Sunday, 2 May 2010
Sullivan has got under Zola's skin!
Wow, the little nice guy is talking tough - at last! Infuriated by Sullivan's decision to go for Dorrans without consulting him, Zola has been quoted as saying, “I need to know the people who are coming here. Jesus, that is normal, isn’t it? I need to know who I am coaching."
Zola, blaspheming? Things must be bad for the good little Catholic to speak like that. Anybody might think that Sullivan has been dressing up as a priest and asking Gianfranco to play the choir boy!
Zola is right of course, but we all know what Sullivan and Gold are up to: trying to bully the Italian into resigning. Who knows if we really want Dorrans or if this is just a stick for Zola to beat himself up with? Let's face it, if Dorrans is good enough to play in the Prem, West Brom would be mad to part with him for anything less than £12m. They need to recruit Premiership quality players, not sell them!
So, we are probably building towards a constructive dismissal claim here but would Zola have a case? Turds won because of a stupid clause in his contract giving him the final say over who was bought and sold; Zola doesn't have that clause. Sullivan and Gold have been careful, so far, to back Zola in public, saying they want him to stay on as manager, and they have used the Italian's words against him, pointing out that he is on record saying that he doesn't want to be involved in transfer dealings. Zola is now trying to clarify his position but Sullivan and Gold can point to the fact that Nani and Duxbury were in charge of transfer policy before their arrival so, essentially, nothing has changed! Indeed, there's nothing to stop them appointing Avram Grant as Technical Director as they would simply be restoring the management structure that existed before they arrived at the club. How could Zola complain about that?
Should it come to constructive dismissal, S&G could claim:
1) Zola asked for more strikers in January and S&G obliged, investing in McCarthy who Zola himself identified (and has barely used!).
2) They did not sell anybody in January despite the financial problems they inherited.
3) They are on public record supporting Zola and saying they want him to stay in charge.
4) Zola has admitted his strengths are in coaching, not in dealing in the transfer market.
5) Zola was not in charge of player recruitment before they arrived. Since Nani's departure, somebody has had to fill the void.
6) The sale of Bellamy and Collins under the old regime showed that first team players were available for sale despite what Duxbury claimed; S&G are simply being more honest with the manager, players and fans.
7) S&G gave Zola a break to help him sort out his thoughts after the Stoke defeat. They didn't sack him, they supported him and showed great understanding in the circumstances.
8) S&G sourced Ilan and his goals have kept us up; Zola's preferred choice has flopped.
Zola's case would be that S&G have not been very nice to him and Sullivan has criticised the players.
What do I think will happen? Grant will be appointed as "General Manager" and Zola will try to hang around.
Posted by Hammersfan at 11:47