Bruce Sacked at last (now official)

[sickbeggar]

If you employ a manager to get you promoted because that's what he's known for and its his major (only?) plus point at the time of his appointment, then what you do when that's no longer relevant is probably worth discussing.

[paul_e]

It’s possible to have commentary about the managerial history of Steve Bruce specific to player acquisition without it being immediately perceived as a criticism of him. All managers buy players that don’t work out or spend money that ends up being a waste. Heck we saw it up close with MON.

As it relates to our current manager he is likely to be the one identifying players accompanied by a significant budget if we do go up. I just hope that his eye for talent has improved. But that also goes for the people around him starting with Wyness and Round.

The other relevance is that what he did that summer is very similar to what he did with us last January.  Currently 2 of his signings from that window have found some form and aren't high on the 'get rid list' but before that we had nearly a year where the only signing he made in that window who looked to be an upgrade on what we had was Hourihane.  If his signings are of the same scattergun nature in the summer (if we're promoted) then it will be very relevant.  Those aren't the only 2 windows where he's had a bit of cash and has decided to throw it around and then work out what to do with the squad later.

[SoccerHQ]

I'm not comfortable at all with the view of sacking him if we went up. It basically means binning him on the basis of the work he did elsewhere, which given the resources and history of the clubs it's hugely debatable if he can be considered to have failed.

Yes it worked for Southampton, but they were chucking someone who had only previously managed Scunthorpe and was a physio before that. It's not the same here.

Actually happened at Watford, Jokanovic got them up, couldn't agree a contract extension and they got Quique in.

My main view for most of his tenure here is I back him while we're in this division as despite they style of play we're getting plenty of wins now. I however wouldn't want SB managing us in the prem for various reasons.

It will be a decision that will hint properly at what sort of owner Xia is I think. He gives me the impression once we're back in the prem they'll be no time to waste and he won't be wanting us to just have seasons when we're desperately trying to stay up like our last few seasons in there.

[SoccerHQ]

The problem is that in those examples the years where he's got relegated (2 and he was taking Sunderland down just as much as Lambert was taking us down) they tend to be the ones where he's spent big money.

My biggest issue was always that if he got us promoted he'd probably not last out the first season and we'd be left finding someone to sort things out with a squad full of Bruce signings that would be tough to replace.  It's the same reason why we were fucked after MON because we had very few players who could play anything other than the style he'd gone with and far too many players towards the end of their career on big money.  We've fucked up 1 chance at establishing ourselves near the top by giving the wrong man too much rope and I don't want us to make the same mistake again.

If you look at Steve Bruce's record at clubs in the premier league his best results tend to be when he doesn't have a huge amount of money to spend.

Think of that SHA team that beat us twice in 2002-03. Yes they added Dugarry and Upson mid season but basically their star signing that summer was Robbie Savage.

The team they went down with had Heskey, Gronkjaer and Melchiot as key players.

Sunderland were doing fine and then we got Bent off them. They spent the 18m on Connor Wickham, Craig Gardner and Wes Brown and they were in terrible form when he was sacked.

Had a great first season at Hull, stayed up and got to the cup final. That summer Hull spent 40m on Michael Dawson, Snodgrass, Abel Hernandez and Jake Livermore.

They were relegated at the end of the season.

There is nothing in his record to suggest if we give him 50-60m he'll sign significantly better quality than what we have now.

[manic-road]

It’s possible to have commentary about the managerial history of Steve Bruce specific to player acquisition without it being immediately perceived as a criticism of him. All managers buy players that don’t work out or spend money that ends up being a waste. Heck we saw it up close with MON.

As it relates to our current manager he is likely to be the one identifying players accompanied by a significant budget if we do go up. I just hope that his eye for talent has improved. But that also goes for the people around him starting with Wyness and Round.

The other relevance is that what he did that summer is very similar to what he did with us last January.  Currently 2 of his signings from that window have found some form and aren't high on the 'get rid list' but before that we had nearly a year where the only signing he made in that window who looked to be an upgrade on what we had was Hourihane.  If his signings are of the same scattergun nature in the summer (if we're promoted) then it will be very relevant.  Those aren't the only 2 windows where he's had a bit of cash and has decided to throw it around and then work out what to do with the squad later.

Paul e I don't know if your being serious or on a wind up but can you explain in more detail this "scattergun" approach on transfers. I know you have been banging on and on and on and on and on and on and on that you don't want Bruce but at the moment he is getting results and if he gets us promoted that will be the first stage completed. All managers make good and poor signings but I don't get the comment about a scattergun approach in signings.
Terry has been an excellent signing, Johnson looks solid in goal, Snoddy has been doing the business I know you find it hard at the moment to knock him for results so you are trying to find another reason for finding fault. So could you please explain in detail the scattergun approach? I didn't expect many signings to be completed in the January transfer window but a striker as back up was needed and a striker is what he got in, hardly a scattergun approach.

[Clampy]

It’s possible to have commentary about the managerial history of Steve Bruce specific to player acquisition without it being immediately perceived as a criticism of him. All managers buy players that don’t work out or spend money that ends up being a waste. Heck we saw it up close with MON.

As it relates to our current manager he is likely to be the one identifying players accompanied by a significant budget if we do go up. I just hope that his eye for talent has improved. But that also goes for the people around him starting with Wyness and Round.

The other relevance is that what he did that summer is very similar to what he did with us last January.  Currently 2 of his signings from that window have found some form and aren't high on the 'get rid list' but before that we had nearly a year where the only signing he made in that window who looked to be an upgrade on what we had was Hourihane.  If his signings are of the same scattergun nature in the summer (if we're promoted) then it will be very relevant.  Those aren't the only 2 windows where he's had a bit of cash and has decided to throw it around and then work out what to do with the squad later.

Paul e I don't know if your being serious or on a wind up but can you explain in more detail this "scattergun" approach on transfers. I know you have been banging on and on and on and on and on and on and on that you don't want Bruce but at the moment he is getting results and if he gets us promoted that will be the first stage completed. All managers make good and poor signings but I don't get the comment about a scattergun approach in signings.
Terry has been an excellent signing, Johnson looks solid in goal, Snoddy has been doing the business I know you find it hard at the moment to knock him for results so you are trying to find another reason for finding fault. So could you please explain in detail the scattergun approach? I didn't expect many signings to be completed in the January transfer window but a striker as back up was needed and a striker is what he got in, hardly a scattergun approach.

I think the short answer to that is, some people don't like possibly being wrong

[Toronto Villa]

What’s being questioned by some isn’t his record in the Championship. We all know he’s been successful. What is less certain is how he will do in the PL? How will he spend the money that will be given to him? And given his past at that level it has never ended well.

[manic-road]

What’s being questioned by some isn’t his record in the Championship. We all know he’s been successful. What is less certain is how he will do in the PL? How will he spend the money that will be given to him? And given his past at that level it has never ended well.

Yeah because with the vast sums available to him at Wigan, Hull and Blues he should have been challenging for Champions League I see your point.

[sickbeggar]

Technically we've already been proved right. Bruce was brought in to get us up last season, as that was the main reason for getting rid of RDM stated on here by many at the time. Just because he was given another go, doesn't change that.

[paul_e]

It’s possible to have commentary about the managerial history of Steve Bruce specific to player acquisition without it being immediately perceived as a criticism of him. All managers buy players that don’t work out or spend money that ends up being a waste. Heck we saw it up close with MON.

As it relates to our current manager he is likely to be the one identifying players accompanied by a significant budget if we do go up. I just hope that his eye for talent has improved. But that also goes for the people around him starting with Wyness and Round.

The other relevance is that what he did that summer is very similar to what he did with us last January.  Currently 2 of his signings from that window have found some form and aren't high on the 'get rid list' but before that we had nearly a year where the only signing he made in that window who looked to be an upgrade on what we had was Hourihane.  If his signings are of the same scattergun nature in the summer (if we're promoted) then it will be very relevant.  Those aren't the only 2 windows where he's had a bit of cash and has decided to throw it around and then work out what to do with the squad later.

Paul e I don't know if your being serious or on a wind up but can you explain in more detail this "scattergun" approach on transfers. I know you have been banging on and on and on and on and on and on and on that you don't want Bruce but at the moment he is getting results and if he gets us promoted that will be the first stage completed. All managers make good and poor signings but I don't get the comment about a scattergun approach in signings.
Terry has been an excellent signing, Johnson looks solid in goal, Snoddy has been doing the business I know you find it hard at the moment to knock him for results so you are trying to find another reason for finding fault. So could you please explain in detail the scattergun approach? I didn't expect many signings to be completed in the January transfer window but a striker as back up was needed and a striker is what he got in, hardly a scattergun approach.

It's simple really, last January we all agreed we needed a central midfielder or 2 and a goalkeeper.  He signed 3 central midfielders (but seemingly didn't realise one was a central player until the last month) a keeper on loan, a striker, a right back and a left back.  He then followed that up in the summer by signing another right back, 2 centre backs, 2 more central midfielders and a right winger.  For months he couldn't really work out how to put them all together.  and we looked like a team that 'needed to gel' which is really just a team that doesn't seem to have been put together with a plan in mind.  In the championship it works ok but, as SoccerHQ detailed, whenever he's done this in the Premier league he's either been relegated or sacked.

Oh and of course I'm serious, all along I've said that I see Bruce as a risk because of the chance of him leaving us in a similar state to when Houllier took over from MON where we're paying over the odds for players with no resale value and not enough technical ability to play a different style.  As for banging on I've merely shared opinions which are that the only reason for having Bruce is to get promoted and if we ever looked like that might not happen then he became pointless.  Right now we're on a bit of a high, and if he keeps it going I'm happy (which I've said a few times) but if we have another run of 4-5 games without a win before the end of the season then I'll be pissed off again.

[rob_bridge]

The problem is that in those examples the years where he's got relegated (2 and he was taking Sunderland down just as much as Lambert was taking us down) they tend to be the ones where he's spent big money.

My biggest issue was always that if he got us promoted he'd probably not last out the first season and we'd be left finding someone to sort things out with a squad full of Bruce signings that would be tough to replace.  It's the same reason why we were fucked after MON because we had very few players who could play anything other than the style he'd gone with and far too many players towards the end of their career on big money.  We've fucked up 1 chance at establishing ourselves near the top by giving the wrong man too much rope and I don't want us to make the same mistake again.

Correct and he splurged a fair amount in his 2 transfer windows in Villa and only now is team looking like a cohesive unit.

If you look at Steve Bruce's record at clubs in the premier league his best results tend to be when he doesn't have a huge amount of money to spend.

Think of that SHA team that beat us twice in 2002-03. Yes they added Dugarry and Upson mid season but basically their star signing that summer was Robbie Savage.

The team they went down with had Heskey, Gronkjaer and Melchiot as key players.

Sunderland were doing fine and then we got Bent off them. They spent the 18m on Connor Wickham, Craig Gardner and Wes Brown and they were in terrible form when he was sacked.

Had a great first season at Hull, stayed up and got to the cup final. That summer Hull spent 40m on Michael Dawson, Snodgrass, Abel Hernandez and Jake Livermore.

They were relegated at the end of the season.

There is nothing in his record to suggest if we give him 50-60m he'll sign significantly better quality than what we have now.

[Clampy]

We are a point off a promotion place are we not?

[four fornicholl]

If we get £100 million to spend next season, I wouldn't have thought Pep or Steve would be poles apart.

[sickbeggar]

12months late

[paul_e]

I think the short answer to that is, some people don't like possibly being wrong

Another valuable contribution clampy.  I guess now I should throw a strop and say it's only my opinion and I'm entitled to it and I don't have to justify it to you.

What’s being questioned by some isn’t his record in the Championship. We all know he’s been successful. What is less certain is how he will do in the PL? How will he spend the money that will be given to him? And given his past at that level it has never ended well.

Yeah because with the vast sums available to him at Wigan, Hull and Blues he should have been challenging for Champions League I see your point.

Except literally no one has said anything of the sort.  What people have said is that he has form for taking a midtable squad, spending big money (comparitively) and turning them into relegation candidates. All the Bruce supporters, when we were doing poorly, fell back on the 4 promotions argument as if it was the answer to everything but when the 2 relegations and a sacking get brought up we apparently shouldn't talk about it.