Marty Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) Getting tired of some of the comments about the sfa not being able to afford a decent manager. If they go for a cheap option like a gemmill/mckay combo instead of getting steve clarke or someone decent then watch what will happen to attendances and gate receipts. At a very rough calculation, the cheap option/old boys act with mcleish has cost over a million quid in empty stadiums. Go for Clarke or someone decent who isn’t already on the dole for a reason. Create some momentum. A wee bit more money on the manager will make far more money in ticket sales never mind tournament qualification, merchandise, sponsorship etc. Sadly don’t have faith in the blazers to do the simple maths and do something crazy like making an appointment based on merit. Edited April 19, 2019 by Marty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyDenoon Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 (edited) Hard to disagree The investment needs to be made before the rewards are realised. Penny pinching and appointing old mates is something that hasn’t worked for over 20 years. The rest of the world seems to have realised this way before our backwards inept naive board who still don’t appear to have cottoned on. The world of international football is an entirely different place than the one we inhabited when we were qualifying for tournaments. Giving the manager’s job to an SFA favourite, a mate, for a cheap salary and free supply of Irn Bru is about as relevant today as the magic sponge full of water and sliced half time oranges. Open the chequebook and get in someone who can get us qualified in the current age. Bilic for me, whatever he costs. Edited April 20, 2019 by DaveyDenoon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chripper Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 On 4/19/2019 at 4:54 PM, Marty said: Getting tired of some of the comments about the sfa not being able to afford a decent manager. Who said this? The SFA made a turnover of £76m since 2017. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Russell's Lovechild Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 According to the daily mail, the SFA are going for the cheap option https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6943631/Malky-Mackay-running-Scotland-caretaker-role.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenmcn Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Bobby Russell's Lovechild said: According to the daily mail, the SFA are going for the cheap option https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6943631/Malky-Mackay-running-Scotland-caretaker-role.html I don't think anyone takes any mainstream media stories serious any more. They just print what they think will sell newspapers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted April 21, 2019 Author Share Posted April 21, 2019 So they sit on their hands doing nothing for a month and then make an internal jobs for the boys appointment because we’re short of time before the next two qualifiers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Pete Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 On 4/20/2019 at 7:37 PM, Chripper said: Who said this? The SFA made a turnover of £76m since 2017. There’s a big difference between turnover and profit. Not that I’m aware of what, if any, profit they’ve made but having a turnover of £76 million over two years doesn’t necessarily mean they can afford to pay £2 million or £3 million a year for a manager. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Pete Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 16 hours ago, Bobby Russell's Lovechild said: According to the daily mail, the SFA are going for the cheap option https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6943631/Malky-Mackay-running-Scotland-caretaker-role.html I wouldn’t believe anything I read in that rag but if the SFA don’t appoint a permanent manager before the Cyprus game in a few weeks then I can’t see why they wouldn’t put MacKay in charge on an interim basis. They did it before giving McLeish the job. What’s changed since then? Not that I think it’s a particularly good idea but I do think that’s what they’ll do. I also doubt he’ll get the job permanently for the same reasons he wasn’t considered last time. Surely the SFA have known since March that they were going to sack McLeish though? Surely they’ve thought about who they want to replace him? Nothing would surprise me with that shower right enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chripper Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 5 minutes ago, Texas Pete said: There’s a big difference between turnover and profit. Not that I’m aware of what, if any, profit they’ve made but having a turnover of £76 million over two years doesn’t necessarily mean they can afford to pay £2 million or £3 million a year for a manager. There is a difference, but I heavily doubt that they spent anywhere close to £76m over the past two seasons. If they wanted to give a manager a wage of £1m, £2m or £3m I think they could do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartanmartin Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 11 hours ago, Chripper said: There is a difference, but I heavily doubt that they spent anywhere close to £76m over the past two seasons. If they wanted to give a manager a wage of £1m, £2m or £3m I think they could do it. Where did you get the £76m figure from? I'd hope the same place showed expenditure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chripper Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 9 minutes ago, tartanmartin said: Where did you get the £76m figure from? I'd hope the same place showed expenditure. https://www.insider.co.uk/news/sfa-posts-second-ever-highest-12661008 That figure was from 2017 and it was replicated last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartanmartin Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 2 minutes ago, Chripper said: https://www.insider.co.uk/news/sfa-posts-second-ever-highest-12661008 That figure was from 2017 and it was replicated last year. Cheers for that. A few observations. Any profit gets reallocated to the clubs. The clubs effectively are the SFA. Will the clubs want less cash so the national team get a better manager? All just hypothetical points that are not specifically aimed at yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chripper Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 2 minutes ago, tartanmartin said: Cheers for that. A few observations. Any profit gets reallocated to the clubs. The clubs effectively are the SFA. Will the clubs want less cash so the national team get a better manager? All just hypothetical points that are not specifically aimed at yourself. I know. I find the whole system where clubs pretty run the FA to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonny78 Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 I reckon even I could spend the money better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.