Being lead up the garden path.

[Nogbad the Bad]

9 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

 

 

9 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Alan Dicks took over as manager from Fred Ford in 1967, and I can assure you that, for several consecutive years prior to getting us to the promised land of Division 1, he, together with the late Harry Dolman, Chairman and generous benefactor, was frequently the subject of the most awful vitriol and clamours for their dismissal/resignation. 

I wasn't there for Dicks' earliest seasons but the record books show City finished 19th and 16th in the equivalent of the Championship in his first 2 seasons.

By the time I entered the fray at AG in 1970 City were a struggling, not particularly entertaining, fairly low scoring team who finished 14th, and the following season were 19th again.

Crowds were almost 2,000 down on his first season, and it took a further 5 seasons to gradually get together a team to get promotion.

I don't remember huge calls for his head in the early 70's although it is well documented he was on the point of being sacked before the Leeds F.A.Cup games.

There is no way Dicks would have survived his first 4 seasons of struggle under today's board and that he went on to become such a successful and highly thought of manager is largely due to the patience and support of Harry Dolman, who incidentally I remember being very popular with the fans - the vocal East End in particular - with regular chants of 'Harry, Harry, Harry, Harry' with scarves held aloft looking over towards the DIrector's Box.

I'm of the view that Cotterill could have gone on to achieve great things at AG, and much sooner than AD. He could indeed have gone on to get promotion in the next few years and in the process would have gone down in history as a truly great City manager, surpassing Dicks.

One necessity though would have been an understanding, patient, and fully supportive board which kept it's nerve, like Alan Dicks had.

A prerequisite for building a stable club with ambitions to get to the top league, and the sort of firm backing Cotterill clearly lacked.

[Alessandro]

17 minutes ago, ciderup said:

Eh? 

If I understand correctly, and I may be talking about something else, they're referring to the RUMOURS (highlighted for policital reasons) that deals were in place at the start of summer for two players (Andre Grey and the centre back who ended up at Wednesday?) which subsequently fell through after the board attempted to renegotiate the terms whilst SC was sunning himself in Dubai.

SC, on returning from the middle east nicely refreshed, was obviously left somewhat frustrated by the, putting it politely, naivety of the board.

[Olé]

6 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

whilst SC was sunning himself in Dubai

So in short, Cotterill was in Dubai mode and the board were in Don't Buy mode?

[Alessandro]

1 minute ago, Olé said:

So in short, Cotterill was in Dubai mode and the board were in Don't Buy mode?

Boom!

[BobBobSuperBob]

8 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

If I understand correctly, and I may be talking about something else, they're referring to the RUMOURS (highlighted for policital reasons) that deals were in place at the start of summer for two players (Andre Grey and the centre back who ended up at Wednesday?) which subsequently fell through after the board attempted to renegotiate the terms whilst SC was sunning himself in Dubai.

SC, on returning from the middle east nicely refreshed, was obviously left somewhat frustrated by the, putting it politely, naivety of the board.

Correct Alessandro - all, 'possibly' as a result of a 'misunderstanding' about aspects of either those deals or new contracts for existing players - see my post above and the effect it may have had on ongoing transfer business

[Olé]

7 hours ago, RedRaw said:

Mark Ashton has been in the job for only a couple of days and things are already moving

At the risk of dredging up an old argument, before Cotterill went, a few people were ranting at amongst other things, the fact that he signed poorly and had just brought in a bunch of loan players. Now he's gone, the fact two loan players have arrived (and yet to play for us) is a sign "things are already moving". Not having a go at you, the manipulation and double standards is par for the course on here! As you were OTIB, make the facts fit the argument, never the other way around...

[BobBobSuperBob]

12 minutes ago, Olé said:

So in short, Cotterill was in Dubai mode and the board were in Don't Buy mode?

Funny Ole but in essence as I see it - yes and ultimately as a result of a (significant) 'misunderstanding'

In essence if I am right in my thoughts neither SC or SL can be really blamed for the situation as it happened and although I have sympathy for SC in that respect I wholeheartedly fall out with how he then appeared to react and 'respond' over the following months appearing to be reminding the board every 5 mins of how he felt at the detriment of the existing players, fans and club - it appeared to cloud his thinking and judgement from then on and that's a real shame

[Son of Fred]

7 hours ago, Phileas Fogg said:

You seem to have it in for Ashton a bit. Why is this?

Bullshitter and spin doctor.. Some people can see it,others are suduced by it........the power of suggestion....

[BCFC Jordan]

It's purely a distraction technique for another failed transfer window. It's all so depressing.

[NickJ]

36 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Right - here go's

For the sake of everyone's sanity gonna throw my penny in the mix

I make it clear that I have no more direct knowledge of what happened in the summer but have, like everyone else been intrigued to know as it was clearly a significant few weeks in this clubs recent history

bearing in mind I wasn't SCs biggest fan personality wise and not an obvious supporter of his I do personally believe that due to a 'misunderstanding' (think NickJs references) over transfer deals or contracts early in the summer there may have been a major fall out within certain key positions at the club and it may be that as a result of the misunderstanding some obvious and immediate decisions had to be made and the halt/brake may have been put on transfer dealings ( Think Tetburys post )  at that time.

Both this things , from two people / posters I don't know , with it would appear different sources knit in largely with something that I heard , albeit from a slightly different perspective / account

It may be that once the misunderstanding had been sorted out things had moved on in the market and well Everyone can  judge the subsequent events in that window and since for themselves

Ive outlined my humble personal opinion on SCs actions from that point above (most of which I derive from his public actions and interviews)

I also believe (my opinion) hat SC may have been allowed more time in post due to he decisions that had to be made initially on the back of any possible misunderstanding ((I have no evidence on this but it would be an obvious human reaction consequence if I've got the jigsaw right)

I know this is still slightly cryptic - but a I personally believe a lot of answers and pieces of the 'jigsaw 'have been posted on this forum albeit by a number of different posters

I have also been told something regarding the nature of the ' misunderstanding' that would make sense and fit the jigsaw but which I have no hard or direct evidence of and will never repeat on here for obvious reasons- I hope you can interpret that and understand

I should point out before anyone gets carried away with any theories that as far as I can see no one at the Club  has done anything 'wrong' (in the summer) as such and as Nick has , I believe accurately used the word 'misunderstanding'

That would be a reasonably accurate summary, without going into detail, of what I believe, with reasonable certainty, surmising, IMO, to be the case.

I further believe that an honourable man would have held his hands up, taken the flak for his role in said misunderstanding, and allowed this club to continue to go forward with much maligned but successful manager in situ.

Whether said ex-manager has the personality and managerial failings that approximately half on here believe to be the case - and in my view from direct evidence they are wrong - is another issue. For me, I look at what he has done before last summer with results, with playing style, with transformation of the aura, with the general feel good factor and the pride restored, and I make judgment of the summer and his subsequent actions, as a person with deep passion and strong work ethic and determination and desire to be "a winner", taking that into account.

[NickJ]

22 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Funny Ole but in essence as I see it - yes and ultimately as a result of a (significant) 'misunderstanding'

In essence if I am right in my thoughts neither SC or SL can be really blamed for the situation as it happened and although I have sympathy for SC in that respect I wholeheartedly fall out with how he then appeared to react and 'respond' over the following months appearing to be reminding the board every 5 mins of how he felt at the detriment of the existing players, fans and club - it appeared to cloud his thinking and judgement from then on and that's a real shame

Sympathise with that view but Cotterill was being blamed for things that may not have been his fault - and clearly he thinks so - and so all it took was for somebody with a bit of bottle to come out and say "look lads ("fans") we've had a bit of a cock up in the summer, all a misunderstanding, nobody's fault, all dealt with now, we go again, get behind the manager and the team".

That would have sent out the right message to the manager, the players, the fans, we would have all been "ITK".

But nobody had that bottle, nobody was prepared to stand in front of Cotterill and take the heat off him.

It's shameful.

[bcfcmike]

10 minutes ago, NickJ said:

That would be a reasonably accurate summary, without going into detail, of what I believe, with reasonable certainty, surmising, IMO, to be the case.

I further believe that an honourable man would have held his hands up, taken the flak for his role in said misunderstanding, and allowed this club to continue to go forward with much maligned but successful manager in situ.

Whether said ex-manager has the personality and managerial failings that approximately half on here believe to be the case - and in my view from direct evidence they are wrong - is another issue. For me, I look at what he has done before last summer with results, with playing style, with transformation of the aura, with the general feel good factor and the pride restored, and I make judgment of the summer and his subsequent actions, as a person with deep passion and strong work ethic and determination and desire to be "a winner", taking that into account.

 

4 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Sympathise with that view but Cotterill was being blamed for things that may not have been his fault - and clearly he thinks so - and so all it took was for somebody with a bit of bottle to come out and say "look lads ("fans") we've had a bit of a cock up in the summer, all a misunderstanding, nobody's fault, all dealt with now, we go again, get behind the manager and the team".

That would have sent out the right message to the manager, the players, the fans, we would have all been "ITK".

But nobody had that bottle, nobody was prepared to stand in front of Cotterill and take the heat off him.

It's shameful.

Two excellent posts Nick!!

[BobBobSuperBob]

48 minutes ago, NickJ said:

.

I further believe that an honourable man would have held his hands up, taken the flak for his role in said misunderstanding, and allowed this club to continue to go forward with much maligned but successful manager in situ.

Whether said ex-manager has the personality and managerial failings that approximately half on here believe to be the case - and in my view from direct evidence they are wrong - is another issue. For me, I look at what he has done before last summer with results, with playing style, with transformation of the aura, with the general feel good factor and the pride restored, and I make judgment of the summer and his subsequent actions, as a person with deep passion and strong work ethic and determination and desire to be "a winner", taking that into account.

Interesting Nick - we appear to have a similar idea of events but in respect of the above - it depends on who you are referring to 'putting their hands up'

if you are referring to SL (Although like you I assume I don't know any detail ) and working on common sense - can't see he would have had any option but to take the action / decision he appears to have done, at that time. ' Others' may have been to 'blame' but I can't see that criticism could be laid at SL door 

41 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Sympathise with that view but Cotterill was being blamed for things that may not have been his fault - and clearly he thinks so - and so all it took was for somebody with a bit of bottle to come out and say "look lads ("fans") we've had a bit of a cock up in the summer, all a misunderstanding, nobody's fault, all dealt with now, we go again, get behind the manager and the team".

That would have sent out the right message to the manager, the players, the fans, we would have all been "ITK".

But nobody had that bottle, nobody was prepared to stand in front of Cotterill and take the heat off him.

It's shameful.

Can't disagree it would have been helpful but the same could and should also be directed at SC as well IMO - who should have had his hump, and regrouped and moved forward without letting it effect his recruitment decisions the massive grump and vibe  he continually publicly demonstrated 

Unfortunately the fall out of the summer appears IMO to have affected SCs mood and decision making and judgement and also clouded / affected SLs decision making regarding when to pull the plug on SC if he was going to

The result of all this now lies in the ridiculous mess we are now in 

Crazy

[SedRA]

2 hours ago, Alessandro said:

If I understand correctly, and I may be talking about something else, they're referring to the RUMOURS (highlighted for policital reasons) that deals were in place at the start of summer for two players (Andre Grey and the centre back who ended up at Wednesday?) which subsequently fell through after the board attempted to renegotiate the terms whilst SC was sunning himself in Dubai.

SC, on returning from the middle east nicely refreshed, was obviously left somewhat frustrated by the, putting it politely, naivety of the board.

2 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Correct Alessandro - all, 'possibly' as a result of a 'misunderstanding' about aspects of either those deals or new contracts for existing players - see my post above and the effect it may have had on ongoing transfer business

From my understanding this is the important bit. The deals being renegotiated not to get a better price, but to resolve some perceived 'problems' in certain specifics of the deals. The problems turned out to be a misunderstanding of course, but threw the whole summer recruitment into a mess. 

Just watch the interviews from the summer pre-season, you could tell something was not right straight away. That spiralled into the debacle that has been this season.

 

 

[BRISTOL86]

So, what's being alluded to here is that Cotterill made negotiations with Andre Gray and a centre back, and went on holiday thinking these were done deals? Then whilst led on a sunbed, the board intervened in an attempt to get those deals done cheaper, and scuppered them?

Is that a fair assessment of the rather vague and cryptic messages above (for gods sake lads, if you know something say it in English!) it's an internet forum not the High Court!

If that is the case, then a couple of points spring to mind:

a) boundaries of job roles clearly lacked definition, if Cotterill was believing himself to be in complete control of transfer/contract negotiations.

b) if that was indeed his belief, that's not normal is it? I know managers will identify the players they want but isn't it normally up to the men in suits to make that happen/conduct the negotiations. Surely the manager isn't going to be negotiating contracts and financial deals any more than the finance director is going to be taking team talks?

c) whatever the case, assuming there was this 'misunderstanding' - then it needed to be moved on from with a plan in place to ensure it didn't happen again. Can't help but think that Cotterill made it more and more difficult for himself by continually bitching in post-defeat interviews about the small squad (when he refused to use the players that had ultimately been provided to him, whether those were the ones he wanted or not) and the constant bemoaning of the wage structure/budget.

[BobBobSuperBob]

6 hours ago, RedSA said:

From my understanding this is the important bit. The deals being renegotiated not to get a better price, but to resolve some perceived 'problems' in certain specifics of the deals. The problems turned out to be a misunderstanding of course, but threw the whole summer recruitment into a mess. 

Just watch the interviews from the summer pre-season, you could tell something was not right straight away. That spiralled into the debacle that has been this season.

 

 

correct IMHO

56 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

So, what's being alluded to here is that Cotterill made negotiations with Andre Gray and a centre back, and went on holiday thinking these were done deals? Then whilst led on a sunbed, the board intervened in an attempt to get those deals done cheaper, and scuppered them?

Is that a fair assessment of the rather vague and cryptic messages above (for gods sake lads, if you know something say it in English!) it's an internet forum not the High Court!

If that is the case, then a couple of points spring to mind:

a) boundaries of job roles clearly lacked definition, if Cotterill was believing himself to be in complete control of transfer/contract negotiations.

b) if that was indeed his belief, that's not normal is it? I know managers will identify the players they want but isn't it normally up to the men in suits to make that happen/conduct the negotiations. Surely the manager isn't going to be negotiating contracts and financial deals any more than the finance director is going to be taking team talks?

c) whatever the case, assuming there was this 'misunderstanding' - then it needed to be moved on from with a plan in place to ensure it didn't happen again. Can't help but think that Cotterill made it more and more difficult for himself by continually bitching in post-defeat interviews about the small squad (when he refused to use the players that had ultimately been provided to him, whether those were the ones he wanted or not) and the constant bemoaning of the wage structure/budget.

No 86 - not IMHO 

The Board may have put a brake / halt on what was going on but not to try and get 'a cheaper deal' as I understand

Red SA is on the right line IMHO

A subtle difference but an important part I would guess for us supporters 

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 hour ago, BRISTOL86 said:

So, what's being alluded to here is that Cotterill made negotiations with Andre Gray and a centre back, and went on holiday thinking these were done deals? Then whilst led on a sunbed, the board intervened in an attempt to get those deals done cheaper, and scuppered them?

Is that a fair assessment of the rather vague and cryptic messages above (for gods sake lads, if you know something say it in English!) it's an internet forum not the High Court!

If that is the case, then a couple of points spring to mind:

a) boundaries of job roles clearly lacked definition, if Cotterill was believing himself to be in complete control of transfer/contract negotiations.

b) if that was indeed his belief, that's not normal is it? I know managers will identify the players they want but isn't it normally up to the men in suits to make that happen/conduct the negotiations. Surely the manager isn't going to be negotiating contracts and financial deals any more than the finance director is going to be taking team talks?

c) whatever the case, assuming there was this 'misunderstanding' - then it needed to be moved on from with a plan in place to ensure it didn't happen again. Can't help but think that Cotterill made it more and more difficult for himself by continually bitching in post-defeat interviews about the small squad (when he refused to use the players that had ultimately been provided to him, whether those were the ones he wanted or not) and the constant bemoaning of the wage structure/budget.

I should have said 86

Fully Understand why you may think that the board scuppered the deals to save money -  posts on here have regularly claimed this - mostly from those picking up what a particular post stated..

This is where I believe SL / The board may be being unjustly criticised

The Board myuay have put a brake / halt on what was going on but not to try and get 'a cheaper deal' as I understand

I again make it clear - I can't guarantee my ' opinion ' but I'm fairly confident that between us we are pretty damned close  and it's only in the last few weeks the final pieces of the jigsaw seemed to make sense 

[DingleRed]

Agents and fees perhaps? 

[BobBobSuperBob]

3 minutes ago, DingleRed said:

Agents and fees perhaps? 

Being totally open Dingle - I don't honestly know as I don't know why the misunderstanding occurred 

I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if those that helped or were involved in the misunderstanding weren't all club employees - I make it clear that I don't know that but have a clearish belief in what went on and was interested with SLs throwaway comment about agents during his RB interview  (SC also had a dig at a couple of agents) 

I may be putting 2+2 together but it would 'fit' the scenario

[Frenchay Red]

6 minutes ago, DingleRed said:

Agents and fees perhaps? 

When asked about the Grey deal, in a chance encounter up at Cribbs, Cotts implied it was a done deal apart from the "very greedy agent".

As for the rest I have no knowledge, but it is obvious he was chasing ever decreasing suitable and affordable players. This seemed to make him determined to stick with "his" players and not use the few additions who had arrived, apart from Kodjia.

Results didn't happen but he seemed to take on tunnel vision and played the victim regarding strengthening the squad.

By the time the January window arrived it looked like he had given up on getting players he wanted and that he and SL were not in agreement at all.

Then, I suspect that the arrival of MA, effectively usurping his authority, led to a row on Thurs, with only one outcome.

Why else would the timing of the dismissal happen the way it did. Shortly after a routine press conference and with no replacement on the horizon.

All IMO of course.

[Guest]

Personally I think there's something really quite telling in Zack Clough. From what we have been led to believe he wanted £4k pw more than we'd offer (TM source for figures) which the board (SL) were willing to fund but it was SC himself who said 'No' (SC interviews).

Now, £4kpw over the course of a four year contract (presuming four years if we're spending that sort of sum) with employment costs (NI, pensions etc) could easily mean a cost to us of £1m extra over the length of his contract. And it was SC who said 'no, he's not worth it'. He was the one saying SL put your chequebook away, we ought to be able to do better and get more bang for your buck. And this was even after being 'led up the garden path' with other signings/players/agents and/or the board.

Now if I am SL I am thinking this guy is a bloody breath of fresh air. GJ, SC, etc all wanted to spend my money as if it was going out of fashion. This guy is living and practicing sustainable value for money signings. Quite interesting then that he was the one not backed or not trusted perhaps as far as he could and should have been, perhaps as SL was burned by those who were not so diligent as SC. He (SC) was not out to buy for the sake of buying, he was not out to overpay, he was not out to bloat the squad, but he set out to get the best that he could for the total spend.

If SC's success was predicated upon using financial muscle, he wouldn't have turned down ZC.

[BobBobSuperBob]

24 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Personally I think there's something really quite telling in Zack Clough. From what we have been led to believe he wanted £4k pw more than we'd offer (TM source for figures) which the board (SL) were willing to fund but it was SC himself who said 'No' (SC interviews).

Now, £4kpw over the course of a four year contract (presuming four years if we're spending that sort of sum) with employment costs (NI, pensions etc) could easily mean a cost to us of £1m extra over the length of his contract. And it was SC who said 'no, he's not worth it'. He was the one saying SL put your chequebook away, we ought to be able to do better and get more bang for your buck. And this was even after being 'led up the garden path' with other signings/players/agents and/or the board.

Now if I am SL I am thinking this guy is a bloody breath of fresh air. GJ, SC, etc all wanted to spend my money as if it was going out of fashion. This guy is living and practicing sustainable value for money signings. Quite interesting then that he was the one not backed or not trusted perhaps as far as he could and should have been, perhaps as SL was burned by those who were not so diligent as SC. He (SC) was not out to buy for the sake of buying, he was not out to overpay, he was not out to bloat the squad, but he set out to get the best that he could for the total spend.

If SC's success was predicated upon using financial muscle, he wouldn't have turned down ZC.

Interesting views and read 29

Remember that SC or any sensible manager would have to be very careful, at the very least, before bringing in Clough on say 18k a week as has been suggested if our top earner is on 12k as is suggested on here

SC was unbelievably loyal to those players from last season (and to be fair totally understandable) (think it clouded his judgement for too long mind) and understandably wouldn't want to disrupt dressing room harmony (Another fantastic thing but may have worked against us on occasions now) 

Clough comes on 18k a week

Korey or JK for example knock on your door and say - I'm as good as him - I want the same

You can quickly have an ever moving escalator on your hands

This is something that they will have to overcome this if we are to progress and sign better players but I bet it's a major headache at most clubs

 

[DingleRed]

24 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Personally I think there's something really quite telling in Zack Clough. From what we have been led to believe he wanted £4k pw more than we'd offer (TM source for figures) which the board (SL) were willing to fund but it was SC himself who said 'No' (SC interviews).

Now, £4kpw over the course of a four year contract (presuming four years if we're spending that sort of sum) with employment costs (NI, pensions etc) could easily mean a cost to us of £1m extra over the length of his contract. And it was SC who said 'no, he's not worth it'. He was the one saying SL put your chequebook away, we ought to be able to do better and get more bang for your buck. And this was even after being 'led up the garden path' with other signings/players/agents and/or the board.

Now if I am SL I am thinking this guy is a bloody breath of fresh air. GJ, SC, etc all wanted to spend my money as if it was going out of fashion. This guy is living and practicing sustainable value for money signings. Quite interesting then that he was the one not backed or not trusted perhaps as far as he could and should have been, perhaps as SL was burned by those who were not so diligent as SC. He (SC) was not out to buy for the sake of buying, he was not out to overpay, he was not out to bloat the squad, but he set out to get the best that he could for the total spend.

If SC's success was predicated upon using financial muscle, he wouldn't have turned down ZC.

Always remember when SC came in he talked about protecting and respecting the owner's investment

[Red Army 87]

3 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Interesting views and read 29

Remember that SC or any sensible manager would have to be very careful, at the very least, before bringing in Clough on say 18k a week as has been suggested if our top earner is on 12k as is suggested on here

SC was unbelievably loyal to those players from last season (and to be fair totally understandable) (think it clouded his judgement for too long mind) and understandably wouldn't want to disrupt dressing room harmony (Another fantastic thing but may have worked against us on occasions now) 

Clough comes on 18k a week

Korey or JK for example knock on your door and say - I'm as good as him - I want the same

You can quickly have an ever moving escalator on your hands

This is something that they will have to overcome this if we are to progress and sign better players but I bet it's a major headache at most clubs

 

I imagine that something similar happened after our play-off final season under GJ, hence us getting into long term expensive contracts which we only got rid of as we went down to League 1.

[EstoniaTallinnRed]

16 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Alan Dicks took over as manager from Fred Ford in 1967, and I can assure you that, for several consecutive years prior to getting us to the promised land of Division 1, he, together with the late Harry Dolman, Chairman and generous benefactor, was frequently the subject of the most awful vitriol and clamours for their dismissal/resignation. 

Too true!

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, EstoniaTallinnRed said:

16 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Alan Dicks took over as manager from Fred Ford in 1967, and I can assure you that, for several consecutive years prior to getting us to the promised land of Division 1, he, together with the late Harry Dolman, Chairman and generous benefactor, was frequently the subject of the most awful vitriol and clamours for their dismissal/resignation. 

Too true!

Some might say the same could have been applied to Johnson to an extent...one final crack, one final chance to rebuild and move on the wasters. It's ancient history but some may say his record merited a smidgen more time/patience.

[Guest]

Due to the amount of manager posts and polls it seems that many think we are going to get a perm manager before the next window as we seem very unlikely to do so before this one ends.

Ask yourselves would a decent manager come here knowing that he must work with others choices of players and be expected also to guarantee us survival this season?

We have signed another suit  and are currently employing the coaching staff that were already here, nothing against them but certainly the cheapest option and will carry the can between them if we go down.

I am really shocked that the board would put unproven guys in charge at a critical time and give out no clue why nearly a week after SC got the call, we have heard nothing as to if or when an exp manager will be brought in, to late already I fear.

As many have said its alright there`s a better feeling around, and things will be fine; I hope so but have my doubts.

[spudski]

29 minutes ago, glos old boy said:

Due to the amount of manager posts and polls it seems that many think we are going to get a perm manager before the next window as we seem very unlikely to do so before this one ends.

Ask yourselves would a decent manager come here knowing that he must work with others choices of players and be expected also to guarantee us survival this season?

We have signed another suit  and are currently employing the coaching staff that were already here, nothing against them but certainly the cheapest option and will carry the can between them if we go down.

I am really shocked that the board would put unproven guys in charge at a critical time and give out no clue why nearly a week after SC got the call, we have heard nothing as to if or when an exp manager will be brought in, to late already I fear.

As many have said its alright there`s a better feeling around, and things will be fine; I hope so but have my doubts.

I totally disagree with this fella...Wade and Pemberton know our players inside out.

With respect, we seem to be able to attract a few new faces in as well.

Personally I'd be happy for the Club to bring in a 'Coach' who would work with Mr Ashton and KB in recruiting players and coaching them.

I don't like it when one man gets total control over the football side of the Club.

Imo, SC was adamant his system would work, and that he needed to bring in players to fit that system.

He admitted it made it harder to recruit players. He also ignored the Development and fringe players.

Already...Pemberton has sat don with the players and asked their thoughts.

He's changed the system after speaking to them...made us more solid, as well as being competitive...without conceding lots of goals.

Also.... he's made another positive by making the development players feel part of the club instead of outsiders.

All positives imho.

Coach's working together throughout the Club, working with a DoF/D's o F and Recruitment analyst and good scouts would make the Club stronger imo.

If you brought in a manager now...who wanted to do it completely his way, and change everything, then you are back to square one again.

We need some continuity...not just short term fix's again.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, spudski said:

I totally disagree with this fella...Wade and Pemberton know our players inside out.

With respect, we seem to be able to attract a few new faces in as well. most clubs can attract new players but how many will sign up for this club and be any better than what we already have......?

Personally I'd be happy for the Club to bring in a 'Coach' who would work with Mr Ashton and KB in recruiting players and coaching them.too many chiefs imo

I don't like it when one man gets total control over the football side of the Club.only one man has total control.....over everything

Imo, SC was adamant his system would work, and that he needed to bring in players to fit that system. and needed the backing to do so

He admitted it made it harder to recruit players. He also ignored the Development and fringe players.recruiting restrictions were put on Cotts by the club who were unwilling to pay to play with the big boys

Already...Pemberton has sat don with the players and asked their thoughts.

He's changed the system after speaking to them...made us more solid, as well as being competitive...without conceding lots of goals. you mean boring and light weight up top

Also.... he's made another positive by making the development players feel part of the club instead of outsiders.

All positives imho.

Coach's working together throughout the Club, working with a DoF/D's o F and Recruitment analyst and good scouts would make the Club stronger imo. way to many hoops to jump through now coach must ask Ashton, Ashton must ask, KD, KD must ask JL who must ask SL, WHY NOT MANAGER MUST ASK THE CHAIRMAN.....the end

If you brought in a manager now...who wanted to do it completely his way, and change everything, then you are back to square one again. what like we were last week

We need some continuity...not just short term fix's again.just what many including SL said when SC CAME HERE

 

[Red Army 87]

3 hours ago, spudski said:

I totally disagree with this fella...Wade and Pemberton know our players inside out.

With respect, we seem to be able to attract a few new faces in as well.

Personally I'd be happy for the Club to bring in a 'Coach' who would work with Mr Ashton and KB in recruiting players and coaching them.

I don't like it when one man gets total control over the football side of the Club.

Imo, SC was adamant his system would work, and that he needed to bring in players to fit that system.

He admitted it made it harder to recruit players. He also ignored the Development and fringe players.

Already...Pemberton has sat don with the players and asked their thoughts.

He's changed the system after speaking to them...made us more solid, as well as being competitive...without conceding lots of goals.

Also.... he's made another positive by making the development players feel part of the club instead of outsiders.

All positives imho.

Coach's working together throughout the Club, working with a DoF/D's o F and Recruitment analyst and good scouts would make the Club stronger imo.

If you brought in a manager now...who wanted to do it completely his way, and change everything, then you are back to square one again.

We need some continuity...not just short term fix's again.

Good post, I also wonder how well a "manager" completes each task with so much to focus on.

If you're in charge of everything then you have to do it all, negotiations, coaching, team prep etc.

Perhaps that's where SC fell down a bit, wanting to do it all and therefore negating what he saw as duties of lesser importance, such as watching the youth teams.

The days of manager / chairman are going and now it is a team of people working together to achieve the same aim. 

Having a head coach doesn't mean he doesn't get a say or big input on transfers, Mark Ashton made it clear that they would.