The Sacking Of Del

[glynriley]

I believe the DM had lost the dressing room AND the fans.

 

There is no way back form that.

 

I believe that SOD still has the dressing room, has lost the fans.

 

The board are weak-minded they will bow to fan pressure.

 

DM should have been sacked before Xmas last year, if SOD had another 4-6 weeks we MIGHT have survived.

 

Times machines are greatly over rated IMO.

 

A) I doubt it

 

B) He wasn't available 6 weeks earlier

[Guest]

if SOD had another 4-6 weeks we MIGHT have survived.

If SOD hadn't come in at all we might have survived.

Shall we not gloss over the fact that, equally as they were under Del, some of the performances under SOD were completely abject.

I'd wager at least under Del we would have put up a fight as those not fighting were about to be replaced by the next in line. Under SOD we stuck with the same, gutless players and continued to stick with the same, gutless players.

[petehinton]

should we have kept a manager unbelievably out of his depth at a club averaging gates of around 13,000 more people than he was used to in a league he didnt know after he spent all our money on strikers?

 

good god no.

 

Should have been sacked after we lost that Charlton game this time last year

[havanatopia]

Mate, if I had a Dolorean I would go back to 1976

 

Absolutely spot on squire.

[Port Said Red]

Do you remember the Leicester and Wolves games?

 

 

As the board had already apparently accepted relegation, there was little point in a change of manager.

 

We would almost certainly still have gone down with Del but it's impossible to imagine we would have been relegated with so little spirit and fight.

 

In his last interview, minutes before he was sacked, Del said some experienced players had let him down and from then on they would not be picked but replaced by younger players.

 

Unfortunately this core of serial non tryers got yet another chance under SO'D and with that our relegation was not only assured, but the disgraceful manner of it utterly predictable.

 

Would we be in such a terrible predicament right now if Del had stayed? I think not.

 

This is what pissed me off about the sacking. In the week leading up to the Leicester game we were told that we were investing in the future and del was the man to do it. After the Leicester game when two of the "experienced players" (Font's and Gerkin) combined to throw away the game, he gets sacked. Whether a certain section of fans would have liked it or not, as I said in another thread, they should never have caved in then, and this may be stopping them from changing things now. I am beginning to think that it is a case of two wrongs not making a right.

[Roe]

Should have been sacked after we lost that Charlton game this time last year

 

Yet we got 4 points out of the next 2 games after that. 

 

I like how everyone completely ignores the fact that this clueless, out of his depth McInnes kept us up the year before when the majority of our own supporters were convinced we'd go down then.

[O'Garlandinho]

Mcinnes was an awful manager for us, i didn't want him in the first place, after Millen we needed someone with championship experience. I wouldn't count O'Driscoll as an experienced championship manager either.

 

The only manager, in hindsight, we should've kept is GJ. At the time i thought we needed a change, as the state of the club got a bit stale, but how wrong i was!

[hippy273]

If SOD hadn't come in at all we might have survived.

Shall we not gloss over the fact that, equally as they were under Del, some of the performances under SOD were completely abject.

I'd wager at least under Del we would have put up a fight as those not fighting were about to be replaced by the next in line. Under SOD we stuck with the same, gutless players and continued to stick with the same, gutless players.

 

Del did it the season before, and potentially could have done it again. For a manager out of his depth i thought he well at our club, but obviously his lack of experience was always going to catch up with him.

[cheese]

 Quite a few would have been shown the door after that Plymouth game under GJ so wouldn't have had the chance to stop performing again when it suited them under ensuing managers.

 

 Big mistake by the club not to identify and isolate the troublemakers post GJ. They should have gone at the first opportunity as well.

 

And there you have it. SIr Alex sums it up in his book, you can't have a player(s) who think they're bigger than the manager - if they are you move them on as he did with Beckham.  Trouble is, it's easy to sell players of Beckhams ability but no-one wants our bunch of wasters.

[GrahamC]

Weird isn't it that we had a choice of 3 when we appointed McInnes (O'Driscoll and Mark Robins were the other two), and we've now tried O'Driscoll was well.

So of course in true City fashion Robins is going to turn out to be the most successful of them, isn't he?

[fka dagest]

Personally I preferred McInnes to what we have now and to his credit he did what SOD couldn't do.  He also had the excuse that he was a young manager learning, whereas SOD is just a stubborn old mule.

 

I honestly believe if Del had stayed we'd certainly be in a better position than we are now.

[tiz]

This is part of my worry with sacking Sod. We have to give a manager a run and hopefully gain some stability What is the point in sacking unless its for better.

[BristolCity?]

Would we be in such a terrible predicament right now if Del had stayed? I think not.

Who do you think got us here in the first place!

[Taylor10]

Find it a little odd people are so passionately defending Del. perhaps a view that is guided by our current plight?

I can't really defend Del. very nice bloke but was completely out of his depth. A manager learning? Yes, but for someone who had a very good career on a playing level I would not have expected such amateur mistakes. Especially as he played under good managers or with good players he would have learned from.

I don't see how anyone can try and claim we would have stayed up again under him? Just my opinion but he got incredibly lucky that season he kept us up. He panicked with loan signings and threw money at it. He was extremely lucky with the way the Bikey signing turned out for us.

Not to mention (unbelievably) the three clubs below us were, as clubs, far worse off than us and in utter chaos. Pompey docked points, Coventry in admin and Donny trying that ridiculous transfer process, dealing with agents and the likes of Chimbonda, Beye and Diouf who were simply all there for the wrong reasons. Regardless of our situation that gave us a huge advantage given we could throw money at it. Even so it was Del's disastrous run that meant we were there in the first place.

For as nice a bloke as Del was, he wasn't anywhere near good enough as a manager and I'm struggling to think of any positives to come from his reign?

[Monkeh]

Del ran out of ideas and results were poor he had to go

SoD hasn't had an idea and results are the wrost in the clubs history and has to go

[herman]

Who do you think got us here in the first place!

 

SOD did. one nil up away at wolves in a HUGE 6 pointer at half time, they made all 3 subs by half time, he refused to go for it, sat back, we lost 2-1 and were psychologically relegated on that day. it goes down as one of the biggest blunders in the entire history of the club.

[bearded_red]

Find it a little odd people are so passionately defending Del. perhaps a view that is guided by our current plight?

I can't really defend Del. very nice bloke but was completely out of his depth. A manager learning? Yes, but for someone who had a very good career on a playing level I would not have expected such amateur mistakes. Especially as he played under good managers or with good players he would have learned from.

I don't see how anyone can try and claim we would have stayed up again under him? Just my opinion but he got incredibly lucky that season he kept us up. He panicked with loan signings and threw money at it. He was extremely lucky with the way the Bikey signing turned out for us.

Not to mention (unbelievably) the three clubs below us were, as clubs, far worse off than us and in utter chaos. Pompey docked points, Coventry in admin and Donny trying that ridiculous transfer process, dealing with agents and the likes of Chimbonda, Beye and Diouf who were simply all there for the wrong reasons. Regardless of our situation that gave us a huge advantage given we could throw money at it. Even so it was Del's disastrous run that meant we were there in the first place.

For as nice a bloke as Del was, he wasn't anywhere near good enough as a manager and I'm struggling to think of any positives to come from his reign?

Well said.

Any argument that sacking McInnes was wrong purely because of how badly we're doing now would also apply to Millen and Johnson before him. And Danny Wilson after we decided to make one of our players the manager.. You can only judge the decision at the time, and I would be stunned if anyone was sad to see him go. I certainly don't remember speaking to anyone, or anybody posting on here, criticising the board for getting rid.

I accept it is difficult to argue that we could be doing any worse at the moment with anyone in charge, but for me McInnes was absolutely hopeless. I still have hope, however misguided, that SO'D maybe able to turn this around, that was never the case with McInnes.

Also he played a game with Ricky Foster in central midfield. I mean come on.

[bearded_red]

Double post.

[Nogbad the Bad]

Well said.

Any argument that sacking McInnes was wrong purely because of how badly we're doing now would also apply to Millen and Johnson before him. And Danny Wilson after we decided to make one of our players the manager.. You can only judge the decision at the time, and I would be stunned if anyone was sad to see him go. I certainly don't remember speaking to anyone, or anybody posting on here, criticising the board for getting rid.

I accept it is difficult to argue that we could be doing any worse at the moment with anyone in charge, but for me McInnes was absolutely hopeless. I still have hope, however misguided, that SO'D maybe able to turn this around, that was never the case with McInnes.

Also he played a game with Ricky Foster in central midfield. I mean come on.

 

If people weren't sad to see Del go it was probably because they could see almost no chance of him keeping City up, and they wanted change to a manager who would.

 

If they'd known the board were then going to employ another manager with apparently no pressure on him whatsoever to avoid relegation they may have thought differently. If they'd also known the despised underperformers who Del had stated would no longer be part of his plans would get yet another extended chance under the new manager then again they might have decided sticking with what we had wasn't so bad.

 

No one surely would say McIness was 'hopeless' when he put out teams to thrash Palace and Cardiff. Fantastic entertaining and attacking football, exactly what we'd been waiting for. The Peterboro. game, when they disgracefully took out Cunningham and Skuse, was the start of the malaise. Del started to tinker to make up for the loss of, at the time, an extremely influential Cunningham, plus the loss of form that followed for Woolford, up til then in the form of his life on the left hand side with Cunningham. Replacerments Elokobi and Bryan were then injured against Leeds so there were reasons for his tinkering - although they did admittedly sometimes become less fathomable as time went on and the pressure plainly began to tell.

 

Del made some poor signings without doubt in Foster and Morris, but overall his signings were seen as very good. If the ridiculously long running McFadzean deal had not been thwarted by illness, my view is he'd quickly have been made Captain, several older players would definitely have been sidelined permanently, younger players would have been given their head and seeing this the fans would have been reinvigorated to get behind the club, not only for the sake of last season, but seeing the club build for this one. Don't forget many fans had stated that they could understand the pressures and difficulties facing a promising young manager under orders to cut the dead wood, but, despite some mistakes, saw real potential in him so were therefore willing to stick with him even if we had to almost inevitably rebuild from Div.1.

 

No doubt we'd still have been relegated, but little doubt also that we'd have put up more of a fight rather than the embarrassing capitulation under SO'D and the serial failures he continued to pick.

 

We've had the worst of all worlds since sacking Del imo, disgraceful relegation and no real signs of finding our feet in this division. I personally see little cause for hope under SO'D and still find it incredible anyone could imagine things would be as dire as this if we'd stuck with Del.

[Mr Popodopolous]

He was not great, but though we would probably have still gone down I doubt it would have been so very insipid! Few weeks before he got sack we beat Peterborougbh 4-2 and it could have been 6 or 7.

 

Where the fatal flaw of last season was, not getting that quality Centre half. We were linked with Monk, an excellent player- had we managed to get him, off the back of those excellent wins v Palace and Cardiff things could have been very different.

[timothy bird]

Yes We Beat Peterborough 4_2 And The Player Who Scored Two + Ser Up Two In That Game Was Dropped For The Next Match! Sums Up The Blokes Selection Policy ! Clueless!

[Alex_BCFC]

The Millwall game was the final straw for me under Del. We would probably be doing better in this league though with him...

[timothy bird]

Yes The Milwall Game Was The Final Straw For Me To ! Absolutly Unbelievable Selection ! If We Hadnt Sacked Del We Might Have Been A Couple Of Places Higher Atm I Dont Know. But The Guy Was A Awful Manager Imo And Dont Forvet If He Was Still Here No Doubt The Likes Of Foster And Wilson Would Be To And No Doubt The Club Would Still Be Paying Morris To Organise The Players Social Life!

[bearded_red]

If people weren't sad to see Del go it was probably because they could see almost no chance of him keeping City up, and they wanted change to a manager who would.

 

If they'd known the board were then going to employ another manager with apparently no pressure on him whatsoever to avoid relegation they may have thought differently. If they'd also known the despised underperformers who Del had stated would no longer be part of his plans would get yet another extended chance under the new manager then again they might have decided sticking with what we had wasn't so bad.

 

No one surely would say McIness was 'hopeless' when he put out teams to thrash Palace and Cardiff. Fantastic entertaining and attacking football, exactly what we'd been waiting for. The Peterboro. game, when they disgracefully took out Cunningham and Skuse, was the start of the malaise. Del started to tinker to make up for the loss of, at the time, an extremely influential Cunningham, plus the loss of form that followed for Woolford, up til then in the form of his life on the left hand side with Cunningham. Replacerments Elokobi and Bryan were then injured against Leeds so there were reasons for his tinkering - although they did admittedly sometimes become less fathomable as time went on and the pressure plainly began to tell.

 

Del made some poor signings without doubt in Foster and Morris, but overall his signings were seen as very good. If the ridiculously long running McFadzean deal had not been thwarted by illness, my view is he'd quickly have been made Captain, several older players would definitely have been sidelined permanently, younger players would have been given their head and seeing this the fans would have been reinvigorated to get behind the club, not only for the sake of last season, but seeing the club build for this one. Don't forget many fans had stated that they could understand the pressures and difficulties facing a promising young manager under orders to cut the dead wood, but, despite some mistakes, saw real potential in him so were therefore willing to stick with him even if we had to almost inevitably rebuild from Div.1.

 

No doubt we'd still have been relegated, but little doubt also that we'd have put up more of a fight rather than the embarrassing capitulation under SO'D and the serial failures he continued to pick.

 

We've had the worst of all worlds since sacking Del imo, disgraceful relegation and no real signs of finding our feet in this division. I personally see little cause for hope under SO'D and still find it incredible anyone could imagine things would be as dire as this if we'd stuck with Del.

 

I have to say I feel it is rather clutching at straws citing two games, one injured left back, one prospective new signing and an interview after yet another home mauling as a defence for McInnes.

 

We played well against Palace and Cardiff no doubt about that. At the time I felt the Palace result had as much to do with them being abysmal as us being excellent, but hindsight shows they went on to get promoted so I would have to revise that. My question would be did McInnes even know why or how why managed to play well in those games? Why were there never any signs that we could repeat those performances? Taylor and Stead as a front two, for me anyway, were the main players in those performances. Did they ever start together again? Just like the one off good performance as Middlesbrough, we almost instantly returned to rubbish. Note that the two home performances you mention were sandwiched by not having a shot at Forest on the opening day and while it was 11v11 getting murdered at Barnsley. While the two games after our win at The Riverside resulted in losing the game before it had even started against Brighton and the capitulation against Wolves. Hence why I wonder why when we played well whether McInnes knew how or why, or whether it was just one of his many rolls of the dice that actually payed off, yet left him with no clue on how to attempt to repeat the performance in the next game.

 

The Cunningham injury was unfortunate that cannot be argued, but why did one injury at fullback supposedly have such an effect on the team? You state that his injury began the tinkering, well I would have to disagree. He had already failed to have a settled team. We had tried Adomah up front, Foster on the wing, Skuse on the wing, couldn't make his mind up on his front two before Cunningham went down.. Even if this wasn't the case, I don't see how an injury at left back should lead to tinkering in every game. As for Woolford, we all enjoyed his three goals and we all dreamed of some miraculous renaissance in a City shirt, but were any of us surprised that didn't continue? Was McInnes really looking to build his team around Woolford? Can 3 goals equate to being in the 'form of his life'? Not that it is relevant, but Skuse's injury wasn't the result of being 'disgracefully taken out', the horror challenges were on Cunningham, Fontaine (I'm sure some will look back and hoped he got injured) and Davies.

 

I can't say I have seen enough of McFadzean to judge either way whether (virus permitting) he would have been the second coming of Shaun Taylor, made the armband his own and been in the inspirational leader we needed and still need. Maybe you know more than me about him? Is he better than Stephen McManus and Matthew Bates?

 

As for the interview after the Leicester game, was that the same one that he described as being 'too pedantic in possession' whatever that may actually mean? I heard enough from McInnes every week after a defeat suggesting that we would be better next week to read too much into what he had to say come the end.

 

I would argue whether his signings were seen as 'very good' as well. We can write off Foster, Wilson, Morris and Bates as horrendous. Anderson we signed and then didn't start him until December? We spent valuable time and money signing two strikers which don't have the game to play upfront on their own, can't play together, led to completely ostracizing Pitman and we weren't strong enough to play 442 unless we went for Stead and Taylor. Were they good signings? I'd personally snap off the hand of anyone who bid even close to what we paid for Baldock.  I'm not one of Pearson's critics and think he was reasonable enough, Heaton was good, Cunningham can't get a game in a team bottom of League 1... His loan signings of course included Bikey to which he should be commended, but on the other hand McManus and Briggs? The mystery men that were Keinen and Danny Wilson? A mixed bag rather than very good.

 

In the three games before his sacking we gave the worst 45 minutes I have ever seen at Millwall and had Heaton to thank for it not being a Cricket score, a 90 at Blackburn that were almost as bad and then the afternoon that was Leicester. I don't see how anyone could think we were going to give anything a fight after those three games just because of an interview McInnes had done after the game. I struggle to see why you feel there is 'little doubt we would have put up more of a fight than the embarrassing capitulation under SO'D'. The points per game under O'Driscoll was marginally better than McInnes last season and up until Wolves I felt we had fought. At the very least we had shown the capability to defend under O'Driscoll. The way we surrendered after Wolves was pathetic there can be do doubt.

 

I can't argue that we would be any worse off this season as 6 points from 12 games is horrendous. But I feel a team managed by Derek McInnes would give it a good go at making 6 points look fantastic.

[Nogbad the Bad]

I have to say I feel it is rather clutching at straws citing two games, one injured left back, one prospective new signing and an interview after yet another home mauling as a defence for McInnes.

 

We played well against Palace and Cardiff no doubt about that. At the time I felt the Palace result had as much to do with them being abysmal as us being excellent, but hindsight shows they went on to get promoted so I would have to revise that. My question would be did McInnes even know why or how why managed to play well in those games? Why were there never any signs that we could repeat those performances? Taylor and Stead as a front two, for me anyway, were the main players in those performances. Did they ever start together again? Just like the one off good performance as Middlesbrough, we almost instantly returned to rubbish. Note that the two home performances you mention were sandwiched by not having a shot at Forest on the opening day and while it was 11v11 getting murdered at Barnsley. While the two games after our win at The Riverside resulted in losing the game before it had even started against Brighton and the capitulation against Wolves. Hence why I wonder why when we played well whether McInnes knew how or why, or whether it was just one of his many rolls of the dice that actually payed off, yet left him with no clue on how to attempt to repeat the performance in the next game.

 

The Cunningham injury was unfortunate that cannot be argued, but why did one injury at fullback supposedly have such an effect on the team? You state that his injury began the tinkering, well I would have to disagree. He had already failed to have a settled team. We had tried Adomah up front, Foster on the wing, Skuse on the wing, couldn't make his mind up on his front two before Cunningham went down.. Even if this wasn't the case, I don't see how an injury at left back should lead to tinkering in every game. As for Woolford, we all enjoyed his three goals and we all dreamed of some miraculous renaissance in a City shirt, but were any of us surprised that didn't continue? Was McInnes really looking to build his team around Woolford? Can 3 goals equate to being in the 'form of his life'? Not that it is relevant, but Skuse's injury wasn't the result of being 'disgracefully taken out', the horror challenges were on Cunningham, Fontaine (I'm sure some will look back and hoped he got injured) and Davies.

 

I can't say I have seen enough of McFadzean to judge either way whether (virus permitting) he would have been the second coming of Shaun Taylor, made the armband his own and been in the inspirational leader we needed and still need. Maybe you know more than me about him? Is he better than Stephen McManus and Matthew Bates?

 

As for the interview after the Leicester game, was that the same one that he described as being 'too pedantic in possession' whatever that may actually mean? I heard enough from McInnes every week after a defeat suggesting that we would be better next week to read too much into what he had to say come the end.

 

I would argue whether his signings were seen as 'very good' as well. We can write off Foster, Wilson, Morris and Bates as horrendous. Anderson we signed and then didn't start him until December? We spent valuable time and money signing two strikers which don't have the game to play upfront on their own, can't play together, led to completely ostracizing Pitman and we weren't strong enough to play 442 unless we went for Stead and Taylor. Were they good signings? I'd personally snap off the hand of anyone who bid even close to what we paid for Baldock.  I'm not one of Pearson's critics and think he was reasonable enough, Heaton was good, Cunningham can't get a game in a team bottom of League 1... His loan signings of course included Bikey to which he should be commended, but on the other hand McManus and Briggs? The mystery men that were Keinen and Danny Wilson? A mixed bag rather than very good.

 

In the three games before his sacking we gave the worst 45 minutes I have ever seen at Millwall and had Heaton to thank for it not being a Cricket score, a 90 at Blackburn that were almost as bad and then the afternoon that was Leicester. I don't see how anyone could think we were going to give anything a fight after those three games just because of an interview McInnes had done after the game. I struggle to see why you feel there is 'little doubt we would have put up more of a fight than the embarrassing capitulation under SO'D'. The points per game under O'Driscoll was marginally better than McInnes last season and up until Wolves I felt we had fought. At the very least we had shown the capability to defend under O'Driscoll. The way we surrendered after Wolves was pathetic there can be do doubt.

 

I can't argue that we would be any worse off this season as 6 points from 12 games is horrendous. But I feel a team managed by Derek McInnes would give it a good go at making 6 points look fantastic.

 

I certainly think Cunningham's injury, and the ensuing injuries to his replacements, Elokobi and Bryan in the same game, had a hugely disruptive effect on what until then had been a very promising start to the season. Del was left with little choice but to play Foster after that.

 

Woolford was indeed in the form of his life - for those few games he was brimming over with confidence and was probably one of The Championship's outstanding players. He went on to hit the post against Watford, before gradually starting to flounder again without Cunningham. Those two were playing so outstandingly well at the time of Cunningham's injury that to lose them as such an effective combination was a genuinely huge blow. In effect, with Skuse's injury, that Peterboro game could have been said to have cost us 3 in form players.

 

As for Del's last interview, I'm utterly convinced he would have followed through by sidelining several underperformers, and, like I've said, such a bold and popular move would have made a big difference on the pitch, and to the mood of the utterly frustrated fans off it. Those players had obviously been given an ultimatum before the match and had failed us all, and particularly Del, once again.

 

I feel you're being harsh on Del in a determination to back up your view that he was clueless, while making few allowances for the difficult circumstances he inherited, and those that were thrust upon him; you no doubt feel I'm being over generous with my reasoning in his defence. We obviously won't come to any agreement, and it's to limited purpose anyway as we can't turn the clock back, and neither of us can ever know for sure what might have been if the board had not only stuck with him, but backed him in the exraordinary measures he had publicly vowed he was about to take with a number senior players.

[Aizoon]

SOD did. one nil up away at wolves in a HUGE 6 pointer at half time, they made all 3 subs by half time, he refused to go for it, sat back, we lost 2-1 and were psychologically relegated on that day. it goes down as one of the biggest blunders in the entire history of the club.

 

At half time we were actually out of the relegation zone

 

PS Which is not to disregard the possibility that relegation was part of the clubs' plan. It enabled us to get rid of some right tossers.

[Xiled]

It's no good questioning whether we would be at the bottom of League 1 had McInness stayed on.

 

The fact is, when McInnes was sacked, the majority of fans were relieved.

 

What has happened since is entirely regrettable but it's speculation of the highest order to imagine what might be if any manager other than SO'D had been in charge since January.

 

We are faced with a problem here and now that has to be solved here and now.

[redsince1994]

I think the problem with Del and Millen is they were good coaches but crap managers. Now we have SOD who I believe is a good manager but a crap coach. Goes to show that bad players playing well is better than good players playing badly.

[BCFC Jordan]

Del's downfall was letting the pressure of the job get to him and never sticking to a side, or even a smilar side. We rarely, if at all, tried the partnership of Stead/Taylor up front again after the injuries of Skuse/Cunningham - which was very effective early on in the season. Due to the amount of goals we were conceding Del got more and more defensive minded. You can understand in a way as by the time we had lost 3-5 to Blackburn, 2-3 to Leeds, 2-3 to Bolton and 3-4 to Burnley, fans were getting increasingly annoyed. However this change to a defensive mindset didn't play to our strengths.

 

After the 3-4 loss to Burnley the change in mindset was evident and we had four games which we lost and didn't even put up a fight (1-2 Hull, 0-1 Huddersfield, 0-2 Birmingham and 0-2 Charlton) - these were teams  that were there for the taking, but instead. due to the more defensive mindset. our team looked hopeless and we lost the attacking threat we had in the earlier games - even the ones that we lost.

 

From that point onwards we looked to have no hope at all. We got fairly lucky wins at Sheffield Wednesday and Middlesbrough (with the fog genuinely playing an important part in the latter!), and at that stage a lot of fans wanted Del out. There was one exception during that dreadful run though, and that was the 4-1 home win against a very in-form Peterborough side where we played fantastically. However, Del made the same mistakes as earlier on in the season, and just as he didn't persist with the Stead/Taylor 4-4-2 line-up due to concentrating on the opposition, he also didn't repeat the Christmas tree formation which was so effective in the Peterborough game. Instead, he concentrated on trying to worry about the opposition and going defensive which led to three more miserable defeats (0-1 Millwall, 0-2 Blackburn and 0-4 Leicester). We never stood a chance concentrating on the opposition's threats and not our own, as quite frankly our defence was rubbish.

 

It was a combination of naivety from an inexperienced manager at that level and fans' pressure that culminated in Del's sacking. I still think he has it in him to be a good manager and has done very well at Aberdeen so far. It was a tough job for an inexperienced man, and the pressure sadly got to him.

 

I think we'd be in a much better position now had he stayed, but the board caved in to pressure from the fans' (with hindsighjt it's easier to see it may have been a pointless sacking - but at the time we all had hopes for a turn-a-round in our season. This didn't happen though and we'd have been better off keeping a manager who had actually built a lot of the squad)  and his position was untenable by the end.History is repeating now in my opinion, I also think we'll be better off this time next year if SO'D stays,. The fact of the matter is, being manager of this club at this moment in time is an extremely tough task and bringing in anyone else in the near future will cause even more transition at the club - as if that was possible!

[Davros]

With what's happened since, if you had a Delorean would you go back and stop the sacking of Del?

 

We're in twice as bad a situation, Del had already started to cut costs and with a bit more stability, could we have been in a much better position than we are now?

 

Despite the signings of the likes of Foster and Pearson, I think had I have known how bad it would have got I would have stuck rather than twisted....

 

What have we actually gained by having SOD over Del?

 

Nah Del was on drugs over Foster and he couldnt help himself but sign jocks.  As much as I'm not loving where were at now, I think/hope if we stick with SOD in 2 years or so we will be in the confrence nah only kidding, better plance spend wise.