|
|
Post by Sfance on Oct 2, 2019 0:26:41 GMT
Wow! Holy cow!!!!! I had not seen that before. No wonder we're in the shit. Not only does it seem like John Coates is several brain cells short of a full set, but Scholes' body language suggests that he thinks the same thing. Fascinating! |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 2, 2019 0:29:56 GMT
Wow! Holy cow!!!!! I had not seen that before. No wonder we're in the shit. Not only does it seem like John Coates is several brain cells short of a full set, but Scholes' body language suggests that he thinks the same thing. Fascinating! Yeah. It's not surprising we are where we are after you've watched that. JC needs to go play golf or whatever makes him tick and leave business matters to people who know what they're doing. |
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Oct 2, 2019 0:52:59 GMT
Why? They tried an up an coming young manager with Rowett but it didn’t work out, with Rowett talking himself out of a job, they then went for another up and coming young manager that was hungry for success with a good although not long managerial record, he came with the promise of a new attacking attractive style of football. He’s tried his best but alas it’s just not good enough. The owners have given him time to turn things around and he can’t, so it’s back to the drawing board and back to fishing in a pool of managers that have a mixed bag of success behind them. Who they’ll go for is anyone’s guess at the moment; will they go with the cheapest option or pay what’s needed to land the right man for the job? Gouranga.  Albert. We’re all disappointed and emotions are running high. I’m as disappointed as the next man and can quite fairly ask questions of the family. You’re absolutely right by questioning the vitriol from some on social media |
|
|
|
Post by santy on Oct 2, 2019 1:19:08 GMT
I don't particularly understand what there is to question. The only time it comes to question owners is when you think they're doing something similar to Blackpool, such as with asset stripping or in other situations where the owners are in some way or another out for themselves. Bolton, Portsmouth and so on have had these instances.
In our situation, in some ways the worst thing of all is that there isn't any malicious owner to blame it on. There isn't any carefree just trying to eke out a few quid owning a club. The issue is there are people behind the scenes making decisions they believe will work, but aren't working out.
You can make the argument that they should be replaced, but when you consider that replacement comes with an approximate £200m of additional expense or relying on tremendous goodwill to just write that off you're on very precarious ground. The only precedent I can think of for writing off substantial debts any complying with FFP is post-selling the club like the previous Bolton owner did. Hardly fixed their problems because they had external debt, which any individual who could potentially take over could leverage against the club.
People bring up that stuff about self-sufficiency to beat the owners with, never realising it was a long term aim for the club and not an immediate thing. It always had to be the goal, but there's only one level in football which that is attainable and that's in the premier league. These bizarre theories of "its cheaper" to run a championship club etc are just mental. Might as well go outside with your spirit level on the road and using it as proof the world is flat.
It's a shit situation, and everyone has their opinion on how to put it right (just like everyone had an opinion on how we should progress after each success in previous years) but there's only one set of owners who have expressed an interest in trying to do it at Stoke with serious amounts of money. If you want to see a club turn viciously on its owners, can't we just wait another year or so for Vale to begin their cycle anew?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 2, 2019 2:29:56 GMT
I don't particularly understand what there is to question. The only time it comes to question owners is when you think they're doing something similar to Blackpool, such as with asset stripping or in other situations where the owners are in some way or another out for themselves. Bolton, Portsmouth and so on have had these instances. In our situation, in some ways the worst thing of all is that there isn't any malicious owner to blame it on. There isn't any carefree just trying to eke out a few quid owning a club. The issue is there are people behind the scenes making decisions they believe will work, but aren't working out. You can make the argument that they should be replaced, but when you consider that replacement comes with an approximate £200m of additional expense or relying on tremendous goodwill to just write that off you're on very precarious ground. The only precedent I can think of for writing off substantial debts any complying with FFP is post-selling the club like the previous Bolton owner did. Hardly fixed their problems because they had external debt, which any individual who could potentially take over could leverage against the club. People bring up that stuff about self-sufficiency to beat the owners with, never realising it was a long term aim for the club and not an immediate thing. It always had to be the goal, but there's only one level in football which that is attainable and that's in the premier league. These bizarre theories of "its cheaper" to run a championship club etc are just mental. Might as well go outside with your spirit level on the road and using it as proof the world is flat. It's a shit situation, and everyone has their opinion on how to put it right (just like everyone had an opinion on how we should progress after each success in previous years) but there's only one set of owners who have expressed an interest in trying to do it at Stoke with serious amounts of money. If you want to see a club turn viciously on its owners, can't we just wait another year or so for Vale to begin their cycle anew? Hmmm ... it doesn't have to be as black and white as that does it? How about some middle ground and a little bit of humility? Yeah I'm an incredibly wealthy owner of a football club that I love to bits but do those two things in themselves, make me actually qualified to run it? If I'm honest with myself, I've been making a bit of a pig ears of it lately and that's not for want of trying or any lack of passion but hey, maybe I should employ one or two people (a chairman and a director of football?) to get on with it, whilst I take my seat in the stands (and not do much more)? I still own the thing of course. |
|
|
|
Post by santy on Oct 2, 2019 3:03:52 GMT
So, as a result of failing trust in the owners to hire someone who can get the job done. The owners should be trusted to hire someone to hire someone to get the job done?
If you've lost faith in the process that leads to the selection of managers, why would you have faith that the same people making decisions about who to hire for this new role would be successful? It actually is quite black and white, because what you're suggesting still requires faith they get that decision right.
I can see the angle, but if you don't believe the owners are presently capable of making the correct decision then why would you believe they would make the right decision in this regard? You'd also be looking in a significantly smaller pool because there aren't too many football club ready chairmen you can go out and recruit. It's also something of a very hollow position unless you pass over an awful lot of the legal responsibilities to the club to this person. I don't know the exact details but in such a situation wasn't it the reason that Liverpool ended up being sold out from underneath their owners? It'd be such a massive risk to take from the perspective of the Coates family.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 2, 2019 3:35:37 GMT
So, as a result of failing trust in the owners to hire someone who can get the job done. The owners should be trusted to hire someone to hire someone to get the job done? If you've lost faith in the process that leads to the selection of managers, why would you have faith that the same people making decisions about who to hire for this new role would be successful? It actually is quite black and white, because what you're suggesting still requires faith they get that decision right. I can see the angle, but if you don't believe the owners are presently capable of making the correct decision then why would you believe they would make the right decision in this regard? You'd also be looking in a significantly smaller pool because there aren't too many football club ready chairmen you can go out and recruit. It's also something of a very hollow position unless you pass over an awful lot of the legal responsibilities to the club to this person. I don't know the exact details but in such a situation wasn't it the reason that Liverpool ended up being sold out from underneath their owners? It'd be such a massive risk to take from the perspective of the Coates family. Oh absolutely. But surely it can be suggested, that they're making an absolute pig's ear of running the club, without calling for them to sell the club. If you or I won £200 million on the lottery, would that then, accompanied with our love for Stoke City, make us qualified to run the club if we purchased it? If it was me and I allowed myself to put my ego to one side and accept that I'm making repeatedly bad decisions, then I'd be looking for help from some quarter, rather than going it alone again, making one blunder after another. |
|
|
|
Post by malteser68 on Oct 2, 2019 4:05:21 GMT
for me it's specific. everything I've heard says John Coates is a really good bloke but since he's been principally holding the reins, every single decision seems to have been wrong, or else like removing Cartwright and presumably now Jones has come disastrously too late. he can't do this. he just doesn't have the right instincts for the job. sorry  He lacks any of the qualities needed for this job. Which is a pity since he is a nice guy and truly loves Stoke City. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 4:47:36 GMT
Whatever the owners do they’d be slagged of on here.
Lambert was seemingly the only manager willing to take the job after Hughes, had they stuck with him we’d be better off now but the fans wouldn’t have been happy.
Rowett came in, on paper it looked a very good decision, things didn’t work out due to his attitude, unrealistic expectations, and fan pressure but he should’ve been given more time.
Jones looked a bold choice at the time, had they gone with a dinosaur the fans would be divided yet again. They’ve given him as much time as they can, last season was awful but with the promise of a preseason and a new start there was hope, but it hasn’t worked out.
I think they’ve backed the last two managers very well in the transfer market, and they probably gave NJ that extra bit of time that they didn’t afford to Rowett.
I blame the board for their actions or lack of that led to our demise in the PL, but I don’t think they’ve made massive mistakes at the time, it’s easy to criticise in hindsight. Let’s hope they pick the right man next time.
|
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Oct 2, 2019 5:19:17 GMT
Because they are clueless idiots who I wouldn't trust to run me a bath, never mind a football club. I think calling them clueless idiots is a bit harsh. Not too many people complained when they appointed Rowett and not too many complained when they appointed Jones. We all have our preferences as to who should be manager but we don't know if others were approached and turned us down or whether the owners got their first choice targets. The appointment of Rowett and Jones were ok in my book. I would have preferred a more experienced manager like Big Sam or Moyes but there are plenty of Stoke fans who would disagree with me. I understood the reasons behind the appointments and appreciated the fact that the club was looking to appoint ambitious,younger managers. They then proceeded to back both managers with funds. The blame for how badly this money was spent can be placed at anyone's door but the fact remains that it is the manager who approves the signing of the players (unless anyone can categorically prove otherwise) and it is the manager who has to accept that responsibility. Even if 1-2 of the players are not the managers 1st choice signings he is paid to manage all of the squad. Some people are complaining that they allowed the manager to buy shite players and they were put on big wages and long contracts. I would argue that allowing the manager to buy who he wants is a commendable trait. Imagine if they had intervened and told Rowett/Jones that he couldn't have an attacking midfielder until he bought a decent left back. What kind of message does that send? If you appoint a manager you have to trust the guy when it comes to making signings. The length of the contract & terms is a matter for Scholes and Co but you don't expect your signing to be shite so if it means a 4yr deal rather than a 3yr deal then does it matter? The Chairman and Tony Scholes cannot be blamed for poor football. If you want to blame them for all the shit stuff surrounding the club outside of the team itself then fill your boots up. For me, there are more urgent issues at hand. Assuming Jones will be gone this week, the next managerial appointment has to be right but we all know it is still fraught with risk. |
|
|
|
Post by stantheman on Oct 2, 2019 5:24:46 GMT
Crouch is one of their biggest mistakes. Care to elaborate? 12m and our leading PL goalscorer? He doesn't elaborate, he just makes 'look at me' statements to hit his daily quota of shite posts |
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on Oct 2, 2019 6:27:19 GMT
I don't particularly understand what there is to question. The only time it comes to question owners is when you think they're doing something similar to Blackpool, such as with asset stripping or in other situations where the owners are in some way or another out for themselves. Bolton, Portsmouth and so on have had these instances. In our situation, in some ways the worst thing of all is that there isn't any malicious owner to blame it on. There isn't any carefree just trying to eke out a few quid owning a club. The issue is there are people behind the scenes making decisions they believe will work, but aren't working out. You can make the argument that they should be replaced, but when you consider that replacement comes with an approximate £200m of additional expense or relying on tremendous goodwill to just write that off you're on very precarious ground. The only precedent I can think of for writing off substantial debts any complying with FFP is post-selling the club like the previous Bolton owner did. Hardly fixed their problems because they had external debt, which any individual who could potentially take over could leverage against the club. People bring up that stuff about self-sufficiency to beat the owners with, never realising it was a long term aim for the club and not an immediate thing. It always had to be the goal, but there's only one level in football which that is attainable and that's in the premier league. These bizarre theories of "its cheaper" to run a championship club etc are just mental. Might as well go outside with your spirit level on the road and using it as proof the world is flat. It's a shit situation, and everyone has their opinion on how to put it right (just like everyone had an opinion on how we should progress after each success in previous years) but there's only one set of owners who have expressed an interest in trying to do it at Stoke with serious amounts of money. If you want to see a club turn viciously on its owners, can't we just wait another year or so for Vale to begin their cycle anew? The board did try to implement a self-sufficiency model in Hughes's latter tenure at the club with loanees or out of contract freebies and surprise surprise it didn't work and merely escalated our demise. There are not many cases I can think of where a self-sufficiency model has delivered long term premier league status, Everton maybe and Burnley are getting there and really that's it. Eventually it will get you relegated. I have no quibble with the Coates family's commitment to the club, it's to be applauded and we are indeed fortunate to have them as owners. They have made huge mistakes in big decisions which only highlights the need for some serious experienced football man with European experience and connections to present a different view to the narrow insular view mentality the current board members have. Sadly it's never going to happen and sadly we will remain in the champs or lower until the Coates family either sell or get lucky with a Macari type appointment |
|
|
|
Post by TheProletarian on Oct 2, 2019 6:34:52 GMT
Why? They tried an up an coming young manager with Rowett but it didn’t work out, with Rowett talking himself out of a job, they then went for another up and coming young manager that was hungry for success with a good although not long managerial record, he came with the promise of a new attacking attractive style of football. He’s tried his best but alas it’s just not good enough. The owners have given him time to turn things around and he can’t, so it’s back to the drawing board and back to fishing in a pool of managers that have a mixed bag of success behind them. Who they’ll go for is anyone’s guess at the moment; will they go with the cheapest option or pay what’s needed to land the right man for the job? Gouranga. They’ve always been a painfully slow hand when it comes to making a decision. You can see this when we Sacked Hughes too late, Jones too late, Scholes is still around and Cartwright has to walk before our board’s expert reactions could see he’s a useless knobhead. ‘They spend a lot of money’ aye they do but what’s all of this money in comparison to how much Bet365 makes and how much Stoke have made them? We have cheap-skated into relegation and one example of this is replacing Marko Arnautovic with Cheapo-Moting. ‘They took us to the Premier League’ yes, they did. But they didn’t do it based on spending, or contacts, or board involvement. They did it based on the lucky throw of the dice that Pulis would work out for them. And on that basis I ask you on return to this: Why all this vitriol against Tony Pulis? The man should get a gold statue in honour of what he has done for this club and, as he has never truly failed here, we should give him a third go. On topic of the board, I think if our board were not local then everyone would want them gone. |
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Oct 2, 2019 6:44:35 GMT
Why??
In his 22 years of being our chairmen in my opinion he has made TWO correct appointments Macari and Pulis out of 13 appointments.
Its as simple as that.
1989-91 - Alan James Ball, MBE
1991 - Graham Charles Paddon (caretaker)
1991-93 - Luigi Macari
1993 - Philip Desmond 'Chic' Bates (caretaker)
1993-94 - Joseph Jordan
1994 - Richard 'Asa' Hartford (caretaker)
1994-97 - Luigi Macari
1997-98 - Philip Desmond 'Chic' Bates
2002-05 - Anthony Richard Pulis
2005-06 - Jan 'Johan' Boskamp
2006-13 - Anthony Richard Pulis
2013-18 - Leslie Mark Hughes, OBE
2018 - Paul Lambert
2018-19 - Gary Rowett
2019-present - Nathan Jones
|
|
|
|
Post by santy on Oct 2, 2019 6:48:01 GMT
The board did try to implement a self-sufficiency model in Hughes's latter tenure at the club with loanees or out of contract freebies But you're wrong. Not an I think you're wrong, you're demonstrably wrong. Go back and look at the figures, would it be 2017/18 with a net spend of around £20m on transfers? 16/17 with around £30m net spend on transfers? Maybe the year before back in 15/16 when it was around £30m net spend on transfers again? The only seasons in which we "cut back" at all was Hughes first and second season, with less than £10m in those two years. That in itself actually coincided with the Premier League implementation of FFP which saw the club put on around £20m or so of administrative costs (writing down the value of the squad) before FFP came into effect and at which time were touted as coming with potential points deductions. So even then its tough to argue its cutting back because it was trying to ensure we didn't run afoul of a new system that threatened to be more impactful than it was. Prior to this season, I would hazard a guess at us being very close to or even inside the top 10 clubs for net transfer expenditure from 2014 - 2019. The only vaguely self-sufficient aspect of the club was that the clubs income covered the wage bill and then investment from the Coates family covered transfer expenditure and general administrative costs. With Hughes as manager the clubs debts rose from around £60-£70m up to around £120m or so. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 2, 2019 6:52:17 GMT
The owners are carrying our £200 million debt in the form of a share issue.
We're hemorrhaging wheel barrow loads of pound notes every week.
Trust me, no one else is queuing up to take this on.
We don't need to thank them every week but I struggle to see any upside to pissing them off
|
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 2, 2019 6:58:07 GMT
Because they are clueless idiots who I wouldn't trust to run me a bath, never mind a football club. Were you saying this when we were promoted and spent 10 years in the premiership trouncing some of the best teams in Europe, getting to an FA cup final and into Europe whilst watching some of the best players ever to wear a Stoke shirt? We can't have it both ways. Gouranga. Of course you can. Praise where it's due and criticism where it's due. They got complacent and took our Premier place for granted. Then they dallied over Hughes to great cost and it looks like they've done the same thing with Jones. This is potentially our THIRD relegation to the third tier under Coates. Don't forget, Blackpool were promoted to the Premier and beat some big teams under the Oystons. How did that end up? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 7:05:03 GMT
This is nothing compared to how the crowd will react to another poor appointment. The owners are in deep shit here and the road from here is very precarious.
The frustration is it is all of their own making.
We had the lot in our own hands and threw it all away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Oct 2, 2019 7:06:43 GMT
They’re good owners they’ve just made a lot of bad decisions that frustrate the fans
Namely
- Managerial appointments
- Keeping managers too long
- Not having a proper football man
overseeing the running of the club
Their intentions are good but like most of us they don’t always get things right.
Right now we’re in a real mess. The next managerial appointment is massive. One things for sure NJ has to go as does Scholes. Doing that would get the fans back onside.
A new start is needed. Just a shame we can’t get rid of a number of the players that were stuck with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Oct 2, 2019 7:10:25 GMT
They’re good owners they’ve just made a lot of bad decisions that frustrate the fans Namely - Managerial appointments - Keeping managers too long - Not having a proper football man overseeing the running of the club Their intentions are good but like most of us they don’t always get things right. Right now we’re in a real mess. The next managerial appointment is massive. One things for sure NJ has to go as does Scholes. Doing that would get the fans back onside. A new start is needed. Just a shame we can’t get rid of a number of the players that were stuck with. "Just a shame we can’t get rid of a number of the players that were stuck with" And that is one massive problem.Loads of new signings all on new contracts and none of them any bloody good.Big problem |
|
|
|
Post by dannymadeley30 on Oct 2, 2019 7:12:47 GMT
The owners should not be taking the blame, it lies four square with the manager and players, who are colossal under achievers.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 2, 2019 7:19:35 GMT
He was never needed. He wouldn’t get into TPs best PL XI. He wouldn’t get into Hughes’ best XI. He was never part of our best team. He pretty much got TP the sack because of his over reliance on him and the slow turgid play that produced. Hughes used him when desperate and what would you know? The football would go to shit then too. Ok so 45 goals for us in the PL,scored one of if not the best goal ive seen at the Brit, but he was never needed...mmm ok  The shit football under Hughes and the slow play under TP was all down to Crouchy then?
Seen your edit at the end. I think a lot of it was down to him being on the pitch. We’d lose any mobility he had the second he’d come on. And this is the same under all the managers he played for, we’d instantly go to aimless hoofs to him. I like Crouchy but he made us worse when he played. The goals mask that and always did and it was always mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 2, 2019 7:26:54 GMT
Why?? In his 22 years of being our chairmen in my opinion he has made TWO correct appointments Macari and Pulis out of 13 appointments. Its as simple as that. 1989-91 - Alan James Ball, MBE 1991 - Graham Charles Paddon (caretaker) 1991-93 - Luigi Macari 1993 - Philip Desmond 'Chic' Bates (caretaker) 1993-94 - Joseph Jordan 1994 - Richard 'Asa' Hartford (caretaker) 1994-97 - Luigi Macari 1997-98 - Philip Desmond 'Chic' Bates 2002-05 - Anthony Richard Pulis 2005-06 - Jan 'Johan' Boskamp 2006-13 - Anthony Richard Pulis 2013-18 - Leslie Mark Hughes, OBE 2018 - Paul Lambert 2018-19 - Gary Rowett 2019-present - Nathan Jones He didn't own the club when we appointed Boskamp or Pulis first time around (though I appreciate that he may have had some input and influence over that appointment). |
|
|
|
Post by minnierover on Oct 2, 2019 7:29:12 GMT
The owners are 100% Stoke, no question.
But they’re not blameless. Picking an up and coming young manager in Jones is fine if the process is done properly. It wasn’t though. Jones had worked with Mick Harford for the last 3 years. Harford was integral part of Jones’ management. Harford oversaw recruitment amongst other things. When Luton said you can have Jones but not Harford then we should have walked away. Instead we carried on and it turns out Jones was a little boy lost. Look what happened when he was allowed to oversee recruitment on his own, he bought utter dross. It’s clear he needed help but instead he was allowed to go out and buy a whole load of sub championship players. In the meantime Harford stayed, oversaw a record breaking 20 match unbeaten run and took Luton up as champions, for which Jones does take a lot of credit for too. We didn’t do our due diligence, hence our board are not blameless. They don’t though deserve any vitriol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danstoke82 on Oct 2, 2019 7:32:27 GMT
Ill never forgive them due to the fact that they basically chose to ignore the alarming slide which we now find ourselves in.
Ill never forgive them due to the fact that the current owner had the nerve to mock the fans in the midst of our slide out of the Premier League asking us all "whats all the fuss".
Ill never forgive them due to the fact that the board sided with the busted flush that was Mark Hughes over our talisman Marko Arnautovic, the man who could have potentially saved us from relegation and sold him to West Ham, replacing him with the batman cap wearing, rap star twat Jese Rodriguez and then thought they'd be all clever by doing a press release mocking Arnautovic with the hashtag "ambition". Whether they came up with the idea or not, they sanctioned it.
Ill never forgive them due to the fact they ignored the fact that Mark Hughes's time at the club was over way before they acted and persisted with him through it. The same manager then threw the Chelsea match to win the Newcastle match, which he still bloody lost and still they gave him more time.
Ill never forgive them due to the fact that the complete waster that is Tony Scholes remains within the club after 4 years of complete failure and he gets rewarded with a bigger say in the running of the club when he should of been sacked after dicking about with Quique Sanches Flores and ended up with Paul Lambert, a manager whose only Premier League memory of note was taking down a beyond poor Aston Villa side in which he was promptly sacked from.
Ill never forgive them due to the fact they blatantly ignored the fact that we were getting relegated from the Premier League and felt that a cheap manager like Paul Lambert, who had no track record in the premier league was enough to keep us up.
Ill never forgive them due to the fact they got complacent about our status within the Championship almost seemingly assuming we would go straight back up where we finished mid table and not even remotely close to challenging for promotion.
Ill never forgive them for giving Nathan Jones the Huddersfield match. He should of been relieved of his duties straight after the Forest defeat, even if it was for his own mental health. What was the point in giving him last night's match and prolonging the inevitable.
I doubt others will share my opinions but i feel that they are completely outdated, clueless and totally out of touch with the modern game. The rot starts there in my opinion. Changes need to be made. Nathan Jones was John Coates's big experiment and its been disastrous. Coates based his decision on Jones because of a good run he had in the lower leagues with Luton Town. He clearly has seen other young managers do well elsewhere and believed Stoke could have a go at that. Well its failed and its failed big time. Heads should roll for this but they wont and whether you like him or not, Jones has been made the scapegoat here and i do feel sorry for him, the players should hang their heads in the shame as they have been, in large, totally pathetic, Jones said the right things but his team selections have not helped his cause.
Stoke City FC is not ready an experiment. The club needs to go back to basics in order to save itself from League One and oblivion. The fact that we find ourselves in this precarious almost fatal position is thanks in largely directed at the board. The club needs a big reset, it needs to go back to basics and heal itself after 4 years of total and utter dross in which the board have sat idly by and allowed to happen.
John Coates vision for the future of Stoke City clearly cannot happen yet and they have to act now. For me, we have to make one big push to try and convince Chris Hughton that he's the only man that can save us from this, he'd be ideal in my opinion. Knowing the faith I have in the board though, we will probably end up with Alan Curbishley.
|
|
|
|
Post by SCFC92 on Oct 2, 2019 7:32:40 GMT
I think criticism is fair, and the owners will understand it, including the more emotional outbursts from our fans calling for them to resign, sell up etc.
When times are hard blame needs to be attributed, they understand. However they are very long in the tooth, and will know this appointment is as vital as any they have made if not more.
As soon as we start to win games (please god) and this great ship starts to get back on course, the blaming will dissipate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 7:35:55 GMT
Errrmmm because they make all these terrible decisions? And have allowed people responsible other than the managers to keep their jobs? And come out and tell everyone there isn’t a problem when their clearly is?
Because no-one trusts them to get anything right. Peter Coates last month said they still couldn’t work out what went wrong last year. If that is true you’re never going to be able to fix the problems if you can’t work out what they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by neddy on Oct 2, 2019 7:45:36 GMT
I have no vitriol against the owners......PC has always said there is a lot of luck in picking managers.....we all knew he was too loyal to Hughes and left it to late. Lambert tried but most were not bothered to see him go?
Most thought Rowett would be ok and when that failed most thought Jones as an up and coming may work.
We roll the dice now again with probably not much to choose from who are prepared to come?
|
|
|
|
Post by shipshape on Oct 2, 2019 7:56:11 GMT
Dunno it's a complete mystery. Perhaps it's cos we're careering towards the third division for the third time under his ownership. Third time out of four in hour history. Just a guess though.
|
|
