Does anybody still not blame the board. ?

[BobBobSuperBob]

3 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

You feel confident we're more likely stay up having booted out a manager who we know was so popular with the squad?

The chances of relegation have increased by his departure imo. 

With no plan B there is the real danger of this young squad losing heart and City going into freefall now.

Despite the opinions of some on here Steve Cotterill actually has a very impressive record in almost 20 years of management.

Most pertinent to our present predicament it should be noted that no club has ever been relegated under his management.

I wonder if his replacement will be able to say that?

 

 

In fairness of accuracy Nogbad that should be considered against his tenures

Cheltenham - 4yrs - (got them from Conf to L1 - can't knock that)

Stoke - 13 games

Sunderland (Asst) 27 games

Burnley 2 1/4 seasons

Notts County 3 months

Pompey  Just over one season

Forest 2/3 of a season

 

Bit difficult to get relegated tbh !!!!

 post Cheltenham there's only 3 seasons he could have taken a team down (2 at Pompey in L2 and one at Burnley)

 

 

[NickJ]

19 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Fair enough Nick - think we agree that Cotts it would appear , had cause to be peed off during the summer , but I don't blame SL either if my understanding is correct regarding the nature of the understanding (Unclear whether you agree with that bit) and I think that it is fair to suggest SL could have said 'there's been a bit of a problem' etc but 'we move on etc' as it was always going to come out or at least be subject of speculation , perhaps he didn't think, at the time it would be so relevant as it now looks.

So in simple terms , no blame as far as I can see on SC OR SL at that point 

For me personally the blame since then lies at both doors

SC

For quite clearly having a massive sulk , not compromising or adjusting for targets in the remainder of the summer window once Gray and Gayle had flown (If either were viable / coming here before their agents sought better packages / clubs)

For poor loan recruitment

For a stubborn refusal to try a different formation from his flawed one for Championship , and , or , personnel.

For demonstrating his hump about the size of the squad / transfers at every given opportunity right up to his dismissal - not beneficial to anyone.

For leaving bench places empty and stating publicly his players couldn't compete with Derby - all for me political digs at the board , at the players , fans , club , and boards ultimate expense

SL / Board

For not intervening earlier, if Neccessary removing SC when he kept repeating his public hump whilst the same team, tactics and approach , clearly flawed carried on with repeating poor results 

For  dithering and dithering ( With it would appear no thought of checking / considering the available / possible managerial market !!!!!!!! )

For waiting until mid transfer window before finally deciding we had to change (As with most I assumed that by Xmas and certainly Jan that they had decided to stick with SC and although I disagreed with this accepted it and was happy to carry on supporting SC at games at least for the foreseeable)

I simply couldn't believe that we'd be stupid enough to let SC get into mid transfer window and then sack him especially with no idea of a realistic replacement.

But we were !

So that's it for me - No blame initially in the summer for either - BOTH since to a major degree

Fair points and I do agree that SC showed he is not perfect.

For the record I do agree with that bit and I have said before elsewhere given the nature of the concerns SL was not only entitled but obliged to put a brake on further summer activity.

But the complete failure thereafter of communication I put entirely at the board's door and it is clear that SC was unhappy that he was not backed but instead left to shoulder the blame. That is appalling management, by the board, not backing up your staff, particularly such a key one. A guy on another thread described the sacking as gutless and who would I be to disagree.

And as for the irony of sacking SC with no Plan B in place, you just couldn't make it up, could you.

 

[TV Tom]

Cotterill dug his his own grave with his loyalty to players who are not up to it at this level, his obstinance/arrogance of his 3-5-2 system and the poor timing of his substitutions, none of this has absolutely anything to do with Lansdown

[BobBobSuperBob]

7 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Fair points and I do agree that SC showed he is not perfect.

For the record I do agree with that bit and I have said before elsewhere given the nature of the concerns SL was not only entitled but obliged to put a brake on further summer activity.

But the complete failure thereafter of communication I put entirely at the board's door and it is clear that SC was unhappy that he was not backed but instead left to shoulder the blame. That is appalling management, by the board, not backing up your staff, particularly such a key one. A guy on another thread described the sacking as gutless and who would I be to disagree.

And as for the irony of sacking SC with no Plan B in place, you just couldn't make it up, could you.

 

Fair play Nick

I admire the two bits highlighted above - your observation re SC and the acceptance , of SLs initial impossible situation ( or so we agree it would appear)

Agree too that the whole thing could have been handled far differently instead of sweeping it under the carpet and hoping it wouldn't be an ongoing issue.

Due to my (our I think) understanding of the root of the misunderstanding I accept they couldn't have gone full public on the ins and outs but for a major business with good advice could have handled it delicately but so much better IMO

Dont get me wrong - No one would have been more delighted if SC had pushed on successfully at our helm - I don't care too much who our leader is if they deliver , whether In wild about his personality or not

[NickJ]

14 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Know what I find really really frustrating?

It doesn't matter how many times on a thread like this it is explained with some conviction that the start of the demise was the summer transfer fiasco, which was not Cotterill's fault, there are still people that say, "the board are rubbish" (good start) "they should have sacked Cotterill in November".

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, harrys said:

Cotterill dug his his own grave with his loyalty to players who are not up to it at this level,

See what I mean!!!!!

harrys - are you saying that it was Cotterill's decision not to purchase players in the summer?

[BobBobSuperBob]

15 minutes ago, NickJ said:

 

See what I mean!!!!!

harrys - are you saying that it was Cotterill's decision not to purchase players in the summer?

I'm off to bed Nick but my view on this is that post Gray / Gayle it is my 'understanding' that he (SC)!had the hump and wouldn't compromise on targets and sign from L1 -

Is that right ?

I don't know tbh

but the lack of recruitment in the summer post Gray/Gayle saga suggests either SL wouldn't let him buy (Can't see that for one moment) or there was some other problem which was ......?

(Dack for example was surely very viable in the summer - why didn't we get over Gray / Gayle and whoever and readjust our targets ? )

So in essence I'm gonna be rude and answer your question to Harry as a sort of 'Yes'  IMHO

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, BCFC Jordan said:

It is completely the board's fault.

 

If ever there was a guide on 'how to get relegated' made into a book, you'd just have to copy and paste our season report.

 

Sacking Cotterill halfway through January was the final nail in the coffin. Completely disillusioned with this club and the board should be ashamed.

Can't agree I'm afraid.

Cotts said he didn't have the players to play any other formation than 3-5-2 and he had difficulty attracting signings to the club. He was starting to sound like a dead man walking in his interviews. Resigned to fate.

Instantly his underlings proved you could play a different formation and win games (well) and you could bring new players in.

Action had to be taken and the board took it. I imagine they felt exactly the same as I did after the Preston game - my trust in SC had totally evaporated and my goodwill likewise.

A narrow away loss to Leeds does not prove the wrong decision was taken. Far from it.

[KeepUpLino]

1 hour ago, BCFC Jordan said:

It is completely the board's fault.

 

If ever there was a guide on 'how to get relegated' made into a book, you'd just have to copy and paste our season report.

 

Sacking Cotterill halfway through January was the final nail in the coffin. Completely disillusioned with this club and the board should be ashamed.

Can't disagree with this!!!

[TV Tom]

1 minute ago, NickJ said:

 

See what I mean!!!!!

harrys - are you saying that it was Cotterill's decision not to purchase players in the summer?

No idea mate, what I do know is that SC persisted with playing a system that left   Us wide wide open and persisted with his loyalty to players who had bad game after bad game, in our last 2 or 3 games we've restricted the opposition to no more than 3 shots on target over the 2/3 games, under SC we were having to score 3 goals to win a game, from the day SC was appointed I was 100% behind him but I finally gave up all hope after the PNE game, I have no doubt that if SC was still here we would still be playing 3-5-2 and the same tired old personal that has seen us struggle all  season

[Red-Robbo]

5 minutes ago, 'keepuplino' said:

Can't disagree with this!!!

Yet you were calling for Cotterill to be sacked after every loss......

[NickJ]

6 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

I'm off to bed Nick but my view on this is that post Gray / Gayle it is my 'understanding' that he (SC)!had the hump and wouldn't compromise on targets and sign from L1 -

Is that right ?

I don't know tbh

but the lack of recruitment in the summer post Gray/Gayle saga suggests either SL wouldn't let him buy (Can't see that for one moment) or there was some other problem which was ......?

(Dack for example was surely very viable in the summer - why didn't we get over Gray / Gayle and whoever and readjust our targets ? )

So in essence I'm gonna be rude and answer your question to Harry as a sort of 'Yes'  IMHO

Not sure about that. Tetbury's post explained what happened, my information explained why it happened - my understanding was that SL put a brake on transfers for good reason for a while; if the brake was subsequently released, it would not seem logical for SC to refuse players that improved the squad, so the implication is either he did not believe they would or he was miffed about missing out on the ones who were due to sign.

5 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

A narrow away loss to Leeds does not prove the wrong decision was taken. Far from it.

Any more than a narrow win against Middlesboro proved the correct decision was taken - far from it!

3 minutes ago, harrys said:

No idea mate, what I do know is that SC persisted with playing a system that left   Us wide wide open and persisted with his loyalty to players who had bad game after bad game, in our last 2 or 3 games we've restricted the opposition to no more than 3 shots on target over the 2/3 games, under SC we were having to score 3 goals to win a game, from the day SC was appointed I was 100% behind him but I finally gave up all hope after the PNE game, I have no doubt that if SC was still here we would still be playing 3-5-2 and the same tired old personal that has seen us struggle all  season

That doesn't answer my question mate!

Do you think SC refused to sign players that would have improved the squad?

I find that very difficult to believe but who knows!

[BCFC Jordan]

8 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Can't agree I'm afraid.

Cotts said he didn't have the players to play any other formation than 3-5-2 and he had difficulty attracting signings to the club. He was starting to sound like a dead man walking in his interviews. Resigned to fate.

Instantly his underlings proved you could play a different formation and win games (well) and you could bring new players in.

Action had to be taken and the board took it. I imagine they felt exactly the same as I did after the Preston game - my trust in SC had totally evaporated and my goodwill likewise.

A narrow away loss to Leeds does not prove the wrong decision was taken. Far from it.

 

Why would he want to switch formation it wasn't a problem? So far our results since switching formation have been worse compared to the results we had against those teams using the 3-5-2. If Cotterill had been backed we'd have been absolutely fine.

 

We've signed 2 loans, still nothing permanent. One of those loans I'm not exactly convinced by (Gladwin) and Pearce I'm not too aware of, but CB was far from our biggest priority. So they're no different to the Moore/Cox/Robinson etc signings until proven otherwise. Sacking the manager was just a distraction for the board to avoid flack for messing up another transfer window. I mean, it's still obvious, but they can just claim they were concentrating on bringing the right manager in. Well, they sacked the right man after failing to back him.

 

Sacking Cotterill halfway through January when 1) the board were responsible for not helping him and 2) the board had no plan B, sums up the current state of the club. A mess.

[Atticus]

I blame the board.

I used to be a backer of the vision and supported the decisions of the board. Not now.

Put up or shut up is the word Id use. They cant bleat on and on about wanting to be a prem club then not be willing to offer the wages required to achieve this and moan that we cant compete. If that's the case stop spouting the crap about wanting to be a prem side.

Look at the likes of Boro and Derby, the amount they are spending this year. If we wanna be a prem club that's what we have to compete with in terms of spending power. If we cant or not willing to, then stop the shit about wanting to be one.

Also the ridiculous summer window (I cant see it being solely all cotts, no no.) and the timing of the sacking. Ludicrous.

And the appointment of this Ashton fella and signing of players with no manager.

 

Lost cause is all il say.

[NickJ]

7 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Yet you were calling for Cotterill to be sacked after every loss......

That's only half correct - he was calling for Cotterill to be sacked even before he was appointed!

[KeepUpLino]

10 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Yet you were calling for Cotterill to be sacked after every loss......

Where did i mention Cotterill should have kept his job?

 

[KeepUpLino]

4 minutes ago, NickJ said:

That's only half correct - he was calling for Cotterill to be sacked even before he was appointed!

Here he is, Cott's Old man

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, BCFC Jordan said:

U 

Why would he want to switch formation it wasn't a problem? So far our results since switching formation have been worse compared to the results we had against those teams using the 3-5-2. If Cotterill had been backed we'd have been absolutely fine.

 

We've signed 2 loans, still nothing permanent. One of those loans I'm not exactly convinced by (Gladwin) and Pearce I'm not too aware of, but CB was far from our biggest priority. Sou they're no different to the Moore/Cox/Robinson etc signings until proven otherwise. Sacking the manager was just a distraction for the board to avoid flack for messing up another transfer window. I mean, it's still obvious, but they can just claim they were concentrating on bringing the right manager in. Well, they sacked the right man after failing to back him.

 

Sacking Cotterill halfway through January when 1) the board were responsible for not helping him and 2) the board had no plan B, sums up the current state of the club. A mess.

Well it clearly WAS a problem as we weren't winning games. 4 wins on 28, a worse return than that which got SOD and McInnes sacked. 

And if loans are what are needed to keep us up who cares if there aren't permanent signings. Matt Smith's arrival pulled us out of a brief mid-season stutter and Caulker saved a poor team from relegation not so long ago.

Basically I'm saying the last manager, not the board had no plan B. When it was obvious he was taking us down they had to act. It's all very well saying November was the time to do it, but we were still showing signs of life then. Other than the non- routine one-off West Brom  away, we were clearly getting worse weekly since the Charlton game.

[TV Tom]

7 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Not sure about that. Tetbury's post explained what happened, my information explained why it happened - my understanding was that SL put a brake on transfers for good reason for a while; if the brake was subsequently released, it would not seem logical for SC to refuse players that improved the squad, so the implication is either he did not believe they would or he was miffed about missing out on the ones who were due to sign.

Any more than a narrow win against Middlesboro proved the correct decision was taken - far from it!

That doesn't answer my question mate!

Do you think SC refused to sign players that would have improved the squad?

I find that very difficult to believe but who knows!

Did SL pick the team? did SL pick pick the system? did SL make the ridiculous substitutions? Please tell me Nick,  what is the alternative to SL a local dodgy builder? A crooked milkman?

[Red-Robbo]

8 minutes ago, 'keepuplino' said:

Where did i mention Cotterill should have kept his job?

 

Perhaps when you posted in support of Jordan's assertion that we shouldn't have sacked Cotterill in the transfer window.

[Atticus]

2 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Well it clearly WAS a problem as we weren't winning games. 4 wins on 28, a worse return than that which got SOD and McInnes sacked. 

And if loans are what are needed to keep us up who cares if there aren't permanent signings. Matt Smith's arrival pulled us out of a brief mid-season stutter and Caulker saved a poor team from relegation not so long ago.

Basically I'm saying the last manager, not the board had no plan B. When it was obvious he was taking us down they had to act. It's all very well saying November was the time to do it, but we were still showing signs of life then. Other than the non- routine one-off West Brom  away, we were clearly getting worse weekly since the Charlton game.

What were the signs of life in Novemeber?? we had 4 wins in 28. And do people forget about the month of December too?

Sacking a manager nigh on mid way through January is ridiculous. Really. Either decide to back him throughout prior, or chop him prior. We are now in a situation where we are signing players with no manager. A joke.

And you named two successful loan players. Out of how many??? How many loanees have we had in that period?

[BCFC Jordan]

2 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Well it clearly WAS a problem as we weren't winning games. 4 wins on 28, a worse return than that which got SOD and McInnes sacked. 

And if loans are what are needed to keep us up who cares if there aren't permanent signings. Matt Smith's arrival pulled us out of a brief mid-season stutter and Caulker saved a poor team from relegation not so long ago.

Basically I'm saying the last manager, not the board had no plan B. When it was obvious he was taking us down they had to act. It's all very well saying November was the time to do it, but we were still showing signs of life then. Other than the non- routine one-off West Brom  away, we were clearly getting worse weekly since the Charlton game.

 

Confidence has slowly been drained from the club since the summer - the fault lies with the board. In my opinion, Cotterill shouldn't have been sacked full-stop. The only exception being if they had some amazing manager lined up like Moyes (obviously never going to happen). Any other manager has the same squad to deal with. A small but reasonably talented squad in desperate need for a few key additions, not needless loans. This should have been done back in the summer. This whole season is a consequence of that and the board are the ones responsible.

 

Their timing and decision to sack SC is further proof yet that they're clueless when it comes to running a football club. And I love SL for all his financial backing and would fear for the club if he ever left us - but his (and his board of mainly puppets) cannot run a football club, at least not at Championship level. It's been shown time and time again, manager after manager.

[KeepUpLino]

3 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Perhaps when you posted in support of Jordan's assertion that we shouldn't have sacked Cotterill in the transfer window.

You clearly misunderstood me....

[NickJ]

3 minutes ago, harrys said:

Did SL pick the team? did SL pick pick the system? did SL make the ridiculous substitutions? Please tell me Nick,  what is the alternative to SL a local dodgy builder? A crooked milkman?

Ok you've had your pop at me. Not sure why.

But can you answer the question?

Do you believe SC refused to buy players that could strengthen the squad?

That was the gist of your opening comment.

 

[Red-Robbo]

6 minutes ago, Atticus said:

What were the signs of life in Novemeber?? we had 4 wins in 28. And do people forget about the month of December too?

Sacking a manager nigh on mid way through January is ridiculous. Really. Either decide to back him throughout prior, or chop him prior. We are now in a situation where we are signing players with no manager. A joke.

And you named two successful loan players. Out of how many??? How many loanees have we had in that period?

We have no idea if Cox would have been successful as Cotterill opted never to play him, despite the favoured starting line-up clearly not delivering the goods.

I don't think the board wanted to sack Steve after the season he gave us last year. They wanted to keep faith. After Preston, it was obvious. The straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. 

We could say give him until February but I don't think we'd have got 3 points against Boro. Action had to be taken.

[joe jordans teeth]

2 minutes ago, BCFC Jordan said:

 

Confidence has slowly been drained from the club since the summer - the fault lies with the board. In my opinion, Cotterill shouldn't have been sacked full-stop. The only exception being if they had some amazing manager lined up like Moyes (obviously never going to happen). Any other manager has the same squad to deal with. A small but reasonably talented squad in desperate need for a few key additions, not needless loans. This should have been done back in the summer. This whole season is a consequence of that and the board are the ones responsible.

 

Their timing and decision to sack SC is further proof yet that they're clueless when it comes to running a football club. And I love SL for all his financial backing and would fear for the club if he ever left us - but his (and his board of mainly puppets) cannot run a football club, at least not at Championship level. It's been shown time and time again, manager after manager.

Amazing manager moyes ?,the rest your not far wrong with tbf,sl has a hell of a lot to answer for.mistake after mistake,manager after manager,it's time for him to stand up and stop being a fan

[Atticus]

3 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

We have no idea if Cox would have been successful as Cotterill opted never to play him, despite the favoured starting line-up clearly not delivering the goods.

I don't think the board wanted to sack Steve after the season he gave us last year. They wanted to keep faith. After Preston, it was obvious. The straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. 

We could say give him until February but I don't think we'd have got 3 points against Boro. Action had to be taken.

But then there should be ZERO sentiment in football.

Why back him in November and December when both months gave us 1 win each?

The timing of the sacking is stupidly crazy.

 

The board are fully to blame for our predicament imo. If you feel Cotterill should of gone. Well it should of been a lot sooner then now to of given us a chance.

The lack of activity in terms of transfers can only be blamed on the board.

[Red-Robbo]

7 minutes ago, BCFC Jordan said:

 

Confidence has slowly been drained from the club since the summer - the fault lies with the board. In my opinion, Cotterill shouldn't have been sacked full-stop. The only exception being if they had some amazing manager lined up like Moyes (obviously never going to happen). Any other manager has the same squad to deal with. A small but reasonably talented squad in desperate need for a few key additions, not needless loans. This should have been done back in the summer. This whole season is a consequence of that and the board are the ones responsible.

 

Their timing and decision to sack SC is further proof yet that they're clueless when it comes to running a football club. And I love SL for all his financial backing and would fear for the club if he ever left us - but his (and his board of mainly puppets) cannot run a football club, at least not at Championship level. It's been shown time and time again, manager after manager.

Lansdown has said he hasn't turned down any player.

Cotterill and Burt spent the summer pursuing unrealistic targets, not the board. The money was there to bring people in.- within the confines of FFP of course - and the idea that the board undid that behind the back of the manager and DOF - who attends board meetings incidentally - is fanciful. No way is Keith Dawe,  Jon Lansdown et al involved in negotiations over players' contracts other than setting an overall budget that Lansdown has indicated would allow us to.make a £9m bid.

To me, it seems like.people cannot bring themselves to believe that Cotterill - the hero of.last season - could be villain of this Yet he has failed at this level before. As euphoric as I was.in April, I said that this season would be the real test of the man. And unfortunately he's been found wanting. 

[Atticus]

2 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Lansdown has said he hasn't turned down any player.

Cotterill and Burt spent the summer pursuing unrealistic targets, not the board. The money was there to bring people in.- within the confines of FFP of course - and the idea that the board undid that behind the back of the manager and DOF - who attends board meetings incidentally - is fanciful. No way is Keith Dawe,  Jon Lansdown et al involved in negotiations over players' contracts other than setting an overall budget that Lansdown has indicated would allow us to.make a £9m bid.

To me, it seems like.people cannot bring themselves to believe that Cotterill - the hero of.last season - could be villain of this Yet he has failed at this level before. As euphoric as I was.in April, I said that this season would be the real test of the man. And unfortunately he's been found wanting. 

It seems to me as if you cant bring yourself to believe that Lansdown and the many many many board members can be the villains too.

[Red-Robbo]

5 minutes ago, Atticus said:

But then there should be ZERO sentiment in football.

Why back him in November and December when both months gave us 1 win each?

The timing of the sacking is stupidly crazy.

 

The board are fully to blame for our predicament imo. If you feel Cotterill should of gone. Well it should of been a lot sooner then now to of given us a chance.

The lack of activity in terms of transfers can only be blamed on the board.

Not really. We made a very generous offer for Zach Clough and I don't think.anyone - Steve Cotterill included - can have thought that he'd decline it because he didn't fancy spending most of the week away from his mates.

The board employ someone to identify and bring in transfers. They don't do.it themselves. I suggest that Mr Burt will be departing at the same time a managerial appointment is made.

As for the timing of the sacking : hindsight is a wonderful thing. After a very decent.showing against QPR who knew for sure that preventable mistakes and stubborn insistence on a single style of play would bring us such a poor return in the coming weeks.

So yeah, I agree, he should've got the push in November. But we say that now with wisdom after the event. 

[shelts]

Who cares as long as we stay up and re group. Mistakes have been made off and on the pitch . Many questions left unanswered. We have a very good chance of staying up as I'm confident there are three worse teams than us. The business we do now in what's left of the window will decide the future of the club. Hang on its going to get bumpy!!

COYR