DOWN with the five year plan of the reckless spendthrift McClaren!
Forward with caution under Comrade Southgate!
There was an air of Stalinism about the way Keith Lamb denounced the failed transfers policies of unnamed former managers. It wasn't exactly Nikita Khrushchev's midnight secret speech but the coded attack on previous regimes indicated a new course of sweeping change, implied savage criticism of the past and hinted at internal dissent against the deranged unpopular actions of an autocratic despot.
It was a searing political analysis of the dark days of fear and loathing under the evil junta of Robbo-McClarenism that threatened to undermine popular support for the Riverside Revolution.
But wait a minute... wasn't it comrade Lamb, one of the great architects of the Riverside Revolution, that actually thrashed out the deals? Wasn't it Lamb that unveiled these 'reckless signings' at televised press conferences in glowing terms and with a beaming smile? Wasn't he a key figure, as Khrushchev was, in the very policies he is now denouncing?
It is all very well making populist statements to score cheap points off the departing boss, putting distance between new boss and old and underscoring that Gareth Southgate will be his own man with his own strategy - but this crude airbrushing of history will raise eyebrows and hackles on Teesside.
It seems to suggest that McClaren or Robbo - but not Brucie, Toddy or Lennie Lawrence who built their entire squads on less than Alen Boksic's physio bill - were loose cannons spending cash willy-nilly on transfers that had not been endorsed. Clearly that is not true.
The club's heirarchy were always at great pains to point out a unity of purpose between the manager, the chief executive and the chairman in the face of criticism of recruitment policies. We heard that McClaren had ushered in a new culture of professionalism and only players who fitted in to that were to be signed. There was an extensive scouting network in place to make sure of that.
Yet suddenly the chief executive is claiming - as dissidents were vilified for saying in their samizdat at the time - that reckless signings were made on the basis of reputation rather than performance. Maybe. But cynical fans will immediate ask who sanctioned them?
Every signing is a gamble - with fee, signing on bonuses and hefty wages an expensive one at that - but to talk of reckless ones opens a real can of wriggly things. Is it reckless to sign a player who is injured? What about one who has been out the best part of two years but has an impeccable pedigree? Or a player who can't get in the team at a club we now believe to be below us? D'oh! I fear the snipers have just been handed a stick to beat the club with should this summer's intake or any future big name signing not work out.
Plus, many will rush to point out, the club have repeatedly - and correctly - pointed out that the past two managers, reckless or not, ushered in a period of unprecedented success. Wembley three times and world class stars under Robbo and Cardiff, Europe through the league, a highest Premiership finish, Eindhoven and two FA Cup semi-finals under Mac represent a far better return in sporting glory on their £10m net annual outlay than Spurs, Newcastle, Villa, Everton, Manchester City or a host of other equally reckless clubs can boast.
Yes, football finances are out of control and middling clubs like Boro need to be far more cautious in how much cash they commit to players. Yes, as Lamb has pointed out, eventually Teesside will get the club it can afford and shrewd housing keeping is the order of the day. And yes, a turn to youth and the academy will build a far more sustainable future for the club than throwing cash at players who never come with a guarentee.
But the back-handed swipe at the immediate past seems a double-edged sword. It undermines the great work that has been done by the club in its spectacular rise and implicates the key personnel with reckless mistakes in the past. And if Southgate represents a fundemental break with the past, what happened to the 'continuity' that was so recently regarded as paramount?
- Post to:
del.icio.us
Digg
Newsvine
Nowpublic
Reddit
« Previous | Home | Next »