No...but she has my every sympathy. ;D
Printable View
I think we can conclude the rA has magnanimously decided to agree.
I concur that Lampard didn't necessarily leave the club in a "good" place, but then thats generally the case when a manager leaves and has been the story of Derby for many a season now, often when a new manager comes in whatever the merits of the squad he inherits, he tends to want players that he thinks suit his tactics.
For a club like Derby, challenging for the promotion and achieving a top 6 position is success, on that benchmark, Cocu has it all to do this season.
Only in your own mind, where apparently
1.A manager is judged by the team he leaves behind rather than by what the club achieved during his tenure
2. A transfer is apparently for long term gain to build a team, rather than immediate impact.
3. Signing a 34 year old striker is apparently a long term gain
4. A loan is not a type of transfer because its not permanent and the player will most likely leave the club at the end of the season
5. Lampard wasn't constrained by the transfer budget available and instead of loans should have bought players in to build a team
6. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Derby weren't constrained by FFP rules and this was somehow Lampard's fault
7. Does not seem to understand the reason for using loan players at a club like Derby.
8. Lampard was at fault for delaying his departure to Chelsea and this had an adverse effect on the club, despite you admitting you know nothing about why there was a delay and furthermore cannot actually provide evidence what the adverse effect was. (Assumptions about what players may or may not have been acquired are not evidence).
9. Managers have control over the transfer budget and in effect therefore Lampard could have chosen permanent transfers instead of loans and had total control over who came in or who left the club.
10. Makes assumptions about players who have left without any knowledge as to why they left, which after all could be due to a) Them wanting to leave, b) the need to get high earners off the wage bill, c) the need to raise funds for incoming transfers d) the manager doesn't think they are suitable for whatever reason
11. Thinks Carson going to Man City is evidence that he was worth keeping, ignoring the fact that a) he is there as a home grown player for the Champions League squad where one has to register 3 keepers and unlikely to play b) he would have been one of the highest earners at the club
And the Rams go 1 up at Bournemouth
A tactical change of subject when losing the debate �� GP summed it up well.
I know its boring when your argument has been comprehensively dismantled. But kind of good to acknowledge it, but hey ho clearly you are are deluded, in thinking your points held any substance.
Indeed Lampard didn't leave the club in a good place, but not for the spurious and unsubstantiated reasons your gave, but because the change of manager meant it was "all change" again for the club.
Lol...you won’t let it lie will you?
So...you accept Lampard ‘didn’t leave the club in a good place’ - my point entirely - ‘but not for the spurious and unsubstantiated reasons (I) gave’, ‘but because the change of manager meant it was ‘all change’ for the club’.
Hmmm...now remind me...who instigated the change of manager, who’s choice meant it was ‘all change’ for the club (again), who’s recruitment policy meant that we were left with huge holes in the defence, midfield and scoring departments and who has about a 40% success record in terms of the permanent transfers he made?
I’ll give you a clue...one name fits all.
We can go round in ever decreasing circles Swale and I’m not trying to change the subject, just looking for an ‘exit strategy’ from something that has become repetitively boring.
As I see it...Frank Lampard gambled with the future of Derby County. It came close to working...we got lucky on that wonderful evening at Elland Road and were then well beaten at Wembley by a side that had been much better than us all season. Had he stayed and continued to build he’d have my respect...but he didn’t...he dawdled off to pastures new, leaving us little time to find a replacement, even less time for that replacement to fill the gaps that FL’s strategy had left and, in your own words, ‘he didn’t leave the club in a good place’.
rA "just looking for an ‘exit strategy’ from something that has become repetitively boring."
Maybe blame Johnson instead of Lampard, then you would be on safer ground or at least be able cope with the repetitively boring nature of that debate...... Bradley that is of course.
Oh FFS! You really don't have a clue do you? You fail to answer any of the points I made in previous posts and continue with your weary refrain that it was all Lampards fault, this despite the fact that you seem to be the only one who lays the blame solely on him!
Your only looking for an exit strategy because your argument for laying a large portion of the blame on one person is patently untrue.
I've demonstrated in clear factual terms why your reasons are based purely on your own assumptions and you have failed to address any of those and where you do put forward a point it often contradicts what you said before.
Transfers are a long term gain for the club and building a team, how does Kazim-Richards fit into that definition?
So moving to another better paid higher status job is a crime? I guess you never did that in your life then? Opportunities come up when they do and one has to take them, what did you expect Lampard to do FFS! As you admitted you know nothing about the delay so saying its Lampard's fault is pure bull****! Plus how much "loyalty" is shown by clubs or fans when things aren't going well?
How the **** can you say Lampard gambled with Derby's future? How? By getting in loans? How was he supposed to build a competitive team under the financial constraints he was under?
So if he hadn't brought in loans and just managed with players he could buy under the budget and finished mid table you'd have been happy then?
You have no knowledge of the whys and the wherefores of why certain players left, its all assumptions, though again given the clubs FFP its not hard to see why certain high earners would be moved on a be replaced by players on lower wages.
So your blaming Lampard for the clubs transfer and wage budget then?
I thought you had a modicum of intelligence, but this debate has shown you don't even consider anything other than your own misguided prejudiced opinions. I expect that of others, but for you to just ignore the points I made and repeat your opinion is as you say boring!
The only reason why Lampard left the club in a bad place, as indeed did Rowatt was because it meant more change, but of course in your simple world people have an obligation to remain in one job even if what they perceive as a better one is offered to them?
Aye being consistently shown to be wrong is boring isn't it?