ohmelads Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Haven't had the time to read the general concensus but I'm not impressed by what has happened. My gut feeling is it's the wrong decision. I didn't want him in the first place and the football has been awful, but unlike Souness and Roeder this guy had a decent CV and that on its own merits at least some benefit of the doubt, something I seldom afforded the previous two clowns. Is 21 games enough to judge any manager? Espescially after he overhauled the squad, something which anybody coming in probably had to do. Unless we have a top manager lined up to come in right now, with financial backing, I don't see where this makes sense on any level. I don't believe we were or are in danger of relegation, nor do I believe anybody will come in now and charge us into Europe. This only serves to make the managerial position at Newcastle look even less appetising to any potential suitors. Is it any wonder our fans have a short-term mentality, that our players don't take each new manager seriously? The turnover is ridiculous and the ripples spread throughout the club. Players know they can swiftly oust any manager they don't like, something which will likely undermine the authority of the next manager who comes in. Souness and Roeder outstayed their welcome and I wanted them out sharply, but at least Allardyce deserved a shot in my eyes and I don't think 21 games is a fair crack of the whip. We're 11th in the table, is it really such a crisis? I got the impression weeks ago that he was a dead man walking, I thought the board were waiting for events to shape their thinking, waiting for circumstances to force their hand. Yet in the end I think they've panicked and acted prematurely. I don't think his position had become untenable at all. As soon as we hit a rough patch he's gone, and the board have come off looking very hypocritical in my view. As for Allardyce, he made a lot of mistakes in his short time here and I'm sure he'll regret not picking a team and sticking with it. Unlike the previous two managers whose teams selected themselves (due to massive injury lists), Allardyce had a wealth of choice and it turned out to be his undoing. But management is a trial by error process in many ways, some signings don't work out and they're moved on, some do and a squad of reliable performers is gradually formed. Until someone is given the time to do that, we will continue on this course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Haven't had the time to read the general concensus but I'm not impressed by what has happened. My gut feeling is it's the wrong decision. I didn't want him in the first place and the football has been awful, but unlike Souness and Roeder this guy had a decent CV and that on its own merits at least some benefit of the doubt, something I seldom afforded the previous two clowns. Is 21 games enough to judge any manager? Espescially after he overhauled the squad, something which anybody coming in probably had to do. Unless we have a top manager lined up to come in right now, with financial backing, I don't see where this makes sense on any level. I don't believe we were or are in danger of relegation, nor do I believe anybody will come in now and charge us into Europe. This only serves to make the managerial position at Newcastle look even less appetising to any potential suitors. Is it any wonder our fans have a short-term mentality, that our players don't take each new manager seriously? The turnover is ridiculous and the ripples spread throughout the club. Players know they can swiftly oust any manager they don't like, something which will likely undermine the authority of the next manager who comes in. Souness and Roeder outstayed their welcome and I wanted them out sharply, but at least Allardyce deserved a shot in my eyes and I don't think 21 games is a fair crack of the whip. We're 11th in the table, is it really such a crisis? I got the impression weeks ago that he was a dead man walking, I thought the board were waiting for events to shape their thinking, waiting for circumstances to force their hand. Yet in the end I think they've panicked and acted prematurely. I don't think his position had become untenable at all. As soon as we hit a rough patch he's gone, and the board have come off looking very hypocritical in my view. As for Allardyce, he made a lot of mistakes in his short time here and I'm sure he'll regret not picking a team and sticking with it. Unlike the previous two managers whose teams selected themselves (due to massive injury lists), Allardyce had a wealth of choice and it turned out to be his undoing. But management is a trial by error process in many ways, some signings don't work out and they're moved on, some do and a squad of reliable performers is gradually formed. Until someone is given the time to do that, we will continue on this course. Superb post. Maybe this is what happens when your chairman stands with the fans, the mentality seeps through to boardroom decision making. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eaststar Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Haven't had the time to read the general concensus but I'm not impressed by what has happened. My gut feeling is it's the wrong decision. I didn't want him in the first place and the football has been awful, but unlike Souness and Roeder this guy had a decent CV and that on its own merits at least some benefit of the doubt, something I seldom afforded the previous two clowns. Is 21 games enough to judge any manager? Espescially after he overhauled the squad, something which anybody coming in probably had to do. Unless we have a top manager lined up to come in right now, with financial backing, I don't see where this makes sense on any level. I don't believe we were or are in danger of relegation, nor do I believe anybody will come in now and charge us into Europe. This only serves to make the managerial position at Newcastle look even less appetising to any potential suitors. Is it any wonder our fans have a short-term mentality, that our players don't take each new manager seriously? The turnover is ridiculous and the ripples spread throughout the club. Players know they can swiftly oust any manager they don't like, something which will likely undermine the authority of the next manager who comes in. Souness and Roeder outstayed their welcome and I wanted them out sharply, but at least Allardyce deserved a shot in my eyes and I don't think 21 games is a fair crack of the whip. We're 11th in the table, is it really such a crisis? I got the impression weeks ago that he was a dead man walking, I thought the board were waiting for events to shape their thinking, waiting for circumstances to force their hand. Yet in the end I think they've panicked and acted prematurely. I don't think his position had become untenable at all. As soon as we hit a rough patch he's gone, and the board have come off looking very hypocritical in my view. As for Allardyce, he made a lot of mistakes in his short time here and I'm sure he'll regret not picking a team and sticking with it. Unlike the previous two managers whose teams selected themselves (due to massive injury lists), Allardyce had a wealth of choice and it turned out to be his undoing. But management is a trial by error process in many ways, some signings don't work out and they're moved on, some do and a squad of reliable performers is gradually formed. Until someone is given the time to do that, we will continue on this course. Superb post. Maybe this is what happens when your chairman stands with the fans, the mentality seeps through to boardroom decision making. Second that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Bang on ohmelads. Exactly how I feel right now. Without an absolutely outstanding candidate coming forward to want the job (and I cannot see it if we're going for Redknapp), the decision is ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 The last chairman got slagged off for ignoring the fans, this one's being slagged off for listening and getting into their mindset... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 The last chairman got slagged off for ignoring the fans, this one's being slagged off for listening and getting into their mindset... Slagged off? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Well criticised.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Well criticised.... Who else are you going to criticise if you think the decision was rash? Allardyce? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Being rash would have been sacking him in July when he bought the club, but he gave him a chance to see what sort of football, etc. we were going to produce, and he wasn't happy so sacked him. It'd be the same in any other business. If you buy a company, you give the existing man a chance, and if you don't like him, then you get your own man when he gets the chance. I'm still not overly convinced it will be Redknapp anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I'm not convinced it will be Redknapp either, so any criticism is premature tbf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karjala Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 When we were looking for a new manager, who were the main ones suggested in the press? - Bruce and Allardyce? Anyone else? Then pretty much out of the blue Souness was wrongly appointed. Just hope this is the same, only its a class manager appointed out of the blue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Haven't had the time to read the general concensus but I'm not impressed by what has happened. My gut feeling is it's the wrong decision. I didn't want him in the first place and the football has been awful, but unlike Souness and Roeder this guy had a decent CV and that on its own merits at least some benefit of the doubt, something I seldom afforded the previous two clowns. Is 21 games enough to judge any manager? Espescially after he overhauled the squad, something which anybody coming in probably had to do. Unless we have a top manager lined up to come in right now, with financial backing, I don't see where this makes sense on any level. I don't believe we were or are in danger of relegation, nor do I believe anybody will come in now and charge us into Europe. This only serves to make the managerial position at Newcastle look even less appetising to any potential suitors. Is it any wonder our fans have a short-term mentality, that our players don't take each new manager seriously? The turnover is ridiculous and the ripples spread throughout the club. Players know they can swiftly oust any manager they don't like, something which will likely undermine the authority of the next manager who comes in. Souness and Roeder outstayed their welcome and I wanted them out sharply, but at least Allardyce deserved a shot in my eyes and I don't think 21 games is a fair crack of the whip. We're 11th in the table, is it really such a crisis? I got the impression weeks ago that he was a dead man walking, I thought the board were waiting for events to shape their thinking, waiting for circumstances to force their hand. Yet in the end I think they've panicked and acted prematurely. I don't think his position had become untenable at all. As soon as we hit a rough patch he's gone, and the board have come off looking very hypocritical in my view. As for Allardyce, he made a lot of mistakes in his short time here and I'm sure he'll regret not picking a team and sticking with it. Unlike the previous two managers whose teams selected themselves (due to massive injury lists), Allardyce had a wealth of choice and it turned out to be his undoing. But management is a trial by error process in many ways, some signings don't work out and they're moved on, some do and a squad of reliable performers is gradually formed. Until someone is given the time to do that, we will continue on this course. Superb post. Maybe this is what happens when your chairman stands with the fans, the mentality seeps through to boardroom decision making. Second that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Haven't had the time to read the general concensus but I'm not impressed by what has happened. My gut feeling is it's the wrong decision. I didn't want him in the first place and the football has been awful, but unlike Souness and Roeder this guy had a decent CV and that on its own merits at least some benefit of the doubt, something I seldom afforded the previous two clowns. Is 21 games enough to judge any manager? Espescially after he overhauled the squad, something which anybody coming in probably had to do. Unless we have a top manager lined up to come in right now, with financial backing, I don't see where this makes sense on any level. I don't believe we were or are in danger of relegation, nor do I believe anybody will come in now and charge us into Europe. This only serves to make the managerial position at Newcastle look even less appetising to any potential suitors. Is it any wonder our fans have a short-term mentality, that our players don't take each new manager seriously? The turnover is ridiculous and the ripples spread throughout the club. Players know they can swiftly oust any manager they don't like, something which will likely undermine the authority of the next manager who comes in. Souness and Roeder outstayed their welcome and I wanted them out sharply, but at least Allardyce deserved a shot in my eyes and I don't think 21 games is a fair crack of the whip. We're 11th in the table, is it really such a crisis? I got the impression weeks ago that he was a dead man walking, I thought the board were waiting for events to shape their thinking, waiting for circumstances to force their hand. Yet in the end I think they've panicked and acted prematurely. I don't think his position had become untenable at all. As soon as we hit a rough patch he's gone, and the board have come off looking very hypocritical in my view. As for Allardyce, he made a lot of mistakes in his short time here and I'm sure he'll regret not picking a team and sticking with it. Unlike the previous two managers whose teams selected themselves (due to massive injury lists), Allardyce had a wealth of choice and it turned out to be his undoing. But management is a trial by error process in many ways, some signings don't work out and they're moved on, some do and a squad of reliable performers is gradually formed. Until someone is given the time to do that, we will continue on this course. That's why I voted you best poster on here, couldn't agree more. Sensible as ever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluegeordie Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Haven't had the time to read the general concensus but I'm not impressed by what has happened. My gut feeling is it's the wrong decision. I didn't want him in the first place and the football has been awful, but unlike Souness and Roeder this guy had a decent CV and that on its own merits at least some benefit of the doubt, something I seldom afforded the previous two clowns. Is 21 games enough to judge any manager? Espescially after he overhauled the squad, something which anybody coming in probably had to do. Unless we have a top manager lined up to come in right now, with financial backing, I don't see where this makes sense on any level. I don't believe we were or are in danger of relegation, nor do I believe anybody will come in now and charge us into Europe. This only serves to make the managerial position at Newcastle look even less appetising to any potential suitors. Is it any wonder our fans have a short-term mentality, that our players don't take each new manager seriously? The turnover is ridiculous and the ripples spread throughout the club. Players know they can swiftly oust any manager they don't like, something which will likely undermine the authority of the next manager who comes in. Souness and Roeder outstayed their welcome and I wanted them out sharply, but at least Allardyce deserved a shot in my eyes and I don't think 21 games is a fair crack of the whip. We're 11th in the table, is it really such a crisis? I got the impression weeks ago that he was a dead man walking, I thought the board were waiting for events to shape their thinking, waiting for circumstances to force their hand. Yet in the end I think they've panicked and acted prematurely. I don't think his position had become untenable at all. As soon as we hit a rough patch he's gone, and the board have come off looking very hypocritical in my view. As for Allardyce, he made a lot of mistakes in his short time here and I'm sure he'll regret not picking a team and sticking with it. Unlike the previous two managers whose teams selected themselves (due to massive injury lists), Allardyce had a wealth of choice and it turned out to be his undoing. But management is a trial by error process in many ways, some signings don't work out and they're moved on, some do and a squad of reliable performers is gradually formed. Until someone is given the time to do that, we will continue on this course. A thought provoking post, certainly, but surely it was Sam's apparent inability to learn from his errors that was one of the chief sources of concern. As I've tried to get across in other posts, while "Rome wasn't built in a day", there was evidence from relatively early on that it was in the process of being built. In Sam's case, exactly what on-field evidence was there that we were moving in the right direction? Imo, precious little ... in fact, none, as the month of December demonstrated clearly. Did I want Sam to go? For the most part (and probably for the want of courage), no. Do I, in retrospect, think that he had to go? Yes, so long as Mort and Ashley have a genuine blueprint for moving the club forward (even if, bizarrrely, Arry proves to be an early piece of the puzzle). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Don't know if it's been mentioned already (or if anyone cares) but apparently Sam's agent has been in touch with the FAI regarding the vacant Ireland job. I'd have him anyway, a lot better than all of the other candidtaes, bar Houllier... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Still cant believe Sam is gone tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Still cant believe Sam is gone tbh whats not to believe ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Still cant believe Sam is gone tbh whats not to believe ? Just hasnt sunk in yet, didnt expect it to happen so soon and it came out of the blue Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Still cant believe Sam is gone tbh whats not to believe ? Just hasnt sunk in yet, didnt expect it to happen so soon and it came out of the blue i'll get you a blanket Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Still cant believe Sam is gone tbh whats not to believe ? Just hasnt sunk in yet, didnt expect it to happen so soon and it came out of the blue i'll get you a blanket Dont get you mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Haven't had the time to read the general concensus but I'm not impressed by what has happened. My gut feeling is it's the wrong decision. I didn't want him in the first place and the football has been awful, but unlike Souness and Roeder this guy had a decent CV and that on its own merits at least some benefit of the doubt, something I seldom afforded the previous two clowns. Is 21 games enough to judge any manager? Espescially after he overhauled the squad, something which anybody coming in probably had to do. Unless we have a top manager lined up to come in right now, with financial backing, I don't see where this makes sense on any level. I don't believe we were or are in danger of relegation, nor do I believe anybody will come in now and charge us into Europe. This only serves to make the managerial position at Newcastle look even less appetising to any potential suitors. Is it any wonder our fans have a short-term mentality, that our players don't take each new manager seriously? The turnover is ridiculous and the ripples spread throughout the club. Players know they can swiftly oust any manager they don't like, something which will likely undermine the authority of the next manager who comes in. Souness and Roeder outstayed their welcome and I wanted them out sharply, but at least Allardyce deserved a shot in my eyes and I don't think 21 games is a fair crack of the whip. We're 11th in the table, is it really such a crisis? I got the impression weeks ago that he was a dead man walking, I thought the board were waiting for events to shape their thinking, waiting for circumstances to force their hand. Yet in the end I think they've panicked and acted prematurely. I don't think his position had become untenable at all. As soon as we hit a rough patch he's gone, and the board have come off looking very hypocritical in my view. As for Allardyce, he made a lot of mistakes in his short time here and I'm sure he'll regret not picking a team and sticking with it. Unlike the previous two managers whose teams selected themselves (due to massive injury lists), Allardyce had a wealth of choice and it turned out to be his undoing. But management is a trial by error process in many ways, some signings don't work out and they're moved on, some do and a squad of reliable performers is gradually formed. Until someone is given the time to do that, we will continue on this course. A thought provoking post, certainly, but surely it was Sam's apparent inability to learn from his errors that was one of the chief sources of concern. As I've tried to get across in other posts, while "Rome wasn't built in a day", there was evidence from relatively early on that it was in the process of being built. In Sam's case, exactly what on-field evidence was there that we were moving in the right direction? Imo, precious little ... in fact, none, as the month of December demonstrated clearly. Did I want Sam to go? For the most part (and probably for the want of courage), no. Do I, in retrospect, think that he had to go? Yes, so long as Mort and Ashley have a genuine blueprint for moving the club forward (even if, bizarrrely, Arry proves to be an early piece of the puzzle). There was precious little progress to be seen anywhere and that was a major concern. But it's the timing of events that leaves me scratching my head. Why sack him now? By the time a new manager is installed he may well have a matter of days to sign his own players, and he'll still be working with a squad many of whom are still settling at the club or indeed settling in this league. Our choice of managers is greatly reduced at this time of year too. Do we rush into it and run the risk of appointing the wrong man due to limited time and availability of candidates? Or do we soldier on with a caretaker until the summer and scour the market for a new man? Neither sounds too appealing to me, I don't see why we couldn't give him another 20 or so games and if there is still no improvement, make the transition in the summer. That would seem the logical thing to do, unless the board do have something big up their sleeve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluegeordie Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Haven't had the time to read the general concensus but I'm not impressed by what has happened. My gut feeling is it's the wrong decision. I didn't want him in the first place and the football has been awful, but unlike Souness and Roeder this guy had a decent CV and that on its own merits at least some benefit of the doubt, something I seldom afforded the previous two clowns. Is 21 games enough to judge any manager? Espescially after he overhauled the squad, something which anybody coming in probably had to do. Unless we have a top manager lined up to come in right now, with financial backing, I don't see where this makes sense on any level. I don't believe we were or are in danger of relegation, nor do I believe anybody will come in now and charge us into Europe. This only serves to make the managerial position at Newcastle look even less appetising to any potential suitors. Is it any wonder our fans have a short-term mentality, that our players don't take each new manager seriously? The turnover is ridiculous and the ripples spread throughout the club. Players know they can swiftly oust any manager they don't like, something which will likely undermine the authority of the next manager who comes in. Souness and Roeder outstayed their welcome and I wanted them out sharply, but at least Allardyce deserved a shot in my eyes and I don't think 21 games is a fair crack of the whip. We're 11th in the table, is it really such a crisis? I got the impression weeks ago that he was a dead man walking, I thought the board were waiting for events to shape their thinking, waiting for circumstances to force their hand. Yet in the end I think they've panicked and acted prematurely. I don't think his position had become untenable at all. As soon as we hit a rough patch he's gone, and the board have come off looking very hypocritical in my view. As for Allardyce, he made a lot of mistakes in his short time here and I'm sure he'll regret not picking a team and sticking with it. Unlike the previous two managers whose teams selected themselves (due to massive injury lists), Allardyce had a wealth of choice and it turned out to be his undoing. But management is a trial by error process in many ways, some signings don't work out and they're moved on, some do and a squad of reliable performers is gradually formed. Until someone is given the time to do that, we will continue on this course. A thought provoking post, certainly, but surely it was Sam's apparent inability to learn from his errors that was one of the chief sources of concern. As I've tried to get across in other posts, while "Rome wasn't built in a day", there was evidence from relatively early on that it was in the process of being built. In Sam's case, exactly what on-field evidence was there that we were moving in the right direction? Imo, precious little ... in fact, none, as the month of December demonstrated clearly. Did I want Sam to go? For the most part (and probably for the want of courage), no. Do I, in retrospect, think that he had to go? Yes, so long as Mort and Ashley have a genuine blueprint for moving the club forward (even if, bizarrrely, Arry proves to be an early piece of the puzzle). There was precious little progress to be seen anywhere and that was a major concern. But it's the timing of events that leaves me scratching my head. Why sack him now? By the time a new manager is installed he may well have a matter of days to sign his own players, and he'll still be working with a squad many of whom are still settling at the club or indeed settling in this league. Our choice of managers is greatly reduced at this time of year too. Do we rush into it and run the risk of appointing the wrong man due to limited time and availability of candidates? Or do we soldier on with a caretaker until the summer and scour the market for a new man? Neither sounds too appealing to me, I don't see why we couldn't give him another 20 or so games and if there is still no improvement, make the transition in the summer. That would seem the logical thing to do, unless the board do have something big up their sleeve. I agree that, unless an excellent manager was already lined up, the logic of the timing is difficult to grasp. However, all this assumes that Mort and Ashley have been fully in the driver's seat on this issue - that is, that they simply chose to sack Sam because they'd decided he wasn't "the one". However, as I've tried to argue at length (ridiculous length, in fact) in another thread, is it not possible that Sam forced their hand by effectively saying "back me (with a large January war chest), or sack me"? If this was the case, then Mort and Ashley were basically being held to ransom - either they could put serious money into a manager that they hadn't chosen, who had shown no on-field evidence during his time on Tyneside that he was up to the job, and that Mort and Ashley were thinking would more than likely depart in the summer, or they could bight the bullet, sack Big Sam (or reach a costly "mutual agreement" that he should piss off), and then do their best afterwards to find a better replacement. It's not an ideal situation, to be sure, but it might not be one that Mort and Ashley could easily have avoided, unless they were prepared to (unethically) negotiate behind their current manager's back for a replacement, as Spurs did with Ramos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offshore Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Haven't had the time to read the general concensus but I'm not impressed by what has happened. My gut feeling is it's the wrong decision. I didn't want him in the first place and the football has been awful, but unlike Souness and Roeder this guy had a decent CV and that on its own merits at least some benefit of the doubt, something I seldom afforded the previous two clowns. Is 21 games enough to judge any manager? Espescially after he overhauled the squad, something which anybody coming in probably had to do. Unless we have a top manager lined up to come in right now, with financial backing, I don't see where this makes sense on any level. I don't believe we were or are in danger of relegation, nor do I believe anybody will come in now and charge us into Europe. This only serves to make the managerial position at Newcastle look even less appetising to any potential suitors. Is it any wonder our fans have a short-term mentality, that our players don't take each new manager seriously? The turnover is ridiculous and the ripples spread throughout the club. Players know they can swiftly oust any manager they don't like, something which will likely undermine the authority of the next manager who comes in. Souness and Roeder outstayed their welcome and I wanted them out sharply, but at least Allardyce deserved a shot in my eyes and I don't think 21 games is a fair crack of the whip. We're 11th in the table, is it really such a crisis? I got the impression weeks ago that he was a dead man walking, I thought the board were waiting for events to shape their thinking, waiting for circumstances to force their hand. Yet in the end I think they've panicked and acted prematurely. I don't think his position had become untenable at all. As soon as we hit a rough patch he's gone, and the board have come off looking very hypocritical in my view. As for Allardyce, he made a lot of mistakes in his short time here and I'm sure he'll regret not picking a team and sticking with it. Unlike the previous two managers whose teams selected themselves (due to massive injury lists), Allardyce had a wealth of choice and it turned out to be his undoing. But management is a trial by error process in many ways, some signings don't work out and they're moved on, some do and a squad of reliable performers is gradually formed. Until someone is given the time to do that, we will continue on this course. A thought provoking post, certainly, but surely it was Sam's apparent inability to learn from his errors that was one of the chief sources of concern. As I've tried to get across in other posts, while "Rome wasn't built in a day", there was evidence from relatively early on that it was in the process of being built. In Sam's case, exactly what on-field evidence was there that we were moving in the right direction? Imo, precious little ... in fact, none, as the month of December demonstrated clearly. Did I want Sam to go? For the most part (and probably for the want of courage), no. Do I, in retrospect, think that he had to go? Yes, so long as Mort and Ashley have a genuine blueprint for moving the club forward (even if, bizarrrely, Arry proves to be an early piece of the puzzle). There was precious little progress to be seen anywhere and that was a major concern. But it's the timing of events that leaves me scratching my head. Why sack him now? By the time a new manager is installed he may well have a matter of days to sign his own players, and he'll still be working with a squad many of whom are still settling at the club or indeed settling in this league. Our choice of managers is greatly reduced at this time of year too. Do we rush into it and run the risk of appointing the wrong man due to limited time and availability of candidates? Or do we soldier on with a caretaker until the summer and scour the market for a new man? Neither sounds too appealing to me, I don't see why we couldn't give him another 20 or so games and if there is still no improvement, make the transition in the summer. That would seem the logical thing to do, unless the board do have something big up their sleeve. Agree with what you say, it usually is the best time to hunt for managers (and players) during the summer, but I can only guess that M.Ashley has had enough of an indication from Harry (alledgedly) to make the sudden decision to bin Sam at this time. I haven't anything more than my opinion to go on as to why he didn't go with Sam till the summer then say thanks and bye and then go for Harry other than the fact he's got eyes in his head and watched the complete dross we've been playing all season and decided that since its 'his' club/toy he can do what he wants so thought enough is enough. If it is to be Harry then so be it, not exactly my first choice but there you go. As long as he backs him with decent funds then i'm prepared to give the Mike/Harry regime a bit of leeway and time to see what happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Since when did Harry Redknapp become such hot property that you would want to spend millions sacking your current coach and further millions bringing him in, along with all the upheaval, controversy and risk that involves, in the middle of January? I guess Portsmouth are doing alright under his guidance, a bit like Bolton not long ago under the guidance of one Sam Allardyce... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offshore Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 You'll have to ask Mike Ashley that one, he's the one who desperately wants him (apparantly). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now