My take on the lack of patience being shown.

[king canary 7,578]

If you start counting loan players as significant it muddies the water somewhat.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="king canary"]If you start counting loan players as significant it muddies the water somewhat.[/quote]That''s a fair point. Loan players add to the wage bill in a season but are not a long-term commitment, which is what the main argument is about.

[king canary 7,578]

Yes. You''d then have to include Mbokani in significant departures over the summer as he was our top scoring striker. It just gets a touch confusing.

I''d also say Gary O''Neill was a significant departure, even if he wasn''t a ''sale.''

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

[quote user="Duncan Edwards"]"Fortunate to get promoted through the lottery of the playoffs"

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

Yep. We were bloody lucky that we convincingly won the semi and the final.

Look, you''ve got a problem with the board (despite the board taking numerous different guises in the time period you talk of), fine.

All this waffle is just piffle though, and, given the number of changes that the board has undergone, the reality is that your problem lies directly with Delia and Michael.

Directly with the saviours of our club.[/quote]You don''t half spout some drivel.The play-offs have always been a lottery, and there will be plenty of people who have far more experience working in the world of professional football than you do that will refer to them as such this season. If we find ourselves in the play-off final this season (which is looking a stretch from where we currently are), as it is a one off game, the result will be dependent on how we and our opposition perform, what suspensions and injuries us the opposition are dealing with, if decisions go our way, who are opposition are and a thousand and one other variables that can happen on the day. Thus making it impossible to predict who will win, often up to the final whistle like last year when a spot in the top flight was decided by a penalty shoot out. And if a penalty shoot-out isn''t the footballing antithesis of the word lottery I don''t know what is.To address my problem with the board (of which it would appear, despite your flattery of singling me out for your attention, I am not the only one), I have thoroughly listed my reasons in the OP. But for the slow of understanding let me briefly review. They more often than not get it horribly wrong and their hesitant, indecisive nature causes more problems than it solves. Like I have said, several times just in this one thread, when they act decisively it usually ends well. When they dither, catastrophe often follows in the form of relegation, sometimes immediately, sometimes it''s death by a thousand cuts, but under their ownership the results have always been the same.As for you appointing cult-like messianic characteristics to our current owners, I think you may need a reality check. Initially it was Geoff Watling that rescued the club from the sinister grip of Bob the Builder and it was only when, at 90 odd he decided that he didn''t have the energy for running the club on a day to day basis anymore that he sold to the first people that came along, your "saviours". Then over the next 10 years we flirted perilously with administration under the expert guidance of your messiahs culminating with relegation to League 1, which saw us teetering on the edge of the financial abyss. Enter Alan Bowkett, whose expertise in dealing with financial crisis, helped steer City back from the brink and head upwards toward the promised land of the Premier League. Now that he has departed the board, we once again find ourselves in the midst of a financial pickle and are having to sell off the family silverware just to make ends meet. So you may have drunk the kool-ade and be a fully paid up member of the Church of Delia and Her Latter Day Saints, but I sir am not.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]Why should it not happen?

In the here and now I have no issue with bringing in Farke or indeed the way we are trying to play.

I do though think we have undertaken too big a squad overhaul this summer and that we have bought players who are no good enough most likely due to the fact we are cost cutting excessively. I think we should be taking a bit more of a calculated gamble in our last season of parachute payments because I genuinely believe that if we don''t get back up this year we will not be competitive for a very long time and indeed could even end up back in league 1 in the bit too distant future.[/quote] But that is what we did last season, Jim. We took a calculated gamble on getting straight back up. In the summer, of players we valued, we only sold Redmond and got in Oliveira and Pritchard. In the winter, when promotion looked less likely, we offloaded Olsson and Brady but got in Wildschut. Overall, then, three significant players out but three in.But because we didn''t cut then as much as we might have done, we have to cut more now. Given where we are, your "calculated gamble" is much more of a gamble than it is calculated. Posters complain that the board fulfils that overused definition of insanity - doing the same thing and hoping for a different result - but that is what you are advocating.A surefire way of helping us towards League One would be to follow your advice and gamble again, but even more so, getting in high-wage players on long contracts, and finding that doesn''t work.[/quote]

But the board made the biggest f**k up of all by not replacing the manager when we needed to which rendered any gamble we might have made destined to fail.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]But the board made the biggest f**k up of all by not replacing the manager when we needed to which rendered any gamble we might have made destined to fail.[/quote]And what point should that have been Jim? Because I''m fairly certain that if you asked 20 different fans, they''d all give you a different answer.It''s incredibly easy to say with hindsight that a certain change should have been made at a certain point, I recall Sir Alex Ferguson being a game or so away from being sacked on at least two different occasions (and in different seasons), yet each time the board held their ground despite fan discontent and rough results, and he went on to win further titles and cement Man Utd''s dominance in the league during his tenure as manager...

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Indy, you''re on a roll. Since they appointed Bruce Rioch in 1998 our club has had a further 10 permanent managers under the Smith & Jones ownership. That average results in a change in less than every 2 years. They have overseen five years of PL football in that time. The binners have had 7 managers over the same period who between them have overseen just 2 seasons in the PL. It cannot be really be argued that we have held on to managers too long. 

[king canary 7,578]

@nutty

It really can be...

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="king canary"]@nutty

It really can be...[/quote]

Not so sure Kingo. Just look at Worthy''s tenure. Fans with little patience wanted him sacked in 2001/2 (before the run to the play offs) in 2002/3 (as we dropped to mid table) and in 2003/4 (For the first months of the season.)

An average of 2 seasons suggests giving managers time but not too much time.

[Indy_Bones 441]

It''s an area I''d personally say is somewhat pointless to argue over, because nobody really knows what would have happened if any alternatives had been tried.Maybe removing Hughton earlier would have kept us up, maybe if we''d kept him for that final spell we''d have stayed up, maybe if Lambert hadn''t had his head turned he''d still be manager and doing well, or maybe he''d have failed to keep up the momentum and taken us down the season Hughton kept us up - who the f**k really knows?Personally, I''m proud that we have owners that aren''t just chopping and changing managers every 5 minutes (a''la Leeds et al), and whilst there could be arguments put forward that some managers have been retained too long (be this Worthy, Hughton, Neil or whoever), as we don''t know what the alternatives would have done it''s a completely moot point IMHO.

[Duncan Edwards 2,218]

I still don''t really get it Toe. You keep saying "the board" but as I''ve pointed out to you, during the time period you''re talking of we''ve had a number of different boards, with various different members. So were they all bad? They''ve kept changing "the board" and according to you nothing has improved yet you seem to be advocating a change in the board to improve things which would surely be doing the same thing and expecting a different result? I''m sure somebody said that was insanity...

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I totally agree with that Indy. But I guess it could be argued that the current set up would allow for changes to be made to the head coach position more easily than the old style manager. But while some fans are already suggesting that change I would hope Farke is given longer than a few games. However if he fails to turn this around there will be claims any change made is too late where as if he manages to turn it around claims that he should have been replaced will conveniently be forgotten.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]Why should it not happen?

In the here and now I have no issue with bringing in Farke or indeed the way we are trying to play.

I do though think we have undertaken too big a squad overhaul this summer and that we have bought players who are no good enough most likely due to the fact we are cost cutting excessively. I think we should be taking a bit more of a calculated gamble in our last season of parachute payments because I genuinely believe that if we don''t get back up this year we will not be competitive for a very long time and indeed could even end up back in league 1 in the bit too distant future.[/quote] But that is what we did last season, Jim. We took a calculated gamble on getting straight back up. In the summer, of players we valued, we only sold Redmond and got in Oliveira and Pritchard. In the winter, when promotion looked less likely, we offloaded Olsson and Brady but got in Wildschut. Overall, then, three significant players out but three in.But because we didn''t cut then as much as we might have done, we have to cut more now. Given where we are, your "calculated gamble" is much more of a gamble than it is calculated. Posters complain that the board fulfils that overused definition of insanity - doing the same thing and hoping for a different result - but that is what you are advocating.A surefire way of helping us towards League One would be to follow your advice and gamble again, but even more so, getting in high-wage players on long contracts, and finding that doesn''t work.[/quote]

But the board made the biggest f**k up of all by not replacing the manager when we needed to which rendered any gamble we might have made destined to fail.[/quote]As Indy B has said, if you asked 20 fans if and when Neil should have been sacked you would get at least 20 replies. That was true of Hughton. There were even fans here claiming - in hindsight - he should have been sacked during his FIRST season after that great run in the autumn came to an end. A season when we finished 11th...But even if you are right about sacking Neil that is irrelevant; we are where we are, and your "solution" is an unjustifed risk. I don''t gamble but I suspect casinos would recognise  what you are suggesting as a well-known syndrome - of the losing gambler who feels hard done and uses that a a false justification for carrying on and on and on.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Most of what we debate on this message board is what-ifs - should things have been done differently ?  What should we do now ?  By definition, you can never be sure about the outcome if something different was/is done.  If people think it''s not worth discussing because of that, well fair enough, they can drop out of the debate if they want.  Nor is it relevant that you could ask 20 different City fans when AN should have been sacked and you''d probably get 20 different answers - that''s the nature of opinions about football.  I think fan opinion had largely turned against him well before the Board finally took the decision to get rid of him which is more important (and supposedly the decision to get rid was on the basis of his plans for the following season, not because of his catastrophic record/performances last season, which I find truly bizarre).  

 

Personally I think we can look back and see some clear mistakes in our recent history at key points.  They were keeping Hughton on after Christmas during his second season, but not backing him in the transfer window, and keeping AN as manager too long into his final season.

 

First to dispose of that average managerial tenure of 2 years - it''s a meaningless statistic.  If you look at our managers from after Mike Walker left for the 2nd time, it''s pretty clear that a new manager has to show a level of achievement reasonably quickly to get the owners behind him and once he''s over that hurdle, they''ll persist with him, often too long.

 

If a manager doesn''t get over that hurdle, he is likely not to last too long.  Look at Rioch, Hamilton, Grant, Gunn, Adams.  This should certainly give Farke pause for thought.

 

But once a manager gets over that hurdle, he''s much more secure.  Look at Worthy, Hughton (to a slightly lesser extent) and Alex Neil.  For Alex Neil, his record in his last season was (after the initial flattering start) much worse than Adams, but he was given much longer than Adams before being sacked.

 

Ultimately, decisions for a football club are a form of gambling - stick or twist.  You can''t avoid it, either way is a leap into the unknown.  Maybe one of those managers above, if we''d stuck with him, could have turned into another Ferguson and taken the club to unparalleled heights ?  But my view is that all of them were struggling and it''s hard, with hindsight, to say any of them should have been kept on longer than they were.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Agree with that ICF because it means all opinions in the "what if" unknown scenario bear the same weight.

So what if we''d never sacked Worthy? Could we have been embarking on our 9th or 10th consecutive PL season?

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Yes it is just opinion and speculation.  But how much weight I''ll place on someone''s opinion depends on how far they can set out solid and logical reasons for that opinion.  E.g. has Worthy''s subsequent career shown anything that would imply he could have gone on to massive success with us ?

 

Actually it''s an interesting point, if we look at our roll-call of ex-managers in my post above, have any of them gone on to greater success elsewhere ?  Let''s face it, the answer is no in all cases (including Hughton and obviously also including Lambert, who I left off my list because he jumped ship rather than being pushed).  So there''s nothing to suggest we got rid of someone who''d have been the next SAF.  I''m only talking here about the managers who''ve been got rid of since Mike Walker left....

 

The only manager I can think of in the past 20-odd years who left and went on to be much more successful was Martin O''Neill and for me, that was a huge missed opportunity, if you look at the trophies he won with Leicester after he left us.

 

It''s scary how recent it feels when he left us...