Steve Bruce (now unemployed)

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Dancing Brave said:

Some very good managers in that list...and Sam Allardyce.

Some awful ones too.

[joeyt]

 

 

State of that. Curbishley hasn't had a job for over a decade 

[nbthree3]

He was sacked by our rivals 10 years ago for a virtually identical record (we've won one less and lost one less in two fewer games). Astounds me why some, especially the Sunderland fans not on a wind-up, think he's the right man

 

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by nbthree3

[nufcjb]

Absolutely nothing to be proud of yet everyone will say how nice the bloke is and feel sorry for what he is going through right now. Absolute meatball of shit manager he is.

[Mattoon]

Can't figure out how to share the gif I made on here, so here it is in all its glory on Twitter, feel free to plagiarise:

 

 

[wormy]

53 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

 

State of that. Curbishley hasn't had a job for over a decade 

 

I honestly forget Hughes had such a long run as a PL manager. Think I must have purposely blocked the Stoke years out of my mind. 

[madras]

3 hours ago, Numbers said:

As long as Bruce is here Shelvey will start every game regardless of form.

 

Under a new manager he would be a bit part player.

 

In favour of ? We have such a paucity in that area it doesn't matter which we pick. What I was getting at was its daft to think if he somehow flukes a great result he'll be kept any longer.

[toon25]

This ghastly fat fucking cunt can get to absolute fuck. 

[Away Toon]

So many excuses as to why SB can't be sacked. History tells us club plays on a Saturday afternoon, loses, manager sacked by the time the next days papers go to print. And repeat, it happens all the time. Apparently we can't do that because, of all the excuses I've been reading about.

[madras]

Just now, Away Toon said:

So many excuses as to why SB can't be sacked. History tells us club plays on a Saturday afternoon, loses, manager sacked by the time the next days papers go to print. And repeat, it happens all the time. Apparently we can't do that because, of all the excuses I've been reading about.

We can. The owners don't think it's the best way to go.

 

I'm beginning to think many want him sacked as soon as possible as punishment. Maybe not in the best interests of the club as those in charge seem to think.

[Numbers]

14 minutes ago, madras said:

In favour of ? We have such a paucity in that area it doesn't matter which we pick. What I was getting at was its daft to think if he somehow flukes a great result he'll be kept any longer.

 Yep Understand but this is NUFC after all...hard to get out of the negative mindset.

[relámpago blanco]

6 minutes ago, madras said:

We can. The owners don't think it's the best way to go.

 

I'm beginning to think many want him sacked as soon as possible as punishment. Maybe not in the best interests of the club as those in charge seem to think.

They haven't sacked him as in any other business other than football, gross misconduct aside, you do not sack someone until you have a replacement.

[Wolfcastle]

Like hiring the cheapest clown with the worst reputation on trust pilot to provide the entertainment at a special occasion and expecting it not to end badly.

Even if he scrapes by next week he'll get another gig on the strength of it, turn up lifting of tabs and drink, knick someone's watch and puke on the floor  and you'll still have to pay him for his time.

7 minutes ago, relámpago blanco said:

They haven't sacked him as in any other business other than football, gross misconduct aside, you do not sack someone until you have a replacement.

In football you can't even legally approach another manager until you sack the current manager.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by Wolfcastle

[midds]

Keeping the proven failure makes no sense to me. Even without the takeover he needed to be removed from the job as his record over the last 9 months is abysmal, most other normal clubs would already have sacked him by now, he's horrific. 

 

What's a worse option than a bloke who can't win a game of football for love nor money? What's worse than replacing a shithouse who's already dropped 18 points from a possible 21 from a very comfortable set of fixtures? What's the worst that could happen? We lose games this gormless cunt would have lost anyway? Jesus. He's inept, bin the horrible cunt asap. Doesn't matter who fills in for the time being. 

[relámpago blanco]

47 minutes ago, midds said:

Keeping the proven failure makes no sense to me. Even without the takeover he needed to be removed from the job as his record over the last 9 months is abysmal, most other normal clubs would already have sacked him by now, he's horrific. 

 

What's a worse option than a bloke who can't win a game of football for love nor money? What's worse than replacing a shithouse who's already dropped 18 points from a possible 21 from a very comfortable set of fixtures? What's the worst that could happen? We lose games this gormless cunt would have lost anyway? Jesus. He's inept, bin the horrible cunt asap. Doesn't matter who fills in for the time being. 

Midds, I am surprised by this from you. He will be gone but the takeover happened very quickly for them post CAT. We already have a skeleton pool of coaches and if Bruce goes then we are left with Jones and Dawson. I would prefer them 2 tbh. It is what it is but Bruce will be gone and I hope, but I am also fairly certain that this will be his last game. 

 

I have been so upset this week that he hasn't gone but it makes sense. We have hope for the future now. If Bruce is here for a game or 2 that changes nothing. 

 

We have hope, we can dream, we can start to love our club again. 

[midds]

2 minutes ago, relámpago blanco said:

Midds, I am surprised by this from you. He will be gone but the takeover happened very quickly for them post CAT. We already have a skeleton pool of coaches and if Bruce goes then we are left with Jones and Dawson. I would prefer them 2 tbh. It is what it is but Bruce will be gone and I hope, but I am also fairly certain that this will be his last game. 

 

I have been so upset this week that he hasn't gone but it makes sense. We have hope for the future now. If Bruce is here for a game or 2 that changes nothing. 

 

We have hope, we can dream, we can start to love our club again. 

You high? 

[Dokko]

1 minute ago, midds said:

You high? 

?

 

Said a week ago give it to Keegan. Imagine going in to Sunday with Keegan and not Bruce. Damn. ?

[huss9]

5 hours ago, The Prophet said:

Do we know for a fact Bruce would take his coaches with him?

take them where?

[relámpago blanco]

5 minutes ago, midds said:

You high? 

No, are you? 14 years he was in charge, 18 months this takeover has taken, 10 days they have been in charge. 

 

They haven't sacked him because they haven't got anyone lined up yet. 

 

I, as much as anyone want that cunt gone.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by relámpago blanco

[relámpago blanco]

1 minute ago, huss9 said:

take them where?

8 Million quid holiday

[midds]

1 minute ago, relámpago blanco said:

No, are you. 14 years he was in charge, 18 months this takoever has taken, 10 days they have been in charge. 

 

They haven't sacked him because they haven't got anyone lined up yet. 

 

I as much as anyone want that cunt gone.

 

 

No bother. As you were

[nbthree3]

Hope's opinion piece https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10093783/CRAIG-HOPE-Steve-Bruce-charge-new-owners-know-presence-sour-mood.html

 

Steve Bruce would be sacked this week, we were told. Newcastle United's new owners had realised how his presence could have a negative impact during their first game at home to Spurs on Sunday.

Sources say that opinion has not changed. Yet here we are and Bruce remains, even scheduled to speak to the media on Friday afternoon.

Players are confused, it is said, and want clarity. Many of them want a change of manager but, more so, they want to win their first match of the season. If Bruce is going to be in charge then they should know, allowing for greater focus.

 

But they also want to venture to St James’ Park free of feelings of animosity and resentment towards those in positions of seniority at their club. The prospect of Bruce being on the touchline, therefore, is a troubling one for supporters.

It is not that they will boo him from the off - as they have done in some matches this season - but if Newcastle find themselves behind, there is a danger the crowd will turn on Bruce.

They will be loath to do so, because Sunday, for them, is not about vitriol. They want to show the world what a united and re-energised support sounds like. But with Bruce there, one or two notes might sound a little flatter than they should be.

 

The new owners - certainly those on the ground on Tyneside this past week - are fully aware of the strength of feeling against Bruce. One senior figure inside the club, we understand, has also warned of the need to make an immediate change.

Everyone, it seems, is on the same page. Even Bruce himself went on the record in saying he as good as anticipates the sack.

But for it not to happen by now has dampened the mood. It will be awkward and unnecessary if, come 1.30pm on Friday, it is Bruce facing the questions. This press conference was always going to be about the future. We never imagined it would be Bruce’s future the talking point.

 

For how can Bruce be the man the new regime presents to the watching world when we are led to believe he has no part in their plans? It feels wrong.

Maybe, in time, we will come to reflect and wonder what all of the fuss was about.

There is every chance that a wave of euphoria will carry Newcastle to victory against Spurs, regardless of whether it’s Steve Bruce or Fiona Bruce in the dugout.

It is just that, much like those relics on Fiona’s Antiques Roadshow, the Toon Army had hoped Steve would be a thing of the past.

[Nobody]

1 hour ago, Away Toon said:

So many excuses as to why SB can't be sacked. History tells us club plays on a Saturday afternoon, loses, manager sacked by the time the next days papers go to print. And repeat, it happens all the time. Apparently we can't do that because, of all the excuses I've been reading about.

Those clubs have the infrastructure, contracts, and back ups all sorted before that Saturday game. Our owners came in unexpectedly to a club that's been running well below the bare minimum for ages. They will have inherited a whole lot of problems that we don't know about. 

Just remember what the Rangers fans said of Ashley after he left them(paraphrasing);  'he only had 10 (?)% ownership of us for a short period of time and we're still dealing with the shit he left us. Imagine the damage he has done to you with 100% for a lot longer?' 

[Dancing Brave]

1 minute ago, nbthree3 said:

Hope's opinion piece https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10093783/CRAIG-HOPE-Steve-Bruce-charge-new-owners-know-presence-sour-mood.html

 

Steve Bruce would be sacked this week, we were told. Newcastle United's new owners had realised how his presence could have a negative impact during their first game at home to Spurs on Sunday.

Sources say that opinion has not changed. Yet here we are and Bruce remains, even scheduled to speak to the media on Friday afternoon.

Players are confused, it is said, and want clarity. Many of them want a change of manager but, more so, they want to win their first match of the season. If Bruce is going to be in charge then they should know, allowing for greater focus.

 

But they also want to venture to St James’ Park free of feelings of animosity and resentment towards those in positions of seniority at their club. The prospect of Bruce being on the touchline, therefore, is a troubling one for supporters.

It is not that they will boo him from the off - as they have done in some matches this season - but if Newcastle find themselves behind, there is a danger the crowd will turn on Bruce.

They will be loath to do so, because Sunday, for them, is not about vitriol. They want to show the world what a united and re-energised support sounds like. But with Bruce there, one or two notes might sound a little flatter than they should be.

 

The new owners - certainly those on the ground on Tyneside this past week - are fully aware of the strength of feeling against Bruce. One senior figure inside the club, we understand, has also warned of the need to make an immediate change.

Everyone, it seems, is on the same page. Even Bruce himself went on the record in saying he as good as anticipates the sack.

But for it not to happen by now has dampened the mood. It will be awkward and unnecessary if, come 1.30pm on Friday, it is Bruce facing the questions. This press conference was always going to be about the future. We never imagined it would be Bruce’s future the talking point.

 

For how can Bruce be the man the new regime presents to the watching world when we are led to believe he has no part in their plans? It feels wrong.

Maybe, in time, we will come to reflect and wonder what all of the fuss was about.

There is every chance that a wave of euphoria will carry Newcastle to victory against Spurs, regardless of whether it’s Steve Bruce or Fiona Bruce in the dugout.

It is just that, much like those relics on Fiona’s Antiques Roadshow, the Toon Army had hoped Steve would be a thing of the past.

I'd rather have Fiona than Steve Bruce as manager of NUFC

[Abacus]

We've already let Bruce take training in the build up, so the game is as good as lost. Watch him throw Wilson on half fit and knacker him as well.

 

I desperately wanted him gone from day 1, and not to have any part of him spoiling Sunday.

 

If he knows he's a dead man walking, what possible reason does he have to even try, rather than to just cry about it to the press and the players?

 

Jones was surely originally brought in as a ready made caretaker manager. 

 

He may indeed turn out to be worse than a self pitying Bruce, but I was ready to roll the dice on that gamble for a couple of matches. I'm not sure the consortium have any idea how bad Bruce actually is because I think he is actively damaging.