"We have the highest-quality managers in Europe knocking on our door,"

[PurpleCanary 5,564]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]

The financial ones have been well documented. I prefer to contrast the actions of the Chairmen /CEO''s . At St Mary''s when it became obvious that Adkins was not up to the job they acted quickly. They risked, and there was a lot of, disgruntlement from the fans. But it worked out in the end. And rather well too. Comfort two seasons ago and an 8th place finish last time out.Contrast that with Carrow Rd. It was blindingly obvious at a pretty early stage that Hughton was not going to cut the mustard, but instead of acting, our board dithered and made excuse after excuse. It was only at a later stage that the fans became disgruntled, but by then it was too late. Narrowly missing relegation by the skin of our teeth two seasons ago, and then relegated this time.As others have said, we''ll just have to wait and see how the appointments of Neil Adams at Norwich and Mr AN Other at Southampton work out, but it''s not always a good idea to compare how things are at both clubs.[/quote]Reggie, Hughton was appointed on June 7, 2012, and dismissed on April 6, 2014. At what point between those dates would you have stood up at a board meeting and proposed sacking Hughton, and what are the main fact-based arguments you would have used to convince your fellow directors to vote with you?

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]

The financial ones have been well documented. I prefer to contrast the actions of the Chairmen /CEO''s . At St Mary''s when it became obvious that Adkins was not up to the job they acted quickly. They risked, and there was a lot of, disgruntlement from the fans. But it worked out in the end. And rather well too. Comfort two seasons ago and an 8th place finish last time out.Contrast that with Carrow Rd. It was blindingly obvious at a pretty early stage that Hughton was not going to cut the mustard, but instead of acting, our board dithered and made excuse after excuse. It was only at a later stage that the fans became disgruntled, but by then it was too late. Narrowly missing relegation by the skin of our teeth two seasons ago, and then relegated this time.As others have said, we''ll just have to wait and see how the appointments of Neil Adams at Norwich and Mr AN Other at Southampton work out, but it''s not always a good idea to compare how things are at both clubs.[/quote]Reggie, Hughton was appointed on June 7, 2012, and dismissed on April 6, 2014. At what point between those dates would you have stood up at a board meeting and proposed sacking Hughton, and what are the main fact-based arguments you would have used to convince your fellow directors to vote with you?[/quote]An interesting question, Purple and a reasonable one too.In short, I, along with many others began to get alarm bells ringing inside my head in about Feb/Mar 13 . We''d had the good run over Oct to Dec 12, but things took a pretty clear downward slope soon afterwards. Do you not remember some of the dire displays in late winter/spring last year ?! I know that some people are in denial over this, but I''m sorry, however you dress it up ,we avoided relegation in 12/13 by the skin of our teeth.Contrast that with Southampton. In Adkins they had a popular manager who''d got them back to back promotions, but their first few games back in the PL were a disaster. The board clearly believed that it was an accident waiting to happen and acted decisively in the early autumn, by appointing Pochettino.So, to answer your question, I''d have replaced CH this time last year at the latest . You talk of ''fact based arguments''. Well, there are plenty of those, but sometimes in business you just have to act on hunches/gut instinct. There was no fact based stuff that proved that Adkins would not have pulled it round at St Mary''s. Likewise thee was no guarantee that Pochettino would be a success. But, from time to time you just have to go with what you see in front of you and take a gamble. I''m convinced that had the NCFC board done likewise, we''d now again be planning our trips to OT, The Emirates and Etihad, as opposed to Bloomfield Rd, Griffin Park and Millmoor.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,435]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]


The financial ones have been well documented. I prefer to contrast the actions of the Chairmen /CEO''s . At St Mary''s when it became obvious that Adkins was not up to the job they acted quickly. They risked, and there was a lot of, disgruntlement from the fans. But it worked out in the end. And rather well too. Comfort two seasons ago and an 8th place finish last time out.

Contrast that with Carrow Rd. It was blindingly obvious at a pretty early stage that Hughton was not going to cut the mustard, but instead of acting, our board dithered and made excuse after excuse. It was only at a later stage that the fans became disgruntled, but by then it was too late. Narrowly missing relegation by the skin of our teeth two seasons ago, and then relegated this time.

As others have said, we''ll just have to wait and see how the appointments of Neil Adams at Norwich and Mr AN Other at Southampton work out, but it''s not always a good idea to compare how things are at both clubs.
[/quote]

Reggie, Hughton was appointed on June 7, 2012, and dismissed on April 6, 2014. At what point between those dates would you have stood up at a board meeting and proposed sacking Hughton, and what are the main fact-based arguments you would have used to convince your fellow directors to vote with you?
[/quote]

An interesting question, Purple and a reasonable one too.

In short, I, along with many others began to get alarm bells ringing inside my head in about Feb/Mar 13 . We''d had the good run over Oct to Dec 12, but things took a pretty clear downward slope soon afterwards. Do you not remember some of the dire displays in late winter/spring last year ?! I know that some people are in denial over this, but I''m sorry, however you dress it up ,we avoided relegation in 12/13 by the skin of our teeth.

Contrast that with Southampton. In Adkins they had a popular manager who''d got them back to back promotions, but their first few games back in the PL were a disaster. The board clearly believed that it was an accident waiting to happen and acted decisively in the early autumn, by appointing Pochettino.

So, to answer your question, I''d have replaced CH this time last year at the latest . You talk of ''fact based arguments''. Well, there are plenty of those, but sometimes in business you just have to act on hunches/gut instinct. There was no fact based stuff that proved that Adkins would not have pulled it round at St Mary''s. Likewise thee was no guarantee that Pochettino would be a success. But, from time to time you just have to go with what you see in front of you and take a gamble. I''m convinced that had the NCFC board done likewise, we''d now again be planning our trips to OT, The Emirates and Etihad, as opposed to Bloomfield Rd, Griffin Park and Millmoor.
[/quote]

 

The debates between Purple and Reggie are well worth a read. One of the few sensible reasons to keep a handle on this board. (promise me that you are not the same person!)

If I can throw in my h''apenny if would raise a question on the merit of “facts” when looking at the managerial situation at Carrow Road. In true hard facts, as McNally said , there was no reason to sack Hughton. Had we have stood up at the AGM and demanded his head, there were plenty of facts to point to , to keep him.

We were not in the bottom three

 

We stayed up last year (so CH had a track record)

 

We had a “habit” of winning home games and there were enough left to stay up.

 

However, as has not been lost on most of us, we got relegated.

 

 

Now Bowkett has described our relegation as “avoidable” . So how would we have avoided it , without flying in the face of these facts? Like Reggie I felt a tinge of unease in the timescales he mentions, which became a state of paralysis in January 2014. So too, apparently did the board, but saw “facts” as the reason not to make a change.  

 

[nutty nigel 7,542]

Even with hindsight its impossible to say any change at any given time would have brought about improvement. Even a change at this time last year would have been too late to change much of the summer transfer window because 8m had already been spent.

And in my experience of our club a change only has a 50% chance of bringing about an improvement anyway.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Well, GPB. I can certainly confirm that Purple and I are not one and the same. As far as I''m aware I''ve never met him.!But he , like several others, is one of the members of this board with a balanced view and always something thought provoking to say. And someone who respects the views of others. As opposed to the well known faction who describe anyone who has a view that is at variance to their own as ''talking tripe'', or, worse still, quickly resort to the kindergarten insults. The same people of course are the ones who describe anyone who posts anything critical of the club as ''moaners'' and ''whingers''.Onto the matter in hand. I was always rather troubled by the statements made by the board (and latched onto by several posters here) that ''not being in the bottom 3'' , and ''having avoided relegation in 12/13'' were somehow facts that were ones to be proud of and reason enough to keep Hughton. To me, merely keeping our heads above water was not a healthy situation to be in. Still less to aspire to. I know the now infamous ''we are hoping for mid-table mediocrity'' line from Mc N was in jest, but, to some of us ,it has a ring of authenticity to it as to what the board''s aspirations actually were. Merely staying out of the bottom 3 was not a policy that would work for long, and so it has proved.I''ve found the arguments used by the board for not making a change unconvincing to say the least, but no doubt there will be those who put a different slant on it.

[PurpleCanary 5,564]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]

The financial ones have been well documented. I prefer to contrast the actions of the Chairmen /CEO''s . At St Mary''s when it became obvious that Adkins was not up to the job they acted quickly. They risked, and there was a lot of, disgruntlement from the fans. But it worked out in the end. And rather well too. Comfort two seasons ago and an 8th place finish last time out.Contrast that with Carrow Rd. It was blindingly obvious at a pretty early stage that Hughton was not going to cut the mustard, but instead of acting, our board dithered and made excuse after excuse. It was only at a later stage that the fans became disgruntled, but by then it was too late. Narrowly missing relegation by the skin of our teeth two seasons ago, and then relegated this time.As others have said, we''ll just have to wait and see how the appointments of Neil Adams at Norwich and Mr AN Other at Southampton work out, but it''s not always a good idea to compare how things are at both clubs.[/quote]Reggie, Hughton was appointed on June 7, 2012, and dismissed on April 6, 2014. At what point between those dates would you have stood up at a board meeting and proposed sacking Hughton, and what are the main fact-based arguments you would have used to convince your fellow directors to vote with you?[/quote]An interesting question, Purple and a reasonable one too.In short, I, along with many others began to get alarm bells ringing inside my head in about Feb/Mar 13 . We''d had the good run over Oct to Dec 12, but things took a pretty clear downward slope soon afterwards. Do you not remember some of the dire displays in late winter/spring last year ?! I know that some people are in denial over this, but I''m sorry, however you dress it up ,we avoided relegation in 12/13 by the skin of our teeth.Contrast that with Southampton. In Adkins they had a popular manager who''d got them back to back promotions, but their first few games back in the PL were a disaster. The board clearly believed that it was an accident waiting to happen and acted decisively in the early autumn, by appointing Pochettino.So, to answer your question, I''d have replaced CH this time last year at the latest . You talk of ''fact based arguments''. Well, there are plenty of those, but sometimes in business you just have to act on hunches/gut instinct. There was no fact based stuff that proved that Adkins would not have pulled it round at St Mary''s. Likewise thee was no guarantee that Pochettino would be a success. But, from time to time you just have to go with what you see in front of you and take a gamble. I''m convinced that had the NCFC board done likewise, we''d now again be planning our trips to OT, The Emirates and Etihad, as opposed to Bloomfield Rd, Griffin Park and Millmoor.[/quote]Thanks, Reggie. I think there are only two good times to sack a manager.

In the summer, so the new man can work in the transfer market, or in

the autumn, to give them time to prepare for the winter window.As

to you advocating last summer to ditch Hughton, you have admitted this

is as much a hunch as anything. And in effect you are saying the board

should have acted on YOUR hunch!The facts, such as they are,

rather argue against that. The 11th placed finish was illusory (I always

paid more attention to having three fewer points) but even so it was a

respectable performance, given our finances. And it seemed to me from the

five games I saw (spookily, all wins...) and to others (and possibly

the directors) as if Hughton had a very sensible tactical strategy in

mind. A switch from Lambert''s cavalry-charge methods to a more

sophisticated counter-attacking style.Only slowly this last

season did it become apparent that the aim was not so much

counter-attacking as non-attacking, and that whatever the theory, in

practice the plan was hopelessly flawed from defence, through midfield

to attack. But that was not obvious last autumn.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]As

to you advocating last summer to ditch Hughton, you have admitted this

is as much a hunch as anything. And in effect you are saying the board

should have acted on YOUR hunch!

[/quote]Well, OK , Purple. But the way you present that is that this ''hunch'' was mine and mine alone !  There were many people on this board suggesting it was time for change as long ago as last summer . In fact I personally took a fairly sedentary stance on the whole change question , really up till the autumn, quite possibly because, like most others, I''d been excited by the reputation of the summer purchases, believing (falsely, as it turned out) that they represented a Damascine conversion by Hughton and that the kind of expansive football you refer to would be what was on offer in his brave new world. But fiascos like that at the KC stadium in August soon brought us down to earth with a bang !If you are bringing the use of ''facts'' into it, I liken that to what I certainly do in making a major purchase. I write down all the features I want on a ''wish list'', and then see what products tick the most boxes. As far as Hughton was concerned, I''ll concede that initially, his facts at least  ticked a pretty reasonable proportion of the boxes. But as time went on, the ticks got fewer and fewer. What I''m saying is that, in fairness, my ''hunch'' was, in itself ,based on my interpretation of the facts in front of me. As opposed to some left field fad I suddenly obtained .

[Michael Starr 519]

Two things. Firstly, this is a typical statement made by the Southampton board to keep the club from imploding. Read the Southampton forums to see what I mean. The fans think a crash is about to happen at the club. The board need to be seen to be ambitious at this stage. This is a statement of re-assurance more than anything else. Especially with key players leaving in the Summer.

Secondly, the grass is always greener on the other side. I think there are plenty of teams that look at us in the same light (i.e. Ipswich). So let''s stick together and stop comparing ourselves to a team currently on a high. Things even out over time.

[PurpleCanary 5,564]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]As

to you advocating last summer to ditch Hughton, you have admitted this

is as much a hunch as anything. And in effect you are saying the board

should have acted on YOUR hunch!

[/quote]Well, OK , Purple. But the way you present that is that this ''hunch'' was mine and mine alone !  There were many people on this board suggesting it was time for change as long ago as last summer . In fact I personally took a fairly sedentary stance on the whole change question , really up till the autumn, quite possibly because, like most others, I''d been excited by the reputation of the summer purchases, believing (falsely, as it turned out) that they represented a Damascine conversion by Hughton and that the kind of expansive football you refer to would be what was on offer in his brave new world. But fiascos like that at the KC stadium in August soon brought us down to earth with a bang !If you are bringing the use of ''facts'' into it, I liken that to what I certainly do in making a major purchase. I write down all the features I want on a ''wish list'', and then see what products tick the most boxes. As far as Hughton was concerned, I''ll concede that initially, his facts at least  ticked a pretty reasonable proportion of the boxes. But as time went on, the ticks got fewer and fewer. What I''m saying is that, in fairness, my ''hunch'' was, in itself ,based on my interpretation of the facts in front of me. As opposed to some left field fad I suddenly obtained .[/quote]Reggie, all of that is fair enough, and I don''t doubt that many others shared your hunch, although as I have pointed out before, there were almost as many supposed tipping-points for the sacking of Hughton as there were posters. But even so that doesn''t mean it was a hunch shared by the seven people who would not only have to take the decision, and look the man in the eye as they handed him his P45, and justify the decision to the world of football but also have an upgrade of a replacement to hand.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

I suppose this brings us neatly back to the Southampton comparison again, Purple. Do you suppose that the St Mary''s board had the sort of ''facts'' you speak of to look Nigel Adkins in the eye and hand him his P45 in autumn 12 ?  Unless there was some behind  the scenes misdemeanour we don''t know about, I''d very much doubt it. Sometimes, in business you just have to make very tough unsavoury decisions, and the impression given by our board is that they are not terribly good at it.And, I''m sorry, but I just do not buy this ''no feasible replacement '' argument . Last year there were dozens of top managers who''d have given their right arm to manage NCFC . Probably fewer now, though we are still an attractive proposition for most . That''s why, with the appointment of Adams, then the board had better be right that he was the best man for the job!!

[PurpleCanary 5,564]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]I suppose this brings us neatly back to the Southampton comparison again, Purple. Do you suppose that the St Mary''s board had the sort of ''facts'' you speak of to look Nigel Adkins in the eye and hand him his P45 in autumn 12 ?  Unless there was some behind  the scenes misdemeanour we don''t know about, I''d very much doubt it. Sometimes, in business you just have to make very tough unsavoury decisions, and the impression given by our board is that they are not terribly good at it.And, I''m sorry, but I just do not buy this ''no feasible replacement '' argument . Last year there were dozens of top managers who''d have given their right arm to manage NCFC . Probably fewer now, though we are still an attractive proposition for most . That''s why, with the appointment of Adams, then the board had better be right that he was the best man for the job!![/quote]Reggie, I would need to know more about the management structure at Southampton, but the impression I have is that Cortese, who was the executive chairman, rather in the mould of Robert Chase, pretty much ran the club as he liked, and didn''t have to bother too much about convincing his fellow directors of anything. He had the backing of the absentee owner and so was effectively Smith, Jones, McNally and Bowkett all rolled into one.That is one way of operating, and it is fine providing the right decisions keep being made, but there are also great dangers in doing it that way, and virtues in having a more traditional system with boardroom democracy, as at Norwich City.Myself, I don''t think our directors are incapable of making tough decisions, but I do think - because of that boardroom democracy - it is harder for them than for a solo ruler in the Cortese style to settle on what they think the right tough decision is.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Of course, Purple, there are differing board structures throughout business. The impression I''ve got from So''ton is that Liebherr/Cortese and their henchmen stumped up the cash to free them from their Administration, so it''s hardly surprising that he treated it as his own personal fiefdom prior to his departure . But there are those that believe the Wynn Joneses operate the same sort of operation here, albeit in a watered down format. It would be churlish to suggest that they have not done some fine work : not least making us debt-free. Plus all the hard work that it took to bring us up from the foot of Lge One to the Prem in about 3 years. Which, of course, is why it''s all the more bizarre that all that good work is in danger of going to waste for the want of clear decisive actions re the football side of the club. At least, that''s how it seems to me......

[chicken 0]

I think there are other factors here as well.Despite what many fans were saying - quite a few pundits had us down as safe at the end of Jan beginning of Feb. We lost or drew some real crunch matches - where last season we had been far more clinical.I think it was really only after those results that it became what I would call ''clear''.Had Hughton been arrogant, a slightly challenging character or even one that had the players revolting against him, I think you would have seen him go sooner.It wasn''t as clear cut as everyone was and has said. Board members can say what they like now, I''m not saying I don''t trust them, but hindsight is a brilliant thing and I believe that is all that they are reflecting upon. They are right to say relegation was avoidable. First and foremost the players themselves could have avoided it. The coaching staff and manager could have avoided it. The board could have avoided it. Where does the buck stop? To me, they all must take responsibility and part of the blame.But the most important thing is to not be caught out by it. Don''t continue to dwell on what happened last season - no other club will care. We are a Championship club now and we have to look forward not backwards.As for the Southampton situation - I am sure they are getting a lot of interest, I am sure that there was interest from various people for the position we had vacant. How many of those could be taken seriously? As serious managerial candidates? I should also imagine that their list may well be shrinking by the day. At the end of the season they had a decent squad that any manager wanting to prove their worth would have loved to have taken over. And yet it would appear that players are being sold without a manager in place. Always a bad move if you ask me. At the very least even if the sales must go ahead you would want someone in post who can help identify their preferred replacements.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="chicken"]But the most important thing is to not be caught out by it. Don''t continue to dwell on what happened last season - no other club will care. We are a Championship club now and we have to look forward not backwards.

[/quote]And there, in those 3 sentences, Chicken, is the dichotomy we find ourselves in. Of course we all want to look forward and give the best impetus to making a decent fist of the upcoming Championship season.But by the same token ,one of the first lessons for any failed operation to take heed of is to learn from your mistakes. And, boy, have we made a few of them in the last couple of years ! So I do think that there has to be a degree of looking back and analysing them to ensure we do not fall into the same traps again. And right now is precisely the time to be doing it.

[chicken 0]

You say we have made a ''few'' mistakes.

The only one I can really see is whether or not the board should have ''gambled'' on sacking Hughton earlier than they did.

You might want to add some signings but again, that is with hindsight.

And that is the problem, to me a mistake is a poor choice, a poor decision - not something that didn''t work out.

For example, RVW, at the time was a relatively high scoring younger striker in Portugal. Several teams would have been interested. His value wasn''t that high for all of the positive factors. Was it a mistake - no, not for me. The pro''s outweighed the cons by far.

I''m not saying things cannot be learnt but I think instigating any witch hunt to look for blame is really not worth the problems it could cause. I also don''t think maintaining any sort of aggressive stance towards the board would be productive either.

And I do differ from Purple in one way, I am not so hung up about points. A tough or poor league can see all of the teams or a majority of the teams table less points. A more polarised league can see teams table more points and there be more clearer divisions between ''bunches'' of teams.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Intrinsically, I do not disagree with you, Chicken. But to me ,saying it''s all about hindsight is a cop-out. Loads of people in business+ politics turn to that old chestnut when things go t!ts up. The bankers being a prime example.Yes, the acquisitions of Hooper and RvW were in theory good. But when it became clear that Hughton''s strategy involving them was not working, would that not have been the time to make fundamental changes ? Rather than just leaving it to chance and hoping something might turn up. Tied in with that, as you say was the failure to sign anyone in Jan other than two has-been loanees . Is that hindsight, or could it not have been forseen that it might be too little too late ?I don''t think anyone is suggesting a "witchhunt" towards the board. But, after a few years good work, they have made some pretty serious misjudgments recently, and I think it''s only fair that they are held up to a lot more scrutiny now, as a result.

[chicken 0]

Hindsight is not really what I am talking about. What I am talking about is identifying things that didn''t work out that can be directly attributed to a poor decision.

I think that is the hard part which some struggle with.

"Rather than just leaving it to chance and hoping something might turn up."

Chance - that''s the massive game changer here, chance. The board had to weigh up the data and possibilities in front of them:

- Hughton: previous season''s finishing place was our highest league finish since relegation from the Premiership in the ''90''s. He also won several key, ''crunch'' games overcoming huge odds towards the end of the season. The team were still ''fighting'' for him in the main. Has transfer targets already in place.

Vs

- A new manager: Little to no time to identify and bring in targets. Results will take time to become consistent. Needs to have the strength in character to turn around a team on the slide and yet do so without alienating the majority of the squad especially the more reliable players. Needs to get results quickly due to last four games or so.

I really don''t think it is that clear a cut poor choice as some are making it out to be.

And in regards to January transfers, Jonas looked good initially and certainly has the quality to have changed some games. Yobo was quite massive for us in some games. I would say he was a good astute signing with plenty of Premier League experience.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it was a massive decision, and it is very easy to say that it is wrong due to the outcome. But the risk was massive, and would have been a risk with a new manager as much if not more so than sticking with Hughton.

I actually sympathise with them to some respect as they had put everything else in place in regards to funds for players etc to make the squad, team and club as competitive as possible.

But as with any sport that element of risk or chance will always be there, even more so with clubs like ours where margins are tighter and finer.

[PurpleCanary 5,564]

[quote user="chicken"]You say we have made a ''few'' mistakes.

The only one I can really see is whether or not the board should have ''gambled'' on sacking Hughton earlier than they did.

You might want to add some signings but again, that is with hindsight.

And that is the problem, to me a mistake is a poor choice, a poor decision - not something that didn''t work out.

For example, RVW, at the time was a relatively high scoring younger striker in Portugal. Several teams would have been interested. His value wasn''t that high for all of the positive factors. Was it a mistake - no, not for me. The pro''s outweighed the cons by far.

I''m not saying things cannot be learnt but I think instigating any witch hunt to look for blame is really not worth the problems it could cause. I also don''t think maintaining any sort of aggressive stance towards the board would be productive either.

And I do differ from Purple in one way, I am not so hung up about points. A tough or poor league can see all of the teams or a majority of the teams table less points. A more polarised league can see teams table more points and there be more clearer divisions between ''bunches'' of teams.[/quote]Chicken, you can get distorted results with points and with placings. But over time I believe points are a better indication. Take these last three PL seasons. Our placing went from 12th to 11th to 18th. Which seems weird. How come we went up one place and then down seven? But if you look at the points we went down from 47 to 44 and then down again, to 33. This season''s decline can be seen as having been foreshadowed by last season''s.

[chicken 0]

No arguments here.

I guess the point I have been trying to make is that points mean fudge all at the end of the day because what matters is if you finish above that dotted line.

Equally if your target is to win the league, the importance is finishing in 1st place, not getting 80 points that might be enough.

So whilst I agree points are important finishing place is just as much of importance. Both are connected so to value one over the over by any great margin is foolish.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

OK then. With that in mind, Chicken, here is a reasonable question that I''d hope several people might answer.I remember there was a long running thread on here entitled "Beating West Ham will Relegate us". I rather laughed it off at the time, but have thought about it in recent weeks, and it seems to me there is more than a grain of truth in it.So...... basically, Do people think that, had we lost, or failed to beat to West Ham and/or Palace during that period in Nov, that the board would have thought enough is enough, and sacked Hughton before Xmas ?Before people slate me...yes I do know that if that had happened there would be no guarantee that a new manager would''ve kept us up, but this is just to gauge whether people believe that the board would have had the courage of their convictions six months ago .

[PurpleCanary 5,564]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]OK then. With that in mind, Chicken, here is a reasonable question that I''d hope several people might answer.I remember there was a long running thread on here entitled "Beating West Ham will Relegate us". I rather laughed it off at the time, but have thought about it in recent weeks, and it seems to me there is more than a grain of truth in it.So...... basically, Do people think that, had we lost, or failed to beat to West Ham and/or Palace during that period in Nov, that the board would have thought enough is enough, and sacked Hughton before Xmas ?Before people slate me...yes I do know that if that had happened there would be no guarantee that a new manager would''ve kept us up, but this is just to gauge whether people believe that the board would have had the courage of their convictions six months ago .[/quote]Supposition, but I think if we had lost to West Ham Hughton may well have been sacked. For this reason. Hughton (and this is not hindsight but something I posted before the game started) put out a barking-mad line-up. Essentially 4-4-2 aganst a West Ham team playing 4-6-0. Predictably we got overrun in midfield and were lucky to be only 1-0 down at half-time, and subsequently were saved by Jaaskelainen gifting us a goal.Given Bowkett''s very recent criticism of Hughton''s lack of tactical nous as exemplified in an earlier game ("You go to Hull and play for 64 minutes against 10 men, and you wouldn’t know how to open a can of tuna, let alone their defence. And that is not tolerable.") then another game in whch we lost because of tactical idiocy might have been the final straw.

[nutty nigel 7,542]

But all this is under the assumption that changing the manager during the season wlll have a positive effect when in truth there''s probably only a 50% chance of a positive effect. These are things the board had to way up. If at some point relegation became very likely then they may take the gamble that only had a 50/50 chance of being successful.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]But all this is under the assumption that changing the manager during the season wlll have a positive effect when in truth there''s probably only a 50% chance of a positive effect. These are things the board had to way up. If at some point relegation became very likely then they may take the gamble that only had a 50/50 chance of being successful.[/quote]What are you prattling on about?If I could now (with hindsight) reduce our chances of relegation by fifty percent , I''d take it in a heartbeat. Wouldn''t you ?

[nutty nigel 7,542]

That''s exactly my point reggie. You prattle on as though sacking hughton was a cure whereas the truth is each of the relegated clubs tried it. Fulham twice.

[Highland Canary 76]

An interesting thread with sensible contributions - thanks to all.

From my perspective, I still feel that it was those of us in the away contingent that got the measure of Hughton at an earlier point. You can easily look back to the 0-0 draw at Reading away in terms of approach - basically we had neither clue nor intention of breaking down a defence or winning the match, an approach to away matches that continued from that point forward, thereby placing increased pressure on home matches. Coupled with the play for a draw mentality that began to manifest itself at home as well - exemplified by Newcastle at home for example - and Hughton''s approach was bound to fail. It was only a matter of time. That It took the board more than a year on from the Newcastle game to act remains a mystery to me.

Unfortunately, I suppose that it was the two beach games at the end of last season which bought Hughton some breathing space. Let''s not forget we were on the brink of relegation before the West Brom game after some truly turgid, dire football. But the board failed to act. It would have been the courageous and correct decision to do so, much like the more adept Southampton board on the dismissal of Atkins.

The issue then becomes one of when Hughton should have been sacked last season. At one level game one - Hull away - should have been enough to know things had not changed. Or Villa at home. Or 10 games - it was obvious the football was dire, that we would struggle and we would likely be relegated. I posted at the time that we''d find the second half of the season more difficult based on the mix of games, and that our points total was behind target. This was borne out by reality and reported by Purple as our average points total. Per match continued to decline.

In reality we should have acted in November. It was unforgivable not to do in December following the Fulham home defeat. Get Warnock in at that point and we''d be looking forward now to season four in the PL. But the board failed to act, threw it all away and appear to have adopted a policy of retrenchment in the Championship hardly surprising given the record of the last 18 months.

[chicken 0]

Again, when you look at the 43 points and finishing 11th - it''s not really reason to sack a manager unless you are in the top 6 and expecting to remain in the top 6.

I think the board, the fans and a lot of pundits saw that season as our toughest and fully expected us to kick on.

What I can see is being asked here, which isn''t really based upon any fact, but on doubts. Which is are the board prepared, as in able, to act quickly should the need arise?

I have to admit that my interpretation of the admittance of board members considering action in January, would suggest to me that they were unhappy with results since before then.

To that end if we were closer to the bottom through losing games we would expect to be more than competitive in, I would have expected the board to act.

I don''t agree with Nigel''s very rough estimation of a 50/50 chance. The truth is that it''s unknown what risk you are taking when weighing up the devil you know against the devil you don''t. Occasionally there are the odd candidates that may be more likely - someone like Benitez perhaps, who you know would bring stability and improvement to a side. But the reality of such a candidate being available to us?

@ Highland - Warnock? You are having a giraffe! He''d have taken us down quicker, come in, destroyed any sense of ''team'' and had us playing direct thuggish football that even Pulis would turn his nose up at.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]That''s exactly my point reggie. You prattle on as though sacking hughton was a cure whereas the truth is each of the relegated clubs tried it. Fulham twice.[/quote]What is your point , Nigel ?You are conveniently forgetting that several of the non-relegated clubs changed their manager.And what is this 50/50 stuff you are talking about anyway ? Is it borne out of fact, or yet another of the countless things you make up and pass off as fact ?

[TCCANARY 263]

 

Also, of the 20 teams in the Premier League 10 changed manager and 10 didn''t, of the ten that changed 3 of them got relegated and seven didn''t but you have to bear in mind that 3 of the teams will always get relegated regardless of whether they change or not. History tell us that changing can have a positive as well as a negative effect and I think you''ll agree that the above statistics help to prove that.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,542]

Many clubs change their managers for various reasons ie Spurs. The comparison can only be made between clubs threatened with relegation. But your conclusion is right TC, it has a positive effect, a negative affect or no effect. The board had to way this up in real time and not with the benefit of the hindsight that we ended up relegated.

[TCCANARY 263]

 

And also, based on our points per game ratio last season we weren''t threatened with relegation until we were and we changed manager then.