Alan Dicks Quote

[CotswoldRed]

It all begs the question.  Are managers normally at clubs for a long time because of early success or are clubs successful because their managers are given longer tenures?

 

They aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

I've never looked at the stats to prove it one way or the other.

[Eco]

This is where I get confused.  As a statement I can see what is meant, given the benefit of hindsight.

 

But why should the continued freefall have been inevitable?  If the team were at a certain level when he arrived it certainly wasn't bottom of League 1 form.  Why couldn't he at least maintain the level they were at?  Surely that was the least expected of him.

 

What's happened since SOD arrived, one assumes, is a best case scenario and it would have been even worse without him?

I think it's because it was a totally new team this season and were showing signs of gelling when he got the boot.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

It all begs the question.  Are managers normally at clubs for a long time because of early success or are clubs successful because they're managers are given longer tenures?

 

They aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

I've never looked at the stats to prove it one way or the other.

 

There is no answer, but here's the thing, Brian Clough is revered as a great manager but sometimes managers allow there ego's to take over and they lose sight of who employs/pays them and Cloughie did that at 3 of his previous clubs before finding pay dirt once more at Forest, because after his debacles at Derby, Brighton and Leeds even he realised he needed to rein his ego in a bit and re build his reputation.

 

 

[Nogbad the Bad]

Having watched City during that period I can assure you that fans were not happy during the early years of Dicks in charge and put the board under immense pressure to sack him, I remember chants of 'Dicks must go' on a number of occasions during inept home performances, but luckily Dolman kept faith and it paid dividends in the long run. I think SO'D should have been given longer, ten months and one transfer window isn't enough considering the team was already in freefall when he started.

 

Dicks managed to turn things around via a successful youth development policy, but it took a few years before the players came through. Cooper achieved a similar feat to stop the rot, but only after taking us to the bottom of Div 4 at one stage. It seems we never learn from our mistakes! Nothing against Steve Cotterill but he's got a different philosophy from the last manager so we've got to start all over again, and it takes a long time now there's the restriction of transfer windows.

 

I saw the majority of City under AD but not the first 2-3 seasons.

 

What's interesting is City's average gate was around 16,000, give or take a few hundred, for the whole 4 season period, 67-70 so clearly what discontent there was was not reflected in reduced attendances.

 

Less pressure on the chairman in those days then if he's surveying nicely filled terraces and the coffers remain in good shape. Dicks was learning on the job to an extent of course, unlike SO'D who came to us as a supposedly competent and experienced manager.

[Rich_s]

This is the best thread I've read on OTIB in a long time. Thanks.

[Aizoon]

We have had this debate over-and-over, but please explain how the Lansdowns interfere with the football here?

Other than buying players over the manager's head and sacking a manager every nine months, that would be?

[Aizoon]

There is no answer, but here's the thing, Brian Clough is revered as a great manager but sometimes managers allow there ego's to take over and they lose sight of who employs/pays them and Cloughie did that at 3 of his previous clubs before finding pay dirt once more at Forest, because after his debacles at Derby, Brighton and Leeds even he realised he needed to rein his ego in a bit and re build his reputation.

I didn't see any sign of Clough reining in his ego at Forest. He just had a Board who gave him his head and let him get in with it.

It was Shankly who declared that the directors were only there to sign the cheques. That was the situation at Forest, too (although the cheques were rather smaller )

[Mr Mosquito]

Other than buying players over the manager's head and sacking a manager every nine months, that would be?

 

Didn't Scott Davidson buy Tony Thorpe, Akinbuyme and Sorensen over John Ward's head? - but at least they were decent players.

[Red-Robbo]

Other than buying players over the manager's head and sacking a manager every nine months, that would be?

 

The story put about by a poster here is that SL bought James "against the wishes" of Coppell. AFAIK this has no independent verification whatsoever, but maybe you're a family friend of the cornrow sporting psycopath and pundit and can get him to confirm this. Until then, it's just  a completely unfounded rumour. What other player BTW?

 

Owners sack unsuccessful managers, which is why SOD went. As I wrote elsewhere, show me another club that kept a boss in situ on the winless run O'Driscoll presided over before Carlisle? He'd have been gone months before at most clubs.

 

 

Of course, it suits your argument to begin your count of Lansdown sackings from the day Gary left. If you take it to the beginning of his majority ownership, he has had 7 in 13 years. Par for the course, these days.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I didn't see any sign of Clough reining in his ego at Forest. He just had a Board who gave him his head and let him get in with it.

It was Shankly who declared that the directors were only there to sign the cheques. That was the situation at Forest, too (although the cheques were rather smaller )

 

The ego was reined in until he was in a position of strength i.e. took them into the old first division and started to make them successful and even then I cannot recall him ever once publicly challenging his employers, when he joined Forest his reputation was in tatters and he knew it.

 

 

[Aizoon]

The ego was reined in until he was in a position of strength i.e. took them into the old first division and started to make them successful and even then I cannot recall him ever once publicly challenging his employers, when he joined Forest his reputation was in tatters and he knew it.

Just a thought, but maybe he didn't challenge his employers because they didn't muck him about like the Derby chairman did.

[Mr Mosquito]

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Just a thought, but maybe he didn't challenge his employers because they didn't muck him about like the Derby chairman did.

 

Just another thought, perhaps it was just a perfect fit and very convenient to leave out his failures at Brighton and Leeds.

[CotswoldRed]

[Rich_s]

Seeing SL's interview for the first time today. He had nothing at all complimentary to say about SOD's reign. I was actually wincing with the condemnation by Steve, it was pretty brutal, the harshest one I've ever heard from any of our chairs over the decades. Usually a thank you and sorrow that it didn't work out!

I thought it was reasonably common knowledge that SOD and SL did not get on for sometime prior to his dismissal. The interview probably confirmed this.

The thing that concerns me is that SOD was following the guidelines of the five pillars almost to the letter. There's a lot of regulars on here who have commented that they like to young team he has constructed. Granted that there are question marks on couple of them.

I would have given SOD more time because the playing staff at the club are in such a state of flux that bringing a new man in mid season has just about sealed our fate. The boards reason for sacking him is understandable and SODs completely failure to deviate from his footballing template sealed his fate. What scares me is the appointment of Cotterill. Does he sound like the type of manager who is able to work within the confines of the club philosophy? Is this his strength? What does he actually stand for?

I hope it works out for us but I've a horrible feeling that Cotterill will be manager for less time than SOD.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

The story put about by a poster here is that SL bought James "against the wishes" of Coppell. AFAIK this has no independent verification whatsoever, but maybe you're a family friend of the cornrow sporting psycopath and pundit and can get him to confirm this. Until then, it's just  a completely unfounded rumour. What other player BTW?

 

Owners sack unsuccessful managers, which is why SOD went. As I wrote elsewhere, show me another club that kept a boss in situ on the winless run O'Driscoll presided over before Carlisle? He'd have been gone months before at most clubs.

 

 

Of course, it suits your argument to begin your count of Lansdown sackings from the day Gary left. If you take it to the beginning of his majority ownership, he has had 7 in 13 years. Par for the course, these days.

 

The irony is the same people who are complaining about SL's so called interference with the playing side are also the same people claiming he should have reined in GJ's excesses.

 

 

[Mr Mosquito]

[Mr Mosquito]

......oh I forgot, the Brazillians speak Portuguese not Spanish so that means we'll need a Portuguese speaking coach. Jose Mourinho fits the bill just nicely.

[Red-Robbo]

......oh I forgot, the Brazillians speak Portuguese not Spanish so that means we'll need a Portuguese speaking coach. Jose Mourinho fits the bill just nicely.

 

Or maybe this guy 

[Nogbad the Bad]

I didn't see any sign of Clough reining in his ego at Forest. He just had a Board who gave him his head and let him get in with it.

It was Shankly who declared that the directors were only there to sign the cheques. That was the situation at Forest, too (although the cheques were rather smaller )

 

Apart from record breaking signing Trevor Francis perhaps? 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Apart from record breaking signing Trevor Francis perhaps? 

 

don't forget Justin Fashanu.

 

 

[bert tann]

Dicks Out

[Eco]

'The biggest bugbear of professional football is people plotting behind your back.'

 

 

Bristol City in a nutshell for the last 5 years. Old players need to be shown the door - and a couple need to have their contract terminated asap.

Was intrigued by that quote which is why I put it up, is this still endemic in the game in general, oh & could you name names !

[Eco]

I could.

Others have already mentioned the main culprit.

If you have ex-players who came from a time when the drinking/shagging and possibly recreational activity were rife (allegedly of course) do you really want them around 18 yr olds?

There seems to be two cultures at work at times.

One inside the managers office, and the other on the end of a phone "don't worry about what the gaffer said, couple of beers are ok, just keep it quiet"

Is there any other 'professional' sport in the world, where injured players go out on the lash?

Hundreds of surveys link alcohol with poor recovery from injury. Yet, in this small part of the world, our club still lets it happen.

Don't give me all this malarkey about 'young men' - if they have a job to do, which is play football, there should be 100% adherence to a no drinking/smoking/class-A rule.

100%.

Off season - go crazy. But during the season, and in a struggling club, I cannot see why players are allowed out on the piss 3 hours after a game.

It beggars belief tbh.

But that's what happens - the drinking culture, whilst more subtle, still goes on, and it really isn't hard to find the current instigators.

 

2 main allegations that worried me was that an employee of the club was called to a drinking venue to escort some players out and make sure they went home, and the other, well, apparently a City manager sat outside a club and watched a group of players leave it in the early hours despite being explicitly told not to go out on the piss that night.

No support was given to the manager tackling the issue the next morning. From anyone.

 

Make of this what you will. I will not reveal who told me either so don't ask.

Unprofessional if true.

[Mr Mosquito]

I could.

Others have already mentioned the main culprit.

If you have ex-players who came from a time when the drinking/shagging and possibly recreational activity were rife (allegedly of course) do you really want them around 18 yr olds?

There seems to be two cultures at work at times.

One inside the managers office, and the other on the end of a phone "don't worry about what the gaffer said, couple of beers are ok, just keep it quiet"

Is there any other 'professional' sport in the world, where injured players go out on the lash?

Hundreds of surveys link alcohol with poor recovery from injury. Yet, in this small part of the world, our club still lets it happen.

Don't give me all this malarkey about 'young men' - if they have a job to do, which is play football, there should be 100% adherence to a no drinking/smoking/class-A rule.

100%.

Off season - go crazy. But during the season, and in a struggling club, I cannot see why players are allowed out on the piss 3 hours after a game.

It beggars belief tbh.

But that's what happens - the drinking culture, whilst more subtle, still goes on, and it really isn't hard to find the current instigators.

 

2 main allegations that worried me was that an employee of the club was called to a drinking venue to escort some players out and make sure they went home, and the other, well, apparently a City manager sat outside a club and watched a group of players leave it in the early hours despite being explicitly told not to go out on the piss that night.

No support was given to the manager tackling the issue the next morning. From anyone.

 

Make of this what you will. I will not reveal who told me either so don't ask.

 

I'm pretty sure Jacki Dziekanowski used to drink pre and post match but he was a talented international footballer that could and would perform. The current players at City are mainly shit Div 2 calibre players, too many drinks in their fitness regime will see them at Conference standard.