Bruce Sacked at last (now official)

[pauliewalnuts]

However, he got us 90 minutes from promotion.

Or he failed twice. Didn't make automatic and then put up an abject performance in the one match where he had a chance to go for  broke.

Yep. But still came within 90 minutes of promotion.

I understand the disappointment with him, what I am saying is that some of it is more in tune with a manager who'd just done a Sunderland on us.

[PeterWithesShin]

The most telling thing is that I don't think i've seen a single person on here say they think Bruce is the man to take us forward and they really want him as manager. It's more "well only 2 weeks" "who else will we get" "stability" and so on. Even those saying keep him are hardly giving him any ringing endorsements.

[PaulWinch again]

Yes and this is why a pragmatic decision at this stage makes sense. If some players are added to the squad there’s a good chance we’ll be there or thereabouts under Bruce at Christmas. That’s presumably on target and gives the new owners time to properly assess things.

It’s not a decision that guarantees success by any means, but if you’re playing percentages against a two week window it is sensible.

[robleflaneur]

I don't like Bruce's football, I think he's one of the last exponents of an antiquated form of football management and that every season that passes, his style recedes further into the past.

However, he got us 90 minutes from promotion.

I am not suggesting he is any sort of genius or messiah for having done that and yes, he failed in his primary objective, but whilst I agree with the sentiment of many in terms of having reasonable cause in wanting him replaced, to listen to some on here, you'd think he'd just managed to keep us up.

To concede that he has 'an antiquated form of football management' is a severe condemnation of Bruce and it is repeated by many of his detractors.Why continue with a manager who is so out of touch ?
Yes,he got us 90 minutes from promotion,but we finished 4th with a ridiculously expensive squad that was heavily dependent on loans and old players with a limited future.
Why repeat this blind short term approach with it's limitations on developing the club ?
I think that the criticisms of Bruce have been quite moderate and well argued by the likes of Old Man Villa Fan,Paul e  and others.

[pauliewalnuts]

Oh, I know.

I don't think I want him to stay either, I just think that some of the criticism is perhaps a bit harsh, that's all.

[JD]

Oh, I know.

I don't think I want him to stay either, I just think that some of the criticism is perhaps a bit harsh, that's all.

I agree Paulie. I don't want him to stay but we need a settled period and then a reassessment of the situation. He certainly isn't the man to take Villa forward in the future. The criticism is a bit harsh at times. 

[PeterWithesShin]

When there's pretty much no one that actually seems happy at the thought of him being manager this season then there's going to be a lot of criticism.
As PWA says it's being pragmatic to say keep him. Well for me, bollocks to pragmatism. I said all along we had 2 years to go back up or we'd be fucked, and I think we are back to the start of a 2 year cycle. At the end of this one we won't be as fucked we'll just become Leeds/Weds/Forest etc as we'll be run 100% as a business. And I don't want us wasting 6 months or however long of that with the shit short term crap that Bruce serves up. What is the point of allowing him to sign anyone? I'd bet the vast majority of us don't expect Bruce to be our manager by the end of the season, so why the smeg let him spend money and sign more players that play his brand of football.

[PaulWinch again]

Yeah and to be honest that’s a perfectly reasonable argument as well. I think it’s one of those situations where there isn’t an obvious right answer, we’ve just got to hope the new owners know what they’re doing.

[paul_e]

When there's pretty much no one that actually seems happy at the thought of him being manager this season then there's going to be a lot of criticism.
As PWA says it's being pragmatic to say keep him. Well for me, bollocks to pragmatism. I said all along we had 2 years to go back up or we'd be fucked, and I think we are back to the start of a 2 year cycle. At the end of this one we won't be as fucked we'll just become Leeds/Weds/Forest etc as we'll be run 100% as a business. And I don't want us wasting 6 months or however long of that with the shit short term crap that Bruce serves up. What is the point of allowing him to sign anyone? I'd bet the vast majority of us don't expect Bruce to be our manager by the end of the season, so why the smeg let him spend money and sign more players that play his brand of football.

My only concern is that, in my opinion, we do need to spend some money, I'd like a left back and a centre back (and I'd want to replace Jack if he leaves as well) and I just don't see how that's going to be possible if the last line of the investment statement is true and we don't already have a manager-in-waiting. If we have to make a choice between keeping Bruce or filling the gaps in the squad I'd rather we go with the latter, but with a lot of conditions on who he can go for and then I have some really harsh targets for him for the first few months (top 6 or out after 10 games level harsh).  All of this requires we get someone on at board level who'll tell Bruce bollocks if he tries to sign stupid deals and that person would also be the one who would put together the shortlist for his replacement

[PeterWithesShin]

So what's the point keeping him if the club is deciding the signings and it's said Bruce doesn't do the training. I'll go on tv after games and say "that's the Championship, off wi me heed" for a lot less money.

And we should already have a shortlist of potential replacements, we should always have a list of them so as to be ready if a manager needs to be replaced at a moment's notice. Although that requires common sense, which has been lacking for a long time 

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Which ever way you look at it, Bruce won't be our manager this time next year.

[Lastfootstamper]

Which ever way you look at it, Bruce won't be our manager this time next year.

I thought that 12 months ago.

[Matt Collins]

Last year I'd have taken jokanovic but didn't see any other realistic candidates I wanted

The only credible name people have at the moment seems to be Dean Smith. Its an interesting option but would I sack Bruce now to bring him in? No

[mr underhill]

If Dean Smith is the only alternative to Bruce we're painting ourselves into the tightest corner imaginable. That guy at Leeds is a total fruit loop and it will probably end in tears but at least it was imaginative.

[tomd2103]

Last year I'd have taken jokanovic but didn't see any other realistic candidates I wanted

The only credible name people have at the moment seems to be Dean Smith. Its an interesting option but would I sack Bruce now to bring him in? No

It would be a risky move at this point Matt, but if we start poorly it will be a much tougher job for someone to come in after a couple of months and try and rebuild from there. 

That might not happen of course and if there is a way we can keep Jack Grealish and the likes of Kodjia find their form, we might make a strong start.