|
|
Post by johnknee on Sept 23, 2010 18:56:26 GMT 1
The main point is that the Championship/Div 1 at that time was getting stronger and stronger with big teams falling out of the premiership, Leeds, West Ham, Sheffield clubs and so called lesser teams being promoted. i.e Wigan, Portsmouth etc. Hess was not given anywhere near the resources to compete and we were never going to survive at that level much longer. Those teams you mention are only relevant if we were competing for promotion. Since we were trying to avoid relegation, then you should be arguing that the weaker teams in the division had more resources than us and therefore we weren't capable of competiting. However, teams like Crewe and Brighton who finished directly above us had no more resources than what we did - and if I recall correctly, both were in financial trouble and Crewe only survived since they sold Dean Ashton for several million quid in January. Plus a load of players who were underperforming started to find better form once Ternant came in and changed things around. Plus it wasn't so much about a lack of resources but the questionable spending of those resources. Players like Smith, Ashby etc, although legends for the club didn't have the legs anymore. When their contracts ran out, they should have been released and used the freeing up of wages on younger, fresher, hungry players. If I could offer one critisism of Hess in his first spell, it was the fact he kept resigning his mates rather than moving them on. If Scally did bring back Hess because of personal reasons. good for him, I can't see any other buyers queuing up out side Priestfield to put their millions in. At least he believes Hess can turn the clubs fortunes round. Scally gets enough abuse from the supporters, so maybe he thinks at least I've got a manager I can talk to. What has bringing Hess back got to do with getting a new rich owner??? Or are you saying that any owner with a bit of cash would look to sign a better manager or  People can argue about the relative pros and cons of Hess and we can happily disagree since some of us are glass half empty and the rest half full, but the above statement is rediculous. You think Scally partly hired Hess so that he had someone to talk to? I know you don't mean it in the literal sense, but Scally has been critisised for about 15 years and has since disappeared to the middle east where he spends all his days topping up his suntan while 'seeking new finance' ;D Hess was resigned as a populist decision after Stimson. The new manager should have been picked on purely footballing reasons and not partly due to popularity aspects. |
|
|
|
Post by Greyfox on Sept 23, 2010 19:22:14 GMT 1
The main point is that the Championship/Div 1 at that time was getting stronger and stronger with big teams falling out of the premiership, Leeds, West Ham, Sheffield clubs and so called lesser teams being promoted. i.e Wigan, Portsmouth etc. Hess was not given anywhere near the resources to compete and we were never going to survive at that level much longer. Those teams you mention are only relevant if we were competing for promotion. Since we were trying to avoid relegation, then you should be arguing that the weaker teams in the division had more resources than us and therefore we weren't capable of competiting. However, teams like Crewe and Brighton who finished directly above us had no more resources than what we did - and if I recall correctly, both were in financial trouble and Crewe only survived since they sold Dean Ashton for several million quid in January. Plus a load of players who were underperforming started to find better form once Ternant came in and changed things around. Plus it wasn't so much about a lack of resources but the questionable spending of those resources. Players like Smith, Ashby etc, although legends for the club didn't have the legs anymore. When their contracts ran out, they should have been released and used the freeing up of wages on younger, fresher, hungry players. If I could offer one critisism of Hess in his first spell, it was the fact he kept resigning his mates rather than moving them on. If Scally did bring back Hess because of personal reasons. good for him, I can't see any other buyers queuing up out side Priestfield to put their millions in. At least he believes Hess can turn the clubs fortunes round. Scally gets enough abuse from the supporters, so maybe he thinks at least I've got a manager I can talk to. What has bringing Hess back got to do with getting a new rich owner??? Or are you saying that any owner with a bit of cash would look to sign a better manager or People can argue about the relative pros and cons of Hess and we can happily disagree since some of us are glass half empty and the rest half full, but the above statement is rediculous. You think Scally partly hired Hess so that he had someone to talk to? I know you don't mean it in the literal sense, but Scally has been critisised for about 15 years and has since disappeared to the middle east where he spends all his days topping up his suntan while 'seeking new finance' ;D Hess was resigned as a populist decision after Stimson. The new manager should have been picked on purely footballing reasons and not partly due to popularity aspects. As I said, we were only ever short lived in that division without massive investment, as were both the teams you mentioned ( Crewe and Brighton ) relegated the following year. Both with limited resources at that time. As for Scally, I was only trying to say, he owns the Club and he can employ whoever he wants until such times as somebody else puts up the money to replace him. Anyway, I think Hess is a very good manager. But only time will tell. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2010 21:07:12 GMT 1
I don't think what Hess did before is entirely relevant to now. He should be seen as a new manager 7 games into his regime.
However, to knock Hess's record before is being incredibly harsh.
1st 3 seasons, we finished 13th, 12th, 11th. Phenomenal for a team who'd never been in that division in their 100 year history. Does anyone think that wasn't good enough?
It wasn't only with Pulis/Taylor's players either. Remember, we'd lost SBT and would shortly lose Asaba due to injury and then transfer. They were key,key players and needed replacing. No easy task when they cost over £1mill between them, money the club didn't have anymore.
Now, in the first season, we had a little bit of cash and spent £250k on Marlon, £450k on Shaw & £250k on Hope. Just under £1mill. A decent outlay for a club of our size.
2nd season, only David Perpetuini was signed for money. A fee of £100k.
3rd season, only free transfers (though some were on good wages ie Johnson & Wallace)
4th season, Pouts signed for £35k, Henderson for a nominal fee & Agyemang for £175k, but we lost Marlon for £950k.
Final season, free transfers only, despite the loss of Henderson for £350k.
For those who accuse Hess of "only playing his mates" has it ever occured that the players he could attract on free transfers were probably "no better than what we already had." Not because Hess wanted to keep the same team together, but the free transfer market in 2003-5 wasn't what it is now. Bosmans attracted huge wages, clubs kept large squads especially in the Premier League and Championship and didnt let players go as they do now and bringing exciting players from lower leagues meant spending stupid money, which as shown above, we didn't have anymore. So, if Hess had let "his mates" leave on free transfers, he was left replacing them with free transfers on smallish (by championship standards) wages. I know for a fact that before his final season he went to Scally and told him the squad needed to be renewed as it had got too old. He was alarmed at the decline of the side in the 2nd half of the season (After Shaw's departure when we were on the brink of the playoffs) but either a) the money wasn't there or b) Scally wasn't listening as Hess wasn't allowed to make significant investment in the squad.
What I've always wanted to know from those who knock Hess's first spell is what they would have done to replace the squad when they were limited to mainly free transfers in a league where people were spending serious cash?
John's argument that stronger teams entering the division didn't matter as we weren't competing with them simply doesn't stack up. We needed to take points off Sunderland, Wigan, West Ham, Wolves, Stoke, Leeds, Leicester, Coventry, Forest etc to survive. West Ham (I think) signed Sheringham, Rebrov &Chadwick that season.
Despite the lack of cash, as mentioned above, Hess brought some quality players to the club during his reign, many cheap or free transfers.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnknee on Sept 23, 2010 22:00:48 GMT 1
*snip* It wasn't only with Pulis/Taylor's players either. Remember, we'd lost SBT and would shortly lose Asaba due to injury and then transfer. They were key,key players and needed replacing. No easy task when they cost over £1mill between them, money the club didn't have anymore. Now, in the first season, we had a little bit of cash and spent £250k on Marlon, £450k on Shaw & £250k on Hope. Just under £1mill. A decent outlay for a club of our size. It was a decent outlay although all three were linked to us when Taylor was manager and was on the wanted list when Taylor left and Hess came in. In terms of King especially, Hess was made manager in the afternoon and then next morning the signing of King was announced. I doubt Hess could have arranged a fee with Barnet, got King to have a midnight fitness test and then sign in the early hours of the morning. And both Shaw and Hope were also linked but took a bit longer to actually sign. There is a question mark as to how much credit Hess should get for the actual signings and that is why many say he inherited the great team. For those who accuse Hess of "only playing his mates" has it ever occured that the players he could attract on free transfers were probably "no better than what we already had." Not because Hess wanted to keep the same team together, but the free transfer market in 2003-5 wasn't what it is now. *snip* What I've always wanted to know from those who knock Hess's first spell is what they would have done to replace the squad when they were limited to mainly free transfers in a league where people were spending serious cash? I'm not sure on what the other doubter think, but I think part of the problem was Hess's lack of contacts in the game at that point. You only had to see the change when Ternant came in, called in a few favours from Blackburn etc and the 2-3 players he brought in on loan made a huge difference. The Bosman and loan system has always been about spotting the talent in the free transfers and having good contacts respectively. My mind is hazy now but there were numerous players who "were no better than what we have" who signed for other clubs and did well - almost certainly better than what we ended up with. Hess never gambled on cast offs from the likes of the Big Four (Man United, Arsenal, Liverpool and erm....) but instead gambled on the likes of Wallace, Johnson and Roberts etc. John's argument that stronger teams entering the division didn't matter as we weren't competing with them simply doesn't stack up. We needed to take points off Sunderland, Wigan, West Ham, Wolves, Stoke, Leeds, Leicester, Coventry, Forest etc to survive. West Ham (I think) signed Sheringham, Rebrov &Chadwick that season. Despite the lack of cash, as mentioned above, Hess brought some quality players to the club during his reign, many cheap or free transfers. What I mean is that at the start of the season, a manager would look at the fixtures and then mark 0,1 or 3 next to each match in terms of how many points they'd expect to get. So for an away match against one of the big teams mentioned, you'd probably mark zero points. At home, maybe one point. Anything better is a bonus. All the other teams at the bottom would have put zero points against those same big teams. In terms of avoiding relegation, the key to survival is winning the proverbial six pointers. Last season had we beaten the Transmeres, Stockports and Wycombes then we would have stayed up. We dropped a load of points against the bottom half a dozen teams. Had we not dropped so many points and even picked up a load of draws instead of wins, then even the wins against Leeds would have been irrelevant. And in terms of those big teams mentioned, we took 4 points off Leeds, 3 points against Wigan, Stoke etc. Mighty Forest finished below us, Coventry finished only 2 points ahead of us etc. We went down due to a failure towards the end to beat Crewe, Forest etc, not because of average form against some of the so called big teams... |
|
|
|
Post by jaggysnake on Sept 24, 2010 12:19:01 GMT 1
If Scally did bring back Hess because of personal reasons. good for him, I can't see any other buyers queuing up out side Priestfield to put their millions in. At least he believes Hess can turn the clubs fortunes round. Scally gets enough abuse from the supporters, so maybe he thinks at least I've got a manager I can talk to. I fail to understand how you've made that link with Scally there. I appreciate that there isn't anyone queueing up to plough their money in but that doesn't mean that I don't think he's made the right appointment. The simple fact is that the clamour of the fans to have him back has made a big difference on the decision to hire Hessenthaler again, and I think maybe Scally has made an error, but that's life. I'm not entirely blaming him for it, especially as he has backed him ridiculously by letting him build a huge squad. |
|
|
|
Post by baronnight on Sept 24, 2010 13:43:33 GMT 1
When we get 20,000 supporters every week then your moans might have some substance, even in this league our support only puts us in 6th or 7th place. League 1 and 2 are about our level for the size of club we are, harsh maybe but if you want Premiership football then your supporting the wrong team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greyfox on Sept 24, 2010 14:41:26 GMT 1
If Scally did bring back Hess because of personal reasons. good for him, I can't see any other buyers queuing up out side Priestfield to put their millions in. At least he believes Hess can turn the clubs fortunes round. Scally gets enough abuse from the supporters, so maybe he thinks at least I've got a manager I can talk to. I fail to understand how you've made that link with Scally there. I appreciate that there isn't anyone queueing up to plough their money in but that doesn't mean that I don't think he's made the right appointment. The simple fact is that the clamour of the fans to have him back has made a big difference on the decision to hire Hessenthaler again, and I think maybe Scally has made an error, but that's life. I'm not entirely blaming him for it, especially as he has backed him ridiculously by letting him build a huge squad. I refer to my answer a couple of posts above. However, Scally had given his support to Jepson and his full support to Stimson. Allowing the whole squad to be replaced within a few months and taking in every word, right up to the relegation last season. I think Scally was 100% convinced in thinking that Stimson was the manager to change the Gills fortunes around, right up to the last minute. But, and a big BUT. Andy Hessenthaler was always lurking in the background. He had over the years been a confident and personal friend of Scally ( no secret there ) and they have been closely linked throughout the time since Hess left as manager. It was obvious and It was just a matter of time before he came back anyway. I didn't say that other supporters can't have there own opinions to whether Scally has made a mistake or not in bringing him back. Maybe they will prove to be correct. I for one hope not. Gillingham need a bit of stability over the next few years and build up a stronger all round squad of players without all the egos getting in the way of progress. Andy's appointment seems about a 50/50 split on this site. Therefore it going to be a difficult ride for him over the next few months. But I think Scally is comfortable with the decision he's made and also after the last manager he feels ( rightly or wrongly ) that he has an reliable team of real Gillingham FC people in charge. As I said, unless there are investors out there who are prepared to take over the club, Scally will always call the tune. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2010 14:57:06 GMT 1
*snip* It wasn't only with Pulis/Taylor's players either. Remember, we'd lost SBT and would shortly lose Asaba due to injury and then transfer. They were key,key players and needed replacing. No easy task when they cost over £1mill between them, money the club didn't have anymore. Now, in the first season, we had a little bit of cash and spent £250k on Marlon, £450k on Shaw & £250k on Hope. Just under £1mill. A decent outlay for a club of our size. It was a decent outlay although all three were linked to us when Taylor was manager and was on the wanted list when Taylor left and Hess came in. In terms of King especially, Hess was made manager in the afternoon and then next morning the signing of King was announced. I doubt Hess could have arranged a fee with Barnet, got King to have a midnight fitness test and then sign in the early hours of the morning. And both Shaw and Hope were also linked but took a bit longer to actually sign. There is a question mark as to how much credit Hess should get for the actual signings and that is why many say he inherited the great team. I'm not sure on what the other doubter think, but I think part of the problem was Hess's lack of contacts in the game at that point. You only had to see the change when Ternant came in, called in a few favours from Blackburn etc and the 2-3 players he brought in on loan made a huge difference. The Bosman and loan system has always been about spotting the talent in the free transfers and having good contacts respectively. My mind is hazy now but there were numerous players who "were no better than what we have" who signed for other clubs and did well - almost certainly better than what we ended up with. Hess never gambled on cast offs from the likes of the Big Four (Man United, Arsenal, Liverpool and erm....) but instead gambled on the likes of Wallace, Johnson and Roberts etc. John's argument that stronger teams entering the division didn't matter as we weren't competing with them simply doesn't stack up. We needed to take points off Sunderland, Wigan, West Ham, Wolves, Stoke, Leeds, Leicester, Coventry, Forest etc to survive. West Ham (I think) signed Sheringham, Rebrov &Chadwick that season. Despite the lack of cash, as mentioned above, Hess brought some quality players to the club during his reign, many cheap or free transfers. What I mean is that at the start of the season, a manager would look at the fixtures and then mark 0,1 or 3 next to each match in terms of how many points they'd expect to get. So for an away match against one of the big teams mentioned, you'd probably mark zero points. At home, maybe one point. Anything better is a bonus. All the other teams at the bottom would have put zero points against those same big teams. In terms of avoiding relegation, the key to survival is winning the proverbial six pointers. Last season had we beaten the Transmeres, Stockports and Wycombes then we would have stayed up. We dropped a load of points against the bottom half a dozen teams. Had we not dropped so many points and even picked up a load of draws instead of wins, then even the wins against Leeds would have been irrelevant. And in terms of those big teams mentioned, we took 4 points off Leeds, 3 points against Wigan, Stoke etc. Mighty Forest finished below us, Coventry finished only 2 points ahead of us etc. We went down due to a failure towards the end to beat Crewe, Forest etc, not because of average form against some of the so called big teams... John, don't disagree with what you've said about Taylor having an input in the signings of King, Hope & Shaw. I have no doubt that he did. I used them to point out that in the early years, the money to a degree was still there (though these 3 signings were funded by the sale of SBT for £1.5mill). I was trying to show how the amount of money Hess had to spend dropped alarmingly and to expect him to make major changes on that kind of budget wasn't realistic. When Stan took over he signed 3 very good players in Flynn, McEveleley (sp?) & Douglas, but on absolutely huge wages. Wages that weren't available to Hess at the start of that season. Ultimately despite his outlay, he still failed (though I think he did a decent job). I don't think Wallace and Johnson were really a gamble. Salaries were paid in full by the sponsor and they were good players with good track records. I'm not sure their injury problems could have been foreseen when they signed, but certainly Wallace when he played was class for us. I understand what you're saying about trying to take points from the big sides, but the fact is you're going to need to if you want to stay in a league and you're going to have to spend on players/wages at least a decent percentage of their outlay to have a fighting chance. We were spending literally nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by johnknee on Sept 24, 2010 18:18:37 GMT 1
John, don't disagree with what you've said about Taylor having an input in the signings of King, Hope & Shaw. I have no doubt that he did. I used them to point out that in the early years, the money to a degree was still there (though these 3 signings were funded by the sale of SBT for £1.5mill). I was trying to show how the amount of money Hess had to spend dropped alarmingly and to expect him to make major changes on that kind of budget wasn't realistic. When Stan took over he signed 3 very good players in Flynn, McEveleley (sp?) & Douglas, but on absolutely huge wages. Wages that weren't available to Hess at the start of that season. Ultimately despite his outlay, he still failed (though I think he did a decent job). I don't think Wallace and Johnson were really a gamble. Salaries were paid in full by the sponsor and they were good players with good track records. I'm not sure their injury problems could have been foreseen when they signed, but certainly Wallace when he played was class for us. If you argue that the three signings of King, Hope and Shaw were purely down to Taylor and then look at all the signings afterwards, then there is an argument that Hess never really had any major money to spend. Which brings up the following argument depend on your view of Hess - on one hand you could say he did well without spending much money, but on the other hand that just shows how good the team he inherited was that it could hold its own for numerous seasons without a major overhall. You take the first view, whereas I take the later. In terms of the players Ternant brought in, I'm not sure they cost us that much in wages. I was under the impression their clubs paid a good percentage of their wages and were happy for them to get experience. In the case of Flynn, to get some match fitness. Wallace was less of a gambe as he had a good injury record and was class when fit. Tommy Johnson always had a questionable injury record and was a gamble. |
|
|
|
Post by kennygrimace on Sept 24, 2010 21:24:16 GMT 1
With friends like Jaggysname and Bigjon, who needs enemies!
AH did well at Dover, especially in his 2nd season and when sorting out the mid season crisis which saw DFC win 8 in a row and finish runners up to Newport who were miles ahead. but for hitting the bar 5 times against Woking I'm certain the'd be in the Conference now.
Circa 2000. AH was Player Coach under Taylor when we wnt up and learnt loads. To pretend that keeping GFC in Tier 2 for 4 years was someone elses achievement is nonsense. He brought good players in, deployed good tactics AND played for f**ks sake. When the money ( there was never much of this in fact) dried up Richard Hill, admittedly a coach and tactician who greatly helped Hess, was released and we were a Championship club with a virtual non-league management structure and support. Is it any wonder what followed.
AH came within a whisker of the Brentford job in 2006 and was beaten to the Aldershot job similarly by Gary Waddock in 2007. He would have done well at both clubs.
He is a better manager now than he was then and has had horrendous luck with injuries and selection since August. If GFC had won 6 out of 7 and were out in front at the top would we have these sort of posts bashing him?....erm......no!
Give the guy a chance. Consider everything and realise that we can't just walk moff with this division. I suspect we will be in a far stronger position come Xmas and will challenge for promotion ( and get it!) next year. As Kevin Keegan once said, " I'd love it" if that happens......." I'd love it".....
With friends like these.....................
UTG
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2010 22:43:46 GMT 1
John, don't disagree with what you've said about Taylor having an input in the signings of King, Hope & Shaw. I have no doubt that he did. I used them to point out that in the early years, the money to a degree was still there (though these 3 signings were funded by the sale of SBT for £1.5mill). I was trying to show how the amount of money Hess had to spend dropped alarmingly and to expect him to make major changes on that kind of budget wasn't realistic. When Stan took over he signed 3 very good players in Flynn, McEveleley (sp?) & Douglas, but on absolutely huge wages. Wages that weren't available to Hess at the start of that season. Ultimately despite his outlay, he still failed (though I think he did a decent job). I don't think Wallace and Johnson were really a gamble. Salaries were paid in full by the sponsor and they were good players with good track records. I'm not sure their injury problems could have been foreseen when they signed, but certainly Wallace when he played was class for us. If you argue that the three signings of King, Hope and Shaw were purely down to Taylor and then look at all the signings afterwards, then there is an argument that Hess never really had any major money to spend. Which brings up the following argument depend on your view of Hess - on one hand you could say he did well without spending much money, but on the other hand that just shows how good the team he inherited was that it could hold its own for numerous seasons without a major overhall. You take the first view, whereas I take the later. In terms of the players Ternant brought in, I'm not sure they cost us that much in wages. I was under the impression their clubs paid a good percentage of their wages and were happy for them to get experience. In the case of Flynn, to get some match fitness. Wallace was less of a gambe as he had a good injury record and was class when fit. Tommy Johnson always had a questionable injury record and was a gamble. Now come on John. Even with a good squad, are you suggesting than a below average manager would have kept us in that league for 5 seasons? It also misses the fact that very good players were signed by Hess on a very limited budget. Are you suggesting that the likes of Jason Brown, Mama Sidibe, Simon Osborn, John Hills and even Ian Cox in early seasons were anything other than excellent free transfers who formed a hugely important part of the side? (I always believe losing Ozzy was a big a loss as that of Shaw). I'd love to know how much the players Stan brought in were in, but the rumours I heard at the time were that they were on very significant money, Douglas especially. Remember Douglas & McEveley were at Premiership Blackburn and that Flynn was on good money at Wigan and his deal was miles too good to be renewed when it expired and he left for Blackpool. I'd put reasonable money on from what I heard that those 3 were on circa £10k a week, if not more. You also miss that fact that the key elements of that "very good team" had departed. We already lost SBT and Asaba would follow out the door shortly after along with Andy Thomson (yes Hess's fault as he didn't rate him oddly). Butters, Bryant and Pennock were gone by 2002 as was Iffy and I think Patterson & Edge went about the same time along with Ty Gooden. Hess's "mates" we were left with were Ashby, Smith & Saunders, but the main part of the promotion squad was gone by 2002 , yet Hess stil managed to keep us up? |
|
People can argue about the relative pros and cons of Hess and we can happily disagree since some of us are glass half empty and the rest half full, but the above statement is rediculous. You think Scally partly hired Hess so that he had someone to talk to?
