Next Seasons Manager

Only thanks to an extremely extensive hair transplant, so not sure he's quite the oracle of graceful ageing this suggests. Or anything else...

 

You really are very rattled by people who have a different opinion to you aren’t you. It’s bizarre.

It’s all over social media how this move has come about - it’s stands to reason that people will discuss it and what’s been said. And then make an initial opinion on what’s been said and who/what they believe. There’s no need to have kittens just because people don’t see it how you do.

 

It's a fact that this scenario isn't at all the same as Everton and Silva; not an "opinion".

What's "bizarre" is those so desperate to try and equate the two. It really is a toxic attitude.

 

You know the exact detail of Watford’s claim
against Everton then I presume? Because you would need to to be claiming ‘facts.

There is nothing in FA/PL/FIFA rules that I can see that says ‘tapping up’ must not be done during a season and can only be done in close-season periods.

Seems almost inevitable to me that Watfords claim will have been based around Everton speaking to Silva without permission. Nothing more, nothing less.

And that’s what we have done according to FGR. Whether you want to believe that or not - well that’s the thing it’s okay to have an opinion on either way. But claiming facts that don’t exist isn’t really the way to sway people to your way of thinking.

 

If Edwards' contract was up then I agree it was fine but I couldn't find anything about his FGR contract online when I looked earlier. The Rudiger situation doesn't translate though. He's a player and his registration is held by a club as well as being an employee of it. That's how the Bosman ruling came about. Managers are just employees like any other contractor.

 

I love the irony of us progressing from always getting stick for firing a manager to today getting it for hiring one

 

Don't worry, it will soon be able to revert to type!

 

It's a fact that Everton approached Silva a few months in to the season.

It's a fact that we seem to have approached Edwards after his club had already won promotion and their season was basically over.

That's a major difference already.

It's also a fact that rumours about Silva also went on for weeks and had a clear effect on the team, before anything moved forwards. While it's a fact that the rumours about Edwards progressed quickly over a few days.

It also appears that Edwards might have only had a 1 year deal anyway.

These shouldn't be difficult points and distinctions to grasp.

 

So you’re saying there are differences in the situations - I think people would agree with that.

Your earlier statements said they are ‘completely different’ - which they aren’t.

Why can’t you just accept other people don’t share the exact same opinion as you?

 

Even more bizarre then. My new company wouldn't ask my former employer for permission to speak to me. I interview for a job without their knowledge and hand in my notice.

 

That's not how many on here are posting - some have been directly equating the two in their desperation at outrage.

 

I think they are structurally the same (speaking to a manager without prior approval from the club) but circumstantially completely different. If he was on a one year deal then he wouldn’t have been slated to manage one more game. Their season was over.

 

He was out of contract then? I didn’t know that, if that’s the case, fair play for getting in early.

 

This is what happens when hippies enter the world of business.

Stick to knitting vegan yogurts, and get your ******* hair cut, you daft little c unt.

 

Watford didn’t make a claim against Everton for wrecking their season. That was a secondary ‘symptom’, not the cause.

The claim was against Everton for not accepting rejections to their official approaches and for making an illegal approach as a result. Sure, the fact it was during the season was a terrible look and brought on a ton of added negativity. But an illegal approach is an illegal approach, during the season or close-season. The difference being the effect they have on the club who have been approached.

I think that whole saga meant that whatever mistakes this ownership have made, many felt they wouldn’t then go down the road of making a move that, at the very least, shares hallmarks with it. It’s entirely rational that people are drawing comparisons, even if there are differences to the 2 situations.

 

There are some reports that it was but not certain. Still, Vince didn’t refer to the fact that Edwards breached his contract at all which I found revealing.

 

His contract will be based on years/months. Not on games in a season. So it’s not ‘completely’ different.

 

There isn't a single head coach Gino has fired who a sizable percentage of this forum wasn't already demanding be sacked well in advance of the actual event.

For the most part, the criticism that can be leveled doesn't like with the firing, but the hiring. For example, QSF should never have been brought back for a second stint, and Billy McKinley should never have been offered the job given he clearly didn't have internal support.

 

Well yes. But if he’s leaving in two weeks, it’s hard to see what duties he is left to perform. That’s what I mean by “circumstantially completely different.”

 

Actually, that's a good point and one I'd somehow entirely forgotten. It's usually against league rules to do it.

EFL rules:

Premier League version:

 

He also said they would be due compensation of half a years salary - sure a small amount but that’s not what we are talking about. They wouldn’t be due anything if he’s out of contract.

Their chairman also said we want him to start work before July 1st - so it may be his deal ends at the end of June. Sure, not long to wait and we seem happy to pay to get him sooner - but it doesn’t help the narrative that he was free to talk with us.

 

Definitely some odd and inconsistent claims made by Mr Vince. And then they’ve now already announced his departure which might change things too. I suspect we’ll see a statement from the club and/or a Leventhal article on this soon.

 

Apparently there was a clause in his contract that allowed him to become a free agent, if he gave enough notice.

No idea what the notice was, but compensation has been largely stated as 6 months wages.

Which to me suggests we wanted him working at the club earlier than his notice period, as I have no idea why we’d otherwise pay the compensation.

 

@Burnsy - here you go then:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...Forest-Green-contract-ahead-Watford-move.html

 

'New Watford boss Rob Edwards had a clause in his Forest Green Rovers contract that effectively makes him a free agent after being confirmed as the next man in the dugout at Vicarage Road'

Sacked before he even started. Absolute legend.

 

I think most people were shocked by Pearson's sacking. I rolled my eyes a full 360 degrees when I heard.

 

It doesn't matter who we get as manager. Under the current regime they're all doomed to fail. The players know that with Pozzo and Fuxbury pulling the strings the Watford head coach is only ever 4 or 5 bad results away from getting the chop. So, if the lads don't like the coach or his methods - i.e., he gives them a kick up the ar5e, they'll do what they've done several times in the recent past and just put in minimal effort in the knowledge that the 'boss' will be gone shortly. Unless Fuxbury goes and is replaced by someone who rips up 'the project' and backs our manager we're going to keep going round in circles. I'll be surprised if he's still here when the World Cup starts.

Welcome Robert

 

Can the compensation be giving them Woy before his contract is out?

Could be Woy of the Wovers then.

 

Yes. I just wrote about this on the other thread.

If there’s a genuine dispute he can get the lawyers involved. I don’t find Dale Vince very credible (earlier he said he didn’t know when Edwards’ contract expired but now he knows and it’s 2024?), though and suspect that the truth is somewhere between what we’ve said and what he’s said.

From a PR perspective I’m frustrated as this seems an unnecessary own goal.

 

He could of simply opened the filing cabinet.

 

This is my main thing. If we were dealing with a club comparable in stature who we really would have had to fight for their manager, then as much as I don’t agree with the approach, I could understand being a bit sneaky. But this really does seem a case of going after an easy target whose club couldn’t conceivably hold on to him once known he wanted to leave.

Put simply, whether we had to or not, this seems like it could have gone far better with a simple call to FGR. If we believed his contract was as we are claiming, we just say it’s a courtesy call to let them know we will have discussions with him based on the terms of his deal. If we have doubts about the contract or are informed it’s not as we believe, we ask for permission.

Seems to me, if I had to guess, we have been caught out speaking to his agent (as is common practice, rightly or wrongly) and because discussions have taken a few days, the secret has got out before we went to FGR.

But even if he’s on the right side of the fence here, I don’t think their owner has helped himself by being vague and, at times, contradictory in his media appearances/Twitter.

 

Liked for knitting vegan yoghurts and I like Dale Vince!