If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Originally posted by Fat Bhoy Tim:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by zink:
and when their own manager doesn't hold such qualifications.
doesn't count retroactively, so it's not an issue whether he does or doesn't. What's the point in the rule if we're just going to grant special dispensations to everyone? </BLOCKQUOTE>
i know he doesn't have to have it, but it's still a bit off to be going 'omg he must have this qualification' when sir alex doesn't.
They're not saying 'OMG he must have this qualification'.
A rule was introduced, where it was specified that every manager must either hold either this qualification, or for a specified period of time an appropriate amount of relevant experience in lieu of the qualification, which incidentally is absolutely standard when proffessional bodies introduce new regulations like this.
So all United are saying is that the rule must have been introduced for a reason, so we'd like you to stick to it please, rather than simply granting an exemption to everyone who asks for one. I don't see what's wrong with that stance?
Originally posted by zink:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Fat Bhoy Tim:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by zink:
and when their own manager doesn't hold such qualifications.
doesn't count retroactively, so it's not an issue whether he does or doesn't. What's the point in the rule if we're just going to grant special dispensations to everyone? </BLOCKQUOTE>
i know he doesn't have to have it, but it's still a bit off to be going 'omg he must have this qualification' when sir alex doesn't. </BLOCKQUOTE>
Is it ********, he's been in his job for over 20 years ffs. The dude has no experience of head coach/managerial experience in the English leagues. That's why the likes of MON were granted the right to have a quick refresher course instead, because he'd been a premiership coach previously.
Originally posted by Keyser:
it's a bit mealy mouthed of United to make public that they'll oppose any special dispensation given when he hasn't even had chance to gain the qualifications.
it would be, but as far as i see they haven't?
don't see why we're opposing it anyway, have a feeling Grant's tenure will a) be hilariously inept, and b) be pretty damn short anyway, so why hasten the arrival of a competent, reputable coach?
Originally posted by Nick OGS20:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Keyser:
it's a bit mealy mouthed of United to make public that they'll oppose any special dispensation given when he hasn't even had chance to gain the qualifications.
it would be, but as far as i see they haven't?
don't see why we're opposing it anyway, have a feeling Grant's tenure will a) be hilariously inept, and b) be pretty damn short anyway, so why hasten the arrival of a competent, reputable coach? </BLOCKQUOTE>
BBC making it up, I suppose?
Plus, they opposed Roeder and Southgate. Problem is, I can't see what harm it does. Nor can I see what business it is of anyone else except the FA & the coach in question.
Originally posted by Qolumbo:
I don't understand why ManU are against this. Surely it would only be to their advantage if someone incompetent was in charge of one of their rivals.
Christ, you don't think they could actually be demonstrating that they have at least some form of principles?
Originally posted by James07?:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Qolumbo:
I don't understand why ManU are against this. Surely it would only be to their advantage if someone incompetent was in charge of one of their rivals.
Christ, you don't think they could actually be demonstrating that they have at least some form of principles? </BLOCKQUOTE>
Linear Mode
