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 zink:
started with nowt though. grant has experience of international management as well.
I don't think that there is too much comparison between managing a multi-million pound team competing in one of the world's biggest leagues with managing a small international country. It's like saying a GP is qualified to do heart operations. Perhaps in theory, but they lack a lot of relevant experience.
i accept all of that, i just think it's a bit off that a team whose manager has no such qualifications (all be it now vastly experienced), is making such a fuss about grant. just my opinion.
Originally posted by zink:
i accept all of that, i just think it's a bit off that a team whose manager has no such qualifications (all be it now vastly experienced), is making such a fuss about grant. just my opinion.
Even though you're wrong, I forgive you, as you support the Wolves.
A small international country that iirc was unbeaten in 16 games before they played England, 2 of those games were against France. Really not that small tbh. It's all crap anyway. They'll just name Clarke as manager and Grant as assistant if they really do want Grant at the helm of the club permenently.
Originally posted by zink:
i accept all of that, i just think it's a bit off that a team whose manager has no such qualifications (all be it now vastly experienced), is making such a fuss about grant. just my opinion.
They are making 'such a fuss'.
All I've seen are reports that we are sticking to our position that rules are rules and there should be exceptions.
If when Fergie retires United announce 'we're replacing him with BBB' to 'p*ss off the scousers' and they say 'sod the qualifications' by all means have a pop.
Originally posted by Keyser:
<BLOCKQUOTE>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? </BLOCKQUOTE>
it's highly probable we're opposing special dispensation being given. your issue seemed to be that United had publicly expressed this opposition, which the BBC haven't even attempted to claim themselves.
Completely unrelated, but when did Keane get his qualifications? Wasn't much time between him retiring and taking over at Sunderland. Did he do it whilst still playing?
Originally posted by James07?:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by zink:
i accept all of that, i just think it's a bit off that a team whose manager has no such qualifications (all be it now vastly experienced), is making such a fuss about grant. just my opinion.
They are making 'such a fuss'.
All I've seen are reports that we are sticking to our position that rules are rules and there should be exceptions.
If when Fergie retires United announce 'we're replacing him with BBB' to 'p*ss off the scousers' and they say 'sod the qualifications' by all means have a pop. </BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you mean "shouldn't be exceptions"?
I never got why Roeder and Southgate got their exemptions. Roeder may have missed a year through illness, but he still had plenty of time to get his badges if he'd wanted to. And he didn't: he said at the time that he was quite happy coaching the Newcastle youth team and didn't want the main manager's job on a full-time basis.
And Southgate? What kind of an internatinoal career had he had for the last 4-5 years of his Middlesbrough career that had prevented him doing what - sya - Paul Ince or Roy Keane have done and getting the badges?
Linear Mode
