

54 minutes ago, Jack_The_Lad said:

As if Wild would actually say yes Andallah and Mo pick the team , I’m sure if he did , he’d be claim job seekers pretty quickly and   Wellens indicated that Abdallah interfered in team affairs , so who is lying ?

My point exactly.

[TheBigDog]

1 hour ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

So he's told him who NOT to play then?

 

Ah I see what you did there.

 

 

[hinchy]

1) Sounds like we aren't happy if AL or Mo are picking the team to play the matches and generally running the on field activities by the back door.

 

2) Are we ok if AL or Mo are picking the players to build the squad, but leave team selection down to manager/head coach as happens on the continent and is happening more here at home (Utd and Newcastle work like this, probably more).

 

3) Or do we want to stick with the english way of having a gaffer that oversees all on the field activities?

 

Option 3 hasn't worked for us for 30 years, and I think AL is attempting to implement option 2 rather than 1 but opinions will differ.

 

If we stick with, or demand AL sticks with option 3 we need to stop sacking the manager, it only works with stability. 

[yarddog73]

Can't actually believe anybody still thinks that AL and ML don't meddle given what's gone on.

[League one forever]

9 hours ago, Gary1906 said:

What do you mean by ‘didn’t fancy it’? 

If you mean that he didn’t fancy managing a League 2 club and all that entails then I think you’re wrong.

He’s been around Latics for long enough to know that things are totally different down the leagues, and nothing like the luxuries enjoyed at United.

i happen to believe that he was aware of the rumours of interference from the boardroom - probably after speaking to Wellens and Bunn - and had insisted prior to becoming the manager that any interference must stop immediately.

He would no doubt have wanted to bring in his own players in the Summer, and yet we have heard rumours in the past week that up to 12 players had already been told that they were getting new contracts without the manager being aware!

If that doesn’t undermine the manager then I don’t know what does!!

If that has happened then he’s right to quit, and the owner and his brother will struggle to bring in an experienced manager who will be prepared to work under those conditions.

Your conflating the issue again Gary. 

 

Everybody agrees AL is toxic. 

 

Im talking specifically about Scholes, and did he get away lightly. 

 

Scholes isn’t the hard done by, we’ve lost a superstar manager your making him out to be IMO. 

 

1. Lots of well respected posters on here said the football was slow, and insipid. However most damning was there was no new manager bounce from the team, in energy, belief or desire. Which considering he was only here a month is a real worry for someone of his pedigree and stature. How can that be??? (Please don’t blame AL for his man management skills.) 

 

2. I think he did know what was going on, and thought his name would bring respect-  it didn’t. So the first sign of conflict he’s jumped ship from his boyhood club. A position he’s wanted before. Now he can do that because he’s a multi millionaire. Fair enough. But it doesn’t strike me he’s got a burning desire to manage, or to work with difficult people.  If he can’t give it a real go at his boyhood club, where can he? I don’t believe his heart was really in it in the first place. I think he loved the idea, and hated the reality. 

 

I think he would be a fantastic coach, or number 2. 

 

But he seems far to laid back, and  apathetic for management. 

 

 

 

 

[Clifford]

3 hours ago, TheBigDog said:

 

 

 We have heard rumours - nothing more. 

And Pete Wild has said in interview that Abdallah has never told him whom to play in the first team.

 

 

Pete Wild is towing the party line. He does not get to pick who he wants.

[BP1960]

2 hours ago, hinchy said:

1) Sounds like we aren't happy if AL or Mo are picking the team to play the matches and generally running the on field activities by the back door.

 

2) Are we ok if AL or Mo are picking the players to build the squad, but leave team selection down to manager/head coach as happens on the continent and is happening more here at home (Utd and Newcastle work like this, probably more).

 

3) Or do we want to stick with the english way of having a gaffer that oversees all on the field activities?

 

Option 3 hasn't worked for us for 30 years, and I think AL is attempting to implement option 2 rather than 1 but opinions will differ.

 

If we stick with, or demand AL sticks with option 3 we need to stop sacking the manager, it only works with stability. 

 

Wonder what the WDL ratio is with Nepo at left back and Branger on the left wing?

[Senor_Coconut]

Maybe AL just suggests who the manager picks

[oafcmetty]

17 minutes ago, Senor_Coconut said:

Maybe AL just suggests who the manager picks

"Suggests"

[JoeP]

2 hours ago, hinchy said:

1) Sounds like we aren't happy if AL or Mo are picking the team to play the matches and generally running the on field activities by the back door.

 

2) Are we ok if AL or Mo are picking the players to build the squad, but leave team selection down to manager/head coach as happens on the continent and is happening more here at home (Utd and Newcastle work like this, probably more).

 

3) Or do we want to stick with the english way of having a gaffer that oversees all on the field activities?

 

Option 3 hasn't worked for us for 30 years, and I think AL is attempting to implement option 2 rather than 1 but opinions will differ.

 

If we stick with, or demand AL sticks with option 3 we need to stop sacking the manager, it only works with stability. 

 

Fair point about Option 3 not working for the last 30 years, but there’s little evidence that option 1 or 2 will work, either.

 

I’m all for Option 3. I mean why should we trust a former agent to oversee everything on the football front ahead of an ex-player, say?

 

That said, sticking with a manager for the sake of stability is a hell of a risk. What if we give him time and he’s still crap? It could cost us our league status.

 

I think we need to do our research more when appointing the manager in the first-place..

[hinchy]

15 minutes ago, JoeP said:

 

Fair point about Option 3 not working for the last 30 years, but there’s little evidence that option 1 or 2 will work, either.

 

I’m all for Option 3. I mean why should we trust a former agent to oversee everything on the football front ahead of an ex-player, say?

 

That said, sticking with a manager for the sake of stability is a hell of a risk. What if we give him time and he’s still crap? It could cost us our league status.

 

I think we need to do our research more when appointing the manager in the first-place..

Your 3rd sentence alludes to the benefit of option 2 and the sporting director method.

You can judge player development on the head coach, and recruitment on your sporting director.

We've had plenty of managers good at one but not the other.

I've heard it said it usually requires a minimum of 3 transfer windows for a manager to mould a team in their image, sadly we've been getting rid of ours in some cases before they have had even 1, frankie bunn, stephen robinson etc.

With option 2 the head coach gets chopped and you keep the sporting director, so your teams style of play is consistent.

Alternatively your sporting director brings in crocks and donkeys, you replace him/her.

Even if things go well like with LJ one or both may bugger off, so then we still left to replace someone, it's less disruptive if its not the whole club ethos that moves on.

That's the idea behind it I think, whether it works like this in practice ....

[TheBigDog]

1 hour ago, Clifford said:

 

Pete Wild is towing (*j the party line. He does not get to pick who he wants.

Is this a fact, a forum FACT, hearsay, rumour, something you know because Pete told you, something that Abdallah told you or just something you’d like to believe is true? Asking for a friend

 

 

 

 

*toeing

[Ryan]

1 hour ago, hinchy said:

Your 3rd sentence alludes to the benefit of option 2 and the sporting director method.

You can judge player development on the head coach, and recruitment on your sporting director.

We've had plenty of managers good at one but not the other.

I've heard it said it usually requires a minimum of 3 transfer windows for a manager to mould a team in their image, sadly we've been getting rid of ours in some cases before they have had even 1, frankie bunn, stephen robinson etc.

With option 2 the head coach gets chopped and you keep the sporting director, so your teams style of play is consistent.

Alternatively your sporting director brings in crocks and donkeys, you replace him/her.

Even if things go well like with LJ one or both may bugger off, so then we still left to replace someone, it's less disruptive if its not the whole club ethos that moves on.

That's the idea behind it I think, whether it works like this in practice ....

Would he sack his own brother?

 

 

[singe]

3 hours ago, BP1960 said:

 

Wonder what the WDL ratio is with Nepo at left back and Branger on the left wing?

Whent hey start D2 (FGR & Macc) and Lost 1 (Crewe). Won v Grimnsby with allt he goals after Nepo came on.

I lost the will after that but we didn't win any more that Branger played on the left.

[singe]

5 hours ago, hinchy said:

1) Sounds like we aren't happy if AL or Mo are picking the team to play the matches and generally running the on field activities by the back door.

 

2) Are we ok if AL or Mo are picking the players to build the squad, but leave team selection down to manager/head coach as happens on the continent and is happening more here at home (Utd and Newcastle work like this, probably more).

 

3) Or do we want to stick with the english way of having a gaffer that oversees all on the field activities?

 

Option 3 hasn't worked for us for 30 years, and I think AL is attempting to implement option 2 rather than 1 but opinions will differ.

 

If we stick with, or demand AL sticks with option 3 we need to stop sacking the manager, it only works with stability. 

The other factor not listed is that many English managers take a cut of trasnfer fees, hence why they want control, and why the move to a Head Coach Continental style is gaining prevalence here (any why Bros Chuckle want to operate it as they can save those fees. PREtty sure Lee JKohnson was confirmed as having a cut,a dn why a rookei is so appealing as they can be possibly hired without it. Obviosuly I don't know for us, but I can take a pretty good guess.

[JoeP]

2 hours ago, hinchy said:

Your 3rd sentence alludes to the benefit of option 2 and the sporting director method.

You can judge player development on the head coach, and recruitment on your sporting director.

We've had plenty of managers good at one but not the other.

I've heard it said it usually requires a minimum of 3 transfer windows for a manager to mould a team in their image, sadly we've been getting rid of ours in some cases before they have had even 1, frankie bunn, stephen robinson etc.

With option 2 the head coach gets chopped and you keep the sporting director, so your teams style of play is consistent.

Alternatively your sporting director brings in crocks and donkeys, you replace him/her.

Even if things go well like with LJ one or both may bugger off, so then we still left to replace someone, it's less disruptive if its not the whole club ethos that moves on.

That's the idea behind it I think, whether it works like this in practice ....

 

Surely the simplest way of doing it is for a manager (with a knowledgeable scouting network.. )to bring players in that he wants because he thinks he can coach them and mould them into a team? Too many cooks with a sporting director..

 

I don't have a massive problem with managers, like LJ, buggering off onto better things because it means he's done a good job here. I'd rather they left because they'd impressed, rather than left because they were rubbish. There's no loyalty in football and we're right at the bottom of the league pyramid, so we're always going to be shafted in that sense..

 

Our strategy should be to know what we want in a manager - and then have a few ideas lined up for who we want next time round, rather than lose a manager then sit round scratching our arse for months while the season disintegrates around us. 

[Paul]

I firmly believe that any manager / head coach, however you want to name the position should do the recruitment, it should be a team moulded by what they want. The reason being it’s they that are judged on their results, they that have to front up to the media, they that take the flak if it’s not going well.

 

So if you have a situation that it appears Oldham do, it becomes a grey area, who has signed such and such a player, is it AL and ML, is it Bunn/Scholes/Wild,. If it’s AL and ML, and the manager is being pushed or forced to play certain players, why should that manager take the flak if results aren’t right, or is it tactics the manager has instigated, it’s all very grey.

 

Who knows who will get the job, I certainly don’t have a clue as it stands. I’m not sure we are that an attractive a proposition for a certain percentage of reputable managers. Some managers that do the rounds seem to fail fairly regularly yet still get yet another job. Why not go down the route of a Pete Wild or a Pete Wild type manager/coach, why not give a manager in non league who is doing well, the opportunity. I think whoever gets it should have the whole of one season at least, I’m not convinced constantly chopping and changing really works.