Does anybody still not blame the board. ?

[spudski]

1 hour ago, Jack Dawe said:

I don't believe we need Gray or Gayle to "compete" in this league. Nor even Maguire, probably. Preston illustrate this. Who did they sign? 

We would need them to be anywhere near challenging Hull, Boro, Derby etc at the top, though. Was this what Cotts was aiming for?

The argument against Cotts, for me, is simply: how have we fallen so far behind Preston? Is it because we couldn't land £3, £4, £5million pound players? If we can't "compete" how are Preston competing?

The arguments against the board are many but simply put: Cotts manages the team, the board "manage" Cotts (well, that's the idea). They carry the ultimate responsibility.

If Cotts was the problem, he needed to be gone before Christmas, not mid January.

Maybe...but what if the next coach/manager and 'people' the Club want to put in place next (to run the club successfully long term and not short term) were not available when you suggest?

[exAtyeoMax]

35 minutes ago, spudski said:

Maybe...but what if the next coach/manager and 'people' the Club want to put in place next (to run the club successfully long term and not short term) were not available when you suggest?

Do you think they had someone lined up when they sacked Cotts? 

[GodEmperor Palpatine]

1 hour ago, NickJ said:

A micro analysis of 2 games isn't really the point is it.

Without a new manager and without better players, the ONLY possible way in which we are better off now is if Pembo is able to get more out of the current resources than SC could have. I very much doubt that will be the case between now and the end of this season.

How about 26 games at this level?. not including the cup of course.

Shall we do an analysis of them instead? Like you said to another poster, you dont wanna know about about substiutions and tactics etc but facts dont lie.Look at the last 15 games... W2 D5 L8 F8 A27. 11 points from a possible 45 which is unacceptable. Cotterill said not judge after 12 games, fine of course but the performances got decidedly worse and thats why he was sacked.

If you can tell me that what i've put up is perfectly acceptable then feel free to explain how it is while Del who had a slightly better record was binned off for the teams woeful performances, the last 12 games were abject and Cotterills inflexibility on managing the team cost him his job. 

[spudski]

5 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Do you think they had someone lined up when they sacked Cotts? 

I think it had more to do with the timing and availability of Mr Ashton joining... An 'expert' in recruiting and finding players.

[exAtyeoMax]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

I think it had more to do with the timing and availability of Mr Ashton joining... An 'expert' in recruiting and finding players.

yes I suppose so. He had to start earlier than he thought…

[Jack Dawe]

38 minutes ago, spudski said:

Maybe...but what if the next coach/manager and 'people' the Club want to put in place next (to run the club successfully long term and not short term) were not available when you suggest?

I'd wait for Pearson, if he would only join in the summer. Not sure we'll have anyone else "interested" worth waiting for, and that being the case, I'd have the next best man in toute suite. Like we got Cotts in ahead of last year's Jan window. But that's if I'd have got rid of Cotts in the first place, and to do that, you'd want to be in full possession of the facts re responsibility for the summer etc, which I'm not, so I'm just guessing wildly.

I don't know what I'd do now, to be honest. We're in a bit of a tight spot

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, Jack Dawe said:

I'd wait for Pearson, if he would only join in the summer. Not sure we'll have anyone else "interested" worth waiting for, and that being the case, I'd have the next best man in toute suite. Like we got Cotts in ahead of last year's Jan window. But that's if I'd have got rid of Cotts in the first place, and to do that, you'd want to be in full possession of the facts re responsibility for the summer etc, which I'm not, so I'm just guessing wildly.

I don't know what I'd do now, to be honest. We're in a bit of a tight spot

 

3 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

yes I suppose so. He had to start earlier than he thought…

It's become very clear, that the Club think the main priority was to bring players in and not a new Coach straight away.

For whatever reasons...they deemed SC not suitable for doing this task...even though 'supposed' players were lined up.

Mr Ashton was brought in to rectify this situation...both short term and long term.

A Coach will be found, who will have to work with Mr Ashton and DoF.

They may have a list of interested parties...but it's finding one that fits the Clubs 'new strategy'.

The fit has to be right...not just a name, or someone who has done well at other clubs.

They will have to fit in with the Clubs philosophy.

I get the impression this 'philosophy' and direction the Club wish to take didn't fit with how the previous manager 'managed'...especially with targets being aimed for regarding recruitment and obvious strains with those in the development part of the club.

[Chivs]

The more I think about Cotterill the more I come back to the Coppell fiasco.  Maybe it was all explained and I didn't get the memo but the Coppell situation was just plain mad.

And, any which way I think about it, all roads lead back to another Steve.

[exAtyeoMax]

23 minutes ago, Chivs said:

The more I think about Cotterill the more I come back to the Coppell fiasco.  Maybe it was all explained and I didn't get the memo but the Coppell situation was just plain mad.

And, any which way I think about it, all roads lead back to another Steve.

I feel like we're back to where we were when Copout was appointed. No fannying about with up and coming managers or No2s - get the right man in!

[Red-Robbo]

35 minutes ago, Chivs said:

The more I think about Cotterill the more I come back to the Coppell fiasco.  Maybe it was all explained and I didn't get the memo but the Coppell situation was just plain mad.

And, any which way I think about it, all roads lead back to another Steve.

"Plain mad" is a very good phrase to use in this context. ...

[NickJ]

3 hours ago, spudski said:

I blame both the board and SC for the shambles.

But as for blaming the board for not acting quick enough...It's not so easy as that.

If there were indiscretions as alleged, and a time frame to act in...then the board have to act accordingly.

Did the board feel they could 'forgive' or overlook those indescretions this time, with a slap on the wrist, because they still believed in the ability to do well in the Championship, based on our previous season? Did they look, and see the next person they wanted wasn't available right now...and they would go with a 'better the devil you know' attitude?

.

Excuse me, "indiscretions"? Where has this been mentioned before?

I think the answer is nowhere, so you seem to be introducing it. You specifically seem to be introducing it in the area of the previous manager, assuming that is who you mean by "better the devil you know".

Strong stuff.

The implication of what you are saying is the board were prepared to overlook these indiscretions when the manager was successful, but not when he wasn't.

Interesting, if true.

[NickJ]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

I think it had more to do with the timing and availability of Mr Ashton joining... An 'expert' in recruiting and finding players.

"Expert" in inverted commas.

Is that ITK inverted commas spudski?

I will say right now Mr Ashton will not be an improvement - IMO.

[Son of Fred]

20 hours ago, glynriley said:

Not sure I agree there to be honest. Yes, results were poor, but the players had showed no signs of not playing for Cotterill.

It is apparent the board had no coherent plan, and sacked SC almost on a whim. Did the row with a fan hasten his departure??

It's almost inconceivable that we have no idea who we want to replace him. May as well stick as twist if that's the case.

 

Board completely unprepared for that 'summer window'..clear lack of communication between board members-then manager and board,as a consequence not even in the same ballpark re;player recruitment policy.....then,to sack the manager half way through the current window??????...should have been post Fulham if that was the gig.shooting oneself in the foot doesn't even begin to cover it..if John Cleese wishes to 'do' a suicidal football board room sketch,John,look no further...

[MarkRed!]

The bottom line is the board are responsible for the mismanagement that has gone on. They set the strategy and the budgets. SC worked for them, not the other way around. Lets not forget it was this board which brought us SCoppell, KM, DM and SOD. They would have brought us 2 successive relegations had it not been for SC.

It is also a common theme at the club that player recruitment over time has generally been scandalous, to the point we were paying nearly 19 million per year for bang average players. It is well known that DM and SOD did not pick the teams and were simply given the teamsheets.... SC came in and ripped this bullsxxx up. He demanded it his way and the board had no choice - they were facing relegation to Lg 2. Lets not kid ourselves, those were some dark days where the club and playing staff were on its knees. Fielding, Williams, Flint, Pack, JET, Cunningham, Bryan, Burns, Reid, Wagstaff were all players taking us towards Lg 2. We also had a bloated squad of average players.   SC rooted out the rubbish and developed an exciting side. However, the size of the squad has been an issue for 3 seasons. This was not a new occurrence.

Whatever his ills SC did a better job than we probably know and the glory hunters in our support and on our board expected a stroll in the championship.  It was never going to be that way and this was made worse by the dealings in the summer. Those deals were scuppered by our own board not SC. Hopefully the truth will come out. SC was furious and it showed. McGuire and Gray were done deals. Would they have made a difference to us, you bet they would have.   

As a result, it was clear early doors that all was not well within the club and it became clear that the board and SC were poles apart in their comments to the media about transfers and budget. After the home game against Brentford, I remember saying to friends that I thought SC was going to resign, he was despondent and tetchy. 

IMO SC was not sacked because of results. He was sacked because he refused to work with Ashton. The poor form and fan discontentment allowed the board to make the decision without disclosing the full reasons. As fans we have just accepted it.  However, if results were the motivation then they would have done it in November. They did not sack SC because there would have been a fan backlash. To suggest they were talking about it is bull. They waited, just until the tide was beginning to turn against SC. The 1st half performance against Preston (which we should have won) gave them the ammunition and the cover to act. Until that point he had been given licence to conduct transfers FFS. SL also gave an interview only weeks earlier saying that the manager's role was not up for discussion. We were not adrift and still playing well. Hmm, what changed then. The fact that there was no replacement lined up to replace SC has only served to illustrate the skulduggery on the part of the board. IMO SC should have been given to the end of the season. If we were relegated, which is still likely, then why would he not be able to bring us back up....

What is now clear is that Ashton was hovering behind the scenes and had been appointed before SC was sacked. He had just not officially started. It is very apparent that SC was not going to work under him. I would also like to say, what on earth has Ashton done to be the power broker at AG either as an administrator or a manager - answer, very little. His "publicspeak"(and I spoke to him on radio) were finely tuned and the hallmarks of a super politician.... He is a yes man. Once again, the board are altering policy and giving it all to Ashton. He now has the power to dictate signings and the appointment of the head coach.... hmm, sounds familiar, did this process not royally fck up with DM and SOD....

SC's error is that he played into the board's hands. He was moody with reporters and fans and he allowed himself to be sacked by rigidly playing a formation that was exposed and not rotating his squad, including not using youth players... did he do this to make a point... of course he did....TBH, it does not matter as the club is bigger than any individual but to sack him in the January window without a lined up replacement says it all. Fans have also got very ambitious because of the nonsense talk about PL. The calls  for Moyes and Pearson to be appointed .... give me one reason why they would want to work for Ashton. We will end up with an unproven manager like DM again who is prepared to work Ashton's way.

We are at risk of going backwards. Pemberton is not the answer permanent or interim. We need a proven manager at this level. I was at Leeds yesterday and the same BCFC turned up, played well for no points. Whether it is 433, 442 or 352, bottom line is that we still lost and are in grave danger of relegation. We need a manager and a miracle with some sprinklings of new players.  Can we do it? This week will be the most important in our recent history. All eyes will be on the board...... then we can fully judge them for the shambles which has been this season....

 

[Kid in the Riot]

36 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Excuse me, "indiscretions"? Where has this been mentioned before?

I think the answer is nowhere, so you seem to be introducing it. You specifically seem to be introducing it in the area of the previous manager, assuming that is who you mean by "better the devil you know".

Strong stuff.

The implication of what you are saying is the board were prepared to overlook these indiscretions when the manager was successful, but not when he wasn't.

Interesting, if true.

Or maybe the indiscretions only came to the boards attention in say, the summer, around the time deals were taken out of the hands of SC/KB and SL became much more involved?

[Kid in the Riot]

27 minutes ago, robin4ever said:

Mr Ashton worked at the club before and was responsible for the signings of the likes of Nicky hunt. He also has been at the club a couple of months in a consultancy basis , but his main job was to sack SC

For some reason @NickJ thinks you're ITK. I take the view that you haven't got a scoobies (and I believe you've admitted you're not ITK).

Firstly, Mark Ashton was not responsible for signings players in his previous consultancy role at the club. He helped put recruitment processes in place but his main task was to actually help the Academy develop to Cat 2 status.

Secondly,  notwithstanding the fact he wasnt responsible for signing players he could not have signed Nicky Hunt as he signed in 2010 - two years before Ashton arrived at City.

Ashton hasn't been at the club 'a couple of months' either. He left Oxford on 12 December.

As for your throwaway comment that Ashton's main job was to sack SC. Well I'll let others make their mind up but suffice to say you are not credible in the slightest.

[ciderup]

48 minutes ago, robin4ever said:

Mr Ashton worked at the club before and was responsible for the signings of the likes of Nicky hunt. He also has been at the club a couple of months in a consultancy basis , but his main job was to sack SC

Wasn't his consultancy some years ago when McInnes was appointed?

[CotswoldRed]

4 hours ago, Squire Dastardly said:

To answer the original question, I don't blame the board and never did. The fault lies with poor management by Cotts and underperformance by several key players. The two things are not unconnected in my opinion. Cotts is gone but the confidence of these players has not yet returned. The answer lies with the board choosing a new capable manager with great care.

If no blame can be attributed to the board then you reduce their responsibility at the club to little more than paying the bills. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

@MarkRed!

McInnes and O'Driscoll didn't pick the teams and were just handed a teamsheet?? Why would any manager put up with that.

[GodEmperor Palpatine]

54 minutes ago, MarkRed! said:

The bottom line is the board are responsible for the mismanagement that has gone on. They set the strategy and the budgets. SC worked for them, not the other way around. Lets not forget it was this board which brought us SCoppell, KM, DM and SOD. They would have brought us 2 successive relegations had it not been for SC.

There was alot of hype on social media particularly with DM but I guess hindsight is a wonderful thing... Both DM and SOD, more so DM had to contend with trimming the wage budget and getting rid of deadwood, he kept us up when Millen was canned. SC upto the Sheffield United game was taking us down at that point just to mention

It is also a common theme at the club that player recruitment over time has generally been scandalous, to the point we were paying nearly 19 million per year for bang average players. It is well known that DM and SOD did not pick the teams and were simply given the teamsheets.... SC came in and ripped this bullsxxx up. He demanded it his way and the board had no choice - they were facing relegation to Lg 2. Lets not kid ourselves, those were some dark days where the club and playing staff were on its knees. Fielding, Williams, Flint, Pack, JET, Cunningham, Bryan, Burns, Reid, Wagstaff were all players taking us towards Lg 2. We also had a bloated squad of average players.   SC rooted out the rubbish and developed an exciting side. However, the size of the squad has been an issue for 3 seasons. This was not a new occurrence.

I dont get the highlighted part, you are saying that those players weren't good enough? All part of the squad who won promotion and JETs goals and assists was helping us hang around the season before

Whatever his ills SC did a better job than we probably know and the glory hunters in our support and on our board expected a stroll in the championship.  It was never going to be that way and this was made worse by the dealings in the summer. Those deals were scuppered by our own board not SC. Hopefully the truth will come out. SC was furious and it showed. McGuire and Gray were done deals. Would they have made a difference to us, you bet they would have.   

Pure speculation and conjecture

As a result, it was clear early doors that all was not well within the club and it became clear that the board and SC were poles apart in their comments to the media about transfers and budget. After the home game against Brentford, I remember saying to friends that I thought SC was going to resign, he was despondent and tetchy. 

IMO SC was not sacked because of results. He was sacked because he refused to work with Ashton. The poor form and fan discontentment allowed the board to make the decision without disclosing the full reasons. As fans we have just accepted it.  However, if results were the motivation then they would have done it in November. They did not sack SC because there would have been a fan backlash. To suggest they were talking about it is bull. They waited, just until the tide was beginning to turn against SC. The 1st half performance against Preston (which we should have won) gave them the ammunition and the cover to act. Until that point he had been given licence to conduct transfers FFS. SL also gave an interview only weeks earlier saying that the manager's role was not up for discussion. We were not adrift and still playing well. Hmm, what changed then. The fact that there was no replacement lined up to replace SC has only served to illustrate the skulduggery on the part of the board. IMO SC should have been given to the end of the season. If we were relegated, which is still likely, then why would he not be able to bring us back up....

If he wasn't sacked because of results thats rank amateur and ludicrous, he fared worse than DM but again pure speculation and conjecture

What is now clear is that Ashton was hovering behind the scenes and had been appointed before SC was sacked. He had just not officially started. It is very apparent that SC was not going to work under him. I would also like to say, what on earth has Ashton done to be the power broker at AG either as an administrator or a manager - answer, very little. His "publicspeak"(and I spoke to him on radio) were finely tuned and the hallmarks of a super politician.... He is a yes man. Once again, the board are altering policy and giving it all to Ashton. He now has the power to dictate signings and the appointment of the head coach.... hmm, sounds familiar, did this process not royally fck up with DM and SOD....

No not with DM, no more than with SC at this level.. even SOD's record at Championship level was better than SC

SC's error is that he played into the board's hands. He was moody with reporters and fans and he allowed himself to be sacked by rigidly playing a formation that was exposed and not rotating his squad, including not using youth players... did he do this to make a point... of course he did....TBH, it does not matter as the club is bigger than any individual but to sack him in the January window without a lined up replacement says it all. Fans have also got very ambitious because of the nonsense talk about PL. The calls  for Moyes and Pearson to be appointed .... give me one reason why they would want to work for Ashton. We will end up with an unproven manager like DM again who is prepared to work Ashton's way.

So he played the same team to prove a point yet hurt the clubs chances of making a decent fist of it? He had options but he refused to use them... unprofessional. Unless you're privvy to info then you dont know what Ashton will actually do so again speculation

We are at risk of going backwards. Pemberton is not the answer permanent or interim. We need a proven manager at this level. I was at Leeds yesterday and the same BCFC turned up, played well for no points. Whether it is 433, 442 or 352, bottom line is that we still lost and are in grave danger of relegation. We need a manager and a miracle with some sprinklings of new players.  Can we do it? This week will be the most important in our recent history. All eyes will be on the board...... then we can fully judge them for the shambles which has been this season....

Only bit I actually agree with because you're basing alot on rumour, heresay and speculation

 

See highlighted but being honest I only agree with your last paragraph.

[Dibdenred]

1 hour ago, MarkRed! said:

The bottom line is the board are responsible for the mismanagement that has gone on. They set the strategy and the budgets. SC worked for them, not the other way around. Lets not forget it was this board which brought us SCoppell, KM, DM and SOD. They would have brought us 2 successive relegations had it not been for SC.

It is also a common theme at the club that player recruitment over time has generally been scandalous, to the point we were paying nearly 19 million per year for bang average players. It is well known that DM and SOD did not pick the teams and were simply given the teamsheets.... SC came in and ripped this bullsxxx up. He demanded it his way and the board had no choice - they were facing relegation to Lg 2. Lets not kid ourselves, those were some dark days where the club and playing staff were on its knees. Fielding, Williams, Flint, Pack, JET, Cunningham, Bryan, Burns, Reid, Wagstaff were all players taking us towards Lg 2. We also had a bloated squad of average players.   SC rooted out the rubbish and developed an exciting side. However, the size of the squad has been an issue for 3 seasons. This was not a new occurrence.

Whatever his ills SC did a better job than we probably know and the glory hunters in our support and on our board expected a stroll in the championship.  It was never going to be that way and this was made worse by the dealings in the summer. Those deals were scuppered by our own board not SC. Hopefully the truth will come out. SC was furious and it showed. McGuire and Gray were done deals. Would they have made a difference to us, you bet they would have.   

As a result, it was clear early doors that all was not well within the club and it became clear that the board and SC were poles apart in their comments to the media about transfers and budget. After the home game against Brentford, I remember saying to friends that I thought SC was going to resign, he was despondent and tetchy. 

IMO SC was not sacked because of results. He was sacked because he refused to work with Ashton. The poor form and fan discontentment allowed the board to make the decision without disclosing the full reasons. As fans we have just accepted it.  However, if results were the motivation then they would have done it in November. They did not sack SC because there would have been a fan backlash. To suggest they were talking about it is bull. They waited, just until the tide was beginning to turn against SC. The 1st half performance against Preston (which we should have won) gave them the ammunition and the cover to act. Until that point he had been given licence to conduct transfers FFS. SL also gave an interview only weeks earlier saying that the manager's role was not up for discussion. We were not adrift and still playing well. Hmm, what changed then. The fact that there was no replacement lined up to replace SC has only served to illustrate the skulduggery on the part of the board. IMO SC should have been given to the end of the season. If we were relegated, which is still likely, then why would he not be able to bring us back up....

What is now clear is that Ashton was hovering behind the scenes and had been appointed before SC was sacked. He had just not officially started. It is very apparent that SC was not going to work under him. I would also like to say, what on earth has Ashton done to be the power broker at AG either as an administrator or a manager - answer, very little. His "publicspeak"(and I spoke to him on radio) were finely tuned and the hallmarks of a super politician.... He is a yes man. Once again, the board are altering policy and giving it all to Ashton. He now has the power to dictate signings and the appointment of the head coach.... hmm, sounds familiar, did this process not royally fck up with DM and SOD....

SC's error is that he played into the board's hands. He was moody with reporters and fans and he allowed himself to be sacked by rigidly playing a formation that was exposed and not rotating his squad, including not using youth players... did he do this to make a point... of course he did....TBH, it does not matter as the club is bigger than any individual but to sack him in the January window without a lined up replacement says it all. Fans have also got very ambitious because of the nonsense talk about PL. The calls  for Moyes and Pearson to be appointed .... give me one reason why they would want to work for Ashton. We will end up with an unproven manager like DM again who is prepared to work Ashton's way.

We are at risk of going backwards. Pemberton is not the answer permanent or interim. We need a proven manager at this level. I was at Leeds yesterday and the same BCFC turned up, played well for no points. Whether it is 433, 442 or 352, bottom line is that we still lost and are in grave danger of relegation. We need a manager and a miracle with some sprinklings of new players.  Can we do it? This week will be the most important in our recent history. All eyes will be on the board...... then we can fully judge them for the shambles which has been this season....

 

Spot on. Cotts has been hard done by this season. His petulance at the end didn't help him but he was getting increasingly frustrated with the board. Heard last week that they wanted to make a big appointment. All gone quiet now. Another fine mess they've got us into. Laurel and Hardy would do a better job.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 hours ago, spudski said:

Not claiming 'sage like status' EMB...far from it.

You say managers eventually fail...of course they do...but it's often down to their own fault, ego, staunch belief that 'their way is right' or an unwillingness to change.

The difference in what I've been saying for years...and from some others...is that managers will find it hard to work here, because of the lack of people in place to help them in their job. The manager in the past has had too much to do. That's what I've referred to. Not a managers personal attributes.

The Club seem to be recognising that somewhat. Which is a step in the right direction.

The highlighted portion is what I have been saying for months, the difference is you and several others have tried to pretend it was peculiar to SC and of course it's not, it's peculiar to a vast majority of sacked managers.

SC was no different to any other in that regard, I suspect he actually got a kick out gaining success with a small squad, playing 3-5-2, not making substitutions etc, etc, but the bottom line is and I repeat no one person is bigger than the club and no one person should be allowed to believe that he is bigger than the club.

The board have got this wrong, they should have acted far sooner, I feel SL must praying that we don't get relegated, because I think the fall out this time will be colossal and let's hope that the club can regain it's tarnished reputation.

 

 

 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, MarkRed! said:

The bottom line is the board are responsible for the mismanagement that has gone on. They set the strategy and the budgets. SC worked for them, not the other way around. Lets not forget it was this board which brought us SCoppell, KM, DM and SOD. They would have brought us 2 successive relegations had it not been for SC.

It is also a common theme at the club that player recruitment over time has generally been scandalous, to the point we were paying nearly 19 million per year for bang average players. It is well known that DM and SOD did not pick the teams and were simply given the teamsheets.... SC came in and ripped this bullsxxx up. He demanded it his way and the board had no choice - they were facing relegation to Lg 2. Lets not kid ourselves, those were some dark days where the club and playing staff were on its knees. Fielding, Williams, Flint, Pack, JET, Cunningham, Bryan, Burns, Reid, Wagstaff were all players taking us towards Lg 2. We also had a bloated squad of average players.   SC rooted out the rubbish and developed an exciting side. However, the size of the squad has been an issue for 3 seasons. This was not a new occurrence.

Whatever his ills SC did a better job than we probably know and the glory hunters in our support and on our board expected a stroll in the championship.  It was never going to be that way and this was made worse by the dealings in the summer. Those deals were scuppered by our own board not SC. Hopefully the truth will come out. SC was furious and it showed. McGuire and Gray were done deals. Would they have made a difference to us, you bet they would have.   

As a result, it was clear early doors that all was not well within the club and it became clear that the board and SC were poles apart in their comments to the media about transfers and budget. After the home game against Brentford, I remember saying to friends that I thought SC was going to resign, he was despondent and tetchy. 

IMO SC was not sacked because of results. He was sacked because he refused to work with Ashton. The poor form and fan discontentment allowed the board to make the decision without disclosing the full reasons. As fans we have just accepted it.  However, if results were the motivation then they would have done it in November. They did not sack SC because there would have been a fan backlash. To suggest they were talking about it is bull. They waited, just until the tide was beginning to turn against SC. The 1st half performance against Preston (which we should have won) gave them the ammunition and the cover to act. Until that point he had been given licence to conduct transfers FFS. SL also gave an interview only weeks earlier saying that the manager's role was not up for discussion. We were not adrift and still playing well. Hmm, what changed then. The fact that there was no replacement lined up to replace SC has only served to illustrate the skulduggery on the part of the board. IMO SC should have been given to the end of the season. If we were relegated, which is still likely, then why would he not be able to bring us back up....

What is now clear is that Ashton was hovering behind the scenes and had been appointed before SC was sacked. He had just not officially started. It is very apparent that SC was not going to work under him. I would also like to say, what on earth has Ashton done to be the power broker at AG either as an administrator or a manager - answer, very little. His "publicspeak"(and I spoke to him on radio) were finely tuned and the hallmarks of a super politician.... He is a yes man. Once again, the board are altering policy and giving it all to Ashton. He now has the power to dictate signings and the appointment of the head coach.... hmm, sounds familiar, did this process not royally fck up with DM and SOD....

SC's error is that he played into the board's hands. He was moody with reporters and fans and he allowed himself to be sacked by rigidly playing a formation that was exposed and not rotating his squad, including not using youth players... did he do this to make a point... of course he did....TBH, it does not matter as the club is bigger than any individual but to sack him in the January window without a lined up replacement says it all. Fans have also got very ambitious because of the nonsense talk about PL. The calls  for Moyes and Pearson to be appointed .... give me one reason why they would want to work for Ashton. We will end up with an unproven manager like DM again who is prepared to work Ashton's way.

We are at risk of going backwards. Pemberton is not the answer permanent or interim. We need a proven manager at this level. I was at Leeds yesterday and the same BCFC turned up, played well for no points. Whether it is 433, 442 or 352, bottom line is that we still lost and are in grave danger of relegation. We need a manager and a miracle with some sprinklings of new players.  Can we do it? This week will be the most important in our recent history. All eyes will be on the board...... then we can fully judge them for the shambles which has been this season....

 

Great post, whatever the truth.

To be honest (not knocking your post, cause it's a great read), I'm getting bored by it all.  Some people know something, no idea whether they post on here or not, some people know nowt.  We will never know.

I'm gonna concentrate on the football bit and the future (again, not a dig at your post) matches and manager if there is one.

This episode with SC's sacking started to unite us towards the good of the football team, whichever viewpoint you come from.  On reflection I think it has just meant we bicker about someone or something else instead.

[ontariored]

Name a good manager that the board has selected in the last 10 years.... That they haven't had to admit to because they didn't sack him......

[Esmond Million's Bung]

2 minutes ago, ontariored said:

Name a good manager that the board has selected in the last 10 years....

A manager is only 'good' as long as he is either bringing success or at least meeting expectations.

My question would be, who was the last manager actually head hunted whilst still our manager?.

Answer Joe Jordan 1990.

16 managers have perished since that time, either sacked or walked.

[BigAl&Toby]

23 hours 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. 

I'm afraid I don't quite agree with this. For me it's not quite the Ashton Gate I remember. I worry that it might easily become Bristol Stadium to "make Bristol proud".

Ashton Gate was when the pitch was surrounded by The Williams and Dolman Stands, the Open End and the East End, not areas that are named after the 4 main points of the compass. 

As I've said elsewhere SL is an investor. I'd bet my non-HL pension fund that he'd have been less generous if he'd not been able to secure his investment by way of valuable and income generating freeholds in BS3. Not a bad thing, but equally not as philanthropic as it might seem.

[Red-Robbo]

9 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

A manager is only 'good' as long as he is either bringing success or at least meeting expectations.

My question would be, who was the last manager actually head hunted whilst still our manager?.

Answer Joe Jordan 1990.

16 managers have perished since that time, either sacked or walked.

Which is a pretty average turnover to be fair. 

We've had a number of successful managers since Joe, but inevitably - as the Peter Principle expounds - they eventually reached the level of their own incompetence. Twill ever be thus.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

6 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Which is a pretty average turnover to be fair. 

We've had a number of successful managers since Joe, but inevitably - as the Peter Principle expounds - they eventually reached the level of their own incompetence. Twill ever be thus.

Ah yes but when SOD was appointed BCFC were going to be different in that regard, wasn't the quote something along the lines of we can't go on sacking managers every 2 years, who said that? and it didn't last long.

 

[Red-Robbo]

23 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Ah yes but when SOD was appointed BCFC were going to be different in that regard, wasn't the quote something along the lines of we can't go on sacking managers every 2 years, who said that? and it didn't last long.

 

Well we all believed the SOD hype back in those days.

To quote Samuel Goldwyn :  "We've all passed a lot of water since then. ."

[BS4 on Tour...]

2 hours ago, robin4ever said:

Mr Ashton worked at the club before and was responsible for the signings of the likes of Nicky hunt. He also has been at the club a couple of months in a consultancy basis , but his main job was to sack SC

He joined us as COO after SC was sacked.....