Time for Randy to s*** or get off the pot?

[Toronto Villa]

But an alternative reading would be that we just had no plan B – despite being aware of MON's volatility. As time goes on, I am increasingly persuaded that it is the latter, which begs the question of why were we not better prepared?

I posted a few weeks ago about how I thought the board would have a contingency plan is place, should we require a new manager. I was obviously wrong. That's not to say I'm panicing but I would hope and trust they'll learn from this sorry lesson.
[/quote

But an alternative reading would be that we just had no plan B – despite being aware of MON's volatility. As time goes on, I am increasingly persuaded that it is the latter, which begs the question of why were we not better prepared?

I posted a few weeks ago about how I thought the board would have a contingency plan is place, should we require a new manager. I was obviously wrong. That's not to say I'm panicing but I would hope and trust they'll learn from this sorry lesson.

To a large extent contingency plans are also dependent upon timing. I'm sure that the board weren't expecting MON to walk out when he did. Had he decided in May or June that it was time to go, then I would guess they would have a lot more choices beyond the likes of Jol or Hughes who you would have to consider would have been prime candidates.

[dave.woodhall]

I'm starting to wonder whether the football establishment isn't having a sly smile at the discomfort of these brash Americans with their populist ways and care for the supporters.

[fredm]

But an alternative reading would be that we just had no plan B – despite being aware of MON's volatility. As time goes on, I am increasingly persuaded that it is the latter, which begs the question of why were we not better prepared?

I posted a few weeks ago about how I thought the board would have a contingency plan is place, should we require a new manager. I was obviously wrong. That's not to say I'm panicing but I would hope and trust they'll learn from this sorry lesson.

I think there was a contingency plan in place - up until a month or so ago when Mark Hughes believed that MON was going to stay so decided to accept Fulham's offer. 

As someone else has said, would MON have gone if Hughes was still available?

[Dave Clark Five]

The title of this thread is a disgrace.

Pathetic, isn't it but no surprise.

Hold on a second...the title is a question I was putting out there.

Judging from the replies, it seems a valid enough one, as there are many varying opinions.

It is a bit similar to my thread - O'Neill - sack him or back him!
However your thread has been titled, questions need answering, although, personally, I am just grateful that he has gone.
I am of the school of thought that O'Neill is a very poisonous individual and am surprised that he hasn't said much yet. Maybe he is waiting until he is in the safety of a new job first. There can't be much of a confidentiality clause when you throw the towel in.  Then again, whatever he says could be challenged by Villa and this might cause some revelations of his manner of management to be made more public than just passed around by members of staff in 'keep it to yourself but nobody likes O'Neill, you know' - style.

[Toronto Villa]

I'm glad Mark Hughes isn't available. He walked around like his shit didn't stink at Man City. He needed to be humbled a little. I feel bad for Fulham actually because I don't think he's that committed to them and is just waiting for a bigger gig.

[peter w]

The title of the thread is a disgrace? no it isn't. Its the title of a thread. It shapes what follows and the more tetchy the responses to a title the better the thread usually is as it gets people posting. The first thing we see when we come onto the forum are the titles and we'll scroll through the ones that look ess interesting to read the ones we think interest us.

'Shit or Get off the Pot' v 'Randy Lerner needs to spend more'

both mean the same thing but a lot of posters would just sigh and shrug at the latter and if it gets to page 5 or 6 may dip into the thread to see what people are saying. With the former everyone will express an emotive opinion on the title, author, the actual topic, and then it becomes a buzzing debate.

Stop being so touchy you lot that have maoned. The title is always designed to pull us in. Once there we can argue one way or t'other till the cows come home.

[Claret trim]

Recurrent among the views of numerous posters is that MON intentionally decided to go at a time that caused maximum damage to the club.

Granted I don't know the guy personally, but it seems like a breathtaking allegation to me that he would go like that with no catalyst at all.

What are the other (more?) plausible explanations for the timing?

In response to Toronto: the nature of a contingency plan is that you assess the risk of an event and the appropriate response to it. You would do this systematically with all material risks. Given that MON as a manager was always in demand, known to be touting himself to other clubs (apparently) and had had to be pacified by the owner days before he went, I reckon he would (or should) have been flashing like a Christmas tree on the risk dashboard. There is just no excuse for not having a plan in those circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, the Board can still put things right by making the correct decision for the club now. Trouble is, they are having to make the decision in the worst possible conditions, which in turn obviously means that the liklihood of a positive outcome is smaller (and is shrinking by the day).

Even that is not fatal in the gran scheme of things. But what seems certain is that it is going to cost us significantly in development time.

And there we were thinking that what with the rise of Citeh, we'd already pitched up quite late enough at the party...


 

[dave.woodhall]

Recurrent among the views of numerous posters is that MON intentionally decided to go at a time that caused maximum damage to the club.

Granted I don't know the guy personally, but it seems like a breathtaking allegation to me that he would go like that with no catalyst at all.

What are the other (more?) plausible explanations for the timing?

Whether intentional or not, it's a fact that he did leave at the most awkward time. That'll do for starters.

[Claret trim]

Whether intentional or not, it's a fact that he did leave at the most awkward time. That'll do for starters.

Sure Dave, I wouldn't disagree with that.

But the intentional nature (or otherwise) of it is important when it comes deciding whether to pity the Board for the deplorable and near-hopeless position they currently find themselves in... Or, conversely, that the (admittedly well-meaning) Board has brought much of the current crisis upon itself.

[dave.woodhall]

Whatever happened, they certainly didn't expect him to leave, which would indicate either breathtaking stupidity/naivety (which I certainly don't think they are) or duplicity on his part.

GOing back to the title of this thread - what more could we realistically expect from Randy?

[Mazrim]

The title of the thread is a disgrace? no it isn't. Its the title of a thread. It shapes what follows and the more tetchy the responses to a title the better the thread usually is as it gets people posting. The first thing we see when we come onto the forum are the titles and we'll scroll through the ones that look ess interesting to read the ones we think interest us.

'Shit or Get off the Pot' v 'Randy Lerner needs to spend more'

both mean the same thing but a lot of posters would just sigh and shrug at the latter and if it gets to page 5 or 6 may dip into the thread to see what people are saying. With the former everyone will express an emotive opinion on the title, author, the actual topic, and then it becomes a buzzing debate.

Stop being so touchy you lot that have maoned. The title is always designed to pull us in. Once there we can argue one way or t'other till the cows come home.

I just wouldn't want Randy to see it as its massively unfair on him. Whereas you'd delight in any affront to our American overlords eh?

Anyway, I've said my piece. No harm done. No hard feelings towards jonzy. I just didnt like the title and I'm entitled to say so. Also, I rarely complain about anything.

[Small Rodent]

People snap. People walk away from jobs at the most inopportune moments. It doesn't have to be planned.

I can't imagine there would be a solid plan B in place for someone walking. It doesn't work like that.

[hilts_coolerking]

GOing back to the title of this thread - what more could we realistically expect from Randy?

I don't think anyone could really expect him to have done more than he has over the last four years.  But the questions that need answering now are really about what he's intending to do over the next four years.  Obviously the appointment of the next manager will be a major indication of that.

[MoetVillan]

I dont like the title off this thread.  We have an owner who has invested heavily in the club and its infrastructure.  Get of the pot?  Have you got someone lined up to replace the pot sitter?  I dont think there is anyone out there.  I think it is a responsible attitude to try and sort the expenses out, I dont want to be in a Liverpool, Leeds etc position.  Liverpool are in shit, and they have a much more global brand than we have thanks to a more successful history and better direction in previous years than we have.  I wouldnt swap one thing with them today, first team player, owner, wage bill.  I am happy with how he is running things for us, as there seems a lot of sense and forsight going into things from where I look

[Chris Smith]

But an alternative reading would be that we just had no plan B – despite being aware of MON's volatility. As time goes on, I am increasingly persuaded that it is the latter, which begs the question of why were we not better prepared?

I posted a few weeks ago about how I thought the board would have a contingency plan is place, should we require a new manager. I was obviously wrong. That's not to say I'm panicing but I would hope and trust they'll learn from this sorry lesson.

I think there was a contingency plan in place - up until a month or so ago when Mark Hughes believed that MON was going to stay so decided to accept Fulham's offer. 

As someone else has said, would MON have gone if Hughes was still available?

Why would Hughes believe that there was likely to be a vacancy? Are you suggesting that our board sounded him out while O'Neill was still in the job? Pretty shitty thing to do if true.