Vincent Vega Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 This Forum was split prior to the sacking of Cotts, but now the realisation that he's gone and not a great deal , formation apart has changed just wondered what the general consensus is now .? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bs4Red Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, Doozerchris said: This Forum was split prior to the sacking of Cotts, but now the realisation that he's gone and not a great deal , formation apart has changed just wondered what the general consensus is now .? Personally feel you need to give it a little bit more time before you can judge still early doors and time in the window. We will see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokey Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 I blamed both. And still do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityexile Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 It is ultimately always the Boards fault, as that is where the final buck stops. Just not sure where it gets us. If we stay up or go down, think Cotts had to go. Probably earlier than he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 I blame the club, some people more proportionally than others. I'm a Cotts fan, but there were things I didn't think he should've done / said. Blame doesn't get us anywhere, but it might make us feel a tad better for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City fan 1982 Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 blame both, tbh. a clever move by the board to appoint a new ceo, whatever his name is, comes accross well. says all the right things , seems to have taken pressure of the board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 I blame the board. They are in charge. Buck stops with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 It was clear that SC had run his course hear for a number of reasons and IMHO the signs were there from pre / early season with ever increasing momentum I certainly Blame the board for not changing in Oct / Nov when good managers like Lambert and Pearson were available, and viable for dithering and dithering and then ending up in a situation where they felt forced to change without making sure they had a good one to replace him Unbelievable They clearly have 'had a plan' of some sort for a while as Ashton was on his way in whatever What it is / was , is anybody's guess but it would appear that no one had considered that we might change the manager at any point and thought to pre analyse the market !!! Never mind I will guarantee that any perceived errors by the Board will be smoothed over by a load of bull and bluff about 'planning for the future ' and preparing for 'sustainable success' Harsh but totally fair IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shelts Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 The board have done a wonderful job. Appointed Cotts, sacked Cotts. Won the double . Brand new Ashton Gate. Covered massive loses. SL we salute you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Will just be really ironic if the board don't have a Plan B...... The new guy did a hatchet job, have a good idea where this is going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 1 minute ago, shelts said: The board have done a wonderful job. Appointed Cotts, sacked Cotts. Won the double . Brand new Ashton Gate. Covered massive loses. SL we salute you. Their primary job is to secure our status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charliesboots Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 "Let me be clear" it's in their DNA that any blame will fall on others shoulders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shelts Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said: Their primary job is to secure our status. U want them to pick the side also? Have we lost anything yet....doom and gloom brigade can **** off and support the gash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, shelts said: The board have done a wonderful job. Appointed Cotts, sacked Cotts. Won the double . Brand new Ashton Gate. Covered massive loses. SL we salute you. Pay offs to sacked managers will be a fair whack of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exAtyeoMax Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 The damage was done in the summer, as we all know and we are paying the price now. The players are knackered because the manager played the same team every week, the formation didn't work with the players we had and we started losing. As that scenario continued, the players lost confidence, and as the pressure mounted, started 'trying too hard' or just lost their way because there wasn't a plan B. The manager was sacked and they are trying to adapt to a new system and some new players. This loss of confidence and 'knackeredness' isn't going to disappear over night. I think the stubbornness of the manager in not bringing in more squad players over the summer, not playing the loanees and not changing the formation has been the biggest problem this season. We are just seeing the culmination of that now. Pembo isn't going to be able to solve it overnight, or even within two weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Well let’s look at the evidence. Either SC should have convinced SL to invest a year ago in the 2015 January window or vice versa, one of them was being far too cautious, we could have brought in some real talent given our league standing at the time and that would put less stress on any summer dealings. Either SC/Burt or SL/Pelling was to blame for the utter unprofessional shambles that occurred before the season even began, did SC and Burt have signings lined up and SL and Pelling ****** them up or did SL/Pelling not agree with his potential signings and their price. of course you have to blame the board, if they were undermining SC at every juncture or if he was the one attempting to undermine them using last season as his lever. Whatever the answer is, it seems incontrovertible that relations between the 2 of them must have been strained from July onwards and as the owner he should have acted far sooner, his inaction has put the club in jeopardy IMO and for what it's worth I believe the highlighted portion because it's the only logical explanation for the 2 ridiculously hurried and stupidly over priced bids for Gayle and Gray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 1 minute ago, shelts said: U want them to pick the side also? Have we lost anything yet....doom and gloom brigade can **** off and support the gash That's a helpful, informative comment on the debate shelts Original too I may add Chill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, shelts said: U want them to pick the side also? Have we lost anything yet....doom and gloom brigade can **** off and support the gash Clearly not. In the same way that the M&S chairman is responsible for delivering shareholder value but not for serving on the tills. The board have to provide the environment and tools for other staff to do their job. In my view they haven't. And ranting undermines your persuasiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Cotts said of the Zac Clough offer "The agent said the deal would need to be a head-turning offer. We made an offer but it wasn't head-turning enough. I think it was good and fair and one that fits with our players." That for me says he was more worried about keeping the current squad happy, and didn't want players coming in earning more than 'his boys' An admirable stance in trying to maintain squad harmony, but coupled with SL's "I never said no to anything in the summer" comment, it appears, to me at least, Cotts was determined to keep last seasons squad on a level playing field with any incoming signings. A grand or 2 here and there might not have been a problem, but players like Gayle and Gray would have needed to be way above the current lads, and that's almost certainly why they're not here. Reckon Cotts, as much as I respect the guy , and will always be thankful for last season, shot himself in the foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, glynriley said: Cotts said of the Zac Clough offer "The agent said the deal would need to be a head-turning offer. We made an offer but it wasn't head-turning enough. I think it was good and fair and one that fits with our players." That for me says he was more worried about keeping the current squad happy, and didn't want players coming in earning more than 'his boys' An admirable stance in trying to maintain squad harmony, but coupled with SL's "I never said no to anything in the summer" comment, it appears, to me at least, Cotts was determined to keep last seasons squad on a level playing field with any incoming signings. A grand or 2 here and there might not have been a problem, but players like Gayle and Gray would have needed to be way above the current lads, and that's almost certainly why they're not here. Reckon Cotts, as much as I respect the guy , and will always be thankful for last season, shot himself in the foot. Are you really saying that SL offered players to Cotts on whatever was necessary to get them here and Cotts said, "no not breaking my wage structure". Are you really saying that and believe it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbcfc Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 I don't blame the board for selling Cunningham & leaving us short of a left back. I don't blame the board for the refusal to play Burns (while he's not a world beater he's better than other options). I don't blame the board for refusing to put an academy kid on the bench just to make a point! I don't blame the board for bringing in loan signing & not playing them (who knows how good Robinson & Moore actually were?) I don't blame the board for refusing to rotate player or make substitutes. Yes the summer was a complete & utter balls up & the transfer saga is one of the reasons we're in this mess - but Cotterill should shoulder his fair share of the blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, glynriley said: Cotts said of the Zac Clough offer "The agent said the deal would need to be a head-turning offer. We made an offer but it wasn't head-turning enough. I think it was good and fair and one that fits with our players." That for me says he was more worried about keeping the current squad happy, and didn't want players coming in earning more than 'his boys' An admirable stance in trying to maintain squad harmony, but coupled with SL's "I never said no to anything in the summer" comment, it appears, to me at least, Cotts was determined to keep last seasons squad on a level playing field with any incoming signings. A grand or 2 here and there might not have been a problem, but players like Gayle and Gray would have needed to be way above the current lads, and that's almost certainly why they're not here. Reckon Cotts, as much as I respect the guy , and will always be thankful for last season, shot himself in the foot. Sadly Glyn that does not explain the summer of inactivity, which is the real crux here, at first I was quite prepared to believe it was just one of those things, one of those things that would be sorted sometime quick and it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRaw Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 12 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said: Their primary job is to secure our status. The task of managing the football team and "securing our status" is delegated to the manager, if they feel he is failing and unable to turn it around they have to act.......they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, glynriley said: Cotts said of the Zac Clough offer "The agent said the deal would need to be a head-turning offer. We made an offer but it wasn't head-turning enough. I think it was good and fair and one that fits with our players." That for me says he was more worried about keeping the current squad happy, and didn't want players coming in earning more than 'his boys' An admirable stance in trying to maintain squad harmony, but coupled with SL's "I never said no to anything in the summer" comment, it appears, to me at least, Cotts was determined to keep last seasons squad on a level playing field with any incoming signings. A grand or 2 here and there might not have been a problem, but players like Gayle and Gray would have needed to be way above the current lads, and that's almost certainly why they're not here. Reckon Cotts, as much as I respect the guy , and will always be thankful for last season, shot himself in the foot. Exactly how I see it. Cotts was too inflexible to make this work, you need more in your locker if you wish to hang around as a manager in this division. GJ found this out too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 1 minute ago, mcbcfc said: I don't blame the board for selling Cunningham & leaving us short of a left back. I don't blame the board for the refusal to play Burns (while he's not a world beater he's better than other options). I don't blame the board for refusing to put an academy kid on the bench just to make a point! I don't blame the board for bringing in loan signing & not playing them (who knows how good Robinson & Moore actually were?) I don't blame the board for refusing to rotate player or make substitutes. Yes the summer was a complete & utter balls up & the transfer saga is one of the reasons we're in this mess - but Cotterill should shoulder his fair share of the blame. He's should. They all screwed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: Well let’s look at the evidence. 1. Either SC should have convinced SL to invest a year ago in the 2015 January window or vice versa, one of them was being far too cautious, we could have brought in some real talent given our league standing at the time. 2. Either SC/Burt or SL/Pelling was to blame for the utter unprofessional shambles that occurred before the season even began, did SC and Burt have signings lined up and SL and Pelling ****** them up or did SL/Pelling not agree with his potential signings and their price. of course you have to blame the board, if they were undermining SC at every juncture or if he was the one attempting to undermine them using last season as his lever. 3. Whatever the answer is, it seems incontrovertible that relations between the 2 of them must have been strained from July onwards and as the owner he should have acted far sooner, his inaction has put the club in jeopardy IMO and for what it's worth I believe the highlighted portion because it's the only logical explanation for the 2 ridiculously hurried and stupidly over priced bids for Gayle and Gray. Very good post that for me 1) Totally agree with you - we missed a trick there - was the time to bolster the squad with 2 or 3 from 'The Best of League One' 2) I strongly believe it was more complicated than that - out of interest did you read the thread where there was a discussion between myself and NickJ ? (about the 'misunderstanding' that is meant to be behind the summers fiasco) Would be interested in your opinion I think putting the jigsaw of clues / info together it might provide the explanation and events since then - why SC was allowed to carry on so long etc 3 Agree totally for the part about the relationship SL/ SC and SL should have acted earlier Good post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 5 minutes ago, NickJ said: Are you really saying that SL offered players to Cotts on whatever was necessary to get them here and Cotts said, "no not breaking my wage structure". Are you really saying that and believe it? Really don't know what to believe mate. Something has gone horribly shaped like a pear, and I can only go on what I read and hear, not being ITK and all that. Perhaps Mary Berry has the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reigate Red Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Agree that it was most likely six of one half a dozen of the other. But, the seemingly lack of planning having sacked Cotts and the deafening silence is putting an increasing amount of blame for the ongoing problems onto the board. They need to admit some responsibility to maintain credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, mcbcfc said: I don't blame the board for selling Cunningham & leaving us short of a left back. I don't blame the board for the refusal to play Burns (while he's not a world beater he's better than other options). I don't blame the board for refusing to put an academy kid on the bench just to make a point! I don't blame the board for bringing in loan signing & not playing them (who knows how good Robinson & Moore actually were?) I don't blame the board for refusing to rotate player or make substitutes. Yes the summer was a complete & utter balls up & the transfer saga is one of the reasons we're in this mess - but Cotterill should shoulder his fair share of the blame. I think you will find he did, he was sacked, what about SL and the board shouldering their fair share of the blame (which they haven't) for allowing whatever happened to go on for as long as it did?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said: Very good post that for me 1) Totally agree with you - we missed a trick there - was the time to bolster the squad with 2 or 3 from 'The Best of League One' 2) I strongly believe it was more complicated than that - out of interest did you read the thread where there was a discussion between myself and NickJ ? (about the 'misunderstanding' that is meant to be behind the summers fiasco) Would be interested in your opinion I think putting the jigsaw of clues / info together it might provide the explanation and events since then - why SC was allowed to carry on so long etc 3 Agree totally for the part about the relationship SL/ SC and SL should have acted earlier Good post You will have to link me to that thread and i'll get back to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.