Transfer Window: Vale ins, outs, rumours etc...

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Seems to be going a bit off topic on this thread now

 

 

I wouldn't mind us trying to get Kiwomya on loan from Chelsea

 

Crewe want to keep him don't they, anyone seen him live?

[Jacko51]

Correct, that's not to say he didn't have a lot to do with others like Purkiss, Kelly, McCourt, Sullivan, Kennedy (the last three who he signed and then chose not to play too much).

 

Just because he didn't have much to do with some signings doesn't mean he didn't have much to do with all signings, don't know why you jumped to that conclusion as I only mentioned those two aforementioned players.

 

It's just that you have summed up exactly what has been wrong with Vale under Norman - too many cooks. The manager should manage and the chairman should create the circumstances in which he can build a squad and do it. If the manager has no control over who is in his squad how is he supposed to do his job. You say Page had little to do with some of the signings. It's pretty clear that some players were brought in over Bruno's head as well. That is not the way to run a football club. You put a guy in charge of the team and tell him to get on with it. If he makes a cock up you sack him and appoint someone else - you don't stick your nose into playing matters and interfere with what he is doing.

 

And if you want a manager out you tell him to his face, you don't manipulate budgets then boast about how you got him to walk.

[toyahw]

Correct, that's not to say he didn't have a lot to do with others like Purkiss, Kelly, McCourt, Sullivan, Kennedy (the last three who he signed and then chose not to play too much).

 

Just because he didn't have much to do with some signings doesn't mean he didn't have much to do with all signings, don't know why you jumped to that conclusion as I only mentioned those two aforementioned players.

There was a quote from Norman vis Grant. Paraphrasing, but Page signed him on terms Norman could not believe particularly as it was a two year deal.

[werstayinup]

Crewe want to keep him don't they' date=' anyone seen him live?[/quote']

 

Crewe fans have and they think he is the nuts.....I think Chelsea would sooner he went to a league one team for the 2nd part of the season than one struggling in league 2

[toyahw]

as the chairman stated he wanted the club to live within its means but Page forgot to sign practically anyone aside from his .

As opposed to recruiting a serial failure manager who recruited his mates and then pissed a **** load of your mate's cash up the wall on an even worse load of dross.

[Santa]

Page forgot to sign practically anyone aside from his mates and neglected to remember football is played with strikers.

At least Bruno didn't make the same mist... oh.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

It's just that you have summed up exactly what has been wrong with Vale under Norman - too many cooks. The manager should manage and the chairman should create the circumstances in which he can build a squad and do it. If the manager has no control over who is in his squad how is he supposed to do his job. You say Page had little to do with some of the signings. It's pretty clear that some players were brought in over Bruno's head as well. That is not the way to run a football club. You put a guy in charge of the team and tell him to get on with it. If he makes a cock up you sack him and appoint someone else - you don't stick your nose into playing matters and interfere with what he is doing.

 

And if you want a manager out you tell him to his face, you don't manipulate budgets then boast about how you got him to walk.

 

I agree it should be the manager only, that said I think the only player the chairman is responsible for are Streete (outstanding signing for me), Hooper (there is still hope) and Forrester (who if he stops impersonating Lee Matthews could be a cracking striker) so maybe he should become chief scout!

 

I've absolutely no issue managing under performing people who care more about jobs for their mates than the success of the business they are employed by. There is zero loyalty in football and integrity in football. Like it or not football is now a business and it's a cut throat industry similar to ones I've worked in over past years. The chairmans only loyalty is the best interest of the club and rather than axing him he actually turned him into an asset and got rid, that's excellent work from a bottom line perspective.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

At least Bruno didn't make the same mist... oh.

 

Pair of idiots together!

[Jacko51]

I agree it should be the manager only, that said I think the only player the chairman is responsible for are Streete (outstanding signing for me), Hooper (there is still hope) and Forrester (who if he stops impersonating Lee Matthews could be a cracking striker) so maybe he should become chief scout!

 

I've absolutely no issue managing under performing people who care more about jobs for their mates than the success of the business they are employed by. There is zero loyalty in football and integrity in football. Like it or not football is now a business and it's a cut throat industry similar to ones I've worked in over past years. The chairmans only loyalty is the best interest of the club and rather than axing him he actually turned him into an asset and got rid, that's excellent work from a bottom line perspective.

 

Streete? That's a new one on me. Is appointing a manager with an appalling previous record and allowing him to sign a load of players with no experience of the English game "excellent work from the bottom line perspective"?

 

Personally, I can't see the point of getting rid of Page if you are going to appoint someone worse. If you remove Page, why on earth should you not appoint a manager with experience of the English game instead of being conned by a couple of Premier League managers into appointing their mate? And this is not being wise after the event - I said it was a very dodgy appointment at the time and was told not to be negative. I'm sorry but I cannot see that what the Chairman did in the summer was in the best interests of the club.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Crewe fans have and they think he is the nuts.....I think Chelsea would sooner he went to a league one team for the 2nd part of the season than one struggling in league 2

 

Well Jones has had his head turned by better teams so why shouldn't we do the same.

 

As long as he's a million times better than Kelly and Mbamba I'm in!

[Mario]

What kind of Chairman, owner, CEO allows his staff to make purchases and then complains when the budget is bust,are there no checks and balances in place?

[elav trop 1876]

i posted this on other thread but seems more apt on this one

 

Brown must be given his chance as it seems he is someone who Norman trusts & hopefully will be allowed to bring in his own players and backroom team at least until the end of the season.The mess we are in needs a lot of sorting and i think brown is best placed as he knows the set up

 

Devils advocate to other posts,

 

The question is why did page have the power to sign players on high wages or re-sign existing players for the coming season without Normans knowledge?

Also if the players we let go in the summer are worse than the current first choice the minimum we can expect is a mid-table finish as thats what Page managed with so called dross players.

 

Was Bruno just a puppet on a string & fall guy as his influence seemed minimal especially with so many chiefs around him ,all his signings would have to have a seal of approval from above with a plan of action and within a budget.

 

at least with less people in charge and a better plan and focus plus signings this month should give us a chance of staying up -

 

Time will tell

utv

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

What kind of Chairman, owner, CEO allows his staff to make purchases and then complains when the budget is bust,are there no checks and balances in place?

 

Can't have it both ways, the manager either has full control over the playing budget or he doesn't. Sounds like the chairman is damned if he does and also damned if he doesn't.

[Jacko51]

Can't have it both ways' date=' the manager either has full control over the playing budget or he doesn't. Sounds like the chairman is damned if he does and also damned if he doesn't.[/quote']

 

It's pretty clear that neither Page nor Bruno had full control over the playing budget.

 

Remember Norman is the man who spoke to the ghost of Bill Bell and regarded him as his mentor. For all his faults Bell never interfered with Rudge on the playing side and let him get on and manage. Norman needs to decide if he wants to run the club or the team. Or preferably, let the professionals get on with both.

[elav trop 1876]

Surely the chairman will have a plan firstly to protect and move the business forward on and off the field , the manager will have a plan of action for the field of play , plans by both should contain of keeping & improving whats good where possible and changing & improving whats not within their respective control with contingencies for possible problems occurring with in budget.

Firstly a much smaller squad aim for 14/15 quality players as the budget allows with potential youngsters filling the other spaces to allow them to grow into the system any key injuries suspensions dip into the loan market. Does this sound too easy for the real world