KingswoodRed Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 For various reasons I have not been coming to the forum as a 'poster'any where near as often now, but have still been reading a lot. And I have yet to see a fundamental point being raised about Tinmans' appointment, subsiquent failures, coupled with the fallout concerning these failures so far. He was appointed to, wait for it: IMPROVE our league position at the end of 2004/5 season. Or was he? Firstly no-one here knows if he will or not, so that point will have to be proved/disproved, but.... ....there are many here who are comparing his post as manager with DW's. That is wholey wrong to do. Some are saying you have to give Tinman time, true, but how long? Others are saying it took DW 4 years to reach where we had gotten to after last season, therefore it is unfair not to give Tinman the same chance. SL was absolutely fair and honest with his ambitions for BCFC last season & fair and honest about the retributions if BCFC never gained promotion. That hasn't happened, so is it time for SL to be as honest now as to whether Tinman has been appointed to gain promotion this season, or if he is there as a 3 year stop gap/cheaper option so overheads and bills can be more managable? If it is the former, then Tinman already has immense pressure to succeed, and I believe he will not do it it one season. If it is the latter, give him the 3 years by all means, but make sure the fans know where they stand regarding any future on the pitch failures. KR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 There has been a financial burden for City to get back to the old first division ever since we came down under Benny.We all know that, and Steve Landsdown made it clear last season that failure to gain promotion would would lead to cut-backs in the expenditure at AG. Consquently cut-backs have been made.Wilson and Barlowe,Peacock,Matthews,the Browns and Carey have all gone which must be a substancial weight of the wage bill and thats without the backroom cut-backs. BT and Millen are now at the helm and thier wages won't be anything like Wilson and Barlowes were.New players have come in but under strict wage "caps" enforced by the club.Nevertheless the club still needs promotion to maintain an equlibrium and purely on those grounds there is pressure on BT to get us up. My point being that the same would apply to whoever was in charge at AG and my guess is that if BT fails to get City up (or worse,fails to get even close)then he'll be gone.I can't see Steve Landsdown waiting another 4 seasons for BT to "get it right". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 I genuinely think the board thought that BT could take over the helm and get us up this year. They are possibly only now starting to wonder what they've let themselves in for. A 'we'll give him 3 years' statement would result in uproar from the fans. I can't bear the thought of the rest of this season watching 3rd division dross let alone 3 years. I don't think the board would tolerate it either. So I agree entirely with your post. Tinnion has been put in an impossible position. He needs time - only exceptional 1st time managers get it right immediately - but I can't see him being given it. He appears to have been given sufficient amount of rope for him to hang himself on. All of which raises important questions about both the board's decision to sack a successful manager and secondly to appoint a cheap inexperienced replacement. The pressure is increasing on the board, and people under pressure tend to make poor decisions. Also, I agree that it is unfair to compare DW's 4 years with the acceptance that a future manager should have the same amount of time. As everyone conveniently forgot, DW inherited a mess and it was only the start of last season that we realistically had hopes for promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingswoodRed Posted August 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 There has been a financial burden for City to get back to the old first division ever since we came down under Benny.We all know that, and Steve Landsdown made it clear last season that failure to gain promotion would would lead to cut-backs in the expenditure at AG. Consquently cut-backs have been made.Wilson and Barlowe,Peacock,Matthews,the Browns and Carey have all gone which must be a substancial weight of the wage bill and thats without the backroom cut-backs. BT and Millen are now at the helm and thier wages won't be anything like Wilson and Barlowes were.New players have come in but under strict wage "caps" enforced by the club.Nevertheless the club still needs promotion to maintain an equlibrium and purely on those grounds there is pressure on BT to get us up. My point being that the same would apply to whoever was in charge at AG and my guess is that if BT fails to get City up (or worse,fails to get even close)then he'll be gone.I can't see Steve Landsdown waiting another 4 seasons for BT to "get it right". ← Yeah fair points. I suppose my point was really that BT only has a fraction of the time to get it right, and I feel fans should realise that before making comments like 'give him time' (in comparison with DW) he simply ain't got that time. Rightly or wrongly that will add more pressure, and I for one would like to put it on record that I hope he does it, I just don't think he will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 I genuinely think the board thought that BT could take over the helm and get us up this year. They are possibly only now starting to wonder what they've let themselves in for. A 'we'll give him 3 years' statement would result in uproar from the fans. I can't bear the thought of the rest of this season watching 3rd division dross let alone 3 years. I don't think the board would tolerate it either. So I agree entirely with your post. Tinnion has been put in an impossible position. He needs time - only exceptional 1st time managers get it right immediately - but I can't see him being given it. He appears to have been given sufficient amount of rope for him to hang himself on. All of which raises important questions about both the board's decision to sack a successful manager and secondly to appoint a cheap inexperienced replacement. The pressure is increasing on the board, and people under pressure tend to make poor decisions. ← Very well put Milo, you have become a good read,just what the forum needed after the departure of some "forum heavyweights" in recent times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.