Board just shot themselves in foot

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

What a moronic thing to do in sacking Gunny. Sure we lost in a freak game and it hurt like hell. However

1) Gunny has only just signed loads of players who thought he would be boss- they will now feel very unsettled

2) Gunny has signed a large squad- a new man would not get his own players-

3) We DESPERATELY need stability- and that has been dashed

4) We just turned a corner - won 4-0 and the rug is pulled

I really cannot see ANY benefit in doing it now. If GUnny was not the man he should have gone at the end of last season....to do it now stinks of a board who - once again- are bouncing from pillar to post being reactive and not proactive.

Gunny deserved at least another 10 games

[Things are looking up 0]

Don''t panic! Don''t panic! They don''t like it up ''em!

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

it is not panic just observation

[First Wazzock 902]

I didn''t want Gunny as the manager, I''ll admit, but this is exactly what most City fans were afraid of, Gunny club legend given the big job (cheap option) to try and save us from relegation last season. Didn''t work out - as we all knew he was not the man for the job.

Now the poor sod is out on his ear, what a disgraceful thing to do to the poor bloke.

Shame we didn''t have the board with some balls last season to try and make a better fight of staying up then.

[Norma Stick 0]

Winning 4-0 at a crap Yeovil is not turning the corner

[Yobocop 1,097]

How do we know something hasn''t happened behind the scenes which meant Gunn was sacked for non-footballing reasons?

At the moment it is purely here-say, most important thing now is getting the new man in asap, presuambly they already have someone lined up? so the next 2 weeks he can bring in his own men and we can push for a promotion challenge.

 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,748]

You bloody lot of hyporcites!! Who among us didn''t want him out last Saturday night?

If we would have lost tomorrow ,everyone would have wanted him out again.

You know in your hearts that he wasn''t the man for the job, now hopefully we will get a PROPER manager.

Remember that we cannot afford to gamble this season, we MUST get back up first time, or we might be in this league for a long time.

[Robert Ketts Yellow Army 15]

1. Tough luck. They get paid don''t they? They should be doing the job.2. The board will have had the final say on the players bought. Most look like good acquisitions, considering our budget.3. Stability with a man who is a proven failure as a manager? 4. Beating Yeovil is no big deal. Norwich should be hammering teams like that? As I said, the players are paid to do a job, which is to play and perform. Everyone knows that Gunny was a no-hoper and I am glad we now have the opportunity to get a decent manager in to run a promising squad.

[Rethinking the future 0]

I am so annoyed with this decision.

The last time we lost 7-1 was to Blackburn in 1992 while we were in the Prem. At the time we were 2nd in the Prem. Mike Walker was manager. That season we finished 3rd in the league.

What are the board trying to prove after 2 games? A 50% success rate is not good enough. Had we lost both games then you can slightly understand it. I know lots of people on here didnt want Gunn, but is a 50% record worth sacking someone? Would we have sacked Walker?

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="Rethinking the future"]I am so annoyed with this decision.

The last time we lost 7-1 was to Blackburn in 1992 while we were in the Prem. At the time we were 2nd in the Prem. Mike Walker was manager. That season we finished 3rd in the league.

What are the board trying to prove after 2 games? A 50% success rate is not good enough. Had we lost both games then you can slightly understand it. I know lots of people on here didnt want Gunn, but is a 50% record worth sacking someone? Would we have sacked Walker?[/quote]errr... he had plenty of games last season too. [*-)]

[Rocky Rocastle 0]

[quote user="1st Wazzock"]

I didn''t want Gunny as the manager, I''ll admit, but this is exactly what most City fans were afraid of, Gunny club legend given the big job (cheap option) to try and save us from relegation last season. Didn''t work out - as we all knew he was not the man for the job.

Now the poor sod is out on his ear, what a disgraceful thing to do to the poor bloke.

Shame we didn''t have the board with some balls last season to try and make a better fight of staying up then.

[/quote]Here here Wazz!

[Rethinking the future 0]

[quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="Rethinking the future"]I am so annoyed with this decision.

The last time we lost 7-1 was to Blackburn in 1992 while we were in the Prem. At the time we were 2nd in the Prem. Mike Walker was manager. That season we finished 3rd in the league.

What are the board trying to prove after 2 games? A 50% success rate is not good enough. Had we lost both games then you can slightly understand it. I know lots of people on here didnt want Gunn, but is a 50% record worth sacking someone? Would we have sacked Walker?[/quote]errr... he had plenty of games last season too. [*-)][/quote]Last season is over.  New season, new sqauad with 12 new players.  If you want to base results from last season, he shouldnt have been appointed.  The board decided to offer a contract for 1 year and so to fire some one after 2 games is madness.

[JTG 0]

Gunn has been a massive failure as manager of this football club and let''s be honest, who thought he would be anything else when appointed? Twice.The sooner he is sacked this season the better shot at promotion we have. So well done to the board for taking action nice and early (although I can''t work out why it wasn''t done on Saturday).However, I can''t help but believe that this was done for non footballing reasons. Investment? Crook bust ups? We''ll see....

[ref89 0]

If you want to base results from last season, he shouldnt have been appointed....You just answered your own question!

[quote user="Rethinking the future"][quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="Rethinking the future"]I am so annoyed with this decision.

The last time we lost 7-1 was to Blackburn in 1992 while we were in the Prem. At the time we were 2nd in the Prem. Mike Walker was manager. That season we finished 3rd in the league.

What are the board trying to prove after 2 games? A 50% success rate is not good enough. Had we lost both games then you can slightly understand it. I know lots of people on here didnt want Gunn, but is a 50% record worth sacking someone? Would we have sacked Walker?[/quote]errr... he had plenty of games last season too. [*-)][/quote]Last season is over.  New season, new sqauad with 12 new players.  If you want to base results from last season, he shouldnt have been appointed.  The board decided to offer a contract for 1 year and so to fire some one after 2 games is madness.[/quote]

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Rethinking the future"]Last season is over.  New season, new sqauad with 12 new players.  If you want to base results from last season, he shouldnt have been appointed.  The board decided to offer a contract for 1 year and so to fire some one after 2 games is madness.[/quote]I agree with RTF. You don''t let someone bring in a massive influx of new players and then sack him after one game. It doesn''t make sense - and why leave it for 6 days to announce?Very Strange! Surely there must be more to this?

[Salopian 1]

I would describe the whole situation as bizarre, and unless there are other things to emerge, either brave or stupid.

If they decided on Tuesday, and would not go back on their decision despite the more impressive result on Tuesday evening, why did they not change things on Wednesday, to give Butterworth longer.It seems crazy - they allowed him to sign 12 players, and most people might expect a bedding in period. They allowed him one game, which was admittedly dire, and then sack him. It was brave, because unless they have someone lined up, we shall be managerless for a few weeks, the team may lose confidence and we have yet another disappointing season.The only thing I can think of positively is that the board on this occasion has acted quickly, and perhaps they have acted too quickly because they came in for stick on the other occasions.