Harry Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 So are you saying that what Marmite said was never part of the thought process? because I can definitely see a correlation here, during the council house debate the Premier League word was uttered on several occasions and I kept waiting for the accompanying laughter. Yes, I'm saying the Council House debate had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to sack. The decision was made on Saturday after Sheff Utd. They just had to wait for SL to return from his holiday to sign the pay-off cheque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Yes, I'm saying the Council House debate had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to sack. The decision was made on Saturday after Sheff Utd. They just had to wait for SL to return from his holiday to sign the pay-off cheque. Not really a holiday. The emperor Tiberius had to recover from one of the drug-fuelled orgies that occupy his time on the Isle of Capri. Hang on, that's the wrong story,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Yes, I'm saying the Council House debate had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to sack. The decision was made on Saturday after Sheff Utd. They just had to wait for SL to return from his holiday to sign the pay-off cheque. So let me get this clear, the decision was made after Sheff Utd and SL was in agreement? why then wasn't he sacked straight away? surely even SOD could have waited for a signed cheque?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 So let me get this clear, the decision was made after Sheff Utd and SL was in agreement? why then wasn't he sacked straight away? surely even SOD could have waited for a signed cheque?. The board needed it in writing? I wouldn't have waited, BTW, and I'd have paid the cheque in ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 The board needed it in writing? I wouldn't have waited, BTW, and I'd have paid the cheque in ASAP. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Unless of course they wanted to get rid of him for personal reasons and were worried that he might continue our recent better form and make it more difficult to sack him. But that would mean they didn't have the club's best interests at heart. It's hardly in the Lansdowns interests for the club not to be successful. They have to bankroll it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 So let me get this clear, the decision was made after Sheff Utd and SL was in agreement? why then wasn't he sacked straight away? surely even SOD could have waited for a signed cheque?. Didn't say SL was in agreement. Just that he wasn't around til Tuesday for the Orient game. SL may not sit on the board (technically), but he still signs the cheques. The board made a decision, but it still had to go through SL to agree the compensation package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 So let me get this clear, the decision was made after Sheff Utd and SL was in agreement? why then wasn't he sacked straight away? surely even SOD could have waited for a signed cheque?. A cheque?? Bank transfer surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Didn't say SL was in agreement. Just that he wasn't around til Tuesday for the Orient game. SL may not sit on the board (technically), but he still signs the cheques. The board made a decision, but it still had to go through SL to agree the compensation package. i'm really confused now, so the wait was not for SL to sign the cheque as you said inferring he knew about the decision, it was for SL to be informed of the boards decision and then sign the cheque, is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 i'm really confused now, so the wait was not for SL to sign the cheque as you said inferring he knew about the decision, it was for SL to be informed of the boards decision and then sign the cheque, is that right? I'm sure SL was aware of the decision, but he still needed to cross I's and dot T's in person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 I'm sure SL was aware of the decision, but he still needed to cross I's and dot T's in person. He is, after all, the emperor, even in his self-imposed exile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 I'm sure SL was aware of the decision, but he still needed to cross I's and dot T's in person. i'm sorry to keep on here, but why exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearded_red Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 I will simply never, ever understand the timing of the sacking. Whether you wanted him gone (I will happily say I didn't) or not is almost redundant. You have to say the timing is terrible and as tough as today would have been anyway, for me we threw it away before we had even got there. Now we can all see that in no way was Tuesday night so bad that he simply had to go. (Think Johnson in the away dressing room at Home Park, Millen at Blackpool and McInnes last season). His was a sacking that has built up over time. So why is there no replacement lined up? Why have gone and played a tough away game without a manager? Do they genuinely believe our chances today improved as result of their decision? Did anyone really think at 3 o'clock this afternoon we stood a better chance of winning without a manager then they did leaving Ashton Gate on Tuesday night? I will be stunned if the answer to that is yes. I expected him to be sacked after the Brentford game a few weeks ago and I although I wouldn't have agreed with it, I don't think I would really have been able to complain. In the Crewe and Brentford games we had appeared beaten before the game began and I could see the argument that we needed something to change and although I didn't adhere to it, there was an argument that we would instantly be better for him being gone. But that has not been the case in the last few games. So why now? As I say, there isn't anything (at least that any of us know about) that happened on Tuesday night that meant his sacking needed to be made immediately. This was obviously a decision that has been coming. So why not either wait until you have a replacement at least lined up if not 100% ready or why not let SO'D remain in his job until today while seeking out potential new managers, we could have repeated our impressive performance from Tuesday night and won (I know what you're thinking) or we could also potentially have been murdered and you could then send SO'D on his way and have 2 weeks to bring someone in before our next league game. The way I see it is that we made our chances of victory today much, much smaller (and they were already slim) by going there with no manager. If having no manager increased our chances of victory today than why do we ever bother having one? To me it seems the board have acted in no better a way then I would expect from your average guy that spouts off down the pub. The easiest and stock thing to do is to sack the manager so that's what we did. Failing to recognise that that is actually the easy bit. What comes next is the more difficult, and crucial, bit and it seems to me like we have absolutely no idea. Little boy Lansdown says a requirement for the new manager is for him to have 'passion'. As I said, no better than your average guy down the pub. Although I like to think I have never ending amounts of passion for this stupid football club, so maybe I should apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 I will simply never, ever understand the timing of the sacking. Whether you wanted him gone (I will happily say I didn't) or not is almost redundant. You have to say the timing is terrible and as tough as today would have been anyway, for me we threw it away before we had even got there. Now we can all see that in no way was Tuesday night so bad that he simply had to go. (Think Johnson in the away dressing room at Home Park, Millen at Blackpool and McInnes last season). His was a sacking that has built up over time. So why is there no replacement lined up? Why have gone and played a tough away game without a manager? Do they genuinely believe our chances today improved as result of their decision? Did anyone really think at 3 o'clock this afternoon we stood a better chance of winning without a manager then they did leaving Ashton Gate on Tuesday night? I will be stunned if the answer to that is yes. I expected him to be sacked after the Brentford game a few weeks ago and I although I wouldn't have agreed with it, I don't think I would really have been able to complain. In the Crewe and Brentford games we had appeared beaten before the game began and I could see the argument that we needed something to change and although I didn't adhere to it, there was an argument that we would instantly be better for him being gone. But that has not been the case in the last few games. So why now? As I say, there isn't anything (at least that any of us know about) that happened on Tuesday night that meant his sacking needed to be made immediately. This was obviously a decision that has been coming. So why not either wait until you have a replacement at least lined up if not 100% ready or why not let SO'D remain in his job until today while seeking out potential new managers, we could have repeated our impressive performance from Tuesday night and won (I know what you're thinking) or we could also potentially have been murdered and you could then send SO'D on his way and have 2 weeks to bring someone in before our next league game. The way I see it is that we made our chances of victory today much, much smaller (and they were already slim) by going there with no manager. If having no manager increased our chances of victory today than why do we ever bother having one? To me it seems the board have acted in no better a way then I would expect from your average guy that spouts off down the pub. The easiest and stock thing to do is to sack the manager so that's what we did. Failing to recognise that that is actually the easy bit. What comes next is the more difficult, and crucial, bit and it seems to me like we have absolutely no idea. Little boy Lansdown says a requirement for the new manager is for him to have 'passion'. As I said, no better than your average guy down the pub. Although I like to think I have never ending amounts of passion for this stupid football club, so maybe I should apply. Except that most of those that I meet down the pub think the sacking was a disaster (when they're not beating their wives, that is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Except that most of those that I meet down the pub think the sacking was a disaster (when they're not beating their wives, that is) Yes but you live in Whorefield don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Yes but you live in Whorefield don't you? True, but I don't generally drink there. Except on Mondays, when I take on the sags in the pub quiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superjack Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 I believe (via my source) that when O' Dismal was binned off, the board had 'nobody lined up'... ...doesn't mean that they haven't now though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 I believe (via my source) that when O' Dismal was binned off, the board had 'nobody lined up'... ...doesn't mean that they haven't now though... Via your source can you confirm Harry's version of events, that the decision was made a week ago after Sheff Utd, SL was aware but the actual act couldn't happen until SL flew in to supervise it. Because that to me seems bizarre, believable but bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 i'm sorry to keep on here, but why exactly? Es, to be fair buddy, I wasn't there so I don't have a minute by minute detail of events. All's I'm saying is that the board made the decision, SL wasn't at the Sheff game, so wasn't around until Tuesday & Wednesday to personally speak with SOD and discuss the severence package. I can fully understand why this may seem bizarre, after all, you'd think that our appointed board would be able to make decisions for themselves AND deliver those decisions. But you forget the unusual make-up of our board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne allisons tongues Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Es, to be fair buddy, I wasn't there so I don't have a minute by minute detail of events. All's I'm saying is that the board made the decision, SL wasn't at the Sheff game, so wasn't around until Tuesday & Wednesday to personally speak with SOD and discuss the severence package. I can fully understand why this may seem bizarre, after all, you'd think that our appointed board would be able to make decisions for themselves AND deliver those decisions. But you forget the unusual make-up of our board. Why discuss a severance package, he was on a 12 month rolling contract so 12 months payment he should get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superjack Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Via your source can you confirm Harry's version of events, that the decision was made a week ago after Sheff Utd, SL was aware but the actual act couldn't happen until SL flew in to supervise it. Because that to me seems bizarre, believable but bizarre. No... sorry. My source told me that O' Dismal was going 24 hours before it was announced.. ...my source also told me after the event that the board 'doesn't have anybody lined up'... ...more than that I am afraid that I can not tell you... ...(because that is all that I know). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 No... sorry. My source told me that O' Dismal was going 24 hours before it was announced.. ...my source also told me after the event that the board 'doesn't have anybody lined up'... ...more than that I am afraid that I can not tell you... ...(because that is all that I know). It would tie in.. Saturday board decided to sack him.. Tell SL who flies over for the LO game. Wednesday SL calls SOD in and gives him the news.. The news starts to filter out around the club to a few people. 24 hours later when the statements etc have been drawn up and agreed they announce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.