OK, lets back back to the topic on hand... Personally I think that Scally has made a correct decision to remove MA. Whether his reasons are the same as what I would argue in order to justify that view is of course debatable. Personally I was not impressed with the style of play last season, and not impressed by the lack of opportunity given to the younger players. I will be eternally grateful to MA for bringing us the league 2 title last season, and am delighted to have my signed 2012-13 shirt with his signature on. But, let's face it the start of the season has not gone well. There is mention on this board of the lack of debt in the club, but as I have mentioned before, that debt that was in the club is now is in the hands of PS. My own opinion is that PS has a medium term plan that involves the building of a new stadium that would be owned, or at least largely owned by him - not by GFC - and moving Gills to the new stadium, and achieving stable Championship status, which under the plan would almost certainly give him a better return on his already significant investment in the club than he is getting at the moment, although it would of course involve further financial outlay. If that is the case, then even at this early stage of the season he could see the plan going wrong, as I'm pretty sure that a return to L2 football did not figure in it. However it would then be the responsibility of the debt-free GFC to at least break even on a year-to-year basis, and not to run up further debt. I also believe that the decision to appoint Peter Taylor on an interim basis is the correct one. The team needs a coach / manager - someone to give it direction and organisation - and at least because of the past relationship PS knows what he is letting himself in for with PT on a personal level. However football is a different matter, and as an interim manager (is there any mention of timescale?) he will have the opportunity to give the matter of a permanent manager more lengthy consideration. It will also enable us as fans to see what style of football PT decides to play. I'm not sure that the style of football will influence PS's final decision too much, but given the general standard even in this division I really can't see hoofball being a formula for success, and certainly not for promotion to the Championship.
I can't be just abou improving league position though, or Allen would still be in a job. Also if wanting the club to improve is unrealistic, then I have unrealistic expectations. To be honest I want and expect the club to show some, even small improvement. In terms of Head and the championship I didn't expect him to get us promoted but establish us at that level, then push on. It looked good for a few seasons but then went a bit off track, and I have my theories to why. Basically if you are not moving forward, you might as well give up.
We can argue individual players all but it is a squad game. Hope was a good player but he couldn't cover the loss of quality players like Butters, Pennock and Ashby at the back. Getting one good player doesn't cover the loss of three good player. The simple way to look at it is was the squad better or worse when Hess left that when he took over... clearly worse. The Wallace and Johnson case you mention is an interesting one, yes the were both clearly talents but they were also fading stars, who didn't play as many games as we all hoped wilst being (I assume) on a hefy wedge. Is Hess to blame... yes and no. Nobody deliberately goes out to get injuried but at the 30+ injuries do become a big risk and should have been considered. It was a gamble and unfortunately one Hess lost.
You make a compelling case and I have enjoyed the discussion and to a certain extent reliving a fantastic time to be a Gills fan, I cant disagree with any of the points made in your last comment, I think we are both committed to the club, whilst not always in total agreement, but I have great respect for your views, Up The Gills
Indeed, this is what these boards are about, sharing alternative views and ideas we people who are a passionate about the club as you are
After having read the Chairman's message at yesterday's game - I don't want any of you to complain about the length of the 'camel' threads that are prepared by brb & myself. At least the camels try to entertain you & educate you - it's not all dribble ( unlike Scally's 'War & Peace' effort ) On a more serious note - Scally calls the managerial change a ' win, win ' situation - for who ? I don't think it's a win, win for Taylor unless the Gills do win. If he is unable to make the players start to win games, he will stand less chance of being appointed on a full time basis than Martin Allen. Yesterday, the team ( as aforementioned by others ), tried to pass the ball ! I thought that we had been trying that ( to a greater extent than of late ), in the previous 3 games - with greater 'success'. Again, as I have said many times, there is insufficient creativity in the midfield. Collectively the players are not good enough for any real progress - I just hope that we can address this in the upcoming transfer window - and that we can survive this season - and let's not forget that we have yet to play the 'top' sides again before the end of the season - things can only get better !
Don't you just love the Chairman's messages. He's a busy man after his past questionable letter for the supporters to get behind the team, when imo they already were. But things sure do move quick in the footballing world. A video interview on the 14th October published on BBC hitting NewNow at 09:25 where Scally said he had not spoken to Peter Taylor, then at 13:00 that very same day he was announced as interim manager. However, look further back and the Independent announced PT's appointment on Sunday 13th Oct, hitting NewsNow at 23:57...http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ng-of-martin-allen-at-gillingham-8877756.html - The same day as MA's announced departure. While there appeared to be doubt I thought from Scally about someone being in by Saturday. Impeccable timings at the very least. Now he delivers us as alwaysright says war & peace. Why do I always feel like something is missing in these messages...he's certainly no Darragh MacAnthony the social media king.
Hmm, fascinating Just to summarise, then, late on Sunday night the Independent runs a story which includes the text from PS " I contacted Peter Taylor this afternoon (Monday) to ascertain whether he would consider coming back to the club on an 'interim manager' basis" Perhaps he was talking about Monday 7th.... Now there's one for conspiracy theorists.
I assume The Independent must have edited the article at some point. However, unlike the BBC, I cannot seem to find an update time. It would be a bit devious for the media outlet to change a whole context of an article dated Sunday...but it does go to highlight why media sources cannot be trusted. Although it would be interesting to see the original article for that date and time that it appeared on NewsNow...surely the story could not have been edited that much...could it?..haha
OK, now I'm getting off-thread, but it's an interesting situation. I understand what you say about the Independent article being updated, but it would be unusually lazy of the Indy to update an article that was originally posted at 23:57 on Sunday, which, if the official timelines are to be believed, would have been along the lines of 'Allen sacked', with a completely different story (Taylor appointed) at a later time. The article as it appears at the moment is attributed the the Press Association , but I think it would take someone with a PA account to be able to find when they posted the story. Also, the BBC article was originally posted at 13.00. Again, although that was updated, would the original article have been significantly different to the updated one which now carries the title "Peter Taylor named interim boss..." In my experience of looking at breaking news on the BBC website the original story remains, but then further detail is added later. Even at 13.00 it's a bit early for a comment that PS contacted PT "this afternoon" about the job, unless of course he was back in Dubai by then... (that comment does not occur in the BBC story, but it's the timeframe that interests me) Without the headlines and text of the original stories at the time they were posted it's impossible to make a definitive judgement, but I think that anyone who actually believes that the first time PS spoke to PT about the Gills job, even on a temporary basis, was on Monday afternoon (whether that's afternoon in Gillingham or Dubai) is deluding themselves.
itstimupnorth - I agree. I was going to post an attachement to prove the timings of the NewsNow stories to cover myself but then thought the evidence is there for everyone to go and see. An interesting aspect to the situation is a mirror article also dated Sunday 13th October and timed at 22:46 on NewsNow...however, there is a big difference in the wording between their article and the independent, the mirror stated 'Gillingham line up' & 'Peter Taylor is set to take over from Martin Allen'. Is it possible the independent jumped on this earlier story, then edited it later to turn it into 'Peter Taylor has been appointed'. Although like you I have to be honest, you expect to see minor edits but not something as changing as the independent story was. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/gillingham-line-up-former-england-2368554? I should add I personally have no time for the national media and have only selected the papers in question due to timelines within NewsNow over any other publication. Either way, the Mirror was clearly suggesting PT was lined up at 22.30 Sunday (Article time). Which leads to question why such speculation comes about, because even as an ST holder that has been to all but one game this season, even I couldn't have put hand on heart and speculated Peter Taylor would be interim manager or maybe I'm just naive.
I got told on thursday by someone (can't say who im afraid) that he was told by a good source that Peter Taylor was going to be appointed 3 weeks before he was. It appears the only reason why it was delayed was because the team beat Crewe and MK Dons.
