|
|
Post by Steel Panther on Jun 16, 2012 13:12:11 GMT 1
Amuses me that posters accuse eachother on here of having no class for slagging off LC, when the ironic fact is that he has absolutely no class himself Really.... I have seen no evidence of this classless guy in each and every interview given after his dismissal - If anything he still refers to us as 'we'. That's just embarrasing though, It's like splitting up with a girlfriend and then still talking to everyone like your still together, it's so sad. He has the cheek to come back and ask for money for something he didn't do, no class. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jun 16, 2012 13:15:29 GMT 1
I would feel embarrassed though if I was the aforementioned former employee,that someone had taken over from me and achieved the ultimate goal with the same resources or less in this instance as there was no incoming new players aside from Arismendi,with little effort. Not sure why I'd be embarrassed, having managed my team over three quarters of a seasin to within two points of a team that ultimately got promoted automatically, and them saw a man come in and see the team fade so badly over the final quarter that they ended up 12 points behind that team. No reason at all that LC wouldn't/couldn't have got us promoted. The real question is, will Donal McDermott get a promotion bonus, we were above Sheff Wednesday the day he left, it's been downhill ever since! |
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Jun 16, 2012 13:20:01 GMT 1
Amuses me that posters accuse eachother on here of having no class for slagging off LC, when the ironic fact is that he has absolutely no class himself Really.... I have seen no evidence of this classless guy in each and every interview given after his dismissal - If anything he still refers to us as 'we'. I suppose that depends on who his audience is and what they are hearing. He has not impressed me since leaving. He has no affinity to us, he is just playing the game. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Jun 16, 2012 13:20:12 GMT 1
Really.... I have seen no evidence of this classless guy in each and every interview given after his dismissal - If anything he still refers to us as 'we'. That's just embarrasing though, It's like splitting up with a girlfriend and then still talking to everyone like your still together, it's so sad. He has the cheek to come back and ask for money for something he didn't do, no class. I don't disagree about the cheek btw but I feel it just might be a case of his severance only just getting sorted now. Which IMO should have been sorted in March when this issue wouldn't have cropped up. If he wants to ask and isn't contractually entitled then Dean can quite easily and politely refuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Jun 16, 2012 13:24:06 GMT 1
Really.... I have seen no evidence of this classless guy in each and every interview given after his dismissal - If anything he still refers to us as 'we'. I suppose that depends on who his audience is and what they are hearing. He has not impressed me since leaving. He has no affinity to us, he is just playing the game. A game maybe but as I say I struggle to find anything classless stated by him towards us since his dismissal whilst in private anything could and probably would have been said. But if anything then to play the game publicly whilst privately thinking different could be a definition of showing class. |
|
|
|
Post by 3 pipe problem on Jun 16, 2012 13:25:33 GMT 1
He has the cheek to come back and ask for money for something he didn't do, no class. As the lads here have said, if it's in his contract he's entitled to it. If it isn't he can spin. There's not one scrap of proof in these allegations from mids. No  s, no quotes, no nothing. Ask him to break down, and prove the figures he pulled out of his arse and he posts up a youtube clip of a Jack Nicholson catchphrase with a lol icon. I've said it before, I support Huddersfield Town, not Lee Clark, but I'll be fked if going to slate a bloke over what is just rumours and hearsay. You see, that's where the class bit comes into play. |
|
|
|
Post by Steel Panther on Jun 16, 2012 13:25:39 GMT 1
That's just embarrasing though, It's like splitting up with a girlfriend and then still talking to everyone like your still together, it's so sad. He has the cheek to come back and ask for money for something he didn't do, no class. I don't disagree about the cheek btw but I feel it just might be a case of his severance only just getting sorted now. Which IMO should have been sorted in March when this issue wouldn't have cropped up. If he wants to ask and isn't contractually entitled then Dean can quite easily and politely refuse. Fair do's |
|
|
|
Post by mids on Jun 16, 2012 13:37:48 GMT 1
There's not one scrap of proof in these allegations from mids. No s, no quotes, no nothing. I've said it before, I support Huddersfield Town, not Lee Clark, but I'll be fked if going to slate a bloke over what is just rumours and hearsay. You see, that's where the class bit comes into play. You've been around long enough to know that I don't pull figures out of my arse...people may choose to interpret information differently to me (as is their/your prerogative) but it's always based on fact (usually after a bit of digging). Here you go then...debate & dissect at your leisure... If you're talking about Lee Clark (which of course is nothing to do with this hypothetical situation), if anyone deemed fit and spent enough time looking into the facts, they would find that: He had 176 games in charge He had 71 players at his disposal in that time, which comprised of: 22 players inherited from previous Town managers 4 new players progressed from the Academy 20 loan players 16 transfers with a transfer fee 9 free transfers Of those 45 players recruited, 24 played less than 20 games The 26 inherited/academy players had more starts than the 45 recruited players He used 11 left backs, 11 centre backs, and 19 central midfielders He spent £4.6m on the 16 transfer fees, of which £2.5m has been recovered/received so far from exiting players = £2.1m cash deficit £3.3m transfer fees paid on the current squad £550k lost on Simpson & Ainsworth - who played less than 15 games each In 2011/12, in 30 games, there were 9 different centre back pairings and 16 different midfield combinations £20m spent on players wages £3m spent on managerial/coaching staff, travel, hotels, prozone, scouting etc £23m wages/costs + £2.1m cash deficit on transfer fees = £25.1m to get a few places higher in the same league after 3 years. Granted there's plenty of positives from Lee Clark's tenure, and the wages weren't solely down to him, but these facts (to me) show that he didn't quite get to grips with his task - he was like a kid in a sweet shop and I'm sure Dean will have learned a few lessons too - thank god he can afford it :scarf: |
|
|
|
Post by ritchie on Jun 16, 2012 13:40:41 GMT 1
....if you was a manager of a group of men - say for 3 years or more - but you failed to achieve your targetted goal - despite spending £23m doing so - and you were sacked... ....and then your replacement came in and within a few months achieved the target you didn't quite reach - spending very little.... ....would you then go back to your former employer and ask for a bonus for the part you played in the success of the company - even if you had allegedly earlier threatened your former employer/friend with legal action for being sacked? Just asking like....  poor form mids imo :thumbsdown: |
|
|
|
Post by AndySk on Jun 16, 2012 13:42:21 GMT 1
So on average he brought in a player every 3.9 games :iconlol:
|
|
Offtopic
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,408
|
Post by Offtopic on Jun 16, 2012 13:44:43 GMT 1
Those are some scary figures mids
Compare those to Stevenage who we finished 2 places higher than and it makes you either appreciate how poor Lee Clark was/is or how good Graham Westley is/was
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Jun 16, 2012 13:47:12 GMT 1
That Mids is why he is no longer our manager but can you tell me of a manager that doesn't spend his budget.
Kid in a sweet shop maybe but he was ALLOWED to spend it and most if not all managers will when they are able to.
By all means have a go at his lack of achievements but can you really blame a manager for spending his budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steel Panther on Jun 16, 2012 13:51:50 GMT 1
That Mids is why he is no longer our manager but can you tell me of a manager that doesn't spend his budget. Kid in a sweet shop maybe but he was ALLOWED to spend it and most if not all managers will when they are able to. By all means have a go at his lack of achievements but can you really blame a manager for spending his budget. No but you can criticise how he spends it |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Jun 16, 2012 13:57:12 GMT 1
That Mids is why he is no longer our manager but can you tell me of a manager that doesn't spend his budget. Kid in a sweet shop maybe but he was ALLOWED to spend it and most if not all managers will when they are able to. By all means have a go at his lack of achievements but can you really blame a manager for spending his budget. No but you can criticise how he spends it Going by Mids numbers £2.1M loss in transfer dealings and if rumours in January were correct then that would be a £2.9M profit had Rhodes gone then. Not at all bad by any way shape or form, profits made from transfer dealings lead to sustainability. Surely the profit made is the sole criterion that success or failure on transfer dealings should be judged. |
|
|
|
Post by northnottsblue on Jun 16, 2012 13:59:39 GMT 1
I think this whole hypothetical argument is flawed,because Grayson has not achieved anything yet,that's for next season.
On the day we were promoted by luck,the coin came down on our side.Who would have thought that after the third penalty miss,we were going to go up,not many.
But the coin did come down in our favour,so we'll take that and move on.So for Lee Clarke,like him or loathe him,he would have an argument for saying that he played a part in it all.
As for all these numbers about players and wages,his boss must have sanctioned them all.
|
|
Offtopic
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,408
|
Post by Offtopic on Jun 16, 2012 14:05:54 GMT 1
I think this whole hypothetical argument is flawed,because Grayson has not achieved anything yet,that's for next season. On the day we were promoted by luck,the coin came down on our side.Who would have thought that after the third penalty miss,we were going to go up,not many. But the coin did come down in our favour,so we'll take that and move on.So for Lee Clarke,like him or loathe him,he would have an argument for saying that he played a part in it all. As for all these numbers about players and wages,his boss must have sanctioned them all. But a football chairman is trusting his manager when he sanctions them. Deano won't have a clue if Robbie Simpson is going to be a good signing, he is trusting Lee Clark and his staff to know that. The fact that Clark and co got so many wrong is where the problem lies. Deano started to realise this towards the end of Clark's reign The Rhodes one will always get Clark out of looking bad because of how much he is going to be sold for. Luck or good judgement, i'm not so sure, but when you look at the majority of his signings then i'd say it was more luck |
|
|
|
Post by 3 pipe problem on Jun 16, 2012 14:09:28 GMT 1
You've been around long enough to know that I don't pull figures out of my arse...people may choose to interpret information differently to me (as is their/your prerogative) but it's always based on fact (usually after a bit of digging). Here you go then...debate & dissect at your leisure... If you're talking about Lee Clark (which of course is nothing to do with this hypothetical situation), if anyone deemed fit and spent enough time looking into the facts, they would find that: He had 176 games in charge He had 71 players at his disposal in that time, which comprised of: 22 players inherited from previous Town managers 4 new players progressed from the Academy 20 loan players 16 transfers with a transfer fee 9 free transfers Of those 45 players recruited, 24 played less than 20 games The 26 inherited/academy players had more starts than the 45 recruited players He used 11 left backs, 11 centre backs, and 19 central midfielders He spent £4.6m on the 16 transfer fees, of which £2.5m has been recovered/received so far from exiting players = £2.1m cash deficit £3.3m transfer fees paid on the current squad £550k lost on Simpson & Ainsworth - who played less than 15 games each In 2011/12, in 30 games, there were 9 different centre back pairings and 16 different midfield combinations £20m spent on players wages £3m spent on managerial/coaching staff, travel, hotels, prozone, scouting etc £23m wages/costs + £2.1m cash deficit on transfer fees = £25.1m to get a few places higher in the same league after 3 years. Granted there's plenty of positives from Lee Clark's tenure, and the wages weren't solely down to him, but these facts (to me) show that he didn't quite get to grips with his task - he was like a kid in a sweet shop and I'm sure Dean will have learned a few lessons too - thank god he can afford it  No attempt to take into account the value of the current squad. Your figures include the £3.3m transfer fees paid on the current squad but don't take into account the value of the current squad. Rhodes will be worth a minimum of £5/6m alone and that's bare minimum. There are a few discrepencies in those figures quoted too. According to newspaper and internet s .. ''Pilkington joined Norwich City on 6 July 2011 and signed a three-year deal with the option of a further 12 months.[5] The fee was reported to be around £2 million but rising to £3 million with add-ons.[6][7]'' Peltier was £750,000 plus add-ons. McDermott was sold on at a profit. Your figure of '£2.5m recovered/received so far from exiting players' doesn't add up to me. At the end of the day, yes there were positives and negatives to be drawn from LC's tenure but you have to look at the full picture. He was an effete force at times, particularly towards the end. He chopped and changed his side too much, his tactics and demeanour were at times questionable to say the least but financially he must be judged from a balance viewpoint for the sake of accuracy. Bringing this all back to your hypothesis though again. For me, if an employee is entitled to something by contract and they haven't breached that contract then there's no argument there. |
|
Offtopic
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,408
|
Post by Offtopic on Jun 16, 2012 14:11:34 GMT 1
I'd think Pilkington's upfront fee was 1.5 million, Peltier 750k and Mcdermott 250k = £2.5 million
Don't believe everything you read in the papers
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Jun 16, 2012 14:16:27 GMT 1
I think this whole hypothetical argument is flawed,because Grayson has not achieved anything yet,that's for next season. On the day we were promoted by luck,the coin came down on our side.Who would have thought that after the third penalty miss,we were going to go up,not many. But the coin did come down in our favour,so we'll take that and move on.So for Lee Clarke,like him or loathe him,he would have an argument for saying that he played a part in it all. As for all these numbers about players and wages,his boss must have sanctioned them all. But a football chairman is trusting his manager when he sanctions them. Deano won't have a clue if Robbie Simpson is going to be a good signing, he is trusting Lee Clark and his staff to know that. The fact that Clark and co got so many wrong is where the problem lies. Deano started to realise this towards the end of Clark's reign The Rhodes one will always get Clark out of looking bad because of how much he is going to be sold for. Luck or good judgement, i'm not so sure, but when you look at the majority of his signings then i'd say it was more luck Come on, you can't put the bad signings down to judgement and good signings down to luck. That is blatantly unfair. |
|
|
|
Post by 3 pipe problem on Jun 16, 2012 14:17:14 GMT 1
I'd think Pilkington's upfront fee was 1.5 million, Peltier 750k and Mcdermott 250k = £2.5 million Don't believe everything you read in the papers Even the Sun ?  |
|
|
|
Post by northnottsblue on Jun 16, 2012 14:18:25 GMT 1
I think that both DH and LC will have learnt a lot over the last 3 years,because as the old saying goes "you learn by your mistakes". Hindsight is a wonderful science,we should have done this,done that.
As a club we'll come out stronger and wiser after all this,so that long and winding road to the San Siro is getting shorter all the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by ritchie on Jun 16, 2012 14:19:13 GMT 1
ignoring transfer fees (which i would question your figures)
why is money that any other club requires to spend, *to be a football club*, being used as a stick to beat clark?
not doubting he spent a few quid but i think its very poor to come on here with inside info you assumedly have from dean and use figures that dean sanctioned to drag up the clark debate again 4 months later
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Jun 16, 2012 14:19:54 GMT 1
I'd think Pilkington's upfront fee was 1.5 million, Peltier 750k and Mcdermott 250k = £2.5 million Don't believe everything you read in the papers What about Theo? |
|
|
|
Post by fitzyblue on Jun 16, 2012 14:22:12 GMT 1
mids.what have you become  disappointed mate. :shake: suppose theres one positive.the spunked millions can be put to bed now. |
|
|
|
Post by 3 pipe problem on Jun 16, 2012 14:24:58 GMT 1
I'd think Pilkington's upfront fee was 1.5 million, Peltier 750k and Mcdermott 250k = £2.5 million Don't believe everything you read in the papers Terriers chairman Dean Hoyle added: "We did not need to sell Anthony for financial reasons but at the same time we did not want to stand in his way.
"We have secured the deal we wanted. It is a multi-million pound deal which could easily prove the best in the club's history."
I'll believe DH though. It's hard enough to assimilate figures when dealing with undisclosed fees without worrying about what percentage was up front. At the end of the day, the same will apply to both incoming and outgoing transfers. |
|
HILLY
Ray Wilson Terrier
bouncy bouncy bouncy
Posts: 5,674
|
Post by HILLY on Jun 16, 2012 14:25:08 GMT 1
Regardless of what he spent. The issue is his entitlement to any sort of Bonus. If it is indeed written into his contract then its fair enough, he should get his share. If it isn't then he can swivvel.
He might have spent an absolute fortune but im pretty sure he didn't steal Deano's wallet. He made plenty of signings at a cost that didnt even play 20 games, but still he was allowed to continue signing players, The buck doesn't just fall at Clarks door for me
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jun 16, 2012 14:25:36 GMT 1
£23m wages/costs + £2.1m cash deficit on transfer fees = £25.1m to get a few places Or actually, £25m to get promoted into the Championship over three years. Lots of League 1 clubs will have spent £15m+ (using your 'all encompassing' method of calculating...which I like) over the last 3 years and are still in League 1...or League 2. In fact I bet Sheff U spent 15m+ in a single season and they're still there! If we'd doubled our wage budget in either of the first two seasons under LC we'd probably have got promoted...for less outlay than Sheff U will probably end up spending to get back up? Seems like money well spent to me, as you say, Dean can afford it. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Jun 16, 2012 14:28:22 GMT 1
£23m wages/costs + £2.1m cash deficit on transfer fees = £25.1m to get a few places Or actually, £25m to get promoted into the Championship over three years. Lots of League 1 clubs will have spent £15m+ (using your 'all encompassing' method of calculating...which I like) over the last 3 years and are still in League 1...or League 2. Seems like money well spent to me, as you say, Dean can afford it. Particularly with a striker whose value is skyrocketing at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by ben1142 on Jun 16, 2012 14:32:11 GMT 1
The Lee Clark question will never be resolved people just find new topics to have the same old arguments about. In Summary:
Some thought he did a very good job, some thought he did a poor job with the resources available. Most think he 'nearly' did a very good job.
no sides will agree though, and so round and round we go.
|
|
bugliner
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,069
|
Post by bugliner on Jun 16, 2012 14:34:30 GMT 1
Really.... I have seen no evidence of this classless guy in each and every interview given after his dismissal - If anything he still refers to us as 'we'. That's just embarrasing though, It's like splitting up with a girlfriend and then still talking to everyone like your still together, it's so sad. He has the cheek to come back and ask for money for something he didn't do, no class. I still refer to the club as "we", and I have never been employed by them in any capacity. When I do so, I am not pretending to be an employee, I am doing so because I have an affinity with the club. As for the "hypothetical situation", if my contract stated that I was entitled to a bonus, and I did not breach my contract then yes, I'd ask for that bonus. |
|
