Pellegrini Confirmed as West Ham Manager (22.05.18) - already (September) there are doubters

1…34689…11

Comments

  • imagelostimagelost
    grey_til_I_dye said:

    That will probably do re: Brady.

    It's not adding anything to the discussion.

    Your right, only in one of films , a bit part actor
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    Image

    Feels like it is moving from humour to just nasty.
  • MIAHammerMIAHammer
    secrethammersfan said:

    Has anyone posted this?
    https://1.ftb.al/eUV0wnafgN
    Tl;dr Pellegrini agreed in November 2017 he would take over at West Ham, and has been discussing transfer budgets and targets since then.
    That would be a case of Gollivan acting like fans want them to.

    If it's true, I applaud them but why then go through the theatrics:
    - Interviewing other managers.
    - Gold saying he wants Moyes to stay.

    Just thank Moyes for getting the job done and announce Pellegrini. Unless we were talking to Pellegrini without the required permissions there was no reason for the antics.
  • imagelostimagelost
    grey_til_I_dye said:

    Image

    Feels like it is moving from humour to just nasty.

    ;ok
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Yes, I'm not sure what the 'smokescreen' was meant to be screening. It doesn't really fit with the remainder of the theory.

    I can, though, see that discussions with Pellegrini a while back might have led to a tentative agreement 'in principle' that if West Ham avoided relegation (and various other 'ifs') talks would be held again in the summer.

    Exploring other possible options (eg Moyes, Fonseca, Rafa) in case things didn't work out with Pellegrini seems to me to be sensible forward planning.

    I also don't really buy the line that Moyes wasn't given funds in January as part of the 'secret' strategy. Surely Pellegrini taking the job was contingent on us avoiding relegation.
  • imagelostimagelost
    You should always have some sort back up plan
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Hope for the best, plan for the worst ;ok
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    So Moyes was on to a loser no matter what happened, if he kept us Pellegrini takes over, if we were relegated he'd have been given the push.

    I actually feel sorry for him now
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    ASLEF

    Always assuming this report is true...
  • BarneyBarney
    Why was Moyes on a loser? he agreed a 6 month contract with no further commitment on either side; Did his job, got paid handsomely and the contract ended. He was then in competition with whoever else is available. That's life working on a contractual basis.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    grey_til_I_dye said:

    ASLEF

    Always assuming this report is true...

    And always assuming that our staying up was the only qualification for Pellegrini coming.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    Sadly it sounds all too believable...….
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    I think what also needs to be remembered is that Moyes was probably close the last chance saloon in terms of managing at the highest level, so the Dave’s took a massive risk in taking him on and arguably had more to lose than Moyes had it not worked
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    He was well paid for his 6 month contract and has, imo, improved his reputation somewhat.
  • Cuz1Cuz1
    But who sanctioned hugill then ?
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    edited May 2018
    Don't see the issue with signing Hugill.

    Sakho was determined to do the off, and we needed cover.

    We spent what we got for Sakho, and if/when we sell Hugill we've turned a profit.

    Striker is always the most difficult position to fill, and how many proven strikers were going to be tempted by 'we'd like you as 4th choice backup' in a team at the wrong end of the table?
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    its called "looking to your academy"
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    What is?

    And who would we have looked to?

    And what good would it have done them?
  • Cuz1Cuz1
    My point grey wasn’t a dig more on the IF our new manager had been sounded out prior to letting Moyes go, who’s decision was it to spend the money on him and not play him, I won’t judge the boy because he hasn’t been given a chance
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    I think in this instance we may as well have looked to the Academy.

    For the impact that Hugill had, there's an argument to say that any of our U23 or U18 forwards could have filled that role. There's probably an argument that a traffic cone could've done an equally good job.

    I know this is with hindsight, but £9m for a 4th choice striker with no PL experience and only an average record in the Championship does seem like a waste of money.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    I think in theory the Hugnil signing wasn't too bad as he was an effective championship striker that wasn't costing the earth at a time we needed back up. We couldn't maybe get a main striker in that window or maybe wanted to spend bigger funds elsewhere on a defensive midfielder (that didn't happen, I know), so on paper Hugnil looked a decent shout.

    Unfortunately, and for reasons we cant know, he must have seriously disappointed Moyes in training as he has failed to use him even when there were obvious opportunities to introduce him.

    I hope he will get an opportunity next season to take his chance as we bought him and he deserves a chance, which if he cannot take is down to him, but to be bought and not allowed a chance is quite harsh. I feel sure he has a decent contract compared to his Preston one but that will feel like small consolation when sitting on a bench when he could have been still playing each week for Preston.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    edited May 2018
    OCS

    It's not really a waste of money, unless he goes for free.

    He cost what we got for Sakho, so essentially a zero spend.

    Looking to the Academy, you were probably realistically looking at Martinez.

    He got almost as much game time in his first sub appearance for Valladolid as Hugill got all season (for us.)

    I'd say, in terms of development, it was better for him to be on loan and playing, than keeping the bench warm.

    Can you imagine the reaction if Sully had come out and said we weren't going to bother trying to replace Sakho?
  • Cuz1Cuz1
    Could be argued grey that they didn’t replace sakho because they didn’t play him, now I know sakho wasn’t playing either so hardly a replacement
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    We gave Martinez a chance in the FA Cup against Shrewsbury and Wigan, he played 220 minutes without scoring.

    He got booked within a minute of coming off the bench for his first Valladolid appearance (the new John Moncur?) and was booked in each of his next three appearances. He got a fifth yellow and missed a game suspended before he finally scored his only goal.
  • ianbishoplegendianbishoplegend
    Martinez doesn’t look that good to me, more of a seria B type player. Hugil was a wild card, would have loved to see more of him, but Moyes only had his eye on the prize.
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    You have to say, Sully has done really well. Especially if he has been quietly plotting all of this since November, and perhaps not even letting DG in on it!!
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    edited May 2018
    I think he did mention it to David Gold and since then David has just been expecting a job lot of sparkling water to arrive, still looking at his watch now.
  • LukerzLukerz
    EE68C3A5-6599-49BB-95EA-129EDD9081E1
  • MoojorMoojor
    Kids medium on the right...
  • MIAHammerMIAHammer
    We should have held out for Zidane ;whistle
This discussion has been closed.