MON/WGS Expenditures at Celtic

well by that same logic it looks like you are trying to impress people as well

 

Are you just using my words? See, you can't think for yourself.

I'm not the one following the mainstream 'No WGS vs MON' without realising that's not what this was.

 

what so its wrong to not want "Strachan is better" "no MON was better" for 11 pages when these arguments have been reiterated many times

 

Because that's blatantly not what this is about... please don't waste space with more posts.

 

who cares tbh they both done ok with there budget. i liked them both

 

2 words COMPARISON AGAIN

 

another 2 words ,WHO CARES

 

The reason people compare Strachan to MON is because MON was a very successful manager at Celtic, loved by the fans, Strachan is a very successful manager, equally successful as MON but not loved by the fans. Some fans never gave GS the chance MON was given, wanted him gone every season he's been here but when MON had a bad season he still was backed and people dont understand why one gets the backing and the other doesnt.

Personality should never enter the equation for who should be manager, if he has the backing of the board/staff and more importantly the players, wins us league titles and relative success in the cups, then we should be happy with his performance and try to build on the previous season. Both manager have done this, one getting heaps of praise, the other is getting it because the opportunity to slate him isnt there and their agenda would be exposed.

The comparison is used to highlight the double standards people are using to define a successful manager at Celtic and this is being done to try and get rid of a perfectly good manager.

 

Brilliant intelligent post, great contribution

 

Both of you have been infracted for trolling. Knock that * off, you sound like 10 years squabbling, act yer age!

 

What do infractions do?

 

I think a big reason for this was in most fans eyes it was easier to see real progress under MON in terms of stability and continuity over a longer period.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
IMO WGS has made a rod for his own back by continually talking in terms of Team 1,2,3 he even hinted at a team 4 a couple of months back. That kind of thinking does not exactly install confidence within the support as a turn over of so many players does not suggest stability or progression.<o></o>
<o></o>
Hopefully though the season coming we will see less of a turnover of players hence IMO ait will be a chance for the team to develop and progress.<o></o>
<o></o>
<o></o>

 

This breach of the rules is noted into a system for future reference. If you rack up a few infractions, we start banning the offender as we feel that they arent learning or obeying the rules.

 

Easily to see progress and stabilty after the 90's and the Barnes era tbh. Strachan is coming off the back of a successful manager and the club was changing policies and direction, this grey area isnt grounds to sack him.

 

I think the point some people are making here is that in order to have a qualified, intelligent debate, in regard to the subject matter, you have to be 100% correct with your transfer values. If not, it makes the basis of your point unstable. Any comparison between Strachan and O'Neill is inevitably going to end up in squabbling. The focus has now shifted from "Strachan's * and I want him out; look at his record against O'Neill as evidence" to "How has Strachan done on the budget he's been given, as compared to O'Neill?". You're on a hiding to nothing if you have Strachan and O'Neill in the same heading. Personally, I think they've both made good buys and horror buys, but ultimately Strachan has won the league just as many times as O'Neill, but with less attempts, on a tighter budget, with no real team to build from and a better record in the CL (but not necessarily Europe), but initially with less of a challenge from our main rivals and playing, at times, *-awful football. It's not a level playing field on which to compare two quality managers.

 

Haven't read the thread yet so I don't know if this has been said but MON was given a huge amount of money at once.This gave him the chance to buy proven players with pedigree.Strachan has been drip fed money every season so he had had to take more risks on players who might not work out.

 

That has been a big factor in the difference of signings

 

i thought we paid a 600k loan fee to legia warsaw and then another 400k to make it permanent. £1m overall.

 

im sure it was 700k as well

 

Alright lads... enough on the figures.

I think the board has made far more profit now since the MON era (from CL outings) and should give Strachan some cash.