red panda

14 hours ago, Bobs Dad said:

I guess if he's excluded from the squad then he is lone-d out?

36 minutes ago, Superjack said:

So nobody worth giving a chance at either Oxford or here, despite looking. 

Okay then.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell us who you think he should have brought though (or for that matter why Pearson didn't bring anyone through himself during the first part of this season, apart from a few sub appearances for Yeboah).

Or maybe, just maybe, there might be something in the simple explanation that others have put forward but you seem unwilling to accept?

1 hour ago, formerly known as ivan said:

After not having attended a game since Swansea for my own sanity, performances and results have picked up. Some on here and social media believing Manning is in fact the second coming. So against my best judgement, I decided to have another look myself.

Wow, that was dire! It confirmed everything we already knew. This new and improved Manningball was a flash in the pan. That my friends is the football you have to look forward to next season, which will come as no surprise to many.

Good luck all for next season. I shall look forward to a return to the gate in a year or two.

 

1 hour ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Not sure if you are a user of X/Twitter, but it was full of people after Wednesday saying Manning was the saviour, power phrasing of course. Couldn’t believe anyone had ever questioned him.

 

7 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Without going through tweets back to Wednesday, no

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to say who on here (not Twitter/X) believe Manning is in fact the second coming.  It's easy to demolish other people's arguments when you make them up in the first place 

We had good and bad games under Nige, we have good and bad games under Liam, and I dare say we'll have good and bad games under whoever comes next.  Meanwhile, enjoy your Saturdays in B&Q 

27 minutes ago, Jimmyjimmy said:

Another win for Liam’s top reds, 4-1.

You think we're going to concede? 

I smell the 'cult of Nige' 

10 minutes ago, Mike Hunt-Hertz said:

Don't you mean Gen X?

Well spotted!

15 minutes ago, Robbored said:

We must be of the same generation RP - I’m a 1950’s man and have experienced pretty much the same as you and share your sentiments.

My best friend from school passed away a couple of years ago, only a month older than me. We played in the same football and cricket team and did pretty much everything together even sharing our girlfriends! It was his dad that first drove us to AG in 1967 - that really is a real perspective on life.

 

How dare you!   I'm gen z (just) rather than a boomer.  Still, of the six people who completed the same course at the same college in my year, at least two are no longer with us 

1 hour ago, Top Robin said:

I don't think you are a true City fan.

Many of us have supported the team through all the divisions with various qualities of manager and players.

Yes it's been horrible at times but personally, I still loved watching the team home and away and with same degree of passion and enthusiasm wherever we are.

That's what real supporters do.

 

I'm pleased you have maintained the same degree of passion and enthusiasm.  Speaking for myself, and I suspect some others, the process of growing up, having some kind of career, getting married and especially having children, seeing my parents grow old, eventually seeing friends my own age getting ill and sadly dying, and also daring to have other hobbies and interests, has given me a sense of perspective.  I hope I'm still a "real supporter", and when we score a goal that really matters I can still jump up and down like a small child, but I also realise that I'm simply watching 22 ridiculously well-paid young men kick a lump of leather around on a patch of grass.  Apologies if this makes me a second-rate fan.

I think us exiles have been amply rewarded this season by having to watch fewer games 

33 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

'Tourists' is not a term used to describe the type of fan that you are. A tourist is someone (Japanese / American) who has no affiliation to a club but is quite happy to pay £100 plus for a ticket to a Premier League game and then spend double that in the club shop. There are 1000's of such people who are classed as this which is why Premier League clubs (Spurs and Liverpool lately) restrict season ticket sales. Long term they make far more money from the 'tourists' than they do Season ticket holders who get a reduced price seat and buy a beer in their local before entering the ground.

All of that is true (and I've been a tourist myself at several large grounds around Europe, though spent precisely zilch on merch etc).  But several posters earlier on in this thread did use this term about non-season ticket holders at AG.

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In my time that happened once only, the Ward and Benny year..how far back are you going.

To be fair, that's the one I had in mind.  It's seared in my consciousness because we took so long to climb back out of the third tier afterwards.  Years of near misses under Danny Wilson (including that play off final in Cardiff).  Fortunately Tinnion laid the foundations for our revival and the great Gary Johnson finished the job.

Oh for the good old days when we would get promoted to the Championship then go straight back down the following year 

I get where everyone is coming from.  But we often seem to play better against decent teams, and when we're on TV, and Leicester have had a bit of a wobble (only 4 points from their last 5 games - almost as bad as us!).  Do we really want to listen to Nigel discussing how well we played, how expertly Manning set us up, and so on?  

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I've been saying for a long time that they don't realise how good they had it with Pearson. They will struggle to find another manager who was is so willing to blood academy players because most managers simply care about their records. 

Pearson was a very rare exception in that he cared about the club more than he cared about his own record. 

The club blindly thought that because Manning once coached in an academy he'd be perfect for the role. What they didn't consider was the fact that Manning would not want to risk his record by blooding academy players.

We're already seeing him setting us up to not lose to protect his job so it's incredibly unlikely we'll ever see him blood academy players for the same reason. 

I won't labour the point, but I think the quality of academy players coming through at the time also made it easier for Pearson to include them.

Tedious football plus poor results should be Manning's downfall, not so much his attitude to academy players.  Setting us up not to lose can be a good starting point, and early on I'm not sure Manning got enough credit for some of this.  It's been really noticeable how many times match reports would say that our opponents weren't their usual free-flowing selves, struggled to find their normal rhythm, weren't firing on all cylinders, etc.  It can't have been a coincidence that so many teams seemed to have an off day when playing us.  But Manning's abject failure to build from this foundation and improve things at the other end of the pitch means that I agree he has to go!

39 minutes ago, fisherrich said:

Car crash of a football club. Just look at the mess this club is in. Also stopped going after Nige P sacked. Not going back until Lansdowns are out of our club. Been down AG 50+ years supporting the team. Really pissed off with it TBH.

Are we in administration or liquidation?  Do players and club staff still receive their wages?  Do we owe a huge amount to HMRC?  Are we paying millions in interest to external lenders?  Have we been relegated to the third tier, fourth tier or out of the league altogether?  Do our owners have an appalling human rights record that we try not to mention?  Are we on our eleventh manager in the last four years?  Are we facing one or more points deductions?  Is our ground unfinished or falling apart?  Do we have an owner who brazenly ignores FFP regulations then blames everyone else when sanctioned?  Did we build a new ground which we never filled and then had to leave?  Do we have Tony Pulis or Joey Barton as manager ?

After initially supporting Manning, I now think he ought to be sacked.  It just didn't work.  Things could certainly be better.  But they could also be a hell of a lot worse!

1 hour ago, Ivorguy said:

It is not the losing of games.

Rather it is

1. The failure to achieve this season what he was appointed to achieve

2. The hurtling down the league

3. Manning’s inane interviews and blaming the players

4.  The way we’ve dropped points with the players half the men they were under Nige

5.  The  mismanagement during matches

6. The dire no entertainment football

Etc etc 

He simply as many agree well beyond his comfort zone.  There is, imo, no chance of him improving at this level, let alone the level we aspire to

I'd suggest there are only three reasons - the dire no entertainment football, the dire no entertainment football, and the dire no entertainment football.  Plus no discernible grounds for optimism, no evidence of a corner being turned, etc

Most of the others are subjective and arguable.  For example we haven't really been "hurtling" down the league, and there have been occasions when his subs have scored and/or created goals.  And if you want inspiring interviews then let's appoint George Galloway, he'd do less harm here than in the House of Commons!

Strangely I think we could still be quite attractive to a potential manager.  With a typical managerial ego, they might well think they can be the one to turn this "sleeping giant" around and make their name.  And despite all the criticisms of the structure, that stats show that we do typically give managers more time than most other Championship clubs.

Now! Otherwise we'll beat Leicester and his status as Pep mk 2 will be restored

Have to agree.  Was really hoping he could turn the corner (in the right direction), and think appointing up and coming young managers is definitely worth a try.  But it just hasn't worked and we should cut our losses and get someone new in for the summer.

53 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Read the follow up post before you call me a ******* moron . I know for a fact there are plenty of self entitled lay abouts that don’t want to work & think the world owes them a living . I’m not a Tory or read the express or any paper for that matter. It’s a matter of fact there are many who would rather lay about & let me or any hard working person pay their benefits with our tax money . 
Is there any other aspersions you’d like to cast mr high & mighty . If you don’t like what I got to say , put me on ignore & **** off

I wouldn't disagree that there probably are some who choose not to work.  But it is also a fact that the main reason for working age people not working or looking for work is long-term sickness.  People caring for relative(s) is also another big category, as well people with disabilities.  Isn't it worth the risk of unintentionally helping a small number of "self entitled layabouts" in order also to help the greater number of people who would genuinely like to work but are unable to do so through no fault of their own (and are also dealing with challenges with their own health, the health of loved ones, etc as well as being skint)? 

15 minutes ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

I suspect that as a country we could (mostly all) work a little harder than we currently do. Be a tad more productive. 

I mean, just take this place, Monday to Friday 9 - 5, for starters ....

But it is work for some Bristol Sport employees.  Allegedly 

1 hour ago, RedM said:

Was that when unemployment was at a record high and there were hundreds of applicants for even the basic jobs? It's very different now with vacancies unfilled. There is of course work from home, broadband etc which there wasn't back then. Most fit and able bodied people can now do some sort of work, but unfortunately the benefits system doesn't motivate them too. Obviously there are exceptions but I personally don't see why it would be feasible to offer discounts in this case. The cost will have to be found somewhere, and everything has a cost.

Perhaps you could explain what this cost is - i.e. what extra costs the club incurs as a result of one additional supporter attending - and why you think this wouldn't be covered by the cost of a discounted season ticket.

There's been a lot of unsympathetic rubbish posted on this thread, by many posters.  Perhaps they've swallowed the "scroungers vs hard workers" line promoted by the likes of the Daily Mail and similarly vile sources.  In fact, the main reason for people of working age not being employed or actively looking for work is long-term sickness (currently around 2.7m).  Another common reason is having to care for relative(s).  Years of government neglect of both the NHS and social care is at least part of this story.

Even looking at this in cold financial terms, the answer isn't obvious because by offering lower prices to a group that, by definition, doesn't have much spare cash might lead to more tickets being sold.  In the longer term, if they keep on attending then they might be more likely to buy a full price season ticket if/when their situation improves.  But more than this, it just seems the right thing to do.  Yes the club might end up giving a small discount to some who choose not to work, but they'll also end up helping out a larger number of fans who find themselves in a financially challenging situation often through no fault of their own (and may well be facing other challenges, e.g. their own health and that of their loved ones).

23 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Bloke does stuff on day off..

Daily Mail = evil rag.

In contrast, the Guardian has it as one of their photos of the day describing them simply as "racegoers"

9 hours ago, Markthehorn said:

Mind you some managers we have lost or got rid of have done well elsewhere.

Dyche 

Edwards

Silva (eventually)

Jokanavic (at Fulham anyway )

Even Hodgson did well at Palace  for a bit.

Somewhere someone has got to get a chance but both owners and now fans want change at the first sign of trouble.

 

 

To be fair, just by the law of averages there must be lots of ex Watford managers out there doing well, as well as lots doing badly, lots doing just OK, and lots not working.  Ismael was their 11th manager since Jan 2018, and that's not counting caretakers  

12 hours ago, S_C said:

I absolutely believe that the manner in which he arrived is contributing to the current mood. That isn’t to say the mood would be dramatically different but I absolutely believe that if JL/BT had been more honest, if they’d thanked Pearson for his work in righting the ship and stated Manning is a promising young coach who will need time and understanding to adapt to the Championship, I think plenty would be more forgiving.

Everyone knew the top 6 squad stuff was nonsense, I’m not implying fans swallowed it and are now confused why we aren’t 5th, but they massively fumbled both Pearson's exit (in creating a false narrative about someone who had been hugely media savvy in the run up to his departure) and Manning’s appointment. It left a sour taste in a fanbase already sceptical of the hierarchy, whilst lumping Manning in their corner as their man. It created undue pressure. Had they not, I think for some the tone shifts to ‘we’ve had some good performances, look at Watford, look at Southampton, a nice win over PL West Ham, there are signs of potential, but he needs to improve if he’s going to take us forward' rather than ‘out of his depth, get rid.’

I do get the criticism regarding trying to impose his style of play on a set of players that aren’t suited to it, but managers come in with their own ideas and methods. He isn’t going to play the same style/system as his predecessor, and I think 10/15 games is probably around the mark you’d realise what you want to do might not work. It’s all well and good criticising that he isn’t being flexible but you don't get the green light to implement your methods, struggle for 4 games, and then revert to what the bloke who just got fired was doing. Clearly it will take time, either for it to work or realise it isn’t. Even if its acknowledged that the players don't quite fit, that must be known prior to appointment, otherwise BT/JL sat in an interview with LM and said 'What we're looking for is exactly how we're playing now..'

His first 10 games were W4 D3 L3. I’d say that’s pretty fine and argue, actually, that he’s therefore had 15 games to consider what he’s trying to do might be too much too soon. For what it’s worth, we’ve had 14 games between 1st Jan and 2nd Mar, several against PL teams, including an ET and demoralising penalties loss. That’s a lot of games, many against superior opposition. Though I don’t condone it and acknowledge its dangers, there’s been an air throughout that we’ll finish mid table. It's his responsibility to manage that of course, but it isnt hard to see how complacency and fatigue, both physically and mentally, can set in.

As has been said elsewhere, poor and lose to Swansea and the club are staring down both barrels. I can’t help but feel, though, that whilst both Pearson and Manning had their challenges, Pearson’s were used to excuse him whereas Manning’s are brushed aside.

 

12 hours ago, Davefevs said:

What are the comparative “challenges” you see that should’ve resulted in equal treatment?

For me, Nige inherited a mess and therefore needed a period of time to reset the club.

Liam took over a club in a “healthy state” - BT:

”best squad in a long time, well contracted, only 3 OOC in the summer”

In fairness he did say “when fit”.  Although we have seen a few more creep in over recent weeks, they’ve been spread across the positions, so he hasn’t had to play players out of position.

Depth has been an issue for both, but we are then back to budgets!

FWIW I don’t think Manning is shit, there are things I like about the way he’s done things.  But just too many areas I’m not convinced by.  I didn’t like everything Nige did either.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Colemanballs said:

You have been sucked into a Manning vs Pearson debate which is a (deliberate) distraction from the issue at hand, namely whether Manning should be given more time. What Pearson did or not do and what challenges he faced are irrelevant to the decision we are faced with now which I think boils down to how one answers the following questions. 

• Is the current squad suited to the style of play Manning prefers? My opinion: No. I think pretty much everyone agrees on this whether in the pro or anti Manning camps.
• Will Manning change style to a more pragmatic approach to suit the squad? My opinion: No. He has made it abundantly clear that he is wedded to this possession football.
• Can the current squad be easily transformed (bearing in mind our likely budget) into a squad that is suited to the style of play Manning prefers? My opinion: No. The squad has been built to play a fast, counterattacking style of play, the antithesis of the possession based style Manning favours. Transitioning to such a style would require a significant revamp of the existing squad requiring serious investment and excellent transfer dealings.
• Is the style of play Manning prefers likely to see us challenging for promotion? My opinion: No. To work, possession based football requires that you have players who are significantly better than the opposition. I cannot think of a single club that has been promoted from the Championship playing possession based football that has not had the benefit of parachute payments. Of the clubs that have not had the benefit of parachute payments that have been promoted from the Championship, they have generally played some kind of pragmatic style.
• Is the style of play Manning prefers likely to see us playing more attractive football? My opinion: No. I find all that sideways passing tedious. I appreciate that many appreciate that style of football though.

I don't like to see anyone fired, but based on my answers to the questions, I believe he should go now. Otherwise, the very real fear is that we waste substantial money rebuilding the squad over the summer and at best end up mid table and at worst are in a relegation battle. Obviously, my answers are all opinions and it may be that others would answer yes to some or all of them and therefore come to a different conclusion. Based on the evidence we have before us though, it is difficult for me to see how they would do so.

 

6 hours ago, Capman said:

For me context is everything. Those who say we need to ‘move on’ are missing the point. 
Pearson was fired because he was an experienced manager prepared to speak footballing ‘truth’ to an establishment who did not want to listen as it was not something they were wanting to hear. 
I agree, Manning is inexperienced and should normally be given more time. Problem is, if he is and by some miracle learns lots and learns it fast he will simply be an experienced manager who speaks truth to an establishment who do not want to hear it. The outcome of that is likely to simply be Deja vu. 
Unfortunately I think we have an establishment who are unprepared to face the challenging nature of climbing out of the championship and until that changes it really doesn’t matter who is in the head coach seat. The club just does not have the ambition. 
 

 

5 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

You're making this a Manning Vs Pearson debate in order to distract from the current situation which is 4 losses in a row and 23 points from 21 games. If any manager delivered that sort of record then the mood is going to be exactly the same. 

Personally I can't see any situation where a 'give him time' with a squad already good enough for top 10 would have people be forgiven of our regression. 

Manning has shown absolutely nothing that even with time, he'll come good. 

You mention about excuses for Pearson but then 90% of your post is excuses for Manning. 

 

 

5 hours ago, TV Tom said:

Can't remember Pearson getting the same stick when he went 14 odd games without a home win

 

5 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

The comments made about a style of play was made by Tinnion whilst Pearson was still here.

They then hired a manager that was alien to that style of play.

 

4 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

You may well be right, but I thought I'd heard Tinnion talk about it earlier than that and thought that Pearson alluded to it in an interview a while back.

 

4 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Yeah you're right Tinnion did as well I think while Pearson was here. Confusing regardless!

 

4 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

I seem to remember some rumblings , but wasn't that during his early days as permanent Boss ?
Just after over seeing 14 departures , bringing in 4 . 
Because of the situation many fans were ok with Pearson getting time. It wasn't even just a shed load of OOC players and reducing the wage bill through necessity , the medical and coaching staff was rebuilt . There were a lot of moving parts.
Manning has come into a good situation for a new boss. 
Squad recovering health & availability .
Very good levels of fitness.
Good atmosphere and bond through the team. 
A decent squad and mix of players. 
There were infact none of the usual problems faced by new Managers, they wanted taking to the next level, some improvement on the pitch. 

This is my problem , he has seemingly been brought up with a single philosophy . He is so wedded to this he always wants to play that way and is convinced the plan is right.
This is fine to a point .
Take the Ipswich game;
He looks at Ipswich, how they play and set up . Makes a plan for that and is happy. The Plan seems to work , and now here's the problem. We are facing another team and another Manager who sees "HIS" plan isn't working so changes things. All of a sudden our plan isn't working, but Manning knows his plan WAS working and so sticks to it , because the Plan was working.

I criticised Pearson for everything from selection to set up to Subs at times. But he more than once made very early Subs because he got things wrong, that was because he was experienced and big enough to take it on the chin. I don't see that in Manning's make up.

Taking the Manning V Pearson thing out of it . 
Manning's inability to adjust is a worry, his willingness to blame everyone else is a worry , that he seems to get out thought with "in game tactics" is a worry , the fact the players look less fit than when he came in is a worry, the fact he seems to be playing players with injuries is a worry.  You can add we struggle against the same tactics week in week out. Because we do better against more open teams isn't an excuse. 

As it stands I can't think of many reasons he shouldn't be sacked, apart from it doesn't show the decision makers in a good light. We have a few games against teams that will be a little more open, so we could pick up points Vs Swansea , WBA , Leicester , Plymouth & Sunderland . 6 points will not only probably see us safe, it will be enough to buy time for Manning and that add more worries.

Will he choose the players we bring in, will BT give him the players, as he will be effectively be on borrowed time. 
With a limited budget I'm not sure even if we spend £10M on this ( big , strong , quick , effective , potent ) striker we are after , will make any difference to the team . 
We buy a target man who can hold the ball up for runners, how does that fit with Manning ball ??

We are in a mess of our own making. Not Mannings fault he is here, but clearly not a good fit and incapable of being able to adapt , which doesn't look good for a young Coach. 

 

4 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@Colemanballs I’m beginning to think that’s the only thing they have left in their argument, to keep dragging it back to Pearson.  I rarely see anything detailing the pros of Manning.  In fact, I reckon I give more pros of Manning than they do!

guess why he didn’t, because into 21/22 he won games away.  Ultimately it matters not at which venue younein, but that you do win.  Oh, and he did get stick, tonnes of it.  Short memories.  It was probably the foundation of “Nige-out” at the time.

If they were to replace Manning, there wouldn’t need to be a(nother) rebuild if they got an adaptable manager in.

Without going through all the quotes, they appointed Manning because they thought all modern, progressive, on the grass coaches play high press, forward thinking football.  Possession and winning (MK season 1, Oxford early this season) do not equal high press, forward thinking football.  It’s incredible incompetence they thought that. 

 

4 hours ago, fisherrich said:

I don’t see it as a Manning v Nige debate. The boil needs to be lanced - ie the Lansdowns need to sell up. Getting rid of Manning will make no difference as those 2 Lansdown buffoons will just employ another YES man. No faith in Zippee and Bungle running this football club/aka Bristol Sport.
What I liked about Nige P was his absolute honesty and passion for the football club. What a loss!

 

3 hours ago, BCFC_Dan said:

Pearson took 9 points from 14 games during his initial short term contact, yet he was rewarded for that with a 3 year deal. I thought that a daft move at the time, and I still do. He then delivered 2.5 years of largely uninspiring football and mediocre results.

However, he was operating under restricted circumstances and there was, as he saw it, a lot of work to be done to get the club into a shape where it could succeed. I don't know if that means any manager would have to do that work in order to succeed, or if it was work that Pearson created. Nevertheless, he was getting on with it and making slow but steady progress. He had a number of runs of poor form, and also a few periods of personal ill health, but the club stuck by him and let him continue his work.

Then, suddenly, out of nowhere, the club hierarchy decided they didn't like the direction of travel that the club had been on for nearly 3 years and decided to impose a complete stylistic change, under a relatively inexperienced coach. Not only that, but they declared the squad, which was largely built for and by Pearson, and of mid table quality at best, to be capable of finishing in the top 6, something that was self-evidently not true, and did nothing but heap pressure on their new manager.

Personally, I like Manning, and I like the performances I've seen (I only see televised games and the odd away fixture, so I've been lucky in what I've witnessed). I think he's the right man to take the club forward. However, it's pretty obvious that the manner in which decisions have been made has made things about as difficult as possible to achieve success.

I don't hate the Lansdowns, or Brian Tinnion, and both have done plenty of good work, but the decisions taken over the management have been quite ridiculous. It was obvious at every stage what they were going to get from Nigel Pearson. He didn't even deliver particularly good results, and his style of play was well known. If they wanted that style of play, then fine, let him do the job. If they wanted him to steady the ship and build a platform, then fine, sack him in the summer of 2023, or let him run out his contract, then make a change. If they wanted a different style of play or better results, don't appoint the guy with 2 wins in 14 games, who doesn't play how you want to play, in the first place. Whatever the individual merits of Manning and Pearson may be, not one of those decisions really makes any sense.

 

3 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

You just don't like to hear the truth that Pearson and Manning inherited vastly different squad's because it doesnt fit with your agenda. 

 

3 hours ago, pillred said:

I have said on another post-NP did not get particularly good results, now how much of that was down to reducing the wage bill getting rid of the dead wood etc I don't know. I have come in for some stick for even daring to point that out, he was working under some constraints but the way he is mourned on here anyone would think we had been successful and entertaining under his management, well I must have missed that part, as you have pointed out Manning seems to be on a hiding to nothing what frustrates me most is good results and performances followed by disappointment. I personally can see some improvement overall the team look more cohesive but again we have the curse of Bristol City with injuries which have impacted our progress, all this harking back to the "good old days" under Pearson is getting us nowhere. 

 

3 hours ago, AshtonGreat said:

Pearson managed 12 points from his first 15 games?

 

3 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

This season (which is the only fair comparison) Pearson managed 18 points from 14 games. 

 

3 hours ago, Galley is our king said:

If people are told the truth, it helps but..... the rationale for sacking Pearson is just a tissue of LIES.

People who deliberately lie, lose respect.

When those same lies actually make us worse, you end up where we currently are. 

Now, JL and BT can not expect any, or little respect.

They also seem not to be able to do anything about it nor indeed put out any comms (another lie which they said would improve).

They are in a hole of their own making.

 

 

3 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Before that we got 9 from 14 games and 6 defeats on the trot . Do you think there might be some context needed here ?

Pearson inherited a shitshow with no transfer window. 10 points away from PO's -13 GD 

Manning inherited a reasonable team , window approaching ,5 points from the Playoffs. -1 GD

 

 

3 hours ago, bearded_red said:

If your only defence of Liam Manning is that we’re not doing as badly as when Pearson took over that complete omnishambles I’d suggest that in itself speaks volumes for what a job he’s doing.

 

2 hours ago, RollsRoyce said:

Let's talk about Manning. Pearson has gone, and Manning being unsuited has nothing to do with Pearson. Two hugely different scenarios.

So, why did we appoint Manning? What are the attributes you see, with the squad that we have, that suit the way Manning wants to play? What youth players have been developed under Manning? What players have improved under Manning? Why, when Luton and possibly Ipswich get promoted to the Prem playing a certain way, with a budget closer to ours than say Leeds/Burnley/Leicester do you think the Manning 's approach to playing football is superior to that of McKenna and Edwards? How many players does Manning need to sign? Particularly when 2 players already signed, we tried to sign before he got here, a powerful forward we tried to sign before he got here, and the number 10 position, filled by Scott and not replaced, would have been filled if the money was available. So we already know the squad for next year, bar Twine (or his replacement) and a Semenyo replacement. Is that enough to give Manning the players he would want to play his way? Is that way of playing as. a non-parachute payment club going to bring success? As we would be the first club to do that, nothing like being first of course, but it does not follow any other path to success by any other club. 

In any case, when, who, has said we are now going on a different path? The club have never said it, fans have created this narrative to explain Mannings's failure. 

In my view, the club did not do their due diligence and hired a Russel Martin replacement, when what we needed was a McKenna or Edwards if we wanted to utilise better the players at our disposal. 

It will be faster and more economical to cut our losses with Manning now before we enter into a blind faith, or an attempt at face-saving , path that will be destructive and carries a high risk of relegation next season. 

Whilst 10 games left can change the mood and take Manning into next season with positive energy, something stupendous will need to happen to lift what would appear to be increasing doubts. An empty ground at full-time for a derby I had never seen before, and the atmosphere was the worst I can recall for a derby. There is no faith or belief. Those are worrying traits. Anger would be better, really, as it shows passion. But people have stopped caring. As it is a lost cause. 

So, please, try and explain what it is that you believe Manning has that I and maybe a few others are struggling to grasp. 

 

2 hours ago, Sheltons Army said:

It’s called doubling down Gull

The loudest anti Pearson screamers are feeling a bit vulnerable 

 

2 hours ago, pillred said:

It was a bit of an unnecessary mess wasn't it, there does seem to be a common denominator in all this and I'm not sure if just changing the manager will ever improve it, I just wish there was less negativity towards Mannings's appointment as he hasn't exactly had a lot of luck as far as injuries and recruitment have gone, I also agree we were not told the real reason Pearson was sacked personally I think it was a combination of poor results, his overall health, and of course him calling a Spade a Spade.

 

2 hours ago, italian dave said:

I think maybe you’ve answered your own question Dave!

I guess we’ll see whether the January window was about budgets or about who’s available come the summer.

One thing I think is often overlooked - because it’s out of sight and off the field - is the issue of relationships and trust. If the assumptions on here are correct, then that was NPs downfall at the end of the day. I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, but you’d imagine/hope that relationship and trust between senior people is now better. And that has to be a good thing for the club.

I know you can debate whether the right people ended up leaving when those relationships broke down - but that’s a fairly pointless debate: it’s just about being realistic!

And I know you can make the case @Capman  makes above about speaking truth to power. And I don’t argue with that. But there are ways of doing that. And doing it in a way that ends up with a complete breakdown of the relationship isn’t the way.

I think you’ve made the point in the past about Gould having been the buffer between NP and JL and it’s possibly his departure that’s been more of a problem for the club than anything else.

Whether LM is just a ‘yes man’, or whether he has different skills in terms of speaking that truth - I’ve no idea, and I’m not sure anyone on here really does? 

 

2 hours ago, TV Tom said:

To be honest I really don't know what Manning has or doesn't have yet but like it or not he is our manager so i'm willing to give him a chance and a bit of time and get behind him, the good games have been good and the bad games have been bad so much the status quo of the last five years, since xmas i've really enjoyed a few games (the 4 cup games, Cov' Middlesbrough, Southampton and even Ipswich the other night, the bad games were atrocious as were many games under NP (i still break out into a cold sweat with our away performance at Reading last season)

 

2 hours ago, MarcusX said:

Pearson got loads of stick early in his first full season, and some wanted him gone before Xmas that year.

Doesnt matter what side of the “divide” you are on, its re-writing history to pretend Pearson had it easy or didn’t get any stick from fans at the same stage of his tenure as Manning is in.

Difference js, Nige should have been in credit to some extent after keeping us up.

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, TV Tom said:

I'm happy to give Pearson plenty of credit and am fully appreciative of some of the things he did under difficult circumstances but after two and a half years i think the time was right to go, again this is only my opinion and i appreciate fully and i understand why some people have the opposite opinion

 

2 hours ago, RedRock said:

As said many times previously, if you want to get promoted playing fast-paced, front-foot possession football you need a team made up of the division’s best and most skilled players at that style. Man City are successful as they can buy the best. 

We simply don’t have those players because they cost £££. Pearson adopted an all together different and pragmatic approach of trying to weld a successful team.  A ‘band of brothers’ approach. His problem - aside from the off the field issues - was that recruitment was pretty poor. As a consequence, we weren’t improving - at least not at a fast enough pace. 

With a great deal of luck you might be able to develop a Man City style of play on the cheap and develop your own youngsters, or buy in young players for elsewhere - the strategy we’re, seemingly, now employing but that will take time and possibly, a relegation. No guarantees of eventual success though and the likelihood is if we do develop any decent players they’ll be snaffled up by bigger Clubs - unless by some stroke of good luck they develop all at the same time so we can offer players a realistic vision of them as a collective going on to the Prem. 

While I can see some logic in ditching Pearson, I struggle massively with flip-flopping to an entirely different approach and reversion back to the failed LJ type model. 

Think we’re right in a hole now. Stick or twist? 

Gamble either way. Do I trust our recruitment ‘team’ to deliver quality, physically resilient players in the Summer that can deliver ‘Pep’ football?  No. Do I think that Manning can adapt his style of play, get the players on board and become a quality in-game manager in the last ten games? No. Do I think the Lansdown’s will press the button. No, at least not until October at the earliest. 

The next few months are going to be hard for us supporters. Relegation, I fear, is a distinct possibly.
 

 

2 hours ago, Steve Watts said:

He doesn't throw the team under the bus at all.  I know this because he tells us he's not doing this......usually just before throwing the team under the bus...but he's assured us he's not doing that......

Whether the change was needed or not it was absolutely not the case that the time was right for him to go.  It was either too early or too late, but to sack him when they did was wrong on all levels.

 

1 hour ago, Meh said:

When Nigel was here and things were bad he was honest with fans and detract blame from his players, he tried tinkering with the system slightly, personnel slightly and maybe switched the speed of play and where the line was to press.

Liam is sticking to the same tactics, same formation generally, putting blame on the players already under pressure and changing the team regularly and it does not seem to be representative of who fans are seeing having a bad patch.

It reminds me so much of LJ and what became known as his tombola team selection. Manning does not seem to know his strongest team and is not changing our style to combat the system of the opposition.

Experience over inexperience I guess.

 

34 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

I think the vast majority of us agree that sacking Pearson was unnecessary and short-sighted and yet another reason why the Lansdown family need to be away from this club as soon as possible. 

However, we can't turn the clock back, that's old history and in the short-term I'm interested in how we can make the team more competitive now.

Sacking Manning with 10 games to go would be a big roll of the dice. Unless the new guy hits the ground running it'll take a while for him to know the players and work out where they best perform. LJ pulled off a rescue package when he came in, SOD did the opposite. Both had more than 10 games however.

For me, rather than take that particular gamble now, removing the malign influence of our unofficial DOF might be a quick fix to allow this coach more flexibility in how he sets up. The entire logic of putting a bloke in as DOF whose management career amounts to failing at one club is crazy. "Brian is in overall charge of all football matters" was the most chilling thing I've read on the OS. You might as well ring up Liz Truss to get her advice on balancing your household budget. 

We might have a shot at bringing in a genuine wise advisor before the season end or perhaps it's just time for the club to realise that the Tinnion as DOF experiment isn't working and just let Manning stand or fall on his own merits. 

 

22 minutes ago, Capman said:

I agree with that summary by the way. NP should certainly be reflecting on his own responsibilities to build relationships, but ultimately that is not the supporters problem. The supporters, I suspect, want an experienced manager who can build a successful team. They do not need over delicate egos (in the board room or the dug out) thinking they are more important than getting points on the board and getting the team promoted. 

 

21 minutes ago, cheese said:

As I see it, Nige created a team of greyhounds (runners) whereas Manning (also read Tinnion) wants a team of intelligent footballers.  Not enough of our current squad fit into that category.  Now you can argue until you're blue in the face that Manning should adapt to the squad he has and play to their strengths but that's not what he was brought in to do.  It will be painful until he has the players he wants.  The hierarchy decided that we were safe from relegation this season and so November was the best time to press the button.  Whether they were right on timing we shall see.  Whether they were right on the appointment depends on us staying up and then seeing what happens next season.

 

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Do you honestly think “safety from relegation” was their tipping point in making the decision to sack Nige?  They were looking upwards not downwards!  How far upwards we can only guess, but relegation was nowhere near being in their mindset.

Where I’m at, if you hadn’t guessed () is that even giving him his own players won’t make the difference the outlay will need.

Only 34 posts so far that explicitly mention Nige (I didn't pick those where the reference was only implicit, even if it was obvious)