Bermuda (a)

[Shtanley]

I'm joined by Dave and Jamie to discuss the Reading defeat.

More importantly we discuss Dean Holden's sacking, which occurs mid-way through the podcast.

Was it inevitable? Where do we go from here?!

Also where has Jon Lansdown been recently and why is he so tanned? 

LISTEN HERE

[pl00peh91]

Good pod but just interested to know where it was published that Keith Downing had been sacked? I recall Gregor tweeting about Holden and then on BCFC website it mentioned both Simpson and Downing taking training moving forwards

[pl00peh91]

Sorry I should really learn to listen to the whole thing before posting! :laugh: 

[Fordy62]

I like that you highlight that one of Lee Johnson’s strengths was bouncing back after his two record sets of defeats, something that Holden wasn’t able to do. 

That’s because Johnson was allowed to remain in control. Holden wasn’t. You can turn a bad run around if you’re sacked. 

Don’t get me wrong, Holden had to go, but you can’t compare his record to Johnson, because Lansdown allowed Johnson go get away with it, a luxury Holden wasn’t afforded. 

It now seems pretty certain that no one had a level playing field to Johnson. Not Cotterill and now not Holden. 

[Notbarrymanc]

Just now, Fordy62 said:

I like that you highlight that one of Lee Johnson’s strengths was bouncing back after his two record sets of defeats, something that Holden wasn’t able to do. 

That’s because Johnson was allowed to remain in control. Holden wasn’t. You can turn a bad run around if you’re sacked. 

Don’t get me wrong, Holden had to go, but you can’t compare his record to Johnson, because Lansdown allowed Johnson go get away with it, a luxury Holden wasn’t afforded. 

It now seems pretty certain that no one had a level playing field to Johnson. Not Cotterill and now not Holden. 

An incredibly simplistic take on the three scenarios. There’s far more nuance involved than the black and white of results and form. 

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

I like that you highlight that one of Lee Johnson’s strengths was bouncing back after his two record sets of defeats, something that Holden wasn’t able to do. 

That’s because Johnson was allowed to remain in control. Holden wasn’t. You can turn a bad run around if you’re sacked. 

Don’t get me wrong, Holden had to go, but you can’t compare his record to Johnson, because Lansdown allowed Johnson go get away with it, a luxury Holden wasn’t afforded. 

It now seems pretty certain that no one had a level playing field to Johnson. Not Cotterill and now not Holden. 

It's also because, during those LJ losing runs, including the one that now holds the record, we actually played ok. We managed to take shots, we even scored goals. In the record losing run of 8 league games we scored 9 times. In the current 5 game losing run we've scored twice. So, although LJ lost many in a row, it wasn't much of a surprise that the team recovered - because they were a good team losing to fortune.

During the last few games it's just been utter crap.

I'm just listening to the pod now. @Shtanley, good one, a little too fair on Holden imo. Would be great to hear from Gregor in some capacity post-Barnsley.

[054123]

Good pod, really enjoyed it

[Bs4Red]

34 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

I like that you highlight that one of Lee Johnson’s strengths was bouncing back after his two record sets of defeats, something that Holden wasn’t able to do. 

That’s because Johnson was allowed to remain in control. Holden wasn’t. You can turn a bad run around if you’re sacked. 

Don’t get me wrong, Holden had to go, but you can’t compare his record to Johnson, because Lansdown allowed Johnson go get away with it, a luxury Holden wasn’t afforded. 

It now seems pretty certain that no one had a level playing field to Johnson. Not Cotterill and now not Holden. 

How can I mute your posts? Drivel

[Carey 6]

15 minutes ago, Bs4Red said:

How can I mute your posts? Drivel

Most managers anywhere will be sacked if they went on bad losing runs, LJ was lucky he had a personal relationship with SL because that run in his first full season would've had him sacked anywhere else.

I agree with what Fordy says, why is it drivel to you?

[Fordy62]

49 minutes ago, Notbarrymanc said:

An incredibly simplistic take on the three scenarios. There’s far more nuance involved than the black and white of results and form. 

By nuance do you mean nepotism? We were appalling under Johnson. Time has healed for you though. 

I reiterate, I’m not disagreeing with the sacking of Holden, but SL didn’t afford DH the luxuries that he did LJ, surely you must agree with that?!

[Bs4Red]

4 minutes ago, Carey 6 said:

Most managers anywhere will be sacked if they went on bad losing runs, LJ was lucky he had a personal relationship with SL because that run in his first full season would've had him sacked anywhere else.

I agree with what Fordy says, why is it drivel to you?

Because neither you or Fordy can confirm that the reason LJ kept his job was his relationship with SL. That is an opinion and speculation. 

People who were anti LJ will constantly share this opinion based on hearsay etc. 

Holden has lost his job because we have looked so poor all season, the last 5 games we don’t even look threatening. 

During LJ time we were still looking a threat and then went on big winning runs because the team was capable of that. 

Cotts has lost the plot completely and we were spiriling. I wouldn’t say LJ ever got to that position however Holden was on that spin now. 

[downendcity]

26 minutes ago, Carey 6 said:

Most managers anywhere will be sacked if they went on bad losing runs, LJ was lucky he had a personal relationship with SL because that run in his first full season would've had him sacked anywhere else.

I agree with what Fordy says, why is it drivel to you?

 

21 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

By nuance do you mean nepotism? We were appalling under Johnson. Time has healed for you though. 

I reiterate, I’m not disagreeing with the sacking of Holden, but SL didn’t afford DH the luxuries that he did LJ, surely you must agree with that?!

The only thing I would say is that during LJ’s losing runs, in particular the first and worst one, we were in pretty well every game, usually losing by the only goal and often unluckily so.  Despite many fans’ ongoing suggestions that he had lost the dressing room, the fact the team  not only recovered from the losing runs but then went on successful runs of form and results would seem to counter such suggestions and justified the support he received from the owner.

LJ eventually went because there seemed no coming back from the poor run of form and results and most agreed that he seemed devoid of ideas come the end.

Since Christmas Holden and his team have also seemed devoid of ideas and the team seems to have lost any appetite to fight for anything , reflected in many comments on here that the players have , in effect, downed tools. The worst of LJ’s last poor run was us falling out of the top six and into mid table obscurity. DH’s run since Christmas ran the risk of us dropping into a relegation battle, and with the lack of fight the team has been showing I would not  fancy our chances in such a battle unless something changed and it seems that SL saw things along the same lines.

[Fordy62]

51 minutes ago, Bs4Red said:

Because neither you or Fordy can confirm that the reason LJ kept his job was his relationship with SL. That is an opinion and speculation. 

People who were anti LJ will constantly share this opinion based on hearsay etc. 

Holden has lost his job because we have looked so poor all season, the last 5 games we don’t even look threatening. 

During LJ time we were still looking a threat and then went on big winning runs because the team was capable of that. 

Cotts has lost the plot completely and we were spiriling. I wouldn’t say LJ ever got to that position however Holden was on that spin now. 

Cotts lost the plot eh? I love that you deny LJs tenure was based on nepotism and yet you’re fine to say whatever you like. 

Opinion and speculation eh? What a load of rubbish. Anyone except those who have a blind love of LJ can see that he was treated more favourably than anyone who’s ever managed us, solely because of his special relationship with SL. 

I can go back and find threads about LJ’s losing streak if you like?

My point stands, you can’t come back from a losing streak if you’re sacked. It’s a fact. LJ was allowed it. Anyone else wouldn’t have been. 

[Littlesh*t]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

It's also because, during those LJ losing runs, including the one that now holds the record, we actually played ok. We managed to take shots, we even scored goals. In the record losing run of 8 league games we scored 9 times. In the current 5 game losing run we've scored twice. So, although LJ lost many in a row, it wasn't much of a surprise that the team recovered - because they were a good team losing to fortune.

During the last few games it's just been utter crap.

I'm just listening to the pod now. @Shtanley, good one, a little too fair on Holden imo. Would be great to hear from Gregor in some capacity post-Barnsley.

No we didn't play ok. Apart from the season with reid the football was as boring as it has been under Holden.

[ExiledAjax]

37 minutes ago, Littlesh*t said:

No we didn't play ok. Apart from the season with reid the football was as boring as it has been under Holden.

I strongly disagree.

Referring specifically to that record losing run we played far better then than we have done recently. We scored 9 goals, we were often matching or even out-performing opponents for shots and shots on target. In the Wolves Boxing Day game (the 4th loss of the 8-game run) we took 22 shots, 6 on target - yet lost 3-2. Do you know the last time we managed to be that threatening? Charlton at home last season, when Brownhill nicked the last minute winner from the Palmer wonder-cross. 63 league games ago.

I won't defend the entirety of LJ's tenure, far from it, but looking solely at that 8 league game losing run, it's certain that we played far better, were far more threatening, and far harder to beat, than we have been at any time under Holden. It was completely the correct decision at that time to retain Johnson's services.

This is getting pretty off topic from the podcast and Jon Lansdown in Bermuda so I'll leave it here.

[Wolf Island]

1 hour ago, Bs4Red said:

 

Cotts has lost the plot completely and we were spiriling.

Disgraceful thing to say about a true legend who did more for the club than most. A good proportion of that team have played regularly in the Championship or above. If Cotts had had time to acclimatise them to the league, and we’d signed the players he had lined up I firmly believe we would be playing in the Prem under Cotts right now.

[Fordy62]

Harry food about Nahki Wells!

[Nogbad the Bad]

1 hour ago, Bs4Red said:

Because neither you or Fordy can confirm that the reason LJ kept his job was his relationship with SL. That is an opinion and speculation. 

 

Could there be any other reason LJ got the City job in the first place?

No other Championship club would have dreamt of employing such an average and unproven L1 manager at the time.

It was very obvious LJ kept his job post the PNE 0-5 debacle because of that special relationship with SL.

[Bs4Red]

47 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

Could there be any other reason LJ got the City job in the first place?

No other Championship club would have dreamt of employing such an average and unproven L1 manager at the time.

It was very obvious LJ kept his job post the PNE 0-5 debacle because of that special relationship with SL.

Again that’s opinion though isn’t it. I’m not asking for opinions. 

LJ had to go I have no qualms with that and I wanted him gone before he went. 

However there are no facts that related to people’s opinions. 

[Bs4Red]

2 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

Cotts lost the plot eh? I love that you deny LJs tenure was based on nepotism and yet you’re fine to say whatever you like. 

Opinion and speculation eh? What a load of rubbish. Anyone except those who have a blind love of LJ can see that he was treated more favourably than anyone who’s ever managed us, solely because of his special relationship with SL. 

I can go back and find threads about LJ’s losing streak if you like?

My point stands, you can’t come back from a losing streak if you’re sacked. It’s a fact. LJ was allowed it. Anyone else wouldn’t have been. 

I don’t have blind love for LJ, he had a mixed spell here bringing some unbelievable memories along with some terrible. 

My question is what facts do you base it on? 

Because you constantly give your opinion without having a debate so again il ask. What facts do you base it on? 

Could it not be that he’s a well respected young up and coming coach with a great reputation in English football already for his intelligence and football mind? 

Some of the infrastructure he brought in at the club got us up to date with clubs. 

LJ had to go and was very lucky but I don’t think nepotism is a word you can use and try to state fact constantly as it’s your opinion 

[Bs4Red]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

I strongly disagree.

Referring specifically to that record losing run we played far better then than we have done recently. We scored 9 goals, we were often matching or even out-performing opponents for shots and shots on target. In the Wolves Boxing Day game (the 4th loss of the 8-game run) we took 22 shots, 6 on target - yet lost 3-2. Do you know the last time we managed to be that threatening? Charlton at home last season, when Brownhill nicked the last minute winner from the Palmer wonder-cross. 63 league games ago.

I won't defend the entirety of LJ's tenure, far from it, but looking solely at that 8 league game losing run, it's certain that we played far better, were far more threatening, and far harder to beat, than we have been at any time under Holden. It was completely the correct decision at that time to retain Johnson's services.

This is getting pretty off topic from the podcast and Jon Lansdown in Bermuda so I'll leave it here.

Mate please don’t talk facts people can’t handle it 

[Notbarrymanc]

2 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

Cotts lost the plot eh? I love that you deny LJs tenure was based on nepotism and yet you’re fine to say whatever you like. 

Opinion and speculation eh? What a load of rubbish. Anyone except those who have a blind love of LJ can see that he was treated more favourably than anyone who’s ever managed us, solely because of his special relationship with SL. 

I can go back and find threads about LJ’s losing streak if you like?

My point stands, you can’t come back from a losing streak if you’re sacked. It’s a fact. LJ was allowed it. Anyone else wouldn’t have been. 

This is just dross. Irrelevant, nonsensical dross. It’s fine if you want to ignore facts and statistics for unfounded opinions, but is there any chance you can do it in your head? 

[Fordy62]

9 minutes ago, Bs4Red said:

I don’t have blind love for LJ, he had a mixed spell here bringing some unbelievable memories along with some terrible. 

My question is what facts do you base it on? 

Because you constantly give your opinion without having a debate so again il ask. What facts do you base it on? 

Could it not be that he’s a well respected young up and coming coach with a great reputation in English football already for his intelligence and football mind? 

Some of the infrastructure he brought in at the club got us up to date with clubs. 

LJ had to go and was very lucky but I don’t think nepotism is a word you can use and try to state fact constantly as it’s your opinion 

Johnson had set a club record 8 defeats in a row for Barnsley and whereas he had won manager of the month in the January before we poached him, They were 12th in league one. Do you think that’s sufficiently good performance for us to go get him if it hadn’t been for his family’s relationship with Lansdown?

When he arrived, SL’s cheque book opened like never before. Ask yourself, why’s that? Look at the way he was allowed to treble the wage bill  

LJ took us on runs of defeats the club had never seen before in its entire history. Worse than Holden and worse than Cotterill. He survived the axe twice, maybe three times when others wouldn’t have. We all wanted him gone on here at the time, yet you seem to have some romantic memory of that record losing streak for some bizarre reason.

Nepostism is the favourable treatment of friends or family, are you genuinely saying that you believe that Lansdown didn't give Johnson favourable treatment, because if the answer is yes, you destroy any credibility you seek to have. 

Next you’ll be telling me that Gary being Lee’s dad had absolutely no bearing on his playing career. 

16 minutes ago, Notbarrymanc said:

This is just dross. Irrelevant, nonsensical dross. It’s fine if you want to ignore facts and statistics for unfounded opinions, but is there any chance you can do it in your head? 

Nah. Sorry. 

[Bs4Red]

1 minute ago, Fordy62 said:

Johnson had set a club record 8 defeats in a row for Barnsley and whereas he had won manager of the month in the January before we poached him, They were 12th in league one. Do you think that’s sufficiently good performance for us to go get him if it hadn’t been for his family’s relationship with Lansdown?

When he arrived, SL’s cheque book opened like never before. Ask yourself, why’s that? Look at the way he was allowed to treble the wage bill  

LJ took us on runs of defeats the club had never seen before in its entire history. Worse than Holden and worse than Cotterill. He survived the axe twice, maybe three times when others wouldn’t have. We all wanted him gone on here at the time, yet you seem to have some romantic memory of that record losing streak for some bizarre reason.

Nepostism is the favourable treatment of friends or family, are you genuinely saying that you believe that Lansdown didn't give Johnson favourable treatment, because if the answer is yes, you destroy any credibility you seek to have. 

Next you’ll be telling me that Gary being Lee’s dad had absolutely no bearing on his playing career. 

He was given more chances than others have or probably will but you’re claim of nepotism has no basis of fact. It’s just opinion. 

You have again given no facts at all. Johnson had to go and before he was sacked I think anyone with any football knowledge knows that but I’m asking for facts that prove your opinion and you’re still just giving opinions.

All entitled to our opinion but don’t try and push your agenda on me when it’s basis is all opinion of what you think. 

[Fordy62]

Just now, Bs4Red said:

He was given more chances than others have or probably will but you’re claim of nepotism has no basis of fact. It’s just opinion. 

So you agree he was given more chances than others have, or probably will.

Cheers. We needn’t say any more. 

[Bs4Red]

6 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

So you agree he was given more chances than others have, or probably will.

Cheers. We needn’t say any more. 

Doesn’t mean it’s nepotism but he needs he done a lot of great stuff during his time behind the scenes and on the pitch. 

Continue your agenda and thinking you’re always right. 

[Fordy62]

3 minutes ago, Bs4Red said:

Doesn’t mean it’s nepotism but he needs he done a lot of great stuff during his time behind the scenes and on the pitch. 

Continue your agenda and thinking you’re always right. 

He’s a friend, he got more chances than anyone else has or will. 

QED. 

“He done a lot of great stuff behind the scenes.” Your opinion, no?

[Bs4Red]

1 minute ago, Fordy62 said:

He’s a friend, he got more chances than anyone else has or will. 

QED. 

“He done a lot of great stuff behind the scenes.” Your opinion, no?

That’s a fact, the update in analysis and implementation of drones etc for training was all LJ. 

No problem with your own opinion mate just doesn’t mean your right. Until SL comes out and says differently 

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Bs4Red said:

Mate please don’t talk facts people can’t handle it 

So I went back and watched some highlights of the games from that streak. This is the loss at home to Brentford, the second loss of the 8, and at that time our fifth loss in six league games (the 8 game loss streak would have been 12 save for a win against Ipswich that broke the cycle). These highlights are from Brentford's perspective - and we still look 10x the team we've been recently. There's some actual movement, some passing, some systems. If Tammy had his shooting boots on that day we'd have likely won comfortably.

 

[Jeez]

Surely, nobody can deny LJ had us playing some decent football at times regardless of the unconditional support from the board and streaky runs of poor form.

Equally nobody can deny that DH has been universally poor all season despite being given decent support too.