Slot To Be Fired?

[Steveo]

I'm busy Steveo.

I was joking as you know.. But seriously...

In my tiny brain I see why they created this new setup. Out of panic to try and cover all the work Jurgen did - they have made 3 roles. 2 of them get in the way of the one that counts. THIS is why Xabi aint coming. This is why we are likely to be as middling or worse than we were under Brendan. Qualified for the CL season - almost - and purely by luck

[jozza800]

Why don't you apply jozza..? Seriously - it seems so simple to fix....



...Or maybe we pull in Roy Evans?

Not keen on the Allcott fellow, but the other lad picks up on a lot of the tactical issues that we currently have.

[teesred]

There's an article on the BBC with a quote from Rory Smith who says he knows/thinks they didn't go for Alonso because of fear he'd yield too much power through bring a fan favourite. FFS.
Obviously a pre-requisite for the job.

[Crimson Dynasty]

There's an article on the BBC with a quote from Rory Smith who says he knows/thinks they didn't go for Alonso because of fear he'd yield too much power through bring a fan favourite. FFS.
Obviously a pre-requisite for the job.

There's been lots of rationalizations for why they apparently didn't hire him and all of them seem to make sense to me except the one that that club is seemingly pushing.


There's the one you just mentioned which obviously makes sense when you consider how they rejected the opportunity to hire Kenny for a second stint when he took over on an interim basis after they got rid of Hodgson, but they had their minds set on hiring Rodgers.
Kenny would have held too much weight and power with the fans given his legacy in this club and despite the fact he won us our first silverware that season since the Rafa era with the League Cup, there was no chance they were ever going to give him the role on a permanent basis.

And there's the other reason that's been suggested they didn't want to hire him was that he wasn't willing to work under the a similar setup he had at Madrid where he had less power than he felt he needed to run the team as he saw fit - hence the reason he insisted on being 'manager' rather than 'head coach' at Chelsea - and obviously that wouldn't fly here with Hughes and Edwards.

I've also hear another reason they didn't even bother giving him an interview for the job, let alone consider him was because there was (is) still a grudge being held from him turning us down the first time they went to him to come in after Klopp announced his retirement, and he instead chose to remain at Leverkusen another year in the hopes that the Madrid job would open up - which it did.
Apparently some in the board have never forgiven him for that, and while I think it would be indescribably petty and childish, I honestly wouldn't put it past the folks who run this club to be like that.

And then of course there's the reason we've heard a lot of in the press and the media which is that they didn't feel his style of football (specifically with the 3 at the back) would work for what we're looking for here.
Which.......on the surface seems to make sense.....if only from the perspective that we don't have a team built to play like that in terms of the player personnel you need to make it work (another CB and really a healthy stable of CB's to rotate from, which we clearly don't have with Gio out injured, Gomez headed out and Konate's dodgy form and Virg's drop in form).
Also the fact that there's legitimate questions as to whether that style would be successful in the Premier league.

However.....they never even bothered to talk to him at all to try to see if they could address some of these concerns or even to check if there could be some flexibility on his part to adapt his style to fit the Premier League or the players we have (of whom I should note, we have two of his former Leverkusen players already playing here).

I personally think it all ultimately came down to a reason that's already been noted elsewhere in this thread.

They wanted (want) a 'Yes' man.

End of story.
Xabi's not that and not willing to be that as his stint at Madrid shows and as his terms to Chelsea prove.

They want a 'Slot-style' yes-man who will carry the board's/Hughes and Edwards' water and take the hits for them when things go wrong.

[Steveo]

There's an article on the BBC with a quote from Rory Smith who says he knows/thinks they didn't go for Alonso because of fear he'd yield too much power through bring a fan favourite. FFS.
Obviously a pre-requisite for the job.

They don’t want that connection between the manager and the fans - because they want control over their buy to let.

Don’t ever forget who and what they are. We won the big titles because of Jurgen Klopp and despite them. Their goal is a cash cow - one that requires zero investment

[teesred]

There's been lots of rationalizations for why they apparently didn't hire him and all of them seem to make sense to me except the one that that club is seemingly pushing.


There's the one you just mentioned which obviously makes sense when you consider how they rejected the opportunity to hire Kenny for a second stint when he took over on an interim basis after they got rid of Hodgson, but they had their minds set on hiring Rodgers.
Kenny would have held too much weight and power with the fans given his legacy in this club and despite the fact he won us our first silverware that season since the Rafa era with the League Cup, there was no chance they were ever going to give him the role on a permanent basis.

And there's the other reason that's been suggested they didn't want to hire him was that he wasn't willing to work under the a similar setup he had at Madrid where he had less power than he felt he needed to run the team as he saw fit - hence the reason he insisted on being 'manager' rather than 'head coach' at Chelsea - and obviously that wouldn't fly here with Hughes and Edwards.

I've also hear another reason they didn't even bother giving him an interview for the job, let alone consider him was because there was (is) still a grudge being held from him turning us down the first time they went to him to come in after Klopp announced his retirement, and he instead chose to remain at Leverkusen another year in the hopes that the Madrid job would open up - which it did.
Apparently some in the board have never forgiven him for that, and while I think it would be indescribably petty and childish, I honestly wouldn't put it past the folks who run this club to be like that.

And then of course there's the reason we've heard a lot of in the press and the media which is that they didn't feel his style of football (specifically with the 3 at the back) would work for what we're looking for here.
Which.......on the surface seems to make sense.....if only from the perspective that we don't have a team built to play like that in terms of the player personnel you need to make it work (another CB and really a healthy stable of CB's to rotate from, which we clearly don't have with Gio out injured, Gomez headed out and Konate's dodgy form and Virg's drop in form).
Also the fact that there's legitimate questions as to whether that style would be successful in the Premier league.

However.....they never even bothered to talk to him at all to try to see if they could address some of these concerns or even to check if there could be some flexibility on his part to adapt his style to fit the Premier League or the players we have (of whom I should note, we have two of his former Leverkusen players already playing here).

I personally think it all ultimately came down to a reason that's already been noted elsewhere in this thread.

They wanted (want) a 'Yes' man.

End of story.
Xabi's not that and not willing to be that as his stint at Madrid shows and as his terms to Chelsea prove.

They want a 'Slot-style' yes-man who will carry the board's/Hughes and Edwards' water and take the hits for them when things go wrong.

All seems likely reasons. The three at the back and our lack of personnel was always a reason I thought it was a long shot
If that point about "never forgiving him" for rejecting us two years ago is true it just shows how pathetic the situation is at the top.
Totally agree on the "yes man" issue. Personally I like the way Hurzeler has set Brighton up but he certainly seems like a guy who wouldn't be a yes man. He hasn't been linked with us but Glasner is the same.
Quite strange that Enrique is the bookies favourite, he also would be someone I'd imagine would want control over the team.

I do think ( and obviously hope I'm very wrong on this) but we could be set for a turbulent spell. Hopefully not as bad as Utd,Chelsea etc but who knows. Football is becoming like politics.

[Lenouis]

What’s with all the essays around ‘not offering the managers job to Alonso’?

The owners are clearly not interested in replacing Slot. They either do not want to pay him off or like the fact that he’s agreed a shoestring budget, or both. Slot will have accepted absolutely any terms for remaining in the position and that would have sat just fine with the owners.

[toshin]

Sorry but why the fuck do we keep talking about Enrique?

Hes currently with a club where he has financial and personal backing.
A young hungry team playing the most attacking, attractive football in the world.

Maybe hes a masochist because thats the only reason hed do the swap right now.