It worries me that each appointment seems to be the opposite of the previous one.Even if Garde is the wrong guy, they should have a strategy and stick to it.
Quote from: dutchvilla on March 21, 2016, 11:55:53 AMIt worries me that each appointment seems to be the opposite of the previous one.Even if Garde is the wrong guy, they should have a strategy and stick to it.Very much so. The lurch from wanting Martinez to wanting his polar opposite in McLeish over the course of a summer still boggles the mind.However, if there were any point that a complete change in direction could be justified it would probably be now - as it's completely different people making the decisions and coming up with the strategy (sic).
Quote from: django on March 21, 2016, 01:08:28 AMHe didn't get the team playing with a coherent plan that gave us a chance to win games. Our players are limited of course but league two teams in the cups give teams more of a game than we have under Garde.What type of game have we played under him? What's the plan been?In answer to the thread question, not soon enough. A terrible appointment.Maybe the right guy for taking over from an Allardyce or O'Neil who had levelled out in mid table, but not the guy to take over when he did. Which is what I thought when we appointed him and sadly what I think now.He had never been manager of a team in that situation, in any league. Plus he had to adapt to a new league, and do it all without his assistants, while managing a team who barely knew each other. A massive job, and he wasn't up to it. Nothing in his CV really suggested he would be.Well yes he did, before the liverpool game we'd had a run of decent results that if we'd managed to keep going we'd be within a couple of points of safety now, the Liverpool game broke him and us for this season.
He didn't get the team playing with a coherent plan that gave us a chance to win games. Our players are limited of course but league two teams in the cups give teams more of a game than we have under Garde.What type of game have we played under him? What's the plan been?In answer to the thread question, not soon enough. A terrible appointment.Maybe the right guy for taking over from an Allardyce or O'Neil who had levelled out in mid table, but not the guy to take over when he did. Which is what I thought when we appointed him and sadly what I think now.He had never been manager of a team in that situation, in any league. Plus he had to adapt to a new league, and do it all without his assistants, while managing a team who barely knew each other. A massive job, and he wasn't up to it. Nothing in his CV really suggested he would be.
Mr Hollis is having his lunch in the staff canteen. He has a compromise agreement for signature on his desk for when he gets back.
I'd like a manager who can manage this team with a baseball bat full of nine inch nails
Quote from: Des Little on March 21, 2016, 11:15:58 AMI'd like a manager who can manage this team with a baseball bat full of nine inch nailsPearson it is then...
According to Talkbollocks this morning, they said Pearson was more or less a done deal!!
Quote from: kippaxvilla2 on March 21, 2016, 12:25:40 PMMr Hollis is having his lunch in the staff canteen. He has a compromise agreement for signature on his desk for when he gets back.The Government has decreed that we must call them "Settlement Agreements" these days as they said the previous name put people off because they did not want to be seen to be "compromising", which is not something any client had ever suggested to me in practice, ever.
Please don't start with the Bob Bradley thing again - someone from the club mediamight spot it on here and think it is a good idea way to wind us up.