|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 27, 2009 19:41:39 GMT
Or to put it another way: Is he going to be our Head coach for the first Game of 2009/10
1) Do you want him to be? 2) Do you think he will be?
And a supplementary: If we have a bad end of season, will Briatore take into account injuries/lack of strikers, etc when "assessing"?
I won't ask whether there will be any change with Paladini. I presume he will stay on as Sporting Director. And continue buying players.
|
|
|
Post by grumpyolde on Mar 27, 2009 20:51:16 GMT
Answer Briatore back !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 27, 2009 21:26:22 GMT
Dont Think its anything he will do or not do.,unless he walks. If Brie wants him to stay, he stays, if he wants him to go he goes. He will decide and only himself. Who knows what goes through the mind of Flav.. He has said he wants winners. This is my only clue.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Mar 28, 2009 9:39:51 GMT
If they were serious about winning they wouldn't bother with the manager at all, just get rid of all the players and replace them with footballers who've performed consistently in winning teams in the PL and the Champions League.
How many managers have we had since this lot arrived? Six? Seven? Is there any evidence they're serious about 'winning'?
QPR do win, of course, now and again, like most other Clubs. That's how the game works. You play a match against another Club, then another. In our league there are 24 Clubs. But you won't control the outcome of all those matches unless you control all those Clubs.
Controlling one won't make any difference to matches which depend equally on the performance of the other Club, still less all the matches which don't involve QPR at all.
Certainly, the odd Club performs consistently well. But the people running the Club don't know that it will. If they did, the Clubs in question would go on and on performing well, and there is no instance of any Club being successful all or most of the time. The most consistent period is the last 35 years, but when Liverpool were winning the League, United never did, and vice versa. And in the 90 years preceding, the title usually didn't go to Anfield or Old Trafford.
It isn't as if we appoint managers with an indisputable track record. Or any track record come to that. Let alone provide them with players we know will win.
And why does Briatore keep on about managers, if Briatore is a 'winner' himself? If we already have the key man, what else is required? Busby and Shankly, Ramsey and Clough didn't sign the best players. Like every other Club, they signed whoever they could get.
I suspect that changing the manager has little to do with winning, and a lot to do with the reality of the Club, keeping the supporters coming whether we're winning or not.
On that basis, they must discard managers regularly. Prolonged success is unlikely. And if they keep a manager whose record is no better than his predecessors, hope soon fades. We realise how poor the manager is, how poor the players are, and how little the directors know about anything.
But merely making changes creates another a buzz of anticipation, and months of debate which is actually fuelled by a lack of any track record anywhere in the Club.
Winning isn't something we do. It's something we assume. Then we start looking for winning qualities in the losers, and because they've been losers, it takes quite a long time to identify the hidden signs.
So I'd venture to suggest that 'not winning' is the driving principle. The present manager, whoever he is, is soon under threat because everything is normal, and under normal circumstances, the Club will be 'not winning'.
And it makes perfect sense, because the managers we appoint, the directors who make the decisions, and the players who've been signed, were 'not winning' when they arrived.
If they had been, they wouldn't be here.
Waddock had never managed the first team, Sousa wasn't even a manager, Gregory hadn't managed for years, Harford hadn't done it, Di Canio had no successes in England, Dowie had been on a losing streak. Mittal knew nothing about football, neither did Ecclestone, Briatore, Paladini, Zanotti, the Monaco boys, Blackburn, Davies, Wright, Thompson or Marler.
An impressive prospectus of 'not winning'. And off the field, it's just one long catalogue of losses. Even at the very rare Clubs which, otherwise, appear to be 'winning'. Losses now moving into the billions.
But the blue shorts will make a difference, I'm sure of that.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 28, 2009 9:55:07 GMT
A quality Ingham post.
White shorts next season will resolve the malaise.
We will all be "winners".
|
|
|
Post by grumpyolde on Mar 28, 2009 10:51:16 GMT
With this gang in charge never mind the white shorts - a white flag might be more appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 28, 2009 11:33:03 GMT
Unfortunately, if we start waving white flags/hankies/shorts/napkins/whatever FB will be delighted.
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 28, 2009 11:40:59 GMT
Well if they're bought from the club shop..
|
|