New Manager / Coach Rumours

mav · Post by **mav** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 11:10 am

he didnt get rid of Bromby, his contract ran out, his playing contract that is*, he was coaching as he was to crocked to play again!

checking - his playing deal was changed into a coaching contract - no idea if this was still a fixed term?

*I am sure that was right!

Martyn · Post by **Martyn** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 11:18 am

mav wrote:he didnt get rid of Bromby, his contract ran out, his playing contract that is*, he was coaching as he was to crocked to play again!

checking - his playing deal was changed into a coaching contract - no idea if this was still a fixed term?

*I am sure that was right!

The announcement from the club was that he and Naylor had been made redundant. Therefore we can't employ anyone else in those roles.

mav · Post by **mav** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 12:25 pm

Guildford White wrote:Therefore we can't employ anyone else in those roles.

anyone who thinks this is true needs a reality check, change the job description and its done..........

gessa · Post by **gessa** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 12:33 pm

mav wrote:
anyone who thinks this is true needs a reality check, change the job description and its done..........

Not as simple as that mav,if you give someone a coaching role, how are you going to describe the position.
Bit of a minefield, as the links below prove.

http://www.redundancyexpert.co.uk/can-i ... ndant.html

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/ ... ice/517542

mav · Post by **mav** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 1:07 pm

gessa wrote:
Not as simple as that mav,if you give someone a coaching role, how are you going to describe the position.
Bit of a minefield, as the links below prove.

http://www.redundancyexpert.co.uk/can-i ... ndant.html

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/ ... ice/517542

I have seen it happen (and done it myself) where a pair of jobs shared responsibility for what used to be three roles, one of those made redundant went complained (ACAS??) and the redundancies were fine.

what I am saying is it does not take much and while immoral is done often.

andywatson · Post by **andywatson** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 1:12 pm

As I posted earlier, you can completely ignore the legal implications of redundancy as long as you are prepared to pay a level of compensation. Since this is often based on length of service, and not many footballers/coaches have especially long contracts then this shouldn't be excessive. However it does make a mockery of the money saving goal of the redundancies in the first place.

mav · Post by **mav** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 1:17 pm

andywatson wrote:However it does make a mockery of the money saving goal of the redundancies in the first place.

looking at the number of players we have right now it makes you question how much some of those that have left must have been paid if we no longer lose so much cash!

andywatson · Post by **andywatson** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 1:21 pm

Quite.

Also I was reading the official site earlier (trying to buy a pair of LUFC pyjamas without success for my son) and I noticed that of the 15 that came in only 4 have come with an option to buy- 11 are permanent. I was under the impression there were far more.

Perhaps he is not quite as canny in the transfer market as we have been led to believe.

Martyn · Post by **Martyn** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 1:44 pm

andywatson wrote:Quite.

Also I was reading the official site earlier (trying to buy a pair of LUFC pyjamas without success for my son) and I noticed that of the 15 that came in only 4 have come with an option to buy- 11 are permanent. I was under the impression there were far more.

Perhaps he is not quite as canny in the transfer market as we have been led to believe.

I'm not sure anybody ever led us to believe that he is so canny. He has said himself that he likes to buy players and often buys too many.

There is a lot of wishful thinking going on by those desperate to acclaim a new messiah.

Drs.Dad · Post by **Drs.Dad** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 1:54 pm

andywatson wrote:Quite.

Also I was reading the official site earlier (trying to buy a pair of LUFC pyjamas without success for my son) and I noticed that of the 15 that came in only 4 have come with an option to buy- 11 are permanent. I was under the impression there were far more.

Perhaps he is not quite as canny in the transfer market as we have been led to believe.

I'm not quite with you, Andy. Are you saying you were under the impression that Cellino had signed more loan players? If so, Cellino did sign more loanees, but as any team is only allowed 5 loan players, he had to make adjustments. Because he was openly trying to sign Pavoletti at the last minute, he had to make room, so Doukara's contract was made permanent so he was no longer on the list of loan players. I am pleased that all the loan players came with the option to buy, which Cellino himself stated (non) signing was the cause of all the upset over the "don't go to bed yet, boys and girls" controversy, which so many have taken umbrage at. I have to say that I wasn't annoyed, he was obviously trying to get the player and it didn't work out as expected, that's all!

Crude · Post by **Crude** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 2:11 pm

Drs.Dad wrote: I'm not quite with you, Andy. Are you saying you were under the impression that Cellino had signed more loan players? If so, Cellino did sign more loanees, but as any team is only allowed 5 loan players, he had to make adjustments. Because he was openly trying to sign Pavoletti at the last minute, he had to make room, so Doukara's contract was made permanent so he was no longer on the list of loan players. I am pleased that all the loan players came with the option to buy, which Cellino himself stated (non) signing was the cause of all the upset over the "don't go to bed yet, boys and girls" controversy, which so many have taken umbrage at. I have to say that I wasn't annoyed, he was obviously trying to get the player and it didn't work out as expected, that's all!

Stop being so reasonable, damnit, this is the internetz!

Drs.Dad · Post by **Drs.Dad** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 3:43 pm

Crude wrote: Stop being so reasonable, damnit, this is the internetz!

Sorry Crude, habit of a lifetime! Getting a bit long in the tooth to change much!!!

andywatson · Post by **andywatson** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:12 pm

Drs.Dad wrote:

I'm not quite with you, Andy. Are you saying you were under the impression that Cellino had signed more loan players? If so, Cellino did sign more loanees, but as any team is only allowed 5 loan players, he had to make adjustments. Because he was openly trying to sign Pavoletti at the last minute, he had to make room, so Doukara's contract was made permanent so he was no longer on the list of loan players. I am pleased that all the loan players came with the option to buy, which Cellino himself stated (non) signing was the cause of all the upset over the "don't go to bed yet, boys and girls" controversy, which so many have taken umbrage at. I have to say that I wasn't annoyed, he was obviously trying to get the player and it didn't work out as expected, that's all!

That makes perfect sense. I was under the impression from the various reports over the summer that we had bought most of these players on season long loans with options to buy. Then again there were a significant number of missed targets as well through summer (not a complaint- a fact of trying to buy so many), so I suppose if those were potential loanees then that would have inflated the perceived number.

Is a team, or a squad allowed 5 loan players- ie could we have 8 but only be allowed to field any 5 from that 8 at any time?

ldj90 · Post by **ldj90** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:52 pm

andywatson wrote:
That makes perfect sense. I was under the impression from the various reports over the summer that we had bought most of these players on season long loans with options to buy. Then again there were a significant number of missed targets as well through summer (not a complaint- a fact of trying to buy so many), so I suppose if those were potential loanees then that would have inflated the perceived number.

Is a team, or a squad allowed 5 loan players- ie could we have 8 but only be allowed to field any 5 from that 8 at any time?

It is my understanding that a team can field 5 loanees in their matchday squad. I don't think there is a limit on loans in the entire squad but realistically you wouldn't want more than 5 anyway if you couldn't field them all. I could be completely wrong though. I'm excited that we seem to be signing young players and look to be starting to build a footballing philosophy more than anything. The signings are unknown and untested so things could develop either way but i think cellino has made a good statement of intent even if he is bonkers

Drs.Dad · Post by **Drs.Dad** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:06 pm

ldj90 wrote:
It is my understanding that a team can field 5 loanees in their matchday squad. I don't think there is a limit on loans in the entire squad but realistically you wouldn't want more than 5 anyway if you couldn't field them all. I could be completely wrong though. I'm excited that we seem to be signing young players and look to be starting to build a footballing philosophy more than anything. The signings are unknown and untested so things could develop either way but i think cellino has made a good statement of intent even if he is bonkers

Half way there, only 5 loanees allowed in the matchday squad.
However, a team is allowed 4 loanees under 23 year old, and 4 over 23 yo, and no team can take more than 4 loan players from any one other team. This last rule was added after Watford drove a steam roller through the regs by borrowing 10 (I think) players from Udinese, who just happened to be also owned by Watfords owner.
I'm not much of a believer in conspiracy theories, but would like to have bet that if it had been Leeds involved, the FA and FL would have moved heaven and earth to stop it dead in its tracks, and not let it get to the stage where Watford almost got back into the Premier League by use of this artefact.

Twiggster · Post by **Twiggster** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:34 pm

I'll bet you'd be justified in that theory, Pete.....

ldj90 · Post by **ldj90** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:28 pm

Drs.Dad wrote:

Half way there, only 5 loanees allowed in the matchday squad.
However, a team is allowed 4 loanees under 23 year old, and 4 over 23 yo, and no team can take more than 4 loan players from any one other team. This last rule was added after Watford drove a steam roller through the regs by borrowing 10 (I think) players from Udinese, who just happened to be also owned by Watfords owner.
I'm not much of a believer in conspiracy theories, but would like to have bet that if it had been Leeds involved, the FA and FL would have moved heaven and earth to stop it dead in its tracks, and not let it get to the stage where Watford almost got back into the Premier League by use of this artefact.

Ah cheers

So we can't sign another young loan player under 24 this season. I'm sure you're completely mistaken re FL and FA

ldsutd · Post by **ldsutd** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:37 am

Where has the "New Manager / Coach Rumours" thread gone

lol

Martyn · Post by **Martyn** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:41 am

It's still here if you look carefully enough

Ryan_LUFC · Post by **Ryan_LUFC** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 12:19 pm

Steve Clarke rumours seem to be back on twitter and picking up a bit of steam. Ema Giulianelli is saying 24 hours is a long time in football.