What? The wages of Swansea and Norwich are rubbish but they're still above us.
Sent from my iPhone On 19/12/2011, at 11:57 AM, Steven Millward <[email protected]> wrote: > Utter rubbish > > On 19 December 2011 11:55, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> wrote: > Mick took on the role knowing what resources were available and what > (unrealistically) high expectations there are the club. He didn't have to > take the job and if he didn't think we could compete in the premier league he > shouldn't have got us promoted. > > Out of interest, anyone know what the wage bills are for Norwich or Swansea? > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 19/12/2011, at 10:37 AM, Steven Millward <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So we're agreed that the team isn't good enough, but given the club's wage >> policy it's not Mick's fault. I'm sure you'll agree that we are where we >> should expect to be in the league? >> >> Given that player quality accounts for 90% of final league position, with >> the remaining 10% being down to luck, club structure, back room set up, >> youth academy and manager, then we're talking about maybe 3% being down to >> Mick. >> >> It seems irrational to me to blame Mick for something that it barely his >> responsibility. Is it a cultural thing? That football fans revert to >> blaming the manager because it's seen as the thing to do to appear >> knowledgeable. Or is it a form of denial of the facts because the facts are >> too unpleasant to accept? >> >> You link two points together that don't seem to be linked. >> >> Firstly that the team should be improving? Why is this? What should Wolves >> be doing that will make their team improve relative to every other team? >> Monkey glands? Spiritual healers? >> >> Secondly, that the squad should have been strengthened. Mick reflects club >> policy. I'm sure he'd like to have a load of players on 80 grand a week but >> he can't. >> >> If someone you work with focussed on something that you knew had very little >> impact on performance (say 3%), and ignored the things that you knew did >> have an impact on performance (say 90%), how would you view him? >> >> >> On 19 December 2011 10:08, Morris, Lee SGT <[email protected]> wrote: >> UNCLASSIFIED >> >> Well in my opinion, Mick's team isn't good enough. Mick's tactics aren't >> good enough. I and I think many many others think Mick is out of his depth >> in the PL. >> >> Who knows, our squad may be capable of much more under a better manager. Its >> also possible that Mick has got this bunch punching well above there weight >> and they will be even worse with another manager....we just don't know, >> there lies the risk. >> >> What I do know is, the team should be showing more improvement, the squad >> should have been stregthened more. We all shudder everytime Mick says he >> doesn't need to sign more / better players because he's happy with "his" >> squad. >> >> Its Mick's fault we are not improving. Thats the bottom line. .... >> >> IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and >> is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you >> have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender >> and delete the email. >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of Steven Millward >> Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 09:01 >> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Anyone watching? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >> >> How can I explain this more clearly. >> >> 90% of the results are down to the quality of players >> We have the fourth worst players in the league. >> We have no right to finish above where we currently sit >> If we look bad in matches it's because we are playing against better players >> >> Why do you keep saying its all Mick's fault? >> >> >> On 19 December 2011 09:55, Morris, Lee SGT <[email protected]> wrote: >> UNCLASSIFIED >> >> To be fair, Steve Morgan needs to address the situation too. >> >> Wolves perfromances on the pitch have shown little or no improvement, the >> manager has to be responsible for that. >> >> The big fear for me is, we change managers and still get relegated, and so >> it all starts again. >> >> IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and >> is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you >> have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the >> sender and delete the email. >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of Steven Millward >> Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 08:35 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Anyone watching? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >> >> Anyone read Soccernomics? I've read extracts but I've just ordered it. The >> author says that 90% of Premier league position is down to wages. >> >> I really don't understand why Mick is the scapegoat. He has the fourth >> cheapest wage bill and the team is fourth from bottom. >> >> If the fans really cared they'd offer to pay double the season ticket price >> to fund better players. >> >> Hmmm. >> >> >> On 19 December 2011 09:04, Paul Crowe <[email protected]> wrote: >> Spoke to me Dad last night, who is a season ticket holder in the Steve Bull, >> apparently Tuesday night against Norwich could be the "last chance saloon >> game" for MM. He reckons another loss would see the fans turn against him on >> mass! >> >> Paul Crowe >> Sales Manager - Asia Pacific >> >> ConTech (Sydney Office) >> >> PO Box 3517 >> Rhodes Waterside >> Rhodes NSW 2138 >> Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 >> Mob: 0406009562 >> Email: [email protected] >> Website: www.contechengineering.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of Morris, Lee SGT >> Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 8:01 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Anyone watching? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >> >> UNCLASSIFIED >> >> Apparrantly the fans left him alone this week. >> >> My season ticket holding mate seems to think many fans are resigned to >> the fact that his job is safe, but that can change very quickly. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Paul Hart >> Sent: Sunday, 18 December 2011 06:55 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Anyone watching? >> >> Did MM get any abuse ? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 18/12/2011, at 4:22 AM, "paul " <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > At least Doyle scored. >> > >> > Sent via BlackBerry(r) from Telstra >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: "mark worrall" <[email protected]> >> > Sender: [email protected] >> > Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:05:48 >> > To: <[email protected]> >> > Reply-To: [email protected] >> > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Anyone watching? >> > >> > Passing is atrocious. Henry needs to stop the 50 yard speculative >> > passes that go straight to Stoke players. Even the short easy passes >> > are going to their players. >> > >> > Stoke are the dirtiest team in the league. Nasty tackles, elbows, >> > shoving, etc even makes Berra look ok. I hope McCarthy calls them for >> > who they really are. And the tactics won them the match in the 2nd >> half. >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> > Behalf Of Marcus Chantry >> > Sent: Sunday, 18 December 2011 2:36 AM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Anyone watching? >> > >> > Bad scoreline now and we're creating nothing. >> > >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > >> > On 18/12/2011, at 3:03 AM, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Good scoreline but quality of game could be better, especially the >> > crossing. Fletcher hasn't been in the game which is surprising. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> > >> > -- >> > Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> > >> > -- >> > Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> > >> > -- >> > Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> >> IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence >> and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. >> If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact >> the sender and delete the email. >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
