I did say in response to Matt's question of "so anyone could run Man Utd then?" that it needs someone who has some experience of football management, which TC hasn't got. As Moxey said, it's no job for a novice.
I think we'd have had a good chance of staying up with Mick. We'd have had a good chance of staying up with another experienced manager too. As it is we're almost certainly down and back to square one trying to fight our way back in the Prem with the 15-20 other clubs who've been there before and are trying to do the same. Everyone that wanted him gone has to accept the consequences now. And the cult of mangerial change as the solution to all footballing problems continues. On 10 April 2012 14:07, Marcus Chantry <chant...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > Is anyone else sensing the irony that for most of the season we've been > arguing the point that managers have no impact/effect on the success or > failure of a football club yet here we are now trying to blame our current > predicament on the sacking of our manager. > > Our wages dictate that we should finish 17th but that now seems unlikely. > So I'm proposing that Moxey has been doing some creative accounting and > that our wages are actually the lowest in the league. > > Either way, Mick was not and is not the answer to changing our fortunes > for the better. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 10/04/2012, at 12:59, Steven Millward <millward....@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is a second question here, and that's was the money spent on > players and wages enough to survive in the Premier League for more than > three seasons? If yes, then it's McCarthy's fault, if he sanctioned every > player. If not then it's Morgan and Moxey's fault for not spending > enough. There have been quite a few players that have failed at Wolves in > the Prem but they were mostly small budget buys and the money was made up > on selling on. > > Apparently it was in Johnson's contract that he be captain. I wonder if > Mick sanctioned that? Doesn't sound like the sort of thing he'd do, but > more of a Moxey move in the contract negotiations to save a few quid. > > I can't wait for Mick's autobiography to find out what really happened. > I'm sure there have been a lot of odd dealings. I still believe that we'd > have picked up more points under Mick, as the whole episode has been very > destabilising for the players. > > Was talking to a few friends on the weekend and every one of them thought > it was a bad move getting rid of Mick and that he'd built a good side on > little money. > > On 10 April 2012 11:49, Marcus Chantry <chant...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > >> But TC has simply demonstrated that the players brought in by McCarthy >> aren't up to the task of playing I the premier league. TC is trying to flog >> a dead horse that was of McCarthy's making. Mick had lost the ability to >> motivate his troops to continue performing above their ability and by >> appointing Johnson as the captain he effectively divided the team. Those >> actions are not the hallmarks of a successful manager and we would still be >> in the same position if mick were still here. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 10/04/2012, at 11:41, mark worrall <markworr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> *NO* >> >> At least we had a fighting chance then. Now it needs a miracle. >> >> Sad thing is, even if TC did miraculously keep us up, he'll still be >> pushed aside for a name manager next season regardless. >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Parkes Jim - Sydney-MHA < >> jpar...@munichre.com> wrote: >> >>> YES**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >>> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 April 2012 10:31 AM >>> *To:* nswolves >>> *Subject:* [NSWolves] Decision**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Everyone still happy with the decision to sack Mick? **** >>> >>> -- >>> Boo! Curbishley out!**** >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> CAUTION: This message is intended only for the named addressee. It is >>> confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended >>> recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution is prohibited and may >>> be unlawful. By opening any attachment, you agree that the Munich Re Group >>> will not be liable for any loss resulting from viruses or other defects. >>> Any views in this message are those of the individual sender, except where >>> the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of the >>> Munich Re Group. The Munich Re Group will not be liable for any action >>> taken, or omitted to be taken, in reliance upon the contents of this >>> message. >>> >>> -- >>> Boo! Curbishley out! >>> >> >> -- >> Boo! Curbishley out! >> >> -- >> Boo! Curbishley out! >> > > -- > Boo! Curbishley out! > > -- > Boo! Curbishley out! > -- Boo! Curbishley out!
