I go along with your summary of the recent managerial appointments General and particularly underline your notes about CH who was not nearly as bad as some would have you believe and was personally hard done to at the end. The only point I disagree on is Martinez and I cannot see him as the panacea either. His style would not be that dis-similar to NA who was at times gung-ho and that can work or fail just as easily for Martinez as it did for NA. I cannot see a guaranteed solution or one close to it but think that MP will be given some time - maybe 10 games to see if he can turn things around. When I say turn it around it is not as if we are sinking and hopeless, it is more uninspired and a bit rudderless. The beating of Huddersfield and Millwall papered over a few cracks for sure.
It's probably not much reassurance... but I honestly think being underwhelmed is better than thinking it will be the best appointment ever. We are a long way off auto promotion and so we should not be getting our hopes up. Not that it's unachievable - we have the squad to do it - just that it's highly unlikely and we'll need a fair slice of luck. As long as it's not a complete novice (which I don't think it could possibly be after Adams) then I'm now just content to see what happens.
Please GOD not Warnock he is entertaining listening to him complain and blame everyone after a defeat but the guy's an idiot and a proven failure at Prem level if we do go up. I would like Jol he was terrible at Fulham but the best of a bad bunch from who's available.
I reckon it's Sir Alex Ferguson. Phelan got on the blower to him over the weekend, they went to the fat cat and after about 12 pints of broadside and a promise of a curry along St Benedicts SAF agreed.
I see - I misunderstood the concern However, I would say that on your points: a) I think is open to interpretation - while I think the majority of supporters would agree with you it's far from certain that was necessarily a poor decision. I think it's clear what the board were aiming to achieve b) can't really argue with. That was one roll of the dice that was never likely to pay off. c) I maintain this was about the internal changes at the club beyond first team football - given what we've heard, I don't see that there were many really viable candidates for the role. I don't disagree that long term it has proven a poor decision, but I'm not convinced there was as much alternative as fans seem to think in the circumstances. There were some very poorly chosen statements by the board though. I appreciate that the problem is most fans can't get excited about proper management of affairs behind the scenes. After all, we're here for the football and we all want the first team to be playing well, winning, succeeding. For me, though, our club went from being the poorest run business in the entirety of East Anglia (quote from a local very well-respected business consultant) to one of the most efficient and profitable clubs in the country. Over the last three seasons the board have remained pretty tireless in reforming the club to become a long-term viable entity. Of course, they need the first team to be doing well, and that has to form part of their plans, but I personally think the work that has been done behind the scenes is far more likely to keep us on the top table in future years than a couple of poor managerial appointments keeping us off the top table now. We will get a good manager some point. I'm actually really confident it will be soon (I accept that the longer it takes, the harder we will find it to get promoted given the resources currently at our disposal). But in my view, we will still have a squad plenty strong enough for promotion next season, we will still probably have it the season after that and in the more distant future our academy looks great. All that is down to certain members of the board (and, to his credit, Chris Hughton, though I imagine some fans won't want to listen to that) IMO. So, even with poor decisions for the first team manager, McNally still has my firm backing. I also think it's right that he should be in complete control. Don't get me wrong, I'm not unquestioningly supportive of him - of course if more poor decisions occur then we have to reassess. But for now, we have been relegated and are struggling for promotion so it would be better to be patient now
And a quick apology for Thai, and anyone else, whose eyes don't want to wade through my waffle. The last paragraph is a summary!
I think a large part of Adams problem was the failure of the board to address a direct replacement for Joe Royle much sooner after he decided to return to Merseyside. Having an 'old campaigner' like Royle on the payroll would have helped make NA's transition from rookie to established manager so much easier - a problem shared is a problem halved, etc. By the time this was eventually addressed with the appointment of Phelan, the 'rot' had started to set in. Confidence and belief was poor among the squad for whatever reason, witness some of the half-arsed body language for proof of that. Anyhow, all that is history now - let's hope and pray the directors have learned a fundamental lesson from that and make a more informed choice this time?
I know I didn't take it personally! They are definitely ramblings... I pity my fellow posters when I re-read some of my posts. I need a good editor
This is what I'm getting at when I said I don't think the board had as much choice as people seem to think with appointing Adams over the summer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30698018
I loved 'footballing board that overlooks everything' - could have been worded better, or close to the truth?
