Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ted Macdougals afro

Where Are All The Hoots Haters Now !

Recommended Posts

The vast majority of posters on here are reasonable whatever their views. But don''t become an apologist for unreasonable ones. They are a blight on this forum whatever side of the fence they reside.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I think the guy has a point. I remember reading a post from Jim Smith where he stated he despised Chris Hughton. And he was talking about the man. He got plenty of support for that view. His view on Hughton is so tainted that he believes we deserve to be relegated. Others continually call him a clown. That''s personal. They also doctor pictures of him to resemble a clown. That''s personal. Perhaps some of you apologists could explain those things to me if I''m wrong...

 

 

 

 

[/quote]Some people just can''t help it Nigel.Those desperate for a managerial change when the other relegation candidates decided to swap just need to take a minute to look at the league tables and compare between the end of November and now. I told you at the time it would not make the slightest difference to how the season would pan out and one look at the table will show that I was right then and am right now.After 12 games Cardiff               13 pointsNorwich             11West Ham         10Fulham              10Palace                7Sunderland         7NowSwansea             29WBA                 28Palace                28Sunderland         25Cardiff               25Fulham              24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats interesting, and unless I am mistaken, from that early table of clubs the only two that have stuck by their Manager dont appear in the second table......and the one that doesnt appear in the first group (Swansea), changed Manager and now appear in the second table. Sure , things can easily change at this late stage of the season, and will I am sure, but it is looking like those that held their nerve could well be the winners here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

The vast majority of posters on here are reasonable whatever their views. But don''t become an apologist for unreasonable ones. They are a blight on this forum whatever side of the fence they reside.

 

 

[/quote]oh dearthe last refugeno one is apologising or attempting to apologise for the likes of wiz anymore than a newsreader is apologising for Putin when he reads out the news about Crimea, so stop making stuff up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

The vast majority of posters on here are reasonable whatever their views. But don''t become an apologist for unreasonable ones. They are a blight on this forum whatever side of the fence they reside.

 

 

[/quote]oh dearthe last refugeno one is apologising or attempting to apologise for the likes of wiz anymore than a newsreader is apologising for Putin when he reads out the news about Crimea, so stop making stuff up

[/quote]

 

I''m not talking about Wiz. Stop making stuff up. If you like I''ll go fetch the posts that I am talking about. Stop being an apologist for unreasonable behaviour. I thought you were better than that...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what on earth are you wittering on about ?

you accuse me of apologising for posters posting up that they hate Hughton, something I have never done ... then you claim I am making stuff up

dearie dear me !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
using a bigger club as an example.. Arsenal have won nothing in 9 years.. have been battered by teams in the last few seasons and have been showing signs of decline towards mid table for quite some time now..and yet they have kept their manager for the full 9 year period in some kind of misguided loyalty? or is change never for the best ultimately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Circular argument so not going there City1st. I''m far too long in the tooth to fall for your old squit[;)]

 

 

[/quote]or rather you have accused me of something I have never done but haven''t the integrity to apologise (unlike Hughton''s failings)ps not sure where you are not going, but I am sure you were going to find this eevifdence of hating Hughton ............... and me apologising for itno hurry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I think the guy has a point. I remember reading a post from Jim Smith where he stated he despised Chris Hughton. And he was talking about the man. He got plenty of support for that view. His view on Hughton is so tainted that he believes we deserve to be relegated. Others continually call him a clown. That''s personal. They also doctor pictures of him to resemble a clown. That''s personal. Perhaps some of you apologists could explain those things to me if I''m wrong...

 

 

 

 

[/quote]Some people just can''t help it Nigel.Those desperate for a managerial change when the other relegation candidates decided to swap just need to take a minute to look at the league tables and compare between the end of November and now. I told you at the time it would not make the slightest difference to how the season would pan out and one look at the table will show that I was right then and am right now.After 12 games Cardiff               13 pointsNorwich             11West Ham         10Fulham              10Palace                7Sunderland         7NowSwansea             29WBA                 28Palace                28Sunderland         25Cardiff               25Fulham              24

[/quote]Your own tables show that is simply not true, ricardo. Palace and Sunderland (the only two teams that obeyed all my three rules of changing managers mid-season) were on course to finish joint rock-bottom. Now both have a chance of staying up and it is highly likely at least one will. Those managerial changes have been more than validated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I''ve been telling you for months, any that escape will think they''ve done the right thing. Most are going to find that that it made no difference.

After a dozen games the course of the season is mapped out. Only three go down so half the bottom six will survive in any event. Changing managers is no better than tossing a coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are still here chap. Very pleased at the result and the manner of the result however Sunderland are terribl and their league position proves that. We were at home and 3 points were a must and fully expected against such lowly opposition.

For me Hughton has had plenty of time to prove his credentials and for me he is well short. I suspect he will be gone come June 2014, I hope so any way.

Ps, the manner of your articulation only goes to add fuel to the suspicion that football fans are chav. So thanks for reverting to type.

Enjoy your weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lincoln canary"]I don''t hate Hughton. Still want him out in the summer though. A lot of bad blood has been split this year, a fresh approach is needed.[/quote]

I''m a bit curious about your remark that a lot of bad blood has been spilt this season, Lincoln.

On this message board it has at times, but has it in the real world? I don''t think it has. Could you provide some examples because what happens on a football forum does not come into decision of whether or not CH should be sacked. Though it might have some bearing if it has occurred in the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"]As I''ve been telling you for months, any that escape will think they''ve done the right thing. Most are going to find that that it made no difference.

After a dozen games the course of the season is mapped out. Only three go down so half the bottom six will survive in any event. Changing managers is no better than tossing a coin.[/quote]That you keep on saying something doesn''t make it true, ricardo. You used to keep telling me that changing a manager NEVER worked because you always reverted to some mythical mean. When I and others pointed out that the Dutch survey on which that was mainly based was a load of tosh you quietly dropped that mantra. Your new mantra acknowledges that changing a manager CAN work, but that it is a lottery.To be fair there is some truth in this new mantra (not least because there is always an element of uncertainty in any managerial appointment) but there are ways in which directors making a change can maximise their chances of it working. Make the decision early. Do it for long-standing reasons than because of some blip. And get in someone who looks likely to perform markedly better than his predecessor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"]As I''ve been telling you for months, any that escape will think they''ve done the right thing. Most are going to find that that it made no difference.

After a dozen games the course of the season is mapped out. Only three go down so half the bottom six will survive in any event. Changing managers is no better than tossing a coin.[/quote]That you keep on saying something doesn''t make it true, ricardo. You used to keep telling me that changing a manager NEVER worked because you always reverted to some mythical mean. When I and others pointed out that the Dutch survey on which that was mainly based was a load of tosh you quietly dropped that mantra. Your new mantra acknowledges that changing a manager CAN work, but that it is a lottery.To be fair there is some truth in this new mantra (not least because there is always an element of uncertainty in any managerial appointment) but there are ways in which directors making a change can maximise their chances of it working. Make the decision early. Do it for long-standing reasons than because of some blip. And get in someone who looks likely to perform markedly better than his predecessor.[/quote]No mate, I haven''t changed my mantra at all. I said at the time that those clubs who changed were wasting their time and money because results would revert to the mean over any reasonable period of time, which indeed they have. You may think the survey was based on tosh but the same survey in Italian and German leagues showed almost exactly the same results. Changing your manager after a string of bad results is understandable and appeases the crowd for a while but long term the evidence shows that it''s a futile exercise.I know your argument is that Palace and Sunderland gave themselves a chance but they would have had to obtain fewer points than the worst ever total to not have improved on their first ten games. It was inevitable that they would revert to the mean. The case of Sunderland is a little different for reasons we all know about. Losing the dressing room is an obvious terminator for any manager. From the 12 game mark when we first had this argument none of the changers have done any better than the non changers and most of the non changers have done markedly worse.If all those that changed their managers did the right thing you have to ask yourself why after an extensive run of games, they have not exceeded the points total of those who were in similar straits but didn''t change. The present bottom six all changed their managers. The next four up didn''t. The season isn''t over yet but it looks odds on that all three relegated teams are likely to be teams that changed their managers. Look at the table, it speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That should have read " most of the changers have done markedly worse"[:$]Which they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"]As I''ve been telling you for months, any that escape will think they''ve done the right thing. Most are going to find that that it made no difference.

After a dozen games the course of the season is mapped out. Only three go down so half the bottom six will survive in any event. Changing managers is no better than tossing a coin.[/quote]That you keep on saying something doesn''t make it true, ricardo. You used to keep telling me that changing a manager NEVER worked because you always reverted to some mythical mean. When I and others pointed out that the Dutch survey on which that was mainly based was a load of tosh you quietly dropped that mantra. Your new mantra acknowledges that changing a manager CAN work, but that it is a lottery.To be fair there is some truth in this new mantra (not least because there is always an element of uncertainty in any managerial appointment) but there are ways in which directors making a change can maximise their chances of it working. Make the decision early. Do it for long-standing reasons than because of some blip. And get in someone who looks likely to perform markedly better than his predecessor.[/quote]No mate, I haven''t changed my mantra at all. I said at the time that those clubs who changed were wasting their time and money because results would revert to the mean over any reasonable period of time, which indeed they have. You may think the survey was based on tosh but the same survey in Italian and German leagues showed almost exactly the same results. Changing your manager after a string of bad results is understandable and appeases the crowd for a while but long term the evidence shows that it''s a futile exercise.I know your argument is that Palace and Sunderland gave themselves a chance but they would have had to obtain fewer points than the worst ever total to not have improved on their first ten games. It was inevitable that they would revert to the mean. The case of Sunderland is a little different for reasons we all know about. Losing the dressing room is an obvious terminator for any manager. From the 12 game mark when we first had this argument none of the changers have done any better than the non changers and most of the non changers have done markedly worse.If all those that changed their managers did the right thing you have to ask yourself why after an extensive run of games, they have not exceeded the points total of those who were in similar straits but didn''t change. The present bottom six all changed their managers. The next four up didn''t. The season isn''t over yet but it looks odds on that all three relegated teams are likely to be teams that changed their managers. Look at the table, it speaks for itself.[/quote]No, ricardo, you have switched mantras. You went from saying changing never works to saying it was a lottery in which it sometimes worked and sometimes didn''t. Now you seem to be changing back. You can''t have it both ways.As to particular points, I agree that changing after a few bad results (which is what the surveys are dealing with, and can only be dealing with) is a bad idea. That is why I have only advocated change if there are deeper-seated/longer term problems (for which it is impossible to create a valid survey). As at Sunderland, which you can''t sideline as some kind of special case - it perfectly fits my criterion. As does Palace, where Holloway admitted he just wasn''t up to it.Your only argument against Sunderland and Palace being good examples is that you say you don''t believe they would have carried on to record low totals.. Why not? Sunderland have done it before. And Palace looked as ill-equipped with Holloway as that awful Derby side that got promoted too early. Without change they could both could easily by now have fallen adrift. They HAVE given themselves a chance. And that is all I have ever said was the point of change. I have never suggested it was a get-out-of-jail-free-card. As to the chances of the three relegated teams all having changed managers, no doubt that will be true. But as you say, the bottom six have all changed, so that is almost bound to happen. It doesn''t invalidate change under the right, carefully-thought-out circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"]As I''ve been telling you for months, any that escape will think they''ve done the right thing. Most are going to find that that it made no difference.

After a dozen games the course of the season is mapped out. Only three go down so half the bottom six will survive in any event. Changing managers is no better than tossing a coin.[/quote]That you keep on saying something doesn''t make it true, ricardo. You used to keep telling me that changing a manager NEVER worked because you always reverted to some mythical mean. When I and others pointed out that the Dutch survey on which that was mainly based was a load of tosh you quietly dropped that mantra. Your new mantra acknowledges that changing a manager CAN work, but that it is a lottery.To be fair there is some truth in this new mantra (not least because there is always an element of uncertainty in any managerial appointment) but there are ways in which directors making a change can maximise their chances of it working. Make the decision early. Do it for long-standing reasons than because of some blip. And get in someone who looks likely to perform markedly better than his predecessor.[/quote]No mate, I haven''t changed my mantra at all. I said at the time that those clubs who changed were wasting their time and money because results would revert to the mean over any reasonable period of time, which indeed they have. You may think the survey was based on tosh but the same survey in Italian and German leagues showed almost exactly the same results. Changing your manager after a string of bad results is understandable and appeases the crowd for a while but long term the evidence shows that it''s a futile exercise.I know your argument is that Palace and Sunderland gave themselves a chance but they would have had to obtain fewer points than the worst ever total to not have improved on their first ten games. It was inevitable that they would revert to the mean. The case of Sunderland is a little different for reasons we all know about. Losing the dressing room is an obvious terminator for any manager. From the 12 game mark when we first had this argument none of the changers have done any better than the non changers and most of the non changers have done markedly worse.If all those that changed their managers did the right thing you have to ask yourself why after an extensive run of games, they have not exceeded the points total of those who were in similar straits but didn''t change. The present bottom six all changed their managers. The next four up didn''t. The season isn''t over yet but it looks odds on that all three relegated teams are likely to be teams that changed their managers. Look at the table, it speaks for itself.[/quote]No, ricardo, you have switched mantras. You went from saying changing never works to saying it was a lottery in which it sometimes worked and sometimes didn''t. Now you seem to be changing back. You can''t have it both ways.As to particular points, I agree that changing after a few bad results (which is what the surveys are dealing with, and can only be dealing with) is a bad idea. That is why I have only advocated change if there are deeper-seated/longer term problems (for which it is impossible to create a valid survey). As at Sunderland, which you can''t sideline as some kind of special case - it perfectly fits my criterion. As does Palace, where Holloway admitted he just wasn''t up to it.Your only argument against Sunderland and Palace being good examples is that you say you don''t believe they would have carried on to record low totals.. Why not? Sunderland have done it before. And Palace looked as ill-equipped with Holloway as that awful Derby side that got promoted too early. Without change they could both could easily by now have fallen adrift. They HAVE given themselves a chance. And that is all I have ever said was the point of change. I have never suggested it was a get-out-of-jail-free-card. As to the chances of the three relegated teams all having changed managers, no doubt that will be true. But as you say, the bottom six have all changed, so that is almost bound to happen. It doesn''t invalidate change under the right, carefully-thought-out circumstances.[/quote]I think it''s you who is playing with words Purple, not me. My theory was clearly laid out when we began this argument months ago that changing usually proves to be futile and I gave you chapter and verse on why Sunderland and Palace were never going to go along at the points per game average they were achieving pre the change. Neither ever looked like emulating Derby County. Without looking up the exact figure I think it was that Sunderland would only have got 7 points for the entire season. I never believed that and nor would any other sane person with the flimsiest idea of Premier teams relative strengths.As for the "right carefully thought out circumstances", Sunderland had no choice and as you say Holloway thought he wasn''t up to it and Pullis has organised them a little bit better. Yes, they have given themselves a chance but no more of a chance than any half sensible manager would have given them from the start. Sunderland were a poor side last year and were obvious relegation fodder this year plus Di Canio imploded. Palace started favourites to go down and if they survive Pullis will be acclaimed as the miracle worker. As for the rest they all thought they should be doing better and that a new man at the helm would do the trick. Looking at their points per game average pre and post the change none can point to a noticeable improvement. West Brom were fooled into thinking they were a better team than they were by their hot streak early last season. Clarke paid the penalty for this misconception. Cardiff have done worse with OGS than they did with Malky. As for Fulham, oh dear, oh dear, seventy goals conceded tells you all you need to know. If changing managers gives you a boost they need seven more managers this season.Looking at the teams that didn''t twist (ourselves and West Ham) you would have to say that the directors who held their collective nerve look like the ones that made the right choice. We can''t travel to other Universes but if there are Universes where the changers didn''t change then my propositions remains that it would have made no difference. Looking at the present league table the evidence shows that it''s making no difference in this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"]

I think it''s you who is playing with words Purple, not me. My theory was clearly laid out when we began this argument months ago that changing usually proves to be futile and I gave you chapter and verse on why Sunderland and Palace were never going to go along at the points per game average they were achieving pre the change. Neither ever looked like emulating Derby County. Without looking up the exact figure I think it was that Sunderland would only have got 7 points for the entire season. I never believed that and nor would any other sane person with the flimsiest idea of Premier teams relative strengths.As for the "right carefully thought out circumstances", Sunderland had no choice and as you say Holloway thought he wasn''t up to it and Pullis has organised them a little bit better. Yes, they have given themselves a chance but no more of a chance than any half sensible manager would have given them from the start. Sunderland were a poor side last year and were obvious relegation fodder this year plus Di Canio imploded. Palace started favourites to go down and if they survive Pullis will be acclaimed as the miracle worker. [/quote]Thank you for making my point for me. I have, for the umpteenth time, never said changing a manager was a panacea that would always work. But that it would work under some circumstances, such as, for example, those that applied at Palace and Sunderland. You continue to attempt to treat those cases as bizarre exceptions because then you can try to claim they don''t invalidate what you kept putting forward as a blanket rule.But they are not that unusual. Those circumstances - having a manager who isn''t up to the job - are actually quite common. As with us and Bryan Gunn. And the solution is to bring in a manager who is at least half-sensible. Then you have a distinct chance of improving. And that is all I have ever said was the point of change. And, of course, is why I have never suggested sacking Hughton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I''d like to see a "transfer embargo" on managers, that is each has a designated manager for the duration of the season and you have to use him - only release clause available is due to ill health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that can’t see the difference between HATING someone, and suggesting that a manager should be changed is a trifle bizarre, as is an argument to say that changing a manager never works , or that it always works.

 

Of course changing a manager can work. If  it was proven to be that is NEVER works, then highly intelligent people that run football clubs (usually having made millions of pounds doing something else) simply wouldn’t bother making a change. Many changes are made when a club is in such a position that little can be done, so the team doesn’t stay up. The teams at the top don’t tend to change their managers!

 

I believe that Palace and Sunderland have benefited from change. So did Southampton.  Whether we would still be sitting on 32 points if we had changed manager is a point that we can never ascertain, frankly so long as we stay up I’m not bothered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

 

Of course changing a manager can work. If  it was proven to be that is NEVER works, then highly intelligent people that run football clubs (usually having made millions of pounds doing something else) simply wouldn’t bother making a change. Many changes are made when a club is in such a position that little can be done, so the team doesn’t stay up. The teams at the top don’t tend to change their managers!

 

I believe that Palace and Sunderland have benefited from change. So did Southampton.  Whether we would still be sitting on 32 points if we had changed manager is a point that we can never ascertain, frankly so long as we stay up I’m not bothered.

[/quote]That is exactly right, GPB. There isn''t some kind of rule (either way) to which there might be a few exceptions. You need to examine the particular circumstances and reasons, and they are almost always different. With the relegation sackings this season Fulham Two was different from Fulham One and both were different from Sunderland or West Brom or Palace or Swansea or Cardiff. And all those different from each other.Now I need to contemplate how Nottingham Forest (possibly) sacking Billy Davies and replacing him with Neil Warnock fits into all this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely it is not so much about whether there is change, but the nature of the change. There have been some quite odd decisions and one wonders how much homework some of the Chairmen/Boards actually do before making an appointment. Do they fall into the trap of just looking at stats and final league tables?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Circular argument so not going there City1st. I''m far too long in the tooth to fall for your old squit[;)]

 

 

[/quote]or rather you have accused me of something I have never done but haven''t the integrity to apologise (unlike Hughton''s failings)ps not sure where you are not going, but I am sure you were going to find this eevifdence of hating Hughton ............... and me apologising for itno hurry

[/quote]
Love watching Mr. Sanctimonious making things up and getting caught out. He claims he never does it, but he''s clearly given in here and knows he''s in the wrong. Haha love it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in answer to the OP - I''m right here. I''m not a Hughton hater, I just want him out because he''s not good enough.

YES, EVEN after Saturday''s result. In the words of the amazing Sam Cooke: A change is gonna come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="SeattleCanary"][quote user="City1st"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Circular argument so not going there City1st. I''m far too long in the tooth to fall for your old squit[;)]

 [/quote]

or rather you have accused me of something I have never done but haven''t the integrity to apologise (unlike Hughton''s failings)ps not sure where you are not going, but I am sure you were going to find this eevifdence of hating Hughton ............... and me apologising for itno hurry[/quote]
Love watching Mr. Sanctimonious making things up and getting caught out. He claims he never does it, but he''s clearly given in here and knows he''s in the wrong. Haha love it!
[/quote]

Far from it. Nutty was imo reporting the fact that there has been a lot of nasty personal stuff about Hughton on here which is uncalled for.  City 1st then tried to make light of it.    Trying to have a sensible argument with City 1st is like getting on some kind of weird roundabout at a funfair, you start slowly, it gets faster then you start getting dizzy as your brain tries to keep up with the train of thought and at the end you feel a little queasy..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or, losing the argument as it is otherwise knownnow where is it in the Lake district you live, the bit that is supposedly an extra 50 mile or so further north than the rest of the Lake District ?perhaps it has it''s own newspaper, and you could write City 2-0 on it and send a photo in ......................... a snap of Oulton Broad won''t do

ps you may fool others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have agreed with everything Purple has said. I enjoyed it when Ricardo said "any sensible manager would have gave them from the start" ... illustrates exactly what he''s arguing against haha .... doing noticeably better is slightly different to not doing as bad and the change of managers was not only sensible in those cases but worked too...

I disagree with Purple on one thing though: Hughton. I wanted him sacked games ago. Now it''s so late, I still wouldn''t object to him being replaced now, but am waiting for after the next 2 games to re decide if I actually want that again or not.

I just think that the regression as opposed to progression under Hughton is clear to see and unacceptable... because so much has gone wrong already, I want him replaced at end of season no matter what... only going undefeated the rest of this season might absolve him enough to consider at least giving him more time.

While our defence is still far from great... It is better than when under Lambert. And some of the players he has brought in have been great (some not so) so despite what OP and others seem to think: I wouldn''t mind if the man stayed on as something else.... I would just hope there''s someone out there that''s better at doing everything a manager does than Hughton (there''s bound to be plenty ;-p)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="RodneyTrottersFC"]I have agreed with everything Purple has said. I enjoyed it when Ricardo said "any sensible manager would have gave them from the start" ... illustrates exactly what he''s arguing against haha .... doing noticeably better is slightly different to not doing as bad and the change of managers was not only sensible in those cases but worked too...

I disagree with Purple on one thing though: Hughton. I wanted him sacked games ago. Now it''s so late, I still wouldn''t object to him being replaced now, but am waiting for after the next 2 games to re decide if I actually want that again or not.

I just think that the regression as opposed to progression under Hughton is clear to see and unacceptable... because so much has gone wrong already, I want him replaced at end of season no matter what... only going undefeated the rest of this season might absolve him enough to consider at least giving him more time.

While our defence is still far from great... It is better than when under Lambert. And some of the players he has brought in have been great (some not so) so despite what OP and others seem to think: I wouldn''t mind if the man stayed on as something else.... I would just hope there''s someone out there that''s better at doing everything a manager does than Hughton (there''s bound to be plenty ;-p)[/quote]It is a matter of opinion, of course. My view is that there has never been a time this season when there was a strong enough case to sack Hughton. Arguments for doing that, but arguments the other way. And anyone advocating sacking Hughton has to stop regarding themselves just as a fan and instead put themselves in the minds of the directors, with all the responsibilities that entails.With a bit of luck we will survive, and then the directors can have a calm and reflective discussion about whether to keep Hughton on. Because there are indeed arguments on both sides, and presumably it will be clear - or at least clearer - who the alternatives might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I forgot to say:

"Changing the manager doesn''t wave a magic wand: all 3 relegated clubs changed manager"

This would be a silly thing to say. That would also mean 3 clubs survived despite changing. As with most things you have to look at each case to review if the change had any bearing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...