"The best times at the club was when he wasn't there"

[Hands on]

Scholes has spoken.  Abdallah OUT!

[latics22]

What was said?

[maximus1267]

We all said scholes wouldn't and doesn't need to take crap off AL..... well he walked and now he's talked....

Shameful by the owner...... Very sad to see what appears to be such a poisonous character in charge of our club.

 

[rudemedic]

1 minute ago, maximus1267 said:

We all said scholes wouldn't and doesn't need to take crap off AL..... well he walked and now he's talked....

Shameful by the owner...... Very sad to see what appears to be such a poisonous character in charge of our club.

 

But Scholes has left...

[GlossopLatic]

I blame Mike Keegan

[Bristolatic]

For those of us that don't have the dubious benefit of BT Sport, can someone give a brief idea of what he said, please? 

 

We can probably guess from the thread title, but some meat on the bones would be appreciated.

[singe]

2 minutes ago, Bristolatic said:

For those of us that don't have the dubious benefit of BT Sport, can someone give a brief idea of what he said, please? 

 

We can probably guess from the thread title, but some meat on the bones would be appreciated.

I think you should be able to see this. 

[Guest Stanley30]

Scholes is all fart and no poo

[super_blue]

3 minutes ago, Bristolatic said:

For those of us that don't have the dubious benefit of BT Sport, can someone give a brief idea of what he said, please? 

 

We can probably guess from the thread title, but some meat on the bones would be appreciated.

See the ‘Scholes gone’ thread for more info. 

[daniel]

2 minutes ago, Bristolatic said:

For those of us that don't have the dubious benefit of BT Sport, can someone give a brief idea of what he said, please? 

 

We can probably guess from the thread title, but some meat on the bones would be appreciated.

The interview is on the other thread. Interesting comments from PS. The interview also shows what the likes of Steve Mcmanaman know about lower league football, fuck all. There’s a reason I don’t bother watching pundits talk football, clueless.

[Bristolatic]

2 minutes ago, singe said:

I think you should be able to see this. 

 

1 minute ago, super_blue said:

See the ‘Scholes gone’ thread for more info. 

 

Just now, daniel said:

The interview is on the other thread. Interesting comments from PS. The interview also shows what the likes of Steve Mcmanaman know about lower league football, fuck all. There’s a reason I don’t bother watching pundits talk football, clueless.

Thanks guys. Just spotted it.

[GlossopLatic]

The more I find out about the owner the more respect I'm having for Pete Wild and these players.

 

Alright it's not the greatest Oldham side we've ever seen (it's possibly one of the worst interms of talent) But when you see the circus and the volatile culture that they are working in they are sticking to the task. Scholes says he couldn't get them off the training pitch they are so hungry to better themselves. We didnt play that well today but we dug out a draw and could even have got a win. 

[kowenicki]

1 minute ago, GlossopLatic said:

The more I find out about the owner the more respect I'm having for Pete Wild and these players.

 

Alright it's not the greatest Oldham side we've ever seen (it's possibly one of the worst interms of talent) But when you see the circus and the volatile culture that they are working in they are sticking to the task. Scholes says he couldn't get them off the training pitch they are so hungry to better themselves. We didnt play that well today but we dug out a draw and could even have got a win. 

 

And the less I have for Scholes’ ability.

 

Out of his depth... which isn’t difficult I suppose.

[philliggi]

The more I see things like this the more I think we are better sticking with wild while AL is here.

 

If he is willing to work under these conditions - and it seemingly does work - is there really any point in giving it to anybody else?

[Ritchierich]

Wow, that’s actually quite revealing...confirms what I felt from the start, Scholes heart wasn’t really in it and frankly I just don’t see him as Manager material.

 

And that clown Macmanaman, who clearly had no idea of the detail.....”the results weren’t that bad” !!??  he tried to talk up the interference and Scholes corrected him saying it only happened once 

 

Just more entitled, over paid, Premier League and Champions League obsessed twats in a studio taking a momentary interest in the lower leagues because their mate had been involved for a few weeks 

 

Twats!!!

[League one forever]

2 hours ago, GlossopLatic said:

The more I find out about the owner the more respect I'm having for Pete Wild and these players.

 

Alright it's not the greatest Oldham side we've ever seen (it's possibly one of the worst interms of talent) But when you see the circus and the volatile culture that they are working in they are sticking to the task. Scholes says he couldn't get them off the training pitch they are so hungry to better themselves. We didnt play that well today but we dug out a draw and could even have got a win. 

An yet he got nothing out of them. 

[the_mighty_bosh]

46 minutes ago, League one forever said:

An yet he got nothing out of them. 

 

In 7 games where he was (by his own admission, rightly or wrongly) building for the following season.

 

In Scholes' time in charge I can pick out one positive (Jose Baxter's form) and one negative (the late goals which lost us points).  That's it.  It definitely doesn't constitute a successful time in charge but Scholes was not significant or relevant enough to be judged a failure either.  His time in charge will go down as a small blip in the season.

 

But people judging Wild and Scholes by the same standards are missing the point.  Wild is working game-by-game because (as I'm sure he knows) there isn't any sort of long term strategy to make the club better from the people (person) above him.  Scholes was under the impression that he was going to be able to enact a longer term reform in order to fix the club (which everyone knows it needs).  It turns out that he was naive to think this but I'm glad for the club's sake that he did take the job on before realising that it wasn't going to happen.

 

The thing that really pisses me off is that any half decent owner would have milked Scholes' reputation in the game for all that it was worth, regardless of his managerial ability.  If it was obvious that he didn't possess the required traits after a summer to build the club/team as he wished then so be it, we get rid, the Scholes experiment would have failed and the club would move on.  Marco didn't even give Scholes a fair opportunity to be a failure due to the restrictions which is why, annoyingly, the blip is still being discussed now.

Edited April 14, 2019 by the_mighty_bosh

[rudemedic]

23 minutes ago, the_mighty_bosh said:

 

In 7 games where he was (by his own admission, rightly or wrongly) building for the following season.

 

In Scholes' time in charge I can pick out one positive (Jose Baxter's form) and one negative (the late goals which lost us points).  That's it.  It definitely doesn't constitute a successful time in charge but Scholes was not significant or relevant enough to be judged a failure either.  His time in charge will go down as a small blip in the season.

 

But people judging Wild and Scholes by the same standards are missing the point.  Wild is working game-by-game because (as I'm sure he knows) there isn't any sort of long term strategy to make the club better from the people (person) above him.  Scholes was under the impression that he was going to be able to enact a longer term reform in order to fix the club (which everyone knows it needs).  It turns out that he was naive to think this but I'm glad for the club's sake that he did take the job on before realising that it wasn't going to happen.

 

The thing that really pisses me off is that any half decent owner would have milked Scholes' reputation in the game for all that it was worth, regardless of his managerial ability.  If it was obvious that he didn't possess the required traits after a summer to build the club/team as he wished then so be it, we get rid, the Scholes experiment would have failed and the club would move on.  Marco didn't even give Scholes a fair opportunity to be a failure due to the restrictions which is why, annoyingly, the blip is still being discussed now.

Scholes quit and by all reports Marco wanted him back.

 

We could easily be sitting within striking distance of the playoffs if Scholes hadn’t been the worse manager we’ve had since Darren Kelly (on a purely Points per game viewpoint). By his own admission the direct interference in team selection was a singular occurrence, personally based on the performance of the 2 likely candidates - Branger and Iacovitti, I think Marco may  have had a point.

 

Pete Wild got more points in his first 3 games back in charge than Scholes got in his 7, and with arguably a worse squad given the injuries and suspension. Until Scholes makes a go of it elsewhere there will always be an element that he quit because it was a lot tougher than he thought or than what he was capable of.

 

The interference is not acceptable but how is it more acceptable than the shenanigans Corney got up to? 

[GlossopLatic]

 

7 hours ago, kowenicki said:

 

And the less I have for Scholes’ ability.

 

Out of his depth... which isn’t difficult I suppose.

 

No but what is difficult is any chance of long term success for anyone in the current conditions and thats the takeaway everyone should have from that.

 

His views tie in and are consistent with everyone else who has left the club in the last 12 months.

[deyres42]

6 hours ago, League one forever said:

An yet he got nothing out of them. 

Would your opinion be the same without the three 90th minute goals conceded?

[True Tic]

 

7 minutes ago, deyres42 said:

Would your opinion be the same without the three 90th minute goals conceded?

If that were the case, he would likely still be the manager, unfortunately we will never know what a fab manager he could have been because he walked away.

 

This chairman is clearly a problem, but he didn't cause the poor run of results under Scholes, Scholes did.

 

Pete Wild turns up again, same players, same chairman, no coffee machine, cold showers etc etc and gets three wins on the bounce.

 

[deyres42]

1 minute ago, True Tic said:

 

If that were the case, he would likely still be the manager, unfortunately we will never know what a fab manager he could have been because he walked away.

 

This chairman is clearly a problem, but he didn't cause the poor run of results under Scholes, Scholes did.

 

Pete Wild turns up again, same players, same chairman, no coffee machine, cold showers etc etc and gets three wins on the bounce.

 

Scholes didn't cause us to concede three last minute goals, stop being silly.

[True Tic]

And you behave yourself talking about goals which might not have been conceded but actually were!

 

The brief stats for both Wild and Scholes speak for themselves.

 

Scholes could and should have given it longer, unfortunately he didn't and all we can do is judge him on what actually happened, not what could have happened.

 

Interfering once with player selection should have prompted a further chat with the chairman to remind him what was agreed initially, not, "right that's it I'm off", its pathetic.

 

 

[deyres42]

3 minutes ago, True Tic said:

And you behave yourself talking about goals which might not have been conceded but actually were!

 

The brief stats for both Wild and Scholes speak for themselves.

 

Scholes could and should have given it longer, unfortunately he didn't and all we can do is judge him on what actually happened, not what could have happened.

 

Interfering once with player selection should have prompted a further chat with the chairman to remind him what was agreed initially, not, "right that's it I'm off", its pathetic.

 

 

Pathetic is having players and staff waiting for a coach to Bury that wasn't turning up until intervention.

[Andy b]

16 minutes ago, True Tic said:

And you behave yourself talking about goals which might not have been conceded but actually were!

 

The brief stats for both Wild and Scholes speak for themselves.

 

Scholes could and should have given it longer, unfortunately he didn't and all we can do is judge him on what actually happened, not what could have happened.

 

Interfering once with player selection should have prompted a further chat with the chairman to remind him what was agreed initially, not, "right that's it I'm off", its pathetic.

 

 

Don’t think anyone is praising scholes for his managerial performance or indeed suggesting he would have been a good manager.

 

The fact of the matter is that after less than one month in charge, following lots of   careful thinking about whether and when to take the job, he decided that he couldn’t work under the conditions presented.

 

Given his experience of lower league football both through Salford City and being a Latics fan I think it would be unfair to suggest he was a pampered premier league star with no grip on the reality of life in league 2. You might level that sort of criticism at many others but not scholes.

 

We need to focus on what his actions and decision to potentially harm his own reputation tells us about OAFC at the current time.