Oh my God! Mckinley was the bloke who let fitness slide to such an extent that we couldn't get through 45 minutes without the players getting knackered. There must be about 7 million better candidates - including (in no particular order) me, my friend's dog and that tree over there.
Roy rated Billy Mac. But then he was working alongside Ray Lewington. In Jol’s time he seemed pretty anonymous - don’t know if that was because of Jol and/or his brother. However, given Billy’s knowledge of the Club (with the Academy and even as caretaker manager for 9 days when Chris Coleman was sacked and then first team coach) I was a wee bit surprised that he got the boot with Jol & Co. That said he’s just another version of Kit - experience wise - and while he’s well known to at least a couple of members on the Selection Panel can’t see any rational for appointing him in preference.
Sounds like McKinlay was just sacked by Watford: http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29518405 So it looks like there's nothing in the FFC link. A case of 2+2 equalling 5.
Hugh Grant says if Fulham owner Shahid Khan has any sense he will appoint Danny Murphy as the club’s manager, regardless of him being on the selection panel. The ardent Fulham fan, star of a host of Hollywood hits, told talkSPORT: “Why can’t it be Danny?" “I want him to do it. He has proper Fulham blood in him and I think he would be perfect. He gets Fulham. He was talismanic when he was playing and has a kind of natural authority." Source: http://talksport.com/football/hugh-...lham-manager-141009118046#mSaUoWljelEDoYB8.99 More importantly, other news reports say that the panel are meeting today to compile a shortlist.
I like Hugh Grant - before he hit the bigtime with Four Weddings, he spent the first decent money he earned as an actor by becoming Jim Stannard's kit sponser - but I think he's wrong on this. I agree entirely with his assessment of Danny as a Fulham man and as a player, but this isn't the time for a complete novice manager. Now for something more controversial: the case against Kit Symons. I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here, as Kit seems to have done (and continues to do) an excellent job as caretaker. He might be the right man for the job and if appointed he may do very well for us, but... While results have improved, from the comments on this board I think most people are agreed that performances have been mixed. Bolton was great, but other than that there hasn't been a single match where we've looked consistently good, rather than (at best) good for spells and poor for spells. After the torment of the last year or so, that's a big step forward, but I'd be reluctant to see us offer Kit the permanent position before he's got us playing our best for all or most of a match on a regular basis. When Roberto DiMatteo was caretaker at Chelsea, he won the Champions League and everyone said that now they had to give him the permanent job. One comment from a journalist at the time struck me, he wasn't Mr Right, he was just Mr Right Now. He was the ideal man to step in when he did and see them through to the end of the season. He was spectacularly successful, but that didn't mean he had the vision and managerial chops to take the job forward on a longer term basis. Sure enough, the next season Chelsea faltered in Europe and Di Matteo was soon on his way. It would have been better for them to have thanked him for an excellent job as caretaker (or interim manager, or whatever he was officially called) and appointed the next man in the summer rather than in the middle of a season. My point is this: Kit is the obvious appointment, and the emotion-driven appointment. He's certainly Mr Right Now, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's Mr right. It might seem harsh to deny him the job after he's done so well as caretaker, but the selection panel should take an objective view on his achievements rather than just say, 'He's improved things, therefore he's our guy'. I'm not saying Kit isn't the right man - you'll notice I'm not suggesting anyone in particular as a better alternative - but it shouldn't be taken for granted, even if we pick up a couple of wins from the next matches, that the job should be his.
I'm not going to use the reply with quote and make a monster posting but I agree with the Captain's comments above. Kit has done well (he would have been hard pushed to do worse, actually) but I have never been totally convinced that he should be the permanent manager. I'll not have any problems if he is appointed but I have always thought that the panel may be looking for more experience than he could bring to the role. What would be totally unacceptable is if a new man came in and Kit left (for whatever reason).
Capitano, you are right. The chairman won't rush in to anything and I'm glad that he is continuing with the selection process through the advisor panel. I have said its Kits to lose and I meant this in terms of results and whether he can convince the panel that he has the drive and determination and experience to take the club forward. I love the fact that he is Fulham through and through and that the dressing room is a much happier place and I would love for him to get the position permanently. I don't see why we, as a club, can't have a system in place for coaches as we do for players. Bring the coaches through the club keeping the football philosophy the same and the vision of the club is engrained also.
There are lots of who it should be for this reason or that, but to my way of thinking all the possible good managers are bedded in at the moment. So we possibly have 3 options To tempt a manager who on past results could fit the bill. Bring in an unknown. ( who we think may fit the bill) Employ an old name, most likely unemployed.(who could run up a transfer bill). The main problem is that with at least another 12 weeks before the window opens whoever we bring in has to work with what we have got, that alone still puts Kit at the top of my list. So lets hope that the appointed panel after much deliberation gets it right this time, us supporters deserve it.
Not sure if Kit is the right man or not but I would like him to get the job, he is a Fulham man who the players seem happy with! He has apparently brought a few lost feel good factors back to the club ( see Schwarzers interview in today's standard) Using the fact we haven't had a consistent good performance against him is harsh you don't turn the side bottom of the table around over night and nobody can argue that performances have definately improved
The fact that so many ex-Fulham players have backed Kit says a lot. Ok, so they're probably all his mates, but they also have the club's best interests at heart. He knows the club, knows the players and - most importantly - knows the league we're in. It could go wrong, but so could any managerial appointment. The comments about patchy performances are fair enough, but we've not been outplayed at any time and Kit's had hardly any time on the training pitch with them. Until someone comes up with a much better idea, it's Kit for me.
I think the best option would be to give it to Kit to the end of the season (possibly with Curbishley as DoF). Then we can reassess in the summer and either give him a three year contract if things go well or say thanks and move on if things go badly. There is no obviously better candidate either and I oppose change just for the sake of change.
So that's it then - the recent postings appear to confirm that FFC should appoint Kit. Most of the other options don't stand up to scrutiny anyway. I hope that the 5 Wise Men read Not606 and get on with it - The appointment itself will give the club a further lift, so why delay? COYW!
The ONE thing I have consistently whinged about with all of our managers since Jol has been their substitutions; wrong ones, wrong time. Except that is Kit. In his few games I believe he has been astute and timely in the changes he's made during games. Okay they haven't all come off in terms of results but they have demonstrated his awareness of the game as it's developing and a deal of courage in putting the team before the player.
Neil Lennon has been appointed manager at bottom side Bolton. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29589068 Elsewhwere The Sunday Mirror say Pulis and Sherwood are on our list.
Danny Murphy interviewing Tony Pulis. I'd pay good money to see that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...Danny-Murphy-for-bad-tackles-allegations.html
I agree about the lack of an obvious strong alternative to Kit, but how many of us saw Roy Hodgson as an obvious replacement for Sanchez? As others have said, I'm by no means anti-Kit, but the fact that we can't think of someone better doesn't mean that there isn't someone better. Then again, it doesn't mean there is! Let's hope that the next couple of games give us stunning, convincing performances and render the rest of the debate irrelevant.
Moyes is better and, talking to someone with no vested interest in our decision today, he rekindled a bit of hope in me that he could be a surprise appointment. After all, as was pointed out, we are the perfect club to rebuild his reputation, he works well with and brings through young talent, money actually isn't that important to him given the millions he will have earned from Everton and the pay off from United, the pressure to succeed will be more akin to his Everton days, we actually have some money behind us and we have ambition Overall, he could do a lot worse. So could we. Having said all this I would still be stunned if he turned up at Motspur Park.
The outsider creeping in appears to be Paul Hartley currently manager of Dundee. please log in to view this image Donât know anything about him beyond what can be found on the web; player with Celtic and Scotland; managed Alloa and got them promotion; went to Dundee in February of this year and got them promoted to the Scottish premiership. Currently Dundee are lying 8th; having won 2, drawn 4 and lost 3 games. He was up for the Cardiff job but opted out. Completely irrelevant, but Dundee is probably most famous for being the home of Denis the Menace, Desparate Dan and voting YES in the recent Referendum.
