Bruce Sacked at last (now official)

[Hookeysmith]

Bruce clearly has sorted out the car crash that we were when we came down.
He has overseen some good and some pretty bad signings - but all managers do

My issue is with the clear lack of tactical nous, not being able to stamp a football identity on the team and over relying on bridging the tactics / formation issues by heavily over using aging pro's

Hutton - he loves as he is quoted "no need to talk to him as he is up an at em"
Terry - cannot under estimate how much influence he had on the team last year
Whelan - old pro
Jedinak - as Whelan
Elmo - although not done badly he is never going to be a future player for us

I also agree with the poster above that since NSWE came here I feel the player recruitment selections have been taken away from SB as it must be clear as day that he would continue to go down a similar route

[Monty]

The trouble is, if we don’t go up this season, FFP will become even more of an issue next season. They’ve clearly been through the books and done what they can this year, but you can only do that once. Next year will be the first with no parachute payments at all and everything becomes even harder then.

Yep. We absolutely have to go up this season. My fear is that we've already blown it by retaining Bruce over the summer (not necessarily that Henry moment a fortnight before the season started, but before that). For us to change in the way we needed to we'll have needed a great manager to come in and do the pre-season - we all saw what not having a pre-season did the year we went down - and that will have already set the tone for this season.

I'm not sure chopping and changing will actually help at all now unless we really have a plan for instant succession that works out beautifully, so short of that I think we've pretty much got what we've got now. I just hope it's good enough.

I don't think we were in a position to get rid of Bruce in pre-season to be honest, especially before the takeover happened.  If the off the field turmoil had not happened, he should have gone in the immediate aftermath of the play off final defeat, but to borrow a great line from The Sopranos we couldn't "go into the unknown not knowing". 

I think the takeover happened too close to the season for a change to be made at that point, so he remained in position.  What concerns me most about the last few weeks is that the same problems  are cropping up that have been present throughout his time here.     

Yep, you may well be right. Had the takeover gone through a bit earlier it might have been more feasible to change things around, but yes, it was all far too close to the start of the season. Unless they had a really really good plan, and an absolute sure-thing (or close to it) lined up as successor, then sacking Bruce would've always looked like an excessively large risk.

[Damo70]

ftp://

Old dog and new tricks springs to mind

I don't think it is fair to blame Amanda Redman.

[tomd2103]

The trouble is, if we don’t go up this season, FFP will become even more of an issue next season. They’ve clearly been through the books and done what they can this year, but you can only do that once. Next year will be the first with no parachute payments at all and everything becomes even harder then.

Yep. We absolutely have to go up this season. My fear is that we've already blown it by retaining Bruce over the summer (not necessarily that Henry moment a fortnight before the season started, but before that). For us to change in the way we needed to we'll have needed a great manager to come in and do the pre-season - we all saw what not having a pre-season did the year we went down - and that will have already set the tone for this season.

I'm not sure chopping and changing will actually help at all now unless we really have a plan for instant succession that works out beautifully, so short of that I think we've pretty much got what we've got now. I just hope it's good enough.

I don't think we were in a position to get rid of Bruce in pre-season to be honest, especially before the takeover happened.  If the off the field turmoil had not happened, he should have gone in the immediate aftermath of the play off final defeat, but to borrow a great line from The Sopranos we couldn't "go into the unknown not knowing". 

I think the takeover happened too close to the season for a change to be made at that point, so he remained in position.  What concerns me most about the last few weeks is that the same problems  are cropping up that have been present throughout his time here.     

Yep, you may well be right. Had the takeover gone through a bit earlier it might have been more feasible to change things around, but yes, it was all far too close to the start of the season. Unless they had a really really good plan, and an absolute sure-thing (or close to it) lined up as successor, then sacking Bruce would've always looked like an excessively large risk.

I'm not sure a new appointment at that stage would have been a wise idea seeing as there wasn't (and seemingly still isn't) much in place at the club in terms of structure.  I hope building a cohesive and sustainable structure at the club is the number one priority of the new owners and feel the decision might have been made that appointing a new manager with no CEO or Director of Football in place was akin to putting the cart before the horse.  My guess is that they saw Bruce continuing as an interim option while those other appointments were made and if we were doing well by that point then all would be OK and Bruce would continue in the job.  If not, then the first job of the new people would be to look for a new manager.       

[dave.woodhall]

The trouble is, if we don’t go up this season, FFP will become even more of an issue next season. They’ve clearly been through the books and done what they can this year, but you can only do that once. Next year will be the first with no parachute payments at all and everything becomes even harder then.

Yep. We absolutely have to go up this season. My fear is that we've already blown it by retaining Bruce over the summer (not necessarily that Henry moment a fortnight before the season started, but before that). For us to change in the way we needed to we'll have needed a great manager to come in and do the pre-season - we all saw what not having a pre-season did the year we went down - and that will have already set the tone for this season.

I'm not sure chopping and changing will actually help at all now unless we really have a plan for instant succession that works out beautifully, so short of that I think we've pretty much got what we've got now. I just hope it's good enough.

I don't think we were in a position to get rid of Bruce in pre-season to be honest, especially before the takeover happened.  If the off the field turmoil had not happened, he should have gone in the immediate aftermath of the play off final defeat, but to borrow a great line from The Sopranos we couldn't "go into the unknown not knowing". 

I think the takeover happened too close to the season for a change to be made at that point, so he remained in position.  What concerns me most about the last few weeks is that the same problems  are cropping up that have been present throughout his time here.     

Yep, you may well be right. Had the takeover gone through a bit earlier it might have been more feasible to change things around, but yes, it was all far too close to the start of the season. Unless they had a really really good plan, and an absolute sure-thing (or close to it) lined up as successor, then sacking Bruce would've always looked like an excessively large risk.

I'm not sure a new appointment at that stage would have been a wise idea seeing as there wasn't (and seemingly still isn't) much in place at the club in terms of structure.  I hope building a cohesive and sustainable structure at the club is the number one priority of the new owners and feel the decision might have been made that appointing a new manager with no CEO or Director of Football in place was akin to putting the cart before the horse.  My guess is that they saw Bruce continuing as an interim option while those other appointments were made and if we were doing well by that point then all would be OK and Bruce would continue in the job.  If not, then the first job of the new people would be to look for a new manager.       

Which sounds fine to me.

[olaftab]

In over 1200 pages almost everything about this inadequate manager has been said many times over and despite failing badly he is still in place to fail again. Mind boggles.

[frank black]

In over 1200 pages almost everything about this inadequate manager has been said many times over and despite failing badly he is still in place to fail again. Mind boggles.

Because he turns it around, then let’s go of the steering wheel, gets shouted at and then turns it around again, then let’s go. Rinse and repeat.

Keep shouting for him to go and perhaps he won’t let go of the wheel. He’s never quite done enough wrong to be sacked.

[tomd2103]

The trouble is, if we don’t go up this season, FFP will become even more of an issue next season. They’ve clearly been through the books and done what they can this year, but you can only do that once. Next year will be the first with no parachute payments at all and everything becomes even harder then.

Yep. We absolutely have to go up this season. My fear is that we've already blown it by retaining Bruce over the summer (not necessarily that Henry moment a fortnight before the season started, but before that). For us to change in the way we needed to we'll have needed a great manager to come in and do the pre-season - we all saw what not having a pre-season did the year we went down - and that will have already set the tone for this season.

I'm not sure chopping and changing will actually help at all now unless we really have a plan for instant succession that works out beautifully, so short of that I think we've pretty much got what we've got now. I just hope it's good enough.

I don't think we were in a position to get rid of Bruce in pre-season to be honest, especially before the takeover happened.  If the off the field turmoil had not happened, he should have gone in the immediate aftermath of the play off final defeat, but to borrow a great line from The Sopranos we couldn't "go into the unknown not knowing". 

I think the takeover happened too close to the season for a change to be made at that point, so he remained in position.  What concerns me most about the last few weeks is that the same problems  are cropping up that have been present throughout his time here.     

Yep, you may well be right. Had the takeover gone through a bit earlier it might have been more feasible to change things around, but yes, it was all far too close to the start of the season. Unless they had a really really good plan, and an absolute sure-thing (or close to it) lined up as successor, then sacking Bruce would've always looked like an excessively large risk.

I'm not sure a new appointment at that stage would have been a wise idea seeing as there wasn't (and seemingly still isn't) much in place at the club in terms of structure.  I hope building a cohesive and sustainable structure at the club is the number one priority of the new owners and feel the decision might have been made that appointing a new manager with no CEO or Director of Football in place was akin to putting the cart before the horse.  My guess is that they saw Bruce continuing as an interim option while those other appointments were made and if we were doing well by that point then all would be OK and Bruce would continue in the job.  If not, then the first job of the new people would be to look for a new manager.       

Which sounds fine to me.

Absolutely and if that is the case, then it is understandable and a pretty sensible approach to be honest. 

[Monty]

I think it is sensible and defensible and all that. I only worry that, by sticking with a possibly inadequate Bruce, we sacrifice our chances of going up anyway. We'll have to see.

[jwarry]

I think it is sensible and defensible and all that. I only worry that, by sticking with a possibly inadequate Bruce, we sacrifice our chances of going up anyway. We'll have to see.

We will, and given where we were 4-5 weeks ago I’ll take that anytime!

[john e]

The trouble is, if we don’t go up this season, FFP will become even more of an issue next season. They’ve clearly been through the books and done what they can this year, but you can only do that once. Next year will be the first with no parachute payments at all and everything becomes even harder then.

Yep. We absolutely have to go up this season. My fear is that we've already blown it by retaining Bruce over the summer (not necessarily that Henry moment a fortnight before the season started, but before that). For us to change in the way we needed to we'll have needed a great manager to come in and do the pre-season - we all saw what not having a pre-season did the year we went down - and that will have already set the tone for this season.

I'm not sure chopping and changing will actually help at all now unless we really have a plan for instant succession that works out beautifully, so short of that I think we've pretty much got what we've got now. I just hope it's good enough.

I don't think we were in a position to get rid of Bruce in pre-season to be honest, especially before the takeover happened.  If the off the field turmoil had not happened, he should have gone in the immediate aftermath of the play off final defeat, but to borrow a great line from The Sopranos we couldn't "go into the unknown not knowing". 

I think the takeover happened too close to the season for a change to be made at that point, so he remained in position.  What concerns me most about the last few weeks is that the same problems  are cropping up that have been present throughout his time here.     

Yep, you may well be right. Had the takeover gone through a bit earlier it might have been more feasible to change things around, but yes, it was all far too close to the start of the season. Unless they had a really really good plan, and an absolute sure-thing (or close to it) lined up as successor, then sacking Bruce would've always looked like an excessively large risk.

I'm not sure a new appointment at that stage would have been a wise idea seeing as there wasn't (and seemingly still isn't) much in place at the club in terms of structure.  I hope building a cohesive and sustainable structure at the club is the number one priority of the new owners and feel the decision might have been made that appointing a new manager with no CEO or Director of Football in place was akin to putting the cart before the horse.  My guess is that they saw Bruce continuing as an interim option while those other appointments were made and if we were doing well by that point then all would be OK and Bruce would continue in the job.  If not, then the first job of the new people would be to look for a new manager.       

i agree
but i suppose the difference is how people define 'doing well'

already in the past we have seen how Bruce is doing is quite acceptable to some on here and not to others

my point earlier is that i believe the new owners will set the bar for 'doing well' far higher than it has been in the past and that constant excuses we hear from the manager and here on the forum will not be acceptable to the new regime

to put it bluntly i don't think Bruce is capable of delivering what they will be looking for long term there or thereabouts, a shot at promotion through the play offs with no building plan for the next level will not be good enough

that's why i believe he's an interim manager and no more now, i know you can say all managers are interim but not all are as temporary as Mr Bruce is right now..................imo..............but time will tell i suppose

[Hookeysmith]

The simple measure and fact is this

Up till Saturday he clung onto the 2pts average per game - he has now slipped behind.

Lose on Saturday (which I think we may) and it will be going into the break played 6  / 9pts so already 3 pts behind - it then gets harder to get back on track

2 years on and same mistakes being made

[dave.woodhall]

Looking at it as objectively as possible and from all angles, I think it would be easier to get rid of a manager after two months if he's into his third season and he's not too popular than it would be to admit you've ballsed up so early with, for the sake of argument, Thierry Henry.

[paul_e]

If (and it's a big one) Bruce gets 1-2 more loans in of the right type (a left back and, if he won't use tuanzebe there, a centre back) then the squad come the weekend will be in a better place than it was when they decided to stick with him (and therefore better than a new manager would've had) so the decision will be justified for me because I'd rather a new guy come in with a fairly complete squad but 6-7 points off the pace than come in with huge gaps and very little time to fix them whilst also assessing current players and setting up training, etc.

I think the attacking players in the squad are good enough that we could easily go on a run of 15+ without defeat so I'm not massively worried about a small gap, I just can't imagine us being outside the top 10 so I think the jump to get at least the playoffs will be manageable for a decent manager.

[Mister E]

Looking at it as objectively as possible and from all angles, I think it would be easier to get rid of a manager after two months if he's into his third season and he's not too popular than it would be to admit you've ballsed up so early with, for the sake of argument, Thierry Henry.

Good point, well made.
I'm definitely an opponent of the current manager but timing has worked against us over the last 3 months and - as Dave has said above, and tom123 has also said - we are where we are because of circumstances. The true test comes when the new investors realise that they have to offload - will they get the timing and the choice of new manager right? And, are they waiting for a CEO to be put in place first?