Bruce Sacked at last (now official)

[KevinGage]

How about Henry with Wenger as mentor?

Why Henry? Of all the people in the World what has he done in management to suggest he should be chosen?

It would basically be our version of Blose's Zola appointment but with fewer qualifications for the job.

It amazes me how easily some are impressed just because a big name is linked with us, regardless of his credentials. For such a big club, some of our supporters can be very small-time. Witness the abysmal "John Terry, he's won more than you" cringefest for another example.

Agreed (though Zola did have promising stints in his favour at West Ham and Watford in his favour).

Henry would be a complete fanboy decision.

[nigel]

How about Henry with Wenger as mentor?

Why Henry? Of all the people in the World what has he done in management to suggest he should be chosen?

It would basically be our version of Blose's Zola appointment but with fewer qualifications for the job.

It amazes me how easily some are impressed just because a big name is linked with us, regardless of his credentials. For such a big club, some of our supporters can be very small-time. Witness the abysmal "John Terry, he's won more than you" cringefest for another example.

I'm far from being for Henry, as I agree that he might be to inexperienced for the role, but, I'm all for thinking outside the box, so to speak.
Who, if SB left, would you, realistically, go for?

[Brassneck]

I think that Henry is a "Xia" type of appointment, not that of 2 experienced billionaires.

It could well be that one of the other interested parties/consortiums had Henry in mind.

That's probably put the kiss of death on it so you can all blame me if Henry now happens.

[Behind Bluenose Lines]

Apparently Steve is meeting the new co-owners on Wednesday, according to Talksport.

[David_Nab]

Daily Star main Headline on tomorrows paper is Henry to take over ...

[nigel]

I don't want him because it's yet another gamble.  At a time when we seem to have decent people in charge with the opportunity to builds something, I would prefer to have someone in charge who knows this league, has some experience of management of a big club with difficult expectations.  Being black, French, ex-Arsenal or a complete twat has nothing to do with it.  He's a risk, he's a circus waiting to happen and I would prefer the cameras to be on the team and not on the manager.

Nearly all appointments are a gamble, though.
Saunders was a gamble, Barton was a gamble, Even Graham Taylor was a bit of a gamble as he'd got no big club experience.

Man U even gambled on keeping Fergie during his first couple of seasons as they weren't doing much.

Sometimes it works other times not so.

[Steve67]

Nigel, I think there is also taking it to the extreme too though mate.  You're totally correct, every appointment is a gamble but I hope that we appoint someone more capable, experienced etc.  Just my thoughts. If he does take over, I hope he has the ability, otherwise it's more wasted time in this division.

[andyh]

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1021507724289433600?s=21

[PeterWithesShin]

[PeterWithesShin]

Nearly all appointments are a gamble, though.
Saunders was a gamble, Barton was a gamble, Even Graham Taylor was a bit of a gamble as he'd got no big club experience.

Man U even gambled on keeping Fergie during his first couple of seasons as they weren't doing much.

Sometimes it works other times not so.

Every managerial appointment is a gamble. Taking on someone whose only experience is a couple of years as a part time assistant is making it a massive gamble. The others you mention were a lot less of a gamble, although if the internet had been around in '74 it would have probably gone into meltdown about Super Ron.

[dave.woodhall]

I don't want him because it's yet another gamble.  At a time when we seem to have decent people in charge with the opportunity to builds something, I would prefer to have someone in charge who knows this league, has some experience of management of a big club with difficult expectations.  Being black, French, ex-Arsenal or a complete twat has nothing to do with it.  He's a risk, he's a circus waiting to happen and I would prefer the cameras to be on the team and not on the manager.

Nearly all appointments are a gamble, though.
Saunders was a gamble, Barton was a gamble, Even Graham Taylor was a bit of a gamble as he'd got no big club experience.

Man U even gambled on keeping Fergie during his first couple of seasons as they weren't doing much.

Sometimes it works other times not so.

Saunders had got a team promoted two seasons earlier and got to two consecutive cup finals. Barton was the most respected figure amongst the players. Taylor was one of the two or three most highly-regarded managers in the country. And one of the greatest myths in football is that Ferguson did nothing at the start with Manchester United. In his first full season they finished runners-up, in his second they were eleventh and in his third they won the FA Cup. None of them were a gamble on the level of appointing a man who has never so much as managed a pub team.

[Steve67]

I really cannot see this happening.  Removing Bruce, yes, maybe.  Appointing Henry?  No.

[Matt Collins]

Nearly all appointments are a gamble, though.
Saunders was a gamble, Barton was a gamble, Even Graham Taylor was a bit of a gamble as he'd got no big club experience.

Man U even gambled on keeping Fergie during his first couple of seasons as they weren't doing much.

Sometimes it works other times not so.

Every managerial appointment is a gamble. Taking on someone whose only experience is a couple of years as a part time assistant is making it a massive gamble. The others you mention were a lot less of a gamble, although if the internet had been around in '74 it would have probably gone into meltdown about Super Ron.

The point about gambling is that each bet has different odds

Replacing the manager with Henry 2 weeks before the season starts when we need to sell X of players  strikes me as a big gamble

[ozzjim]

I don't want him because it's yet another gamble.  At a time when we seem to have decent people in charge with the opportunity to builds something, I would prefer to have someone in charge who knows this league, has some experience of management of a big club with difficult expectations.  Being black, French, ex-Arsenal or a complete twat has nothing to do with it.  He's a risk, he's a circus waiting to happen and I would prefer the cameras to be on the team and not on the manager.

Nearly all appointments are a gamble, though.
Saunders was a gamble, Barton was a gamble, Even Graham Taylor was a bit of a gamble as he'd got no big club experience.

Man U even gambled on keeping Fergie during his first couple of seasons as they weren't doing much.

Sometimes it works other times not so.

Saunders had got a team promoted two seasons earlier and got to two consecutive cup finals. Barton was the most respected figure amongst the players. Taylor was one of the two or three most highly-regarded managers in the country. And one of the greatest myths in football is that Ferguson did nothing at the start with Manchester United. In his first full season they finished runners-up, in his second they were eleventh and in his third they won the FA Cup. None of them were a gamble on the level of appointing a man who has never so much as managed a pub team.

How many truly outstanding forwards go on to be outstanding managers. Long held theory of mine that they get frustrated that the players can't do what they could, and never truly get the best out of them. Henry would be the biggest gamble ever. RDM had at least won a champions league and been promoted. Right now Melberg is a better bet than Henry because he has at least managed. Henry would need a really top assistant and a very good coaching team.

[Steve67]

Good post Jim.  If he comes with that team in place with him, then maybe. But I agree with you, way too much of a gamble and I suspect he will have to wait for Bruce to screw up later in the season before Henry gets his chance.