Cotts Out - Those Supporters are Deluded?

[Dibdenred]

Just now, Dibdenred said:

Spot on. A lot has happened since the defeat at Reading. Which is why Cotts seems happier. 

When I say a lot has happened I mean a uturn by SL. Might be too late though. We all know Jan is the wrong time to be looking for players.

[cottsciderarmy]

I don't buy all this crap, SL has never not supported any manager and has often chucked big money at average players to appease the man in charge.

Players do not want to come here and we get a least attractive proposition each week.

Lansdown has publicly gone on record to say the money is there and we can pay the wages, it's not wages stopping us signing someone. EB was probably on 10-12K a week at Norwich, we probably paid half his wages on loan and hes out of contract in the summer. We probably offered him a 2 and a half year deal on 8K a week. he goes to us, but I'm on 10-12 a week at Norwich, our reply would be but yes you're out of contract in the summer and this is a good offer. He then says he needs to think about it, we are not worried as our blind faith thinks he will accept. In the meantime Blackburn come in and say we'll match your wages at Norwich, EB comes back to us and informs us he's been offered the 12K a week at Blackburn, if we match the offer he'll come here. Cotts and his team cry like babies saying we are priced out. No we are not priced out, we are unwilling to accept we can't get good players on the cheap.

EB wouldn't be a key player for us, but he would have become the teams highest earner which may have upset better players than him. 

I have a feeling most of our side is probably on 5K a week, with an average being paid of 90K a week in wages, I expect El Abd is possibly on more, hence why they want him out the club. According to some footy site, the avg player in the championship earns 11,500 a week, I doubt we have a single player on that, and this is why we can't attract players of that standard. The only way we can is by finding an average championship player who is on 10-15K a week and pay half their wages to come on loan, as it fits into our structure, but that player is never going to take that sort of money to come here permanently.

I think a Warnock would make it clear to SL, to survive we need 5/6 players who will all want 10-20K a week, but we would maintain our status and push on next season, if he gives him those funds he'll come, but if not then there's no point appointing him. Someone like Warnock I feel SL would say okay and open the cheque book, but I wonder if he has the confidence that SC can identify the right players worth the money so is reluctant to open the cheque book further than he has. We've probably wasted the best part of 200-250K alone on Robinson's and Cox's wages for them not to even be used, and I think that is what is worrying SL, if SC spending his money to fill up numbers and he's too reluctant to change the main 11, so therefore SL will only allow certain funds as he knows they are just going to be paid to sit on their bums week in week out.

I think a heavy defeat Saturday and Tuesday and SL will press the eject button and bring in a decent name until the end of the season quickly, and I think we'll also see the purse strings loosen to the new man.

[Kibs]

9 hours ago, NickJ said:

Yes it is Tom, because the manager clearly doesn't rate the players supplied.

When Cotts came here, he said quite clearly that his condition of employment is he has complete control over the playing side. SL either explicitly or implicitly accepted that.

There are people on here have been blaming the manager and eventually it will be clear it is not his fault.

Thats funny because even outside of the transfer fiasco (who'm IMO Cotterill is at least partially to blame), I can see lots of things happening on the pitch and in interviews that clearly are his fault - in my opinion of course. Just like players under-perform, I don't think their can be any doubt that Cotterill is also under-performing, even with the "limited resources" he has. 

I do actually like the bloke, his passion etc and I'll admit, just that little bit of positivity in his interview yesterday which we've not seen for a while, made me think that maybe he can turn things around. I hope so. 

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, NickJ said:

Yes it is Tom, because the manager clearly doesn't rate the players supplied.

When Cotts came here, he said quite clearly that his condition of employment is he has complete control over the playing side. SL either explicitly or implicitly accepted that.

There are people on here have been blaming the manager and eventually it will be clear it is not his fault.

Those players he doesn't rate have all gone to clubs in a higher position than us.  So maybe, just maybe, its his judgement that's wrong?

It's not just that. It's the stubboness of the formation, the lack of changing it and putting subs on with no time to make an impact.

I don't blame SC for everything that's happened this year but he's certainly attributed to it with his narrowminded and stubbonness.

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, tomo said:

For those against Cotts...please subscribe to BCFC Player and watch todays tv player interview (9mins).

You cant blame cotts. The board and SL wont change their financial policies. League 1 Club Philosophy!

 

 

 

Your so right .... But some on her can't see the facts that are blatantly obvious

[NickJ]

1 hour ago, Tomarse said:

Those players he doesn't rate have all gone to clubs in a higher position than us.  So maybe, just maybe, its his judgement that's wrong?

It's not just that. It's the stubboness of the formation, the lack of changing it and putting subs on with no time to make an impact.

I don't blame SC for everything that's happened this year but he's certainly attributed to it with his narrowminded and stubbonness.

 

Players like who? Cunningham and Robinson just because they are a couple of places higher, didn't see anyone moaning about Cunningham going until recently. JET, who cant even get in QPR's squad? Cox, who wont be playing for Reading anytime soon, and didn't before he came here? Or Bennett, who Cotterrill did want but went to Blackburn because they offered more money?

 

I keep seeing this word "stubbornness" bandied around on this forum about Cotterill, 100% of the time as though its a bad thing, almost always as though an experienced successful manager is wrong and the poster is right, simply because the poster can say Cotterill is "stubborn".

"Stubborn" can mean BTW - "dogged determination; resolute".

Cotterill's "stubbornness", for anyone that wants to call it that, saw us transformed from a team playing boring dire football heading for division 4 to an entertaining free flowing team which cantered to the Championship.

If Cotterill constantly changed personnel and formations, and we were still in the same position, no doubt the most common word on here would not be "stubborn" but "tinkerman".

 

Maybe, just maybe, Cotterill knows best, and anything other than what he is doing would see us in an even worse position?

It seems to be emerging that Cotterill had the rug pulled from under him in the summer, contrary to all assurances which had been given, which is why we haven't pushed on. I reckon the circumstances that caused this have been smoothed over. Cotterill should be given the chance to show he is a good judge of player - which he is - and to demonstrate he can do a good job when allowed to work under the conditions which were agreed. Only then can he be fairly criticized if results do not improve.

 

 

 

 

[Unan]

Cotts promised a championship budget when he joined us me thinks, explains his stubbornness?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Players like who? Cunningham and Robinson just because they are a couple of places higher, didn't see anyone moaning about Cunningham going until recently. JET, who cant even get in QPR's squad? Cox, who wont be playing for Reading anytime soon, and didn't before he came here? Or Bennett, who Cotterrill did want but went to Blackburn because they offered more money?

 

I keep seeing this word "stubbornness" bandied around on this forum about Cotterill, 100% of the time as though its a bad thing, almost always as though an experienced successful manager is wrong and the poster is right, simply because the poster can say Cotterill is "stubborn".

"Stubborn" can mean BTW - "dogged determination; resolute".

Cotterill's "stubbornness", for anyone that wants to call it that, saw us transformed from a team playing boring dire football heading for division 4 to an entertaining free flowing team which cantered to the Championship.

If Cotterill constantly changed personnel and formations, and we were still in the same position, no doubt the most common word on here would not be "stubborn" but "tinkerman".

Maybe, just maybe, Cotterill knows best, and anything other than what he is doing would see us in an even worse position?

It seems to be emerging that Cotterill had the rug pulled from under him in the summer, contrary to all assurances which had been given, which is why we haven't pushed on. I reckon the circumstances that caused this have been smoothed over. Cotterill should be given the chance to show he is a good judge of player - which he is - and to demonstrate he can do a good job when allowed to work under the conditions which were agreed. Only then can he be fairly criticized if results do not improve.

I'm talking about the Loan players who've just got back. None of which really got any time, if any (i.e. Cox.Robbinson)

Cox - to MK

Moore - to Birmingham

Robbinson - to PNE

Cunningham, however, should not have been sold given the lack of depth of our squad. However I understand he probably wanted first team football. He's likely to get player of the season for them, that is a bit of a hard one to take.

Can you not understand the frustration of games like Charlton where players up top were knackered and we were hanging on. Everyone in the ground could see the equaliser coming, it was almost fate. However SC action was to bring on a sub right after it happened. 

If Robinson scores on Tuesday night, that might just be the icing on the cake.

[BCFC81]

8 hours ago, NickJ said:

Yes it is Tom, because the manager clearly doesn't rate the players supplied.

When Cotts came here, he said quite clearly that his condition of employment is he has complete control over the playing side. SL either explicitly or implicitly accepted that.

There are people on here have been blaming the manager and eventually it will be clear it is not his fault.

I agree the manager should not shoulder all of the blame, but also he is not free from total criticism in this mess we are in! 

His job is to identify the right players who he thinks will help the team, and as of the QPR game no list had been supplied to the board of potential targets!

This is what worries me the most, as he has been moaning about it since the window shut in the summer. So I would of hoped he would of been proactive over this period, scouting up and down the country for new talent, and who meets the budget requirements that he is constrained to!

What blame can be put at the mangers door is his constant use of a playing system, that no other manager adopts in the league, and continues with this hoping it works! He retired our most experienced Championship player in the summer, saying there was no place in the squad for him, but then continues to flog a 37 year old to death up front!

We need to stop living in last season, yes it was great, but it is in the history books now!

If we are not carefully we will be right back where we started and then last season was all for nothing!

[LondonBristolian]

I've said this before but I find this attitude that it is all the board's fault really frustrating for two reasons.

1. We simply don't know.  We're getting statements from SL and SC that offer different perspectives and even the posters who are ITK on here offer different perspectives on what's happened.  SC feels we can't afford players whilst SL has made clear we could, for example, match Andre Gray's wages.  The truth probably lies in the middle but we don't know exactly what it is and it's thoroughly daft the OP is calling people deluded when he, like the rest of i us, doesn't actually know what's going on. 

 

2. The fact is we succeed as a unit and fail as a unit.  Last season, SC did a great job but a large part of that was due to the board acting quickly and decisively and supporting him with the funds to build a formidable League One team.  If we're going to criticise the board for where they haven't spent, we have to credit where they have spent.

Of course I'm as frustrated as any fan we're not getting players in.  But I also remember where we were two years ago when we were struggling in the Championship and our first season of League One where our ability to afford wages was stymied by certain players on long-term contracts and massively high wages.  It's no coincidence that our ability to spend last summer came when a lot of those contracts ended.  Whether the board are being overly prudent, I don't know, but certainly I think SL has backed managers before when they were doing well and found he's ended up with poor quality on high wages.  I don't blame him for not wanting to repeat that. 

[NickJ]

6 minutes ago, Tomarse said:

I'm talking about the Loan players who've just got back. None of which really got any time, if any (i.e. Cox.Robbinson)

Cox - to MK

Moore - to Birmingham

Robbinson - to PNE

Cunningham, however, should not have been sold given the lack of depth of our squad. However I understand he probably wanted first team football. He's likely to get player of the season for them, that is a bit of a hard one to take.

Can you not understand the frustration of games like Charlton where players up top were knackered and we were hanging on. Everyone in the ground could see the equaliser coming, it was almost fate. However SC action was to bring on a sub right after it happened. 

If Robinson scores on Tuesday night, that might just be the icing on the cake.

For a start Burns didn't come on as a sub against Charlton as a reaction to their goal - he was warming up and waiting to come on before Charlton scored, presumably to wind down time, that's how he came on so quickly.

How is what Cunningham is doing for Preston of any relevance - he couldn't get in our team last season as Bryan kept him out, who was moaning about that then?

As for the other players you mention, you watch them not set the Championship alight.

If Robinson scores for Preston that is the icing on the cake? Really? Is it a disaster, or does a manager get sacked, every time a former player scores against them?

The micro analysis of maybes and could happens is irrelevant to the bigger picture, which is that on appointment Cotterill demanded and was given complete control over the football side, an agreement which stories would suggest has not been honoured.

[LondonBristolian]

6 minutes ago, NickJ said:

For a start Burns didn't come on as a sub against Charlton as a reaction to their goal - he was warming up and waiting to come on before Charlton scored, presumably to wind down time, that's how he came on so quickly.

How is what Cunningham is doing for Preston of any relevance - he couldn't get in our team last season as Bryan kept him out, who was moaning about that then?

As for the other players you mention, you watch them not set the Championship alight.

If Robinson scores for Preston that is the icing on the cake? Really? Is it a disaster, or does a manager get sacked, every time a former player scores against them?

The micro analysis of maybes and could happens is irrelevant to the bigger picture, which is that on appointment Cotterill demanded and was given complete control over the football side, an agreement which rumours, speculation and assumptions in the absence of evidence would suggest has not been honoured.

Corrected for you. 

[bristolcitysweden]

Keith Burt and Steve Cotterill have had time since the summer shortcomings to identify players within our budget. Close to nothing seems to have happened. 

[Lack of Action Man]

3 minutes ago, bristolcitysweden said:

Keith Burt and Steve Cotterill have had time since the summer shortcomings to identify players within our budget. Close to nothing seems to have happened. 

Nail, head, hit.

[spudski]

14 hours ago, NickJ said:

Yes it is Tom, because the manager clearly doesn't rate the players supplied.

When Cotts came here, he said quite clearly that his condition of employment is he has complete control over the playing side. SL either explicitly or implicitly accepted that.

There are people on here have been blaming the manager and eventually it will be clear it is not his fault.

I don't quiet understand that argument Nick.

When you say 'players supplied'....what does that mean?

It's KB's and SC's job to bring in players.

They are given a budget to work within. That happens in all businesses.

If they go looking for players that are outside of that budget, who's fault is that?

If our budget isn't the same as many Championship Clubs, then you have to be clever and find players outside of the Championship.

If we can't afford 'the going rate' of experienced Championship players, then you have to look elsewhere.

If SC and KB are struggling to do that, and looking at players they know we can't afford...who's fault is it?

I'm not blaming those two perse...as I feel the board are delusional in their perception of Championship football.

However....I feel SC and KB are too set in their ways, especially with 'contacts' they use.

A clever manager would try something different and have the guts to change formations, use Subs, try different players, bring in promising players from lower leagues or abroad ( the latter he seems to have looked at ).

At least if he fails, he would go down trying and no one would say he didn't try.

At the moment it seems a stale mate.

SL has given the budget....and SC keeps saying we can't compete with that amount of money....so it's always a hard luck story.

 

[Jack Dawe]

18 hours ago, Tomarse said:

..but he also won't play players supplied to him. Is that SLs fault as well then?

If that's the case, then surely to god, you don't piss about for six months, you fire him out and get someone in you can work with?

It's like adolescent boys that can't communicate (if this is what's going on)

[Guest]

3 hours ago, NickJ said:

For a start Burns didn't come on as a sub against Charlton as a reaction to their goal - he was warming up and waiting to come on before Charlton scored, presumably to wind down time, that's how he came on so quickly.

How is what Cunningham is doing for Preston of any relevance - he couldn't get in our team last season as Bryan kept him out, who was moaning about that then?

As for the other players you mention, you watch them not set the Championship alight.

If Robinson scores for Preston that is the icing on the cake? Really? Is it a disaster, or does a manager get sacked, every time a former player scores against them?

The micro analysis of maybes and could happens is irrelevant to the bigger picture, which is that on appointment Cotterill demanded and was given complete control over the football side, an agreement which stories would suggest has not been honoured.

Once again I find myself agreeing with you ... Sometimes I think we should start Wes , Bobby , Cox and Moore and Robinson when  they were all here .... And guess what the so called experts would go into melt down !!!!!!

[NickJ]

21 minutes ago, spudski said:

I don't quiet understand that argument Nick.

When you say 'players supplied'....what does that mean?

It's KB's and SC's job to bring in players.

They are given a budget to work within. That happens in all businesses.

If they go looking for players that are outside of that budget, who's fault is that?

If our budget isn't the same as many Championship Clubs, then you have to be clever and find players outside of the Championship.

If we can't afford 'the going rate' of experienced Championship players, then you have to look elsewhere.

If SC and KB are struggling to do that, and looking at players they know we can't afford...who's fault is it?

I'm not blaming those two perse...as I feel the board are delusional in their perception of Championship football.

However....I feel SC and KB are too set in their ways, especially with 'contacts' they use.

A clever manager would try something different and have the guts to change formations, use Subs, try different players, bring in promising players from lower leagues or abroad ( the latter he seems to have looked at ).

At least if he fails, he would go down trying and no one would say he didn't try.

At the moment it seems a stale mate.

SL has given the budget....and SC keeps saying we can't compete with that amount of money....so it's always a hard luck story.

 

Players Supplied - I was simply using the same term Tom had used - where he says"players supplied" this gives the impression they were acquired on behalf of Cotterill rather than by him. If that is the case, how can it be Cotterill's fault.

As for SC and KB looking for players outside of budget, the recent post by Tetbury Massive in another thread, if to be believed - which being as detailed as it was would have been difficult to invent - and also ties in with another piece of information I was given - would indicate that signings were agreed by SC and whoever authorises them but then scuppered, but not scuppered by SC. So how is it his fault.

I have a feeling you will say TM's post was not entirely accurate but it is the most plausible explanation offered that I have seen.

As for a clever manager with guts (if I were SC I would be insulted by that BTW) trying something different, well why? Can you say with certainty that any of your suggested changes would guarantee us more points? Is it not possible that your suggestions would have seen us with less points, marooned to the bottom? I have a feeling at this point you will refer to specific games, Charlton, MK Dons etc, those are the games he should have changed. But will ignore the games where he did change things - Leeds for example - which worked.

 I trust Cotterill that in general he is doing the right thing.

[exAtyeoMax]

3 hours ago, NickJ said:

For a start Burns didn't come on as a sub against Charlton as a reaction to their goal - he was warming up and waiting to come on before Charlton scored, presumably to wind down time, that's how he came on so quickly.

How is what Cunningham is doing for Preston of any relevance - he couldn't get in our team last season as Bryan kept him out, who was moaning about that then?

As for the other players you mention, you watch them not set the Championship alight.

If Robinson scores for Preston that is the icing on the cake? Really? Is it a disaster, or does a manager get sacked, every time a former player scores against them?

The micro analysis of maybes and could happens is irrelevant to the bigger picture, which is that on appointment Cotterill demanded and was given complete control over the football side, an agreement which stories would suggest has not been honoured.

Bobby and Wes started warming up at the same time. Why didn't SC bring them both on at the same time? 

[spudski]

57 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Players Supplied - I was simply using the same term Tom had used - where he says"players supplied" this gives the impression they were acquired on behalf of Cotterill rather than by him. If that is the case, how can it be Cotterill's fault.

As for SC and KB looking for players outside of budget, the recent post by Tetbury Massive in another thread, if to be believed - which being as detailed as it was would have been difficult to invent - and also ties in with another piece of information I was given - would indicate that signings were agreed by SC and whoever authorises them but then scuppered, but not scuppered by SC. So how is it his fault.

I have a feeling you will say TM's post was not entirely accurate but it is the most plausible explanation offered that I have seen.

As for a clever manager with guts (if I were SC I would be insulted by that BTW) trying something different, well why? Can you say with certainty that any of your suggested changes would guarantee us more points? Is it not possible that your suggestions would have seen us with less points, marooned to the bottom? I have a feeling at this point you will refer to specific games, Charlton, MK Dons etc, those are the games he should have changed. But will ignore the games where he did change things - Leeds for example - which worked.

 I trust Cotterill that in general he is doing the right thing.

SC tells KB the type of player he wants...he Scouts and uses contacts and comes back with a list of players.

They then decide on who they want to go after. Although if you believe the rumours about Cox that would throw the cat amongst the pigeons ;-)

We have a Director of Football and a manager...who's calling the shots here?

SC said when he took the job he wanted total control over the playing side and who came in.

As for what TM said....yes some element of truth...maybe you should consider why Pelling went, and the uproar regarding a certain alleged  person trying to get certain players bonus's and after last season, and acting like an Agent and trying to get a cut for himself.....

Of course you cannot guarantee more points by changing...but if you don't try, you'll never find out.

SC won L1 last year doing what he's doing now. He's failing miserably now doing the same....the table shows you that. Flogging a dead horse and doing the same thing over and over again is right? You can pick the odd game here and there....but the table doesn't lie.

How you can think he's doing the right thing, with over half the season gone, bottom 3 and the worst GD in the league is 'doing the right thing' is incomprehensible to me.

If SC tried to change things and people could see he was doing that, then I'd imagine he'd get a lot more respect from people on here, going by posts.

I hope he can turn things round...but if he takes us down, without trying to change things....you would still think he was doing the right thing, just because you feel he's been dealt a bad hand by the board?

[exAtyeoMax]

8 minutes ago, spudski said:

SC tells KB the type of player he wants...he Scouts and uses contacts and comes back with a list of players.

They then decide on who they want to go after. Although if you believe the rumours about Cox that would throw the cat amongst the pigeons ;-)

We have a Director of Football and a manager...who's calling the shots here?

SC said when he took the job he wanted total control over the playing side and who came in.

As for what TM said....yes some element of truth...maybe you should consider why Pelling went, and the uproar regarding a certain alleged  person trying to get certain players bonus's and after last season, and acting like an Agent and trying to get a cut for himself.....

Of course you cannot guarantee more points by changing...but if you don't try, you'll never find out.

SC won L1 last year doing what he's doing now. He's failing miserably now doing the same....the table shows you that. Flogging a dead horse and doing the same thing over and over again is right? You can pick the odd game here and there....but the table doesn't lie.

How you can think he's doing the right thing, with over half the season gone, bottom 3 and the worst GD in the league is 'doing the right thing' is incomprehensible to me.

If SC tried to change things and people could see he was doing that, then I'd imagine he'd get a lot more respect from people on here, going by posts.

I hope he can turn things round...but if he takes us down, without trying to change things....you would still think he was doing the right thing, just because you feel he's been dealt a bad hand by the board?

I can't remember who that was

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

I can't remember who that was

You won't because it's unsubstantiated and never been 'officially' released. But doesn't mean it never happened.

[NickJ]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

SC tells KB the type of player he wants...he Scouts and uses contacts and comes back with a list of players.

They then decide on who they want to go after. Although if you believe the rumours about Cox that would throw the cat amongst the pigeons ;-)

We have a Director of Football and a manager...who's calling the shots here?

SC said when he took the job he wanted total control over the playing side and who came in.

As for what TM said....yes some element of truth...maybe you should consider why Pelling went, and the uproar regarding a certain alleged  person trying to get certain players bonus's and after last season, and acting like an Agent and trying to get a cut for himself.....

Of course you cannot guarantee more points by changing...but if you don't try, you'll never find out.

SC won L1 last year doing what he's doing now. He's failing miserably now doing the same....the table shows you that. Flogging a dead horse and doing the same thing over and over again is right? You can pick the odd game here and there....but the table doesn't lie.

How you can think he's doing the right thing, with over half the season gone, bottom 3 and the worst GD in the league is 'doing the right thing' is incomprehensible to me.

If SC tried to change things and people could see he was doing that, then I'd imagine he'd get a lot more respect from people on here, going by posts.

I hope he can turn things round...but if he takes us down, without trying to change things....you would still think he was doing the right thing, just because you feel he's been dealt a bad hand by the board?

In danger of going round in circles here spudski, but I ask again - is it not possible that if Cotterill's policy was liberal use of subs and change formation, we could be marooned at the bottom with a lot less points than we have now?

The only correct answer is yes, BTW. In which case, how can you say with certainty that Cotterill should be doing anything different? The answer is you can't, in which case under your (and many others) way, we could be a lot worse off.

Your penultimate sentence could easily be spun around - if people could see he was changing things, and we were the same or worse, he would be accused of being the tinkerman.

Fact is when you are near the bottom, the manager cant win, there will always be people that think they are right.

As for what TM said, I was told something else which with that would stack up with why the plug was pulled on the done deals from the summer, a sort of paralysis of inaction arising from concerns if you like, but I know of nothing which involves blame or accusations against any one individual, whether that be agents, players, managers or coaches or board members.

[NickJ]

10 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

Corrected for you. 

Thanks but no thanks I like my version if its all the same.

6 hours ago, spudski said:

You won't because it's unsubstantiated and never been 'officially' released. But doesn't mean it never happened.

Yes well, maybe, and the questions are - who is this alleged person. did it happen. if it did was it bad. if it was why no action. or was there? how does this impact on our manager. who is still here. would anyone from the "club" like to elaborate? thought not.

I can only repeat my comment from another thread, which is, I doubt there is a set of less inappropriate board of directors, of a football club, in the entire Championship.

That's where we are of one spudski, but please stop pretending its our managers fault.

[Mark Jenkinson]

Cotta needs to stay

He needs backing from the Board, and we need to get in experienced targets

 

[cityexile]

7 hours ago, spudski said:

SC tells KB the type of player he wants...he Scouts and uses contacts and comes back with a list of players.

They then decide on who they want to go after. Although if you believe the rumours about Cox that would throw the cat amongst the pigeons ;-)

We have a Director of Football and a manager...who's calling the shots here?

SC said when he took the job he wanted total control over the playing side and who came in.

As for what TM said....yes some element of truth...maybe you should consider why Pelling went, and the uproar regarding a certain alleged  person trying to get certain players bonus's and after last season, and acting like an Agent and trying to get a cut for himself.....

Of course you cannot guarantee more points by changing...but if you don't try, you'll never find out.

SC won L1 last year doing what he's doing now. He's failing miserably now doing the same....the table shows you that. Flogging a dead horse and doing the same thing over and over again is right? You can pick the odd game here and there....but the table doesn't lie.

How you can think he's doing the right thing, with over half the season gone, bottom 3 and the worst GD in the league is 'doing the right thing' is incomprehensible to me.

If SC tried to change things and people could see he was doing that, then I'd imagine he'd get a lot more respect from people on here, going by posts.

I hope he can turn things round...but if he takes us down, without trying to change things....you would still think he was doing the right thing, just because you feel he's been dealt a bad hand by the board?

Blimey, I do enjoy your posts, and I agree with comments about trying something new, but there are just times I feel I should just run them down the road to Bletchley Park to understand the code in some of them...

[spudski]

5 hours ago, NickJ said:

Thanks but no thanks I like my version if its all the same.

Yes well, maybe, and the questions are - who is this alleged person. did it happen. if it did was it bad. if it was why no action. or was there? how does this impact on our manager. who is still here. would anyone from the "club" like to elaborate? thought not.

I can only repeat my comment from another thread, which is, I doubt there is a set of less inappropriate board of directors, of a football club, in the entire Championship.

That's where we are of one spudski, but please stop pretending its our managers fault.

I agree re the board Nick, as you are aware.

I've always said any manager would struggle long term here. Regardless of who they are.

As for the position we are in now, there are many factors that have put us in the bottom 3.

Regardless of the hand SC has been dealt, you have to try and do the best with what you have.

Obviously SC is a 'stick' rather than 'twist' type of manager.

He sticks with what he believes in...his system and players he trusts in that system.

This is where we see it differently...you obviously agree with his way of doing things.

How I view it...if it was working...then I'd stick. I see the table and the goals conceded....it's not good after 25 matches. So i'd at least try something different to what has been failing.

I've said for many months, that I believe the small squad we have, could be lower mid table if we played a different system.

We'll never know if it would work under SC.

But the facts show right now, that we are the third worse team in the league...so from that I'd try to change something...regardless of all the factors that have gone on before.