Tinnion on SotC

[Tim Monaghan]

Right, I've just listened to this interview. 

So, lots of U18's training with the first team. Some not playing in the U21's because they want to keep the squad together. Reason some of them haven't travelled as bench fillers is due to timescales of games at the fatigue of the travelling to sit on the bench. Some are also stepping up to the U21's because a lot of them are out on loan gaining higher level experience. BT - "No problem with them being on the bench if they prove themselves". 

It sounds very much to me that they think the best of the U21's are out on loan, the rest aren't going to make it, so they want to keep the better batch together in the U18's to get ready for the U21's. Then there is a really good batch of U16's coming up. I really don't see what the issue is here?  We've got a chance of getting into a MAJOR youth final, so why wouldn't you focus on it?  Class of 92' for example, they all stayed together. David Beckham for example only made 9 U21's appearances. Other than that, it was at U18 level until he went out on loan to Preston when he was 19. So an argument could be made that these kids are being pushed and given more opportunities than most at this age. 

Look at recent history of winners! Do you not think it would be good for the academy to have this as an attraction piece? We moan enough (funny that) about not being able to attract the top young talent, then also moan when we're trying to give us the selling points in doing so. 
 

  

Some pretty decent teams there, eh.  But lets not focus on what an achievement it would be, but of course, lets hammer the club for not putting these kids on the bench with the first team even though they aren't even ready. They're training with the first team, and that's all that matters in terms of reaching those levels. We all know if we put a 17 year old on and he has a stinker, we'd all be saying "whats he doing, he clearly isn't ready, his confidence will be shoot now". 

Moaning for moaning's sake for me I'm afraid.

As for the rest of it, well, you can't sack Pearson with an injured squad and then blame injuries for the new coach not succeeding. That's insane.  McKenna stats is madness. If you're going to come out with a stat like that, you have to get it right .  Comparing us to Coventry is a joke too. Not sure if that was a slight shot at the owners for not spending, but maybe not.  

Agree that the signing of Dickie for £600k was a steal. Jason Knight, Hayden Roberts (free), Ross McCrorie signing. Not mentioned, but Max Bird, Josh Stokes and Adam Murphy (best young player in Ireland; BT's quote).  Cornick was a bit of a stinker though wasn't he. 

So, apart from the Coventry and McKenna gaff which was strange, I don't see much wrong with the interview.  He's clearly passionate about Bristol City, and MA was hated because of his corporate language. The club literally can't win, can it.  

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Piercy has got his piece up now - kudos to JP for putting “community notes” amongst Tinnions speeches to correct him…

Notably not much around the youth piece so I expect he’s planning a second bit on that:

 

Community Notes from Piercy. 
Superb. 
 

[Harry]

32 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yeah, was gonna say at least £150k p.a.

Ashton earned £540,897 in 2018/19

Does that include the contents of brown envelopes??

[DaveInSA]

5 hours ago, Jacki said:

I listened back again this morning and it was a worrying interview. He was  indiscreet and seemed angry throughout, and said things (the McKenna stuff and some academy information) that are simply not true. I thought the way he spoke about some of the 21s missing their chance was a hugely disrespectful way to speak publicly about people who don’t know what the future holds for them after 10 plus years in the academy system as well.

The transfer fee stuff also blew my mind. He couldn’t wait to divulge the information and it sounded like he was a doing it because his beans were going and he was out of control - he wanted to sound like his finger is on the pulse. It was bizarre.

He kept talking about how hard people are working and I don’t doubt it for a minute, but there is a difference between blind hard work and long hours and being effective, efficient and doing what’s needed. We’re clearly on the wrong side of that at present. 

Unlike many on here, I quite like Tinnion and have no axe to grind with him. He is clearly passionate and wants to do well. But as I’ve said before, his job is far too big for one person and he is just not suited to the ‘first team department’ part of his job. He just doesn’t have the communication skills, intelligence and gravitas required for it. It’s a real shame but we really have created an unholy mess for ourselves and shot ourselves in both feet. God know how it ends. 

Relegation is how it ends.

[RedRock]

37 minutes ago, Tim Monaghan said:

Right, I've just listened to this interview. 

So, lots of U18's training with the first team. Some not playing in the U21's because they want to keep the squad together. Reason some of them haven't travelled as bench fillers is due to timescales of games at the fatigue of the travelling to sit on the bench. Some are also stepping up to the U21's because a lot of them are out on loan gaining higher level experience. BT - "No problem with them being on the bench if they prove themselves". 

It sounds very much to me that they think the best of the U21's are out on loan, the rest aren't going to make it, so they want to keep the better batch together in the U18's to get ready for the U21's. Then there is a really good batch of U16's coming up. I really don't see what the issue is here?  We've got a chance of getting into a MAJOR youth final, so why wouldn't you focus on it?  Class of 92' for example, they all stayed together. David Beckham for example only made 9 U21's appearances. Other than that, it was at U18 level until he went out on loan to Preston when he was 19. So an argument could be made that these kids are being pushed and given more opportunities than most at this age. 

Look at recent history of winners! Do you not think it would be good for the academy to have this as an attraction piece? We moan enough (funny that) about not being able to attract the top young talent, then also moan when we're trying to give us the selling points in doing so. 
 

  

Some pretty decent teams there, eh.  But lets not focus on what an achievement it would be, but of course, lets hammer the club for not putting these kids on the bench with the first team even though they aren't even ready. They're training with the first team, and that's all that matters in terms of reaching those levels. We all know if we put a 17 year old on and he has a stinker, we'd all be saying "whats he doing, he clearly isn't ready, his confidence will be shoot now". 

Moaning for moaning's sake for me I'm afraid.

As for the rest of it, well, you can't sack Pearson with an injured squad and then blame injuries for the new coach not succeeding. That's insane.  McKenna stats is madness. If you're going to come out with a stat like that, you have to get it right .  Comparing us to Coventry is a joke too. Not sure if that was a slight shot at the owners for not spending, but maybe not.  

Agree that the signing of Dickie for £600k was a steal. Jason Knight, Hayden Roberts (free), Ross McCrorie signing. Not mentioned, but Max Bird, Josh Stokes and Adam Murphy (best young player in Ireland; BT's quote).  Cornick was a bit of a stinker though wasn't he. 

So, apart from the Coventry and McKenna gaff which was strange, I don't see much wrong with the interview.  He's clearly passionate about Bristol City, and MA was hated because of his corporate language. The club literally can't win, can it.  

I fully understand and support the Youth strategy. 

Many have been calling for the Club to develop player ‘partnerships’ and playing the Under-18s as a unified squad will help achieve that objective. So a good approach, with the added bonus of raising the Club profile.

Worth noting that playing partnerships are near-absent from the first team, bar Vyner and Dickie. The only other partnership, Wells and Conway was developed in the Under-21s - a much under-utilised resource for that purpose. As a slight aside, in my view the Under-21s haven’t been used effectively either for nurturing players back to full fitness and integrating new players into our style of play imo. 

I really struggle though with the fundamentals.  Having a Chairman, some sort of shared CEO, a Technical Director, Manager and Coach all pretty inexperienced at managing this level of football/scale of organisation is high risk. The more I hear from these chaps, the greater becomes the concern. IMO we need a good communicator with experience in the football realm, maturity and, frankly, intelligence to get a grip of the situation, and quick. 

[Alessandro]

1 hour ago, nebristolred said:

I've been trying to avoid this thread a little while to avoid the hysteria, but nothing has really calmed down. Again like before, it's not really anger on my side, more apathy. Apathy knowing that we will likely tread water in the middle of the Championship for another 10 years, barring the odd flirt with relegation, unless something changes. And let's face it, that position for a club of our size isn't that bad, but it is frustrating when it's seemingly some shoddy mismanagement holding us back.

Based on what others have said, it seems we have a very... distinct shall we say, corporate and management setup. I've said it before and I'll say it again, shell out some money on getting 3 experts into the correct roles, and actually listen to them and actually empower them, and I guarantee the owners will get a much better return on their investment.

A manager who knows what he's doing (at one point we had one of those!), a proper COO or CEO who can run the club appropriately (we also had one of those!), and then another head of the academy and/or player recruitment - not just jobs for mates or pretending roles no longer exist. And to be completely fair and transparent here, I think Tins has proven that he would be a solid shout for that third academy/recruitment job. But only that third job.

I didn't listen admittedly but I've got the vibe from this thread. Just pure apathy now, waiting until something changes, whatever that may be.

I was saying this 3 or 4 years in the Ashton days!

Look at the setup of a club like Brentford, Brighton, Bournemouth, Villa etc. They have structures like this before you get to the head coach etc:

• CEO 
• Director of Football
• Technical director or COO
• Head of Academy
• Head of recruitment 
• Financial director
• Commercial director

Obviously each club differs and some roles overlap - but we basically have 2 or 3 people doing the roles of sometimes 5,6,7 people at other clubs.

Step one move Tinnion sideways to Head of Academy and Pathway.

Then employ, as a minimum, a Head of Football and a new head of recruitment. Both with relevant premier league or champ experience, not some project person.

Set your budget - then JL and SL step back big time, stay out the dressing room. Stay out the weekly meetings.

 

Edited March 12 by Alessandro

[Kid in the Riot]

3 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

I was saying this 3 or 4 years in the Ashton days!

Look at the setup of a club like Brentford, Brighton, Bournemouth, Villa etc. They have structures like this before you get to the head coach etc:

• CEO 
• Director of Football
• Technical director or COO
• Head of Academy
• Head of recruitment 
• Financial director
• Commercial director

Obviously each club differs and some roles overlap - but we basically have 2 or 3 people doing the roles of sometimes 5,6,7 people at other clubs.

Step one move Tinnion sideways to Head of Academy and Pathway.

Then employ, as a minimum, a Head of Football and a new head of recruitment. Both with relevant premier league or champ experience, not some project person.

Set your budget - then JL and SL step back big time, stay out the dressing room. Stay out the weekly meetings.

As I posted a few weeks ago, every club in the Championship has a CEO apart from us, Sheff Wed (in ownership turmoil) and bottom-of-the-table Rotherham.

My question to Steve and Jon would be, "what is it about the internal structure at City which makes it unique in not requiring a CEO?" Because that's the line they've taken. Apparently because we have Tinnion and Jon, we don't need a CEO. The internal structure is strong enough without one. I mean, WTF.... 

I feel embarrassed enough typing it out, christ knows how embarrassed they must feel. 

[Sleepy1968]

3 hours ago, David Brent said:

For me, the most disappointing comment from BT is that Liam is still learning.

How are we in the position where we’ve got a Head Coach, a Technical Director and a Chairman all learning on the job? 

Respectfully, I'd sugg est two of them aren't really learning.

[Wokingham Red]

6 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

As I posted a few weeks ago, every club in the Championship has a CEO apart from us, Sheff Wed (in ownership turmoil) and bottom-of-the-table Rotherham.

 

That is actually wild, I did not know that was the case. 

[Sleepy1968]

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Yes, and with that experience and nous, young and inexperienced members of the team can really flourish.

Gary O'Neil had never taken charge of a football team until 2021 and not a first team until August 2022 - 18 months ago.

He might be named Premier League manager of the season, and he did a pretty bloody good job at Bournemouth last season too. 

He absolutely should be.

Given their firesale and lack of funds, what he's achieved is spectacular.

It's about the whole organisation though, so I'm not sure he'd be able to replicate the relative success here in our stellar set up.

[Slack]

1 hour ago, Tim Monaghan said:

Right, I've just listened to this interview. 

So, lots of U18's training with the first team. Some not playing in the U21's because they want to keep the squad together. Reason some of them haven't travelled as bench fillers is due to timescales of games at the fatigue of the travelling to sit on the bench. Some are also stepping up to the U21's because a lot of them are out on loan gaining higher level experience. BT - "No problem with them being on the bench if they prove themselves". 

It sounds very much to me that they think the best of the U21's are out on loan, the rest aren't going to make it, so they want to keep the better batch together in the U18's to get ready for the U21's. Then there is a really good batch of U16's coming up. I really don't see what the issue is here?  We've got a chance of getting into a MAJOR youth final, so why wouldn't you focus on it?  Class of 92' for example, they all stayed together. David Beckham for example only made 9 U21's appearances. Other than that, it was at U18 level until he went out on loan to Preston when he was 19. So an argument could be made that these kids are being pushed and given more opportunities than most at this age. 

Look at recent history of winners! Do you not think it would be good for the academy to have this as an attraction piece? We moan enough (funny that) about not being able to attract the top young talent, then also moan when we're trying to give us the selling points in doing so. 
 

  

Some pretty decent teams there, eh.  But lets not focus on what an achievement it would be, but of course, lets hammer the club for not putting these kids on the bench with the first team even though they aren't even ready. They're training with the first team, and that's all that matters in terms of reaching those levels. We all know if we put a 17 year old on and he has a stinker, we'd all be saying "whats he doing, he clearly isn't ready, his confidence will be shoot now". 

Moaning for moaning's sake for me I'm afraid.

As for the rest of it, well, you can't sack Pearson with an injured squad and then blame injuries for the new coach not succeeding. That's insane.  McKenna stats is madness. If you're going to come out with a stat like that, you have to get it right .  Comparing us to Coventry is a joke too. Not sure if that was a slight shot at the owners for not spending, but maybe not.  

Agree that the signing of Dickie for £600k was a steal. Jason Knight, Hayden Roberts (free), Ross McCrorie signing. Not mentioned, but Max Bird, Josh Stokes and Adam Murphy (best young player in Ireland; BT's quote).  Cornick was a bit of a stinker though wasn't he. 

So, apart from the Coventry and McKenna gaff which was strange, I don't see much wrong with the interview.  He's clearly passionate about Bristol City, and MA was hated because of his corporate language. The club literally can't win, can it.  

I don't think the issue in the room is anything to do with the youth set up.

The issue is mainly the way we were all sold the Pearson departure and what we have seen since.. 

I'm not saying Pearson was the Messiah, however he was fired for not taking the squad higher. I'm pretty sure he also was swiped at for not bringing players back quick enough from injury. 

Now if on day one, the club sold it as a project it still probably wouldn't of stacked up well with fans but would explain where we are. We have had 3 years of FFP and Nigel cutting out squad, we have been patient as a fan base. Now you compare some of our performances of recent.. I'm not usually critical but I can't for the life of me see how this club is going forward on the pitch since when Liam started. 

Yes okay West Ham and Forrest were great games, but we fail to breakdown lower league teams.. it's all good being hyped up for a big game but 29% possession football at home to Swansea (who are lower in the league) .. is that really going forward? 

We then have openly said we need a big striker, however you could have an 9ft giant unless he's sat in the crowd to claim some of the mishit kicks he wasn't going to do any better than Conway on Saturday. He had very little service and when in a place of threat we played it back. 

So I think that's the issue in the room, not the youth team.. nor is it Pearsons sacking, it's the frustration we were going forward.. now we seem to be going backwards with no clear signs of what we are doing.. 

 

 

[Davefevs]

31 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Apparently because we have Tinnion and Jon, we don't need a CEO

I think it’s because they have Gavin and Tom, that feel they don’t need a CEO!  

Edited March 12 by Davefevs

[Phileas Fogg]

3 hours ago, SecretSam said:

Learning is a life-long process. Pep's still learning, everyone should be. I'm still learning after doing my job for 23 years. The world changes, you need to change with it. I don't see a problem in this.

That’s true but it’s not quite the same. You wouldn’t describe Pearson as ‘still learning’ (even if, like Guardiola, he probably is) - in that context it means he is at a point in his development where he still has opportunity for rapid development. 

In this context, that’s an enormous risk to take. 

[Ron W]

5 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Whoever mentioned Mark Warburton yesterday, fair play, as he'd be a great shout to head up the footballing operation.

He was responsible for Brentford's entire internal restructure 10 years ago, which appears to have done alright. 

61 years old, out of work - what a shame it's pie in the sky to think the owners would employ anyone like him into that role. 

I might be wrong here but the impression always seemed to be Warburton left because he wouldn't get on board with the footballing operation being remodelled to fit the Benham moneyball style?

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Slack said:

So I think that's the issue in the room, not the youth team.. nor is it Pearsons sacking, it's the frustration we were going forward.. now we seem to be going backwards with no clear signs of what we are doing.. 

in a nutshell mate.

Too many are trying to make it about other things, some of to deflect away from what is happening on the pitch.

FWIW I don’t think Manning has been a disaster, but this wasn’t the position to handover to a trainee.  Nor do I think longevity in role (and transfer windows) will make the size of difference required.

I’ve laid my cards on the table, because 1) I don’t think Manning is up to it 2) I don’t think he will change.  So I’d sack him now.  That’s not like me to be like that, but I can’t see him taking us forward.  I don’t think he is learning. I think he wants to take us down the path he’s set, no deviation.  I don’t think it’s stubbornness per se, I just think he’s so focused and believing in the way he goes about things he can’t see any others paths.

However, if he showed some flexibility and realisation that it might take a different approach (doesn’t need to be a seismic shift either), then I would probably think differently.  Until I see that, I may never, I’m get rid of now.

[Kid in the Riot]

26 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

He absolutely should be.

Given their firesale and lack of funds, what he's achieved is spectacular.

It's about the whole organisation though, so I'm not sure he'd be able to replicate the relative success here in our stellar set up.

He didn't even have much of a pre-season with the players as he came in right at the end of the summer. Very impressive.

Agree, put simply, someone like O'Neil would not be given the chance to be the best version of himself here because of the incompetent set-up. We're setting people up to fail, time and time again. 

[Kid in the Riot]

17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think it’s because they have Gavin and Tom, that feel they don’t need a CEO!  

Yes, fair point. Though I expect partly due to Jon too.

9 minutes ago, Ron W said:

I might be wrong here but the impression always seemed to be Warburton left because he wouldn't get on board with the footballing operation being remodelled to fit the Benham moneyball style?

Looks like Warburton did the original restructure, then became manager, and then left due to philosophical differences over a new restructure that wouldn't have given the manager a veto over potential transfers. He still had a very successful time there taking Brentford from L1 to the cusp of the Prem. His communication skills and analysis are excellent imo. 

[petehinton]

Is it right that he said we want the new mobile, strong, can hold a ball up 9 is to be our plan B - and not to play alongside Tommy?
 

He also said they’re expensive before and that we are probably going to have to get one from abroad. 
 

So on the one hand, we’re saying we can’t compete financially and don’t have the funds, and on the other hand we have a shed load of money available for a substitute striker? 
 

That also suggests we’re going down the ‘playing with two number 10s’ route. Yet we brought in a winger & have an option to buy on him. And broadly speaking, our best academy products atm are wide men, so that doesn’t fit their pathway one bit. 
 

Basically everything they’ve said publicly recently, there’s some sort of contradiction on. And it’s not even anything technical or hard to explain!

Edited March 12 by petehinton

[NickJ]

5 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

That has Steve Lansdown's fingerprints all over it.

Wouldn't be the first, or last, time he's stuck his oar in. The man just can't help himself, whatever the sport.

Here's Pat Lam just a few weeks ago:

"Steve Lansdown had a quiet word with me about playing the Bears way, he wanted to be excited about the way we play and I said I'd see what we can do". 

So because the owner was a bit bored at the rugger, he told the Coach to play a different way.

Says it all really. 

Could Steve also have a quiet word with Liam?

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Yes, fair point. Though I expect partly due to Jon too.

Looks like Warburton did the original restructure, then became manager, and then left due to philosophical differences over a new restructure that wouldn't have given the manager a veto over potential transfers. He still had a very successful time there taking Brentford from L1 to the cusp of the Prem. His communication skills and analysis are excellent imo. 

Jon is like a Swiss Army knife of talents ()…only Steve could afford the 1,000,000 Bazooka Joe bubble gums you had to buy to get one though!

(one for you older ones! @Bazooka Joe)

Edited March 12 by Davefevs

[Shauntaylor85]

4 hours ago, David Brent said:

For me, the most disappointing comment from BT is that Liam is still learning.

How are we in the position where we’ve got a Head Coach, a Technical Director and a Chairman all learning on the job? 

So we’ve basically gone from a structure with an established recent award winning PL CEO, established Championship winning manager, a backroom team who played at the highest level and had good contacts to……a chairman learning on the job, tech director learning on the job, head coach learning on the job and an assistant manager who was famous for playing a few games for Hibs. If ever there was a book around how to regress this would be it! 

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Is it right that he said we want the new mobile, strong, can hold a ball up 9 is to be our plan B - and not to play alongside Tommy?
 

He also said they’re expensive before and that we are probably going to have to get one from abroad. 
 

So on the one hand, we’re saying we can’t compete financially and don’t have the funds, and on the other hand we have a shed load of money available for a substitute striker? 
 

That also suggests we’re going down the ‘playing with two number 10s’ route. Yet we brought in a winger & have an option to buy on him. And broadly speaking, our best academy products atm are wide men, so that doesn’t fit their pathway one bit. 
 

Basically everything they’ve said publicly recently, there’s some sort of contradiction on. And it’s not even anything technical or hard to explain!

Firstly I don’t think he said “plan b”…just said we’d have 3 strikers, TC, NW and new Striker, who’d probably be from abroad because there aren’t any real options here and the work permit rules are now relaxed.  But Manning only plays one!

My gut feel, like you, is that when Twine is fit he might prefer two no10s…Twine and Knight, which I think lends itself to 3421.

What surprises me is that he’s not tried it much already in Twine’s a sense, he could’ve utilised Mehmeti (he has a couple of times, e.g. Wednesday / Coventry  away) and Knight, or even Sykes.  He used TGH v Forest in the cup.

So he’s had options.  I am intrigued how / where he’ll play Twine.  You’d think he’d be in proper contention on Saturday.

Yep, full of contradiction!

[Bazooka Joe]

8 hours ago, Bazooka Joe said:

So the (self) highly esteemed Brian Tinnion has been with us for 30 years.

Reminds me of lyrics from a popular song.

”Thirty years of hurt

Never stopped me dreaming”

Forgot to include the opening lines . . . .

"Three liars desecrating our shirt

Tinnion always scheming . . . "

 

[the1stknowle]

2 hours ago, Tim Monaghan said:

Right, I've just listened to this interview. 

So, lots of U18's training with the first team. Some not playing in the U21's because they want to keep the squad together. Reason some of them haven't travelled as bench fillers is due to timescales of games at the fatigue of the travelling to sit on the bench. Some are also stepping up to the U21's because a lot of them are out on loan gaining higher level experience. BT - "No problem with them being on the bench if they prove themselves". 

It sounds very much to me that they think the best of the U21's are out on loan, the rest aren't going to make it, so they want to keep the better batch together in the U18's to get ready for the U21's. Then there is a really good batch of U16's coming up. I really don't see what the issue is here?  We've got a chance of getting into a MAJOR youth final, so why wouldn't you focus on it?  Class of 92' for example, they all stayed together. David Beckham for example only made 9 U21's appearances. Other than that, it was at U18 level until he went out on loan to Preston when he was 19. So an argument could be made that these kids are being pushed and given more opportunities than most at this age. 

Look at recent history of winners! Do you not think it would be good for the academy to have this as an attraction piece? We moan enough (funny that) about not being able to attract the top young talent, then also moan when we're trying to give us the selling points in doing so. 
 

  

Some pretty decent teams there, eh.  But lets not focus on what an achievement it would be, but of course, lets hammer the club for not putting these kids on the bench with the first team even though they aren't even ready. They're training with the first team, and that's all that matters in terms of reaching those levels. We all know if we put a 17 year old on and he has a stinker, we'd all be saying "whats he doing, he clearly isn't ready, his confidence will be shoot now". 

Moaning for moaning's sake for me I'm afraid.

As for the rest of it, well, you can't sack Pearson with an injured squad and then blame injuries for the new coach not succeeding. That's insane.  McKenna stats is madness. If you're going to come out with a stat like that, you have to get it right .  Comparing us to Coventry is a joke too. Not sure if that was a slight shot at the owners for not spending, but maybe not.  

Agree that the signing of Dickie for £600k was a steal. Jason Knight, Hayden Roberts (free), Ross McCrorie signing. Not mentioned, but Max Bird, Josh Stokes and Adam Murphy (best young player in Ireland; BT's quote).  Cornick was a bit of a stinker though wasn't he. 

So, apart from the Coventry and McKenna gaff which was strange, I don't see much wrong with the interview.  He's clearly passionate about Bristol City, and MA was hated because of his corporate language. The club literally can't win, can it.  

Agree exactly with this. I listened this morning and the listen and what I’d already read on here was very different. 
 

The u18 thing sounds like a deliberate decision related to the particular view of this u18 group and what is best for them. A view formed by, whatever everyone here thinks of Tins I hope they would agree, someone that knows infinitely more about youth development than every person on this forum. I don’t think the interpretation that it’s some whimsy of the Lansdowns that is behind that decision is a fair one from what was said. Maybe they think this group would benefit from pushing themselves against elite youth teams or trying to instil a winning culture. The idea that it has affected the first team in any real way is totally fanciful. 
 

The rest of it I thought was pretty forthcoming. It was fine. I disagree that it was some irrefutable proof of his incompetence or the terrible state we are in as a mid table championship club. 

[Bazooka Joe]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Jon is like a Swiss Army knife of talents ()…only Steve could afford the 1,000,000 Bazooka Joe bubble gums you had to buy to get one though!

(one for you older ones! @Bazooka Joe)

Remember these.

But how I got my nickname is something completely different.

Not for this forum.

[Ivorguy]

Tinnion interview 

It matters not that he has been here 30 years, or that Manning is trying really really hard.

What matters is that they know what they are doing.

Personally I remain unconvinced 

[chinapig]

47 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t think he is learning. I think he wants to take us down the path he’s set, no deviation.

He's like a politician who has their dogmatic policies and won't change them regardless of whether they work.

OMG Liam Manning is our very own Liz Truss!

Edited March 12 by chinapig

[Roe]

If Manning has anything about him, he should be considering his own position imo. Imagine working for this lot

[Simon bristol]

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

As I posted a few weeks ago, every club in the Championship has a CEO apart from us, Sheff Wed (in ownership turmoil) and bottom-of-the-table Rotherham.

My question to Steve and Jon would be, "what is it about the internal structure at City which makes it unique in not requiring a CEO?" Because that's the line they've taken. Apparently because we have Tinnion and Jon, we don't need a CEO. The internal structure is strong enough without one. I mean, WTF.... 

I feel embarrassed enough typing it out, christ knows how embarrassed they must feel. 

The lansdowns tried setting us up with ceo’s, but they couldnt get that right either.

[Silvio Dante]

2 minutes ago, Roe said:

If Manning has anything about him, he should be considering his own position imo. Imagine working for this lot

It’s an interesting point.

If you look at the “external” view of LM it’s pretty positive, coloured by the cup games and (gulp) Southampton. Dilks and Peach were on the other day barely believing there was unrest. You then also look at our six fingered Ipswich brethren.

90% of people who heard that interview would also be of the mind that something was up at the club, and that the FA Youth Cup decision had not been beneficial to Liam.

We’ve been in the eye of this, we’ve seen his weaknesses and that’s why several of us have come to the call we have. 

However, if Liam Manning were to walk away now then externally I don’t think his stock would be damaged. It could be framed as a nigh on impossible job.  That disregards that he’s taken the performance down several notches, but it’s an easy framing “I wanted to use youth but the batshit owner overruled me” etc etc

It’d be a brave move from Liam - and history shows that by jumping here from Oxford he didn’t really do due diligence and think long term - but a leaving under “it wasn’t what was on the tin” would I’d bet see him at another - better fitting, better run club at this level - while the still live possibility of a sacking in the next few months if things don’t improve puts him more in the frame for Northampton.