They're not doing a very good job at that then. If they did it for "publicity" then there'd be more information than one article from mlssoccer.com and one article from a paper in Buenos Aires four months after the so-called announcement was made.
i would concur with that... i mean, gulati said himself he'd be commenting on Bradley's status by late last week... that self-imposed deadline came and went... crickets... and no media has even questioned him on it that I am aware of...
But he didn't say that. What he said was, "We'll have something to say later this week." I don't recall anyone saying what he was referring to. I do recall a lot of BS posters assuming that they knew what he meant by that. In fact, USSF (that'd be the "we") did have something to say later in the week. There was an open letter to fans released about the security situation in Pasadena. There was also a statement that came out that stated that Gulati's original comments were misinterpreted. It may not have been what everyone wanted, but USSF held true to Gulati's word.
No, he said that in response to a question about Bradley's status. Therefore, when one says that in response to a question about said subject, everyone expects a response that was promised about said said subject. So....he and the USSF did not hold true.
I thought that the announcement was that the team would be playing the Costa Rica & Belgium friendlies & that Bradley would be coaching the team. They didn't hold a press conference, but they did release this press release. Correct?
Sorry that you don't "recall" but you should have your facts straight if you are going to call out a lot of BS posters on it... http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/in-bob-we-trust/ a. Gulati said he'd comment on Bradley as coach by late last week b. Gulati did not do this Those are the facts. The open letter to fans about the GC final fan behavior incidents has nothing to do with it.
Personally, I think that's when the offer was made. As I said in another thread, I am 90% confident that the "technical director" job is a ruse to keep continue the legitimate head coaching candidates while retaining the "plausible deniability" guise. He was on about $450K ($425K?) until his qualification bonuses kicked in, after which he was at about $1.2M. Mind you, he could have taken a bunch of jobs, if he wanted to make money. Half of the Middle East was after him (and in a good way), as well as Inter and a bunch of Russian teams. He refused a lot of offers that came his way.
Bielsa is the new coach at Athletic on a one year deal. At his video conference before the election, he had in depth reports on all the players and watched and analyzed all the games the team played. That work ethic and attention to detail is what sets apart the best coaches from good ones. And that attribute would have been excellent for our program, in whatever role.
Which was my point. Offering a guy 150% more than he received at his last job is not an "unrealistic" offer. A couple people here act as if the offer was some insultingly low number. It wasn't. Full stop. It becomes even less insulting when you take into account that HIS contract would have probably had performance bonuses on top of the 3 million as well.
On Bielsa: A fanatic of football videos that he adds to his collection, Bielsa on occasion checks pitch measurements by pacing them out before deciding on a particular formation. He allocates separate training times for different parts of his squad. Former Argentine national team captain Roberto Ayala and defender under Bielsa stated Sometimes we wouldn't see any of the strikers, because he'd have them training at a different time, and it was the same with the midfielders. He's an innovator, and one of the people who I've learned most from during my career. WOW!
Guy could have done wonders for us. His players call him an "innovator", our coach is nick named "robo-Bob"... Absolutely makes me nauseous.
I think the idea is that Bielsa would be brought in and that would put some heat on Bob. If Bob doesn't improve, then Bielsa would eventually take over. Nobody would have issues if that were to play out. Obviously, the Fed thinks that they don't have enough to fire Bob outright.
Failure to win the GC final, failure to beat your arch rival on home soil, being humiliated on home by your arch rival twice in a final, losing to Panama in group play, not winning the CC final, etc. What more do they need to fire this guy, seriously if this was Argentina, Brasil, or any other fed/A he would have been gone after the world cup. What is it going to take? Not qualifying for the WC? Seriously what is going to take for them to get off there butts and do something productive?
to be fair, beating Brazil in the CC final is a tall order for anyone. But you tend to focus on his failures, yet ignore all his success? I'm not saying he shouldnt be canned, but i am saying your argument is flawed.
That's because our fans think "innovation" is learning a move that involves a Combination of XOOXR2R3L2
Bradley was quoted in the press release, while discussing the games against Costa Rica and Belgium. http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Mens-N...Face-Costa-Rica-and-Belgium-in-September.aspx “The matches against Costa Rica and Belgium represent another great opportunity to continue the building process as we move towards the start of 2014 FIFA World Cup qualifying,” said U.S. head coach Bob Bradley. “We will have the chance to look at a variety of players and at the same time challenge ourselves against two very different opponents.”
See that's the problem. They're over thinking it by a mile. A simple timely 'juke stick' to the left would cure everything.
Eh, you don't pay your technical director four times more than your head coach. The reverse is generally the case. I stand by my previous comments - the "technical director" was a ruse. PS. This doesn't mean that Bielsa's duties wouldn't have been more extensive than Bradley's.