Bruce Sacked at last (now official)

[Rigadon]

People keep saying he 'failed' and I understand why.  I do also remember that the club was shambolic when he arrived.  It's going to be a very tough season ahead, so more uncertainty is not required.

[Mister E]

People keep saying he 'failed' and I understand why.  I do also remember that the club was shambolic when he arrived.  It's going to be a very tough season ahead, so more uncertainty is not required.

But isn’t it the job of Steve Round to maintain stability at the club, even if we are changing manager? I thought that was the point of having a de facto Director of Football.

[john e]

People keep saying he 'failed' and I understand why.  I do also remember that the club was shambolic when he arrived.  It's going to be a very tough season ahead, so more uncertainty is not required.

shambolic when he arrived more shambolic now

[ChicagoLion]

People keep saying he 'failed' and I understand why.  I do also remember that the club was shambolic when he arrived.  It's going to be a very tough season ahead, so more uncertainty is not required.

shambolic when he arrived more shambolic now

That’s stability that is.

[cheltenhamlion]

Round is the Director of Football. No de facto about it. So if we pot Bruce he needs to earn his corn.

[Clampy]

People keep saying he 'failed' and I understand why.  I do also remember that the club was shambolic when he arrived.  It's going to be a very tough season ahead, so more uncertainty is not required.

shambolic when he arrived more shambolic now

More shambolic off the field maybe.

[Risso]

Shambolic on the field too.  Even without the complete finanical meltdown we're currently experiencing, things would still be a right state off it.  All the loan players are going back, leaving us without key players like Snodgrass, Terry and Johnstone etc, and the majority of the kids who will be expected to replace them completely unprepared for regular league football due to Bruce's reluctance to give them any sort of run out last season.  We have no decent striker worthy of the name, and shite like Hogan costing a fortune in wages while contributing next to nothing.

[john e]

People keep saying he 'failed' and I understand why.  I do also remember that the club was shambolic when he arrived.  It's going to be a very tough season ahead, so more uncertainty is not required.

shambolic when he arrived more shambolic now

More shambolic off the field maybe.

yeah because its all worked out well on the pitch

[Clampy]

People keep saying he 'failed' and I understand why.  I do also remember that the club was shambolic when he arrived.  It's going to be a very tough season ahead, so more uncertainty is not required.

shambolic when he arrived more shambolic now

More shambolic off the field maybe.

yeah because its all worked out well on the pitch

I'm comparing it to the three games we won and the 27 games we lost when we went down. It's been better than that I think.

[Drummond]

So for those who definitely think we need to ditch Bruce, how long would you give the next manager? If we don't get promoted next season should they get another?

For those that think he should stay, how long should we give him until we sack him?


I'm genuinely interested because this is the probably the closest split in opinion we've had for a long time.

[paul_e]

So for those who definitely think we need to ditch Bruce, how long would you give the next manager? If we don't get promoted next season should they get another?

For those that think he should stay, how long should we give him until we sack him?

I'm genuinely interested because this is the probably the closest split in opinion we've had for a long time.

I want him gone and I'd start with a 2 years 'plan' with the next guy. The reason I'd be looking at 2 years is because if you go less than that then you're still thinking season to season in which case we might as well stick with bruce because we won't have learned anything from all the shit we've suffered. If the first season sees us bringing the age of the squad down and working on getting youngsters integrated into the squad then I'm ok with us not being in the race but the 2nd season would need to show the benefits of it and see us right in with a chance of the automatic spots.  The problem is that we've made this more difficult for ourselves by wasting the years where we had 'spare' funds on quick fix solutions that have made things worse.

[Boz]

Where did this 3 million pay-off figure come from ?

If Bruce didn't have a clause in his contract regarding failure to secure promotion, then add that criminal naivety to the board's list of heinous acts. Surely even our numpties inserted a minimal or zero pay-off clause in if we didn't go up.

I thought football was a results based business and Bruce has failed, even if at the last hurdle, therefore an airman's farewell is called for. 

I'm not sure many managers would agree to that clause to be honest, so that's a bit harsh on the club.

[ROBBO]

Another season of playing not to lose if we stick with Bruce and you can hear the excuses now, it was one thing last season to play like that when we had the quality to get promoted but I don't fancy watching it when we're aiming for middle of the table.

[john e]

So for those who definitely think we need to ditch Bruce, how long would you give the next manager? If we don't get promoted next season should they get another?

For those that think he should stay, how long should we give him until we sack him?


I'm genuinely interested because this is the probably the closest split in opinion we've had for a long time.

ill give you my thoughts for what they are worth

i never agreed with the promotion or bust policy, i know that's not what it was called but that's what it became

i never wanted Bruce or in fact anyone like him because they don't build anything that lasts or can keep being improved on

i could accept a season or three in the Championship if i could see something being built that had a future,
 maybe a better playing style that the whole club bought into, better use of younger players who could improve season on season,
basically something that looked like it was going somewhere
iv'e never felt that under Bruce, it has always been older experienced players bought in either on loan or signed to try and get us over the line but even then nothing really sustainable

we are left to start again, with mainly poor to average buys and no foundation to work from,
and that has always been my biggest criticism of Bruce

i would be looking in a new manager to build and develop a style of play with what we have and including the younger players, bring them on and get them playing more attacking football (we probably have no choice now)

i just want to go and see Villa play and at least be able to see some sort of plan for the future developing, its not that hard, other clubs do it, even Fulham who didn't go up last year but had something going on to build on and work with this season whereas we didn't

for me if a new manager doesn't look like he's getting anywhere not just results wise but general performance and bringing the best out of players wise, then he goes, until you get one that can or you just end up propping failing managers who stay to long and make things worse the longer they stay (Lambert and Bruce)

 you can generally see which way its going after a season and a couple of windows sometimes a lot sooner

i know its probably not answered your question well enough
but that' where i am with the whole show at the moment

 

[ChicagoLion]

Completely agree John e.
Hanging on to a manager for “ stability” as opposed to the interests of the club is just nonsense.
We have to start rebuilding the football side of the club and that will ever happen under Bruce.