- Status
Professor Toffee
On and on, over the hill and the craic is good
I'd never advocate clemency for anyone
Pay for the crime
Because he can take it.
Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector.
Koeman couldn't have made it any clearer that he wanted a centre forward and left sided defender going in to the last few weeks of the window. Therefore the blame needs to lie with Walsh and the board for not getting a deal over the line.
I'm by no means Koeman's biggest fan, I think his tactics and team selections this season have been poor. But not signing a replacement for Lukaku is disgraceful and somebody needs to be held responsible for it. Just as the manager will be held to account if our poor run of form continues.
I'm by no means Koeman's biggest fan, I think his tactics and team selections this season have been poor. But not signing a replacement for Lukaku is disgraceful and somebody needs to be held responsible for it. Just as the manager will be held to account if our poor run of form continues.
Aaron Mccoo
Player Valuation: £225k
Obviously Koemans fault. When Lukaku was sold the first thing that he should have done was buy a top class replacement. Simple as that. He was given money to spend and he blew it all on other positions.
Anyone mentioned new lawn mowers yet?
B17BLG
Player Valuation: £20m
I can see why you have so many votes in the "who's the biggest blert" thread.
Back off Gracey, those votes were hard earned.
billyblue80
Player Valuation: £70m
Koeman and Kenwright
Woolly Blue
Player Valuation: £80m
I'm entering the dark world of having an opinion on football, coming up with a pretty impressive title [I jest], making it a poll for god sake, and opening myself up to public scrutiny - do your worse
First off, i'll be honest and say the majority of this i've just copied and pasted from the Koeman thread, bar rearranging the order slightly i've said all this before but i'm interested to see the wider opinion.
-----
From a personal perspective I think Koeman is ultimately responsible for our lack of striker, he is clearly part of the process - signing, selling, and identifying players.
My argument is Koeman may not be the figurehead of this new DOF system, but he's quite clearly got influence in what happens.
With that in mind, why did he okay the sale of Lukaku without a replacement coming in first? Yes it's easy to be Mr Hindsight, but that failing lies with the manager - unless were going down the route the board have sold over the managers head?
It's been put to me Lukaku was promised the opportunity to leave, and in keeping him we would not have painted ourselves in good light to potential signings. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the same Lukaku who was 99.999999% signing (thou some will say now that was a ploy by his agent) & who Koeman continually talked up as wanting to keep regardless of the contract standoff.
You can also throw the fact Lukaku wanted out, he's wanted out for a good few years it doesn't stop him performing. Nor should we overlook it being a World Cup year, so if he was 'forced' to stay he'd have to perform regardless.
I also won't buy the excuse that Giroud was are main man and we were confident of signing him. Get the player through the door first, then okay the sale of your only centre forward.
You only have to look at 3 prominent 'transfer sagas' from this window to see we didn't need to sell.
Liverpool: Coutinho
Arsenal: Sanchez
Southampton: VVD
Saying all that Koeman must have been under the influence of Steve Walsh, and there has been broken promises from the board. Really? Ultimately if Koeman is the outspoken and honest manager he is portrayed to be, I'm sure he'd have said something contrary to what happened.
A fair few have also stated it is not Koeman's role to sign players, and if Steve Walsh wanted to he would have authority to sign without the managers agreement - correct me if i'm wrong but i've seen nothing of the sort said, unless i'm massively over-looking something. Either way i'll run with this theory, Koeman has already demonstrated If players signed were not of his ilk, he'll disregard them, similarly if a player was sold without his permission he'd say something.
As far as I'm concerned Koeman was the person who gave the okay for Lukaku to be sold without a replacement. You can speculate regarding promises, Girouds bird saying no, and anything else that pops into your head, end of the day its easy to be Mr Hindsight, but you wouldn't sell your house without having somewhere to stay lined up. Yet here we are having sold our only senior striker without a replacement through the door.
According to Moshiri's infamous TalkSport interview Koeman has the ultimate say, and rather conveniently the mention of promises made to another former player in John Stones is mentioned:
https://talksport.com/football/farh...w-stadium-star-manager-ronald-koeman-and-more
On selling John Stones to Manchester City and summer recruitment:
“The boy wanted to go. [Roberto] Martinez had promised him that he would go the following year. I still didn’t let him go until the manager said he could go. At the end of the day, I do what the manager wants. (...) The manager had seven names, and four of those we got.
----
I've little concern for him being sold (I lie I'd have kept him even if we'd signed another striker) but we really should have got a replacement in first. It was shortsighted and has left us with a massively disjointed team. I may be over simplifying things in your opinion, but why does it have to be complicated.
We've signed x,y,z okay so a,b,c are surplus to requirement either sell or use as squad rotation.
We've got an abundance of squad players that we don't need now, we'll bring through U23 players allowing the sale of them. We haven't got a striker yet, so we'll not allow the sale of Lukaku until we have.
One thing is for certain it is easy to throw blame around under this DOF system. That there lies the problem, the lack of justification for mistakes, is easy to shirk when so many fingers are in the same pie.
That said, clearly the problem is of our making, DOF systems work elsewhere but obviously a few cogs in our system don't.
And before you interpret that last sentence as calling Koeman a failing cog, far from it, but he shouldn't be absolved of blame.
Generally speaking it seems Koeman can't be directly responsible for anything negative, yet is given credit for positives, and anything in between we'll decided on a day-to-day basis. When in doubt throw comparisons to Martinez and Moyes about, that ought to sort the 'two faced fans' from one another.
Far from acting superior, why does everything have t fall one side or the other, why can't it be seen that Koeman can be blamed for his mistakes, the same way everyone else is seemingly held accountable but in differing orders of responsibility.
Your poll needs to be multi-choice mate, because , chances are, all of Koeman, Walsh and Moshiri have some blame attached to them.
R934
Player Valuation: £950k
Thinking about it now I'd say Koeman had ultimate responsibility for allowing the sale of players and i'd go as far as saying he has the final say over what players are signed.
Far from me to assume Steven Walsh identified the players Koeman was looking for, but something isn't working in my opinion; hence the disjointed nature of our team. Koeman can't continue to hide behind the lack of signings, Martinez was not give the same credibility even thou he requested numerous signings/positions whilst at the club. Paying £45mil for Glyfi, only to play him left of a front 3 isn't the smartest of moves, and that doesn't suddenly rectify itself with a number 9, so he can't be allowed to hide behind that excuse either.
Koeman has brought this short-coming on himself; sell whoever by all means but make sure a replacement is through the door first. It's obvious why the dreaded 'sell-to-buy' debate rumbles on, but then again you've the @theesk 's jazzy friend 'amortization' saying otherwise - who knows?
Anyhow, with all this extra pointlessness in mind my above poll question may not be correct - or another question could materialize: Who was responsible for allowing the sale of Lukaku?
I'd say the fact our recruitment is still being discussed 3 windows in says all that needs to be said. You may say it's nothing to do with us fans anyway, so why would it matter, i'd say to that Moshiri's numerous interviews have merely invited more questions then he may have wanted to answer.
Far from me to assume Steven Walsh identified the players Koeman was looking for, but something isn't working in my opinion; hence the disjointed nature of our team. Koeman can't continue to hide behind the lack of signings, Martinez was not give the same credibility even thou he requested numerous signings/positions whilst at the club. Paying £45mil for Glyfi, only to play him left of a front 3 isn't the smartest of moves, and that doesn't suddenly rectify itself with a number 9, so he can't be allowed to hide behind that excuse either.
Koeman has brought this short-coming on himself; sell whoever by all means but make sure a replacement is through the door first. It's obvious why the dreaded 'sell-to-buy' debate rumbles on, but then again you've the @theesk 's jazzy friend 'amortization' saying otherwise - who knows?
Anyhow, with all this extra pointlessness in mind my above poll question may not be correct - or another question could materialize: Who was responsible for allowing the sale of Lukaku?
I'd say the fact our recruitment is still being discussed 3 windows in says all that needs to be said. You may say it's nothing to do with us fans anyway, so why would it matter, i'd say to that Moshiri's numerous interviews have merely invited more questions then he may have wanted to answer.
Last edited:
B17BLG
Player Valuation: £20m
- Status
