Bring back Stuart! (Now with Poll)

Yeah but that's not what you said.

You said Aberdeen had a budget 5 times the size of Motherwell?

 

I agree. So when did they make an extra million quid from 1 game?

 

Becuase the team that finished 2nd got

jeez, because the game was worth 1m more to the team that finished 2nd in prize money/

 

Your list showed £300k?

 

Ye that was SPFL Share when they finished 2nd the year before they got SPL share which was 5% more.

Not including euro campaign money (gates) they received funds from celtic in europe. As money is then shared between the country co-efficent. The game was worth 1m.

Co efficent is based on league position.

 

He was full time manager at Oldham, after the Scholes debacle, but resigned for personal reasons. He had already been caretaker manager and in 8 games, won 4 and drew 3.
After a short break, he joined up at Halifax. Got a win strike rate at 49% but only from 50 odd games as a manager, roughly a full seasons worth.

I dunno about monitoring him. I would be inclined to take a look now. He may be inexperienced but he's sure getting something right. The key, is the right team and patience around him.

A bit like Graham Potter. His journey at Oosturend from 4th division to Sweden top league in 6/7 years (can't remember actual years) with Swedish Cup and Europe league qualification is testament that it can be done. He's now back in the UK and you don't need me to tell you of his success here.

Like any manager coming on board, it's a gamble.

 

What's 5% in monetary terms though? Forget about percentages, I just want to see the £s

I can't see anywhere that said it was worth that much? The accounts show that the turnover went up by £650k between the two years and that includes the additional earning from playing the Champions League games.

How you getting on with Aberdeen having a 5x bigger budget or do you just want to admit you were wrong?

 

It's a gamble, feels like a 'good' gamble, but managing a club like City means managing 'bigger' players, managing the crowd, etc, etc, to be fair we all know it's a massive job and I think that's why City have largely hired proven names rather than potential.

I guess the club would get a feel for him during the interview process, but then we're back to doubting whether the club's leadership would really be able to identify a good, up-and-coming manager?

Has Rhodes ever taken a legitimate risk in a managerial appointment (Stuart doesn't really count as a legit gamble given his history here)? It doesn't help that when Rahic did, it was an unmitigated disaster...

 

FFS m8, I said 5* budget not as a multiplication as in 5* budgets that were higher.

This is getting boring you dont rate, I do. U dont think stats count, I do. You dont think he has had an achievement at Motherwell and City I do.

 

the champions league was not in 2013/14 game when he beat Aberdeen in last game of the season. FFS M8 this is boring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Motherwell_F.C._season

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motherwell_F.C._in_European_football

 

Nope. You said he finished above teams that had 5 times his budget. That's not 5 budgets.

"so finishing above teams that had 5 times his budget like Aberdeen in 3 seasons in a row is not an achievement?"

It was boring a long time ago.

I don't think he won a million pound game. You claim he did. He didn't. It's okay.

 

I didn't say it was.

 

You used the champions league accounts year?

when motherwell released details in 2014 regarding finshing second they spoke of the 900k shortfall from previous year due to revamp.

1. 17.0% (was 17% last year)

2. 10.5% (was 15% last year)

3. 9.5% ( was 9.5% last year)

MOTHERWELL MADE a loss of £184,500 last season, partly as a result of securing their best-placed finish in the league for 18 years.

The club told shareholders at Monday night’s annual meeting that a mid-season redistribution of wealth among Scottish Premier League clubs had been one of the major factors in posting the deficit.

The club honoured “generous” bonuses to players based on pre-season agreements despite the prize money for second spot being cut by about £900,000 in January.

 

I don't know what you're diverting from.

None of that shows they made £1m more from winning the game? It's okay though. We'll file that claim next to the one that Aberdeen had a budget 5 times McCalls budget.

 

your the one that has twisted the thread, I stated the mccall had done well at Motherwell. Used to stats to show.

You said stats were pointless. Yet used stats to argue your point.

You then use a typo when I stated he finished higher than 5* meaning 5 clubs inc Aberdeen. You referenced this to 5 multiplication. I then show you accounts that shows 2nd place dropped 900k from year before. Where McCall finished again 2nd.

At the end of the day you dont rate, I do

Out of interest do you rate Bowyer better? Or will you continue to use the promotion stat. Despite being ignorant to realise there is no promotions in the top divisions. Europe is the reward.

See I could counter argue how many times has Bowyer lead a team to Europe?

You also said he never won a pressure game. I showed a pressure game on the videp above, but hey you rate playing lge 2 teams more pressure then fine.

But hey I twisted the thread. lol

 

When villa played Derby last year it was classed as £200 million pound game as that is what it was worth to the winner but they didn't actually win that for that certain game.

 

I know, why is it relevant?

I know Villa guaranteed themselves £200m because they won that game.

It was claimed that Stuart won a game which earned Motherwell an additional £1m and therefore I should count it as a critical game. I can't see anywhere that says they earned that amount because they won it, not that it particularly matters to be honest.

 

If using stats does not mean a manager was successful if it is very high according to some

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bradford_City_A.F.C._managers

does the same argument stand when the manager stats were low?

So Wetherall, Jackson, Grayson etc who have a low win% cant really be classed poor with this analogy?

Just trying to work out what's the point if stats are not an indication of a managers performance.

If someone can point SKY of their wisdom maybe a new concept will be more rewarding. Let hear it.

But please dont use stats to counter the debate. A new analogy required.

ps Can someone explain why there is no promotion in the elite leagues, Im lost fighting this 1.

 

Can't argue with the numbers, yes, but better define the numbers one is using, and state the context. In what follows, managerial records at City only.

McFarland *is* in the 3-points for a win era; his first two matches in charge, a win and a loss, were under the previous system, but the 81/2 promotion season was the first with 3 points for a win. His winning %, for 64 league matches, was 54.69%, and his points-per-match 1.89 (if you give 3 for the one win under the old system). It gets even better if you add in cup matches; his record there was truly outstanding: 12 wins out of 20. In total, then, for 84 matches his win % was 55.95.

For all the good things Stuart did with us and for us, he never got close to a 50% winning percentage in the league, and his record in the cups is not good. In the League, for 198 matches, we get winning %s of 0% (as interim manager), 36.13% (first spell), and 45.45% (second spell), for a total in the league of 39.39%, and a points-per-match of 1.46. In cup matches, though, he only wins 11 of 29. Then there's the 1 win out of 3 in playoff matches. In total, then, for 230 matches, his win % was 39.13%. This does put him into the upper tier of managers we have had overall, not just in the 3-points-for-a-win era.

Stuart did show steady improvement, and had a much longer run with us than McFarland. But, no promotion(s). It would have been interesting to see if McFarland could have kept up his stats over more than one full season and two bits -- and in a higher division.

Would I like to see Stuart back? Heart says yes, but head says no. I think the quality of football would certainly improve, the mood amongst us as well, but I don't think he'd work as a long-term solution. A better role would be in the club's administration, with maybe some outreach/PR work added, and perhaps giving the current players a "masterclass" or two every now and again.

RCB

 

yes or no, in his second spell has stuart got the highest win% and points per game since McFarland? Not including temp managers ie 2 games in charge etc Answer for league only or all games makes no difference.

It would answer a large responce quickly. Just a Y or N