Bill Foley

DJ said:
Well, maybe you could look at it from the angle. Equally if we had made a permanent appointment with a real long term view in mind then maybe we’d be six months preparation set, new manager philosophy already ingrained in the current players, more joined up transfer policy set etc.

The appointment of Iraola doesn’t sound like this was the plan all along, it sounds from the talksport interview to have been more opportunistic.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't it sound like Iraola was the plan? Bill said they held discussions with him previously and they re-opened them recently when he was available. Clearly O'Neil wasn't the plan - they gave him a short-term contract and then sacked him.

Tbh it sounds incredibly 'the grass is greener' to say we should be ahead of where we are now. It went as well as anyone possibly could have expected yet it's still not good enough?
 
DJ said:
Not sure why I’m wading in, already regret it. But. I still don’t believe O’Neil was the only option when he was made permanent.

Was/am a big fan of his as a coach, but getting the gig on the back of the Everton week was poor. Not O’Neil’s fault and he grabbed the opportunity with both hands and probably couldn’t have done any more. But he shouldn’t have been in that position in the first place.

One win in eight before the Everton week. That’s sackable form not made permanent form.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was the only person interested back then , but perhaps the more experienced candidates (who were actually interested in joining us back then....), didn't quite sit right with the board/mgmt team, or didn't impress enough/give confidence, so on balance the board elected to stick with GON until the summer.

I don't think GON was ever in the plan beyond this summer unless he somehow proven himself to be the next Howe.... which was always going to be Extremely unlikely imo.

I expect Iraola indicated last year he may reconsider his options this summer. I also expect we had several other options on our shortlist to approach (again?). Whether Iraola was number 1 choice we'll likely never know, but I expect he was in the top 3 over the past 9 months or so. He seems to be highly regarded and I doubt we could realistically have made a better, more exiting appointment given our stature.

Maybe some may argue/prefer Bielsa. But from what I've read about Iraola, he sounds a great appointment in theory. Way he plays, attitude etc. And personally I'd prefer thst snd someone younger over a Bielsa, who would likely cost a lot, have certain 'ways'/demands and is very much at the tail end of his career... does he still have same energy, drive, hunger - particularly when coupled with big/excessive demands.
 
Last edited:
SlowDownDerek said:
Why doesn't it sound like Iraola was the plan? Bill said they held discussions with him previously and they re-opened them recently when he was available. Clearly O'Neil wasn't the plan - they gave him a short-term contract and then sacked him.

Tbh it sounds incredibly 'the grass is greener' to say we should be ahead of where we are now. It went as well as anyone possibly could have expected yet it's still not good enough?
Click to expand...

I’d have to listen to the interview again, but that was my first take listening yesterday. It was more of an opportunistic move rather than one long-term master plan made in November waiting for him in July.

Points like we never approached him formally previously, discussing it internally for 3 days before making an unanimous decision. Just doesn’t point towards this having been the plan all along. But obviously I don’t know that as a fact or anything.
 
DJ said:
I’d have to listen to the interview again, but that was my first take listening yesterday. It was more of an opportunistic move rather than one long-term master plan made in November waiting for him in July.

Points like we never approached him formally previously, discussing it internally for 3 days before making an unanimous decision. Just doesn’t point towards this having been the plan all along. But obviously I don’t know that as a fact or anything.
Click to expand...

I think the board started looking for a new manager when we didn't show up for the last 4 matches of the season and the disappointing style of football we were playing.
As Bill said he wants the team to play a different style of football from what O'Neil was delivering and he hadn't proved himself enough (yes he kept us up which we and Bill appreciate him for) but was concerned that the summer (pre season and transfer window) would be wasted having him still in place during this period which can have a massive impact on the first half of the season until January transfer window.

Bill said this decision could be a risk and if it doesn't work he will hold his hands up and take the blame. In my opinion sacking O'Neil is a smart move in a football and business point of view. The next 8 weeks are the building blocks for the season and if you decide to sack your manager 3 weeks in to the season you have wasted the preseason and transfer window.
 
DJ said:
I’d have to listen to the interview again, but that was my first take listening yesterday. It was more of an opportunistic move rather than one long-term master plan made in November waiting for him in July.

Points like we never approached him formally previously, discussing it internally for 3 days before making an unanimous decision. Just doesn’t point towards this having been the plan all along. But obviously I don’t know that as a fact or anything.
Click to expand...

He said the 'football staff' spoke to him last fall but didn't make a formal approach - presumably because he made it clear he was not leaving during the season. He said they'd kept in contact with him then recently made the unanimous decision to approach him. Loads of significant clubs were after him so they felt they had to act if they wanted him.
 
Lots of factors in the mix around the better defined style of play, a candidate on the list for a while becoming out of contract, someone who might pull more interest from transfer targets etc - taking all that onboard.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that, having seen the players down tools having reached 39 points and O'Neil saying we were safe... We've gone from Gary a manager the players 'liked' by all accounts, was formally closer to them as coach, to an outsider who is by all accounts more a taskmaster, and more (outwardly) demanding of players.

Not saying it's the reason, but I wonder if that was in the mix as well.
 
northstandmark said:
Lots of factors in the mix around the better defined style of play, a candidate on the list for a while becoming out of contract, someone who might pull more interest from transfer targets etc - taking all that onboard.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that, having seen the players down tools having reached 39 points and O'Neil saying we were safe... We've gone from Gary a manager the players 'liked' by all accounts, was formally closer to them as coach, to an outsider who is by all accounts more a taskmaster, and more (outwardly) demanding of players.

Not saying it's the reason, but I wonder if that was in the mix as well.
Click to expand...
Those last four games could have been different, but we just didn't seem to try.
 
DJ said:
Well, maybe you could look at it from the angle. Equally if we had made a permanent appointment with a real long term view in mind then maybe we’d be six months preparation set, new manager philosophy already ingrained in the current players, more joined up transfer policy set etc.

The appointment of Iraola doesn’t sound like this was the plan all along, it sounds from the talksport interview to have been more opportunistic.
Click to expand...
You are 100% correct but you are arguing against someone who has always believed it was impossible for a huge variety of ever changing reasons to appoint someone decent for the future in our last four goes at it
 
Neil Dawson said:
You are 100% correct but you are arguing against someone who has always believed it was impossible for a huge variety of ever changing reasons to appoint someone decent for the future in our last four goes at it
Click to expand...

You are 100% guessing based on personal grievances. Laughable.
 
Neil Dawson said:
I’m 100% guessing that our last four appointments weren’t long term ideological fits?

And I’m the laughable one ….
Click to expand...

Two of them clearly were, one of which was a success (the other hasn't started). Both temps did a very good job too.

Anyway. It's been done to death and your entire AFCB opinion over the last three seasons since your mate's car parking space was stolen can be summarised as follows....

If it's good it's down to Howe or Bill Foley
If it's bad it's down to Blake and Hughes.

Let's not kid ourselves about Iraola. The first time we conceded direct from a corner he's going to be Blake and Hughes' guy all of a sudden and if he fails it will be 100% their failure. Any decent signing is Iraola's and/or Foley's and all the failures including existing players that he might not fancy will be branded terrible signings (Howe signings that he doesn't fancy will be ignored).

I can't wait.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Two of them clearly were, one of which was a success (the other hasn't started). Both temps did a very good job too.

Anyway. It's been done to death and your entire AFCB opinion over the last three seasons since your mate's car parking space was stolen can be summarised as follows....

If it's good it's down to Howe or Bill Foley
If it's bad it's down to Blake and Hughes.

Let's not kid ourselves about Iraola. The first time we conceded direct from a corner he's going to be Blake and Hughes' guy all of a sudden and if he fails it will be 100% their failure. Any decent signing is Iraola's and/or Foley's and all the failures including existing players that he might not fancy will be branded terrible signings (Howe signings that he doesn't fancy will be ignored).

I can't wait.
Click to expand...
That’s my favourite post of yours ever as it sums you up. No points of your own and a complete flight of fantasy of what your prediction of someone else’s thoughts are with some belittling comments thrown in.

Parker wasn’t an ideological fit for us, he was a success in your determination of it as he got promoted. It’s perfectly reasonable to believe someone else could have got that squad up and built a vision on it that didn’t involve slagging them off every week. Unless of course Parker was some miracle worker.

These are my opinions. Not anyone whose car park spot has been stolen?!?. You should respect that people can arrive at a different opinion to you. I respect yours.

They’ve had four goes at finding a fit and are now on their fifth. A fifth that was kind of thrust upon them by a new owner if the press statements it was an owner not a club decision are correct of course.
 
Neil Dawson said:
That’s my favourite post of yours ever as it sums you up. No points of your own and a complete flight of fantasy of what your prediction of someone else’s thoughts are with some belittling comments thrown in.

Parker wasn’t an ideological fit for us, he was a success in your determination of it as he got promoted. It’s perfectly reasonable to believe someone else could have got that squad up and built a vision on it that didn’t involve slagging them off every week. Unless of course Parker was some miracle worker.

These are my opinions. Not anyone whose car park spot has been stolen?!?. You should respect that people can arrive at a different opinion to you. I respect yours.

They’ve had four goes at finding a fit and are now on their fifth. A fifth that was kind of thrust upon them by a new owner if the press statements it was an owner not a club decision are correct of course.
Click to expand...

Genuine question, what do you mean by an ideological fit?
 
Neil Dawson said:
That’s my favourite post of yours ever as it sums you up. No points of your own and a complete flight of fantasy of what your prediction of someone else’s thoughts are with some belittling comments thrown in.

Parker wasn’t an ideological fit for us, he was a success in your determination of it as he got promoted. It’s perfectly reasonable to believe someone else could have got that squad up and built a vision on it that didn’t involve slagging them off every week. Unless of course Parker was some miracle worker.

These are my opinions. Not anyone whose car park spot has been stolen?!?. You should respect that people can arrive at a different opinion to you. I respect yours.

They’ve had four goes at finding a fit and are now on their fifth. A fifth that was kind of thrust upon them by a new owner if the press statements it was an owner not a club decision are correct of course.
Click to expand...

Yeah other than the points I made I suppose I didn't make any points.

Parker was as ideological and long-term as the owner required. Demin's long-term strategy was apparently to get promoted then sell the club, which they nearly achieved first time of asking and did achieve under Parker. That is a success and I'm fairly certain Demin would agree hence Blake's ludicrous wages. Suggesting that there should have been a long term plan when the owner wanted out is silly. The long-term plan has now completely changed.... because the owner has changed.

They are on their second go. The first one achieved his objectives and now they have moved to a long term option, as long as he succeeds. It is disingenuous in the extreme to gloss over an ownership change.

I 100% stand by my predictions on what you are going to say if Iraola fails. I would put my house on it. Mind you I reckon Blake may well have been moved on by then.
 
Last edited:
USCherry said:
I always thought that Parker was their first choice, similar to AI not available so waited. He only got sacked because he pissed off the owner.
Click to expand...

Pure speculation but I reckon Foley was sniffing around and wanted a new manager before completing the takeover, hence the De Zerbi approach. Parker was probably increasingly aware hence the bizzare comments in the media. Plan A was probably keep Parker until a better fit for Foley's plans could be found but Parker forced the issue.

No manager that Foley rated enough was available so keep O'Neil and work on alternatives as the season went on.
 
What is a successful manager?
Success at all costs or providing entertainment?
It's a balance. We've been spoiled for many years as we've seen both with Eddie. (Not always).

The focus is on financial success now. Entertainment will come second. Staying on the PL is the priority. There are a handful of established teams, 7 I reckon.

The rest are there to make up the numbers. What's the longest any team has stayed in the PL outside of those 7? Good question. I'll check.

6 have played in all 32 seasons and after that it's
Newcastle 29
Villa 29
West Ham 28
Man City 27
Southampton 24
Blackburn with 18

Then it's everyone else. It's an interesting list.

List of Premier League clubs - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

To reach 10 consecutive years would be a huge achievement.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Yeah other than the points I made I suppose I didn't make any points.

Parker was as ideological and long-term as the owner required. Demin's long-term strategy was apparently to get promoted then sell the club, which they nearly achieved first time of asking and did achieve under Parker. That is a success and I'm fairly certain Demin would agree hence Blake's ludicrous wages. Suggesting that there should have been a long term plan when the owner wanted out is silly. The long-term plan has now completely changed.... because the owner has changed.

They are on their second go. The first one achieved his objectives and now they have moved to a long term option, as long as he succeeds. It is disingenuous in the extreme to gloss over an ownership change.

I 100% stand by my predictions on what you are going to say if Iraola fails. I would put my house on it. Mind you I reckon Blake may well have been moved on by then.
Click to expand...
It’s not their second go. At every point they changed a manager they could have appointed the right person. Amateur. They even gave JT a transfer window then fired him before he could play the signings he thought he needed.

As for Iraola, I’ve suggested he come for two years. Who knows if it works out as it’s an undoubted gamble but I’m hardly going to be blaming Blake and Hughes for having a punt on someone I’ve been campaigning for am I!? Happy to give 200 quid to a charity of your choice if I have a go at them for this appointment at any time in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;