I am still more bothered about not securing Broadhead to be honest. I obviously can’t knock Neil’s record with us but I never warmed to him after he belittled O’Nien’s comments re mental health struggles whilst out injured.
He was offered what the club think he’s worth, he accepted it, he then wanted more, we’ve been here before, bye Alex.Yes I’ve made clear that I think it’s on both. Not buying into this idea that it’s one persons fault and all anger should be at them
Neil should have dealt with it better
Speakman should have tied him down better
KLD should have been giving the oversight and backing to Speakman to tie him down
Sure I’ve heard this some where before and it was quite boring the first time.Of course not.
But a title is a title. This bloke clearly doesn't value managers and thinks they are an easily replaced cog in a wheel. A worker bee among many.
He isn't. A good one is the most important person at the club. We were sinking like a stone when AN turned up, despite being high in the table. Everyone who was going to matches could see it
How many managers are on short term deals? Even the bloke at Watford is on a two year deal.
If it was Neil who insisted on both a rolling deal AND a "go when I like" clause, which I consider unlikely unless it was because the club were very , very slow to reward him , then Speakman should have said no.
He should have said that the club needs more commitment. But Speakman couldn't really say that, because any manager then would say back, " Fair enough, but I want commitment from you".
But Speakman likes to be the big man and have managers as an expendable hired hand, replaced as easily as a cheap labourer. He'll undervalue the next manager too.
Second outright farce in six months. No manager at the AOL. No manager for the under 23 team. He is getting recruitment right, which is all he has ever done before. He is failing everywhere else. He isn’t doing his job. He's a bullshitting chancer who is out of his depth.
You can't remove it if the other person insists it's in there though
Sure I’ve heard this some where before and it was quite boring the first time.
Catch 22 then, the club can't win, take the clause out and he doesn't sign it, leave the clause in and we are exposedNo that is true, if Neill insisted on it being in.
That should not have been accepted by Speakman though. We have behaved very small time if we just allowed that to happen.
Catch 22 then, the club can't win, take the clause out and he doesn't sign it, leave the clause in and we are exposed
How have we not shown commitment? Look at the players we have brought in and are being linked to.Speakman should just have said he wanted more commitment. But then he would have had to show it himself.
It's his job, the most important part of it. If it couldn't be resolved, then he should have made it clear, publicly if necessary, that the club had to protect itself from what was bound to happen with such a clause.
Maybe they are common, but I've never heard of it before. It suggests that a manager would come to a little club until he got a better offer.
How have we not shown commitment? Look at the players we have brought in and are being linked to.
What more commitment does the coach need?
But he was offered a contract and had 2 pay rises, players are being brought in yet he still ****ed off to Stoke as soon as they offered more money.A contract. And money. They all do, as they all know they are a bad spell from the sack
Player recruitment has been fine by me, though we are still short IMO.
I'm with you on this one. The part i cant understand is the "release clause" quoted on he website or contractually obliged to let him speak to Stoke - once the new agreement was reached 4 weeks ago (assuming it was still on a 12 month rolling basis) remember there's been no word on this until now, wouldn't you remove that to give you some extra protection to a scenario such as this - you have given him what he wants ultimately ?

In your head.Boring or not. It's how it is
He was offered what the club think he’s worth, he accepted it, he then wanted more, we’ve been here before, bye Alex.
Are we listening to different things?
I’ll see if I can find the clip I heard as I’m sure Speakman explicitly says he signed a deal four months ago.
it’s here:
"You must log in or register to see media"
Bob, I have a lot of time for you and the other people who try to keep us informed, because I know what you hear is second, third or fourth hand and subject to change, but I believe that you are wrong on this one.
Bit odd if he signed a new deal only 4 weeks ago, and then he’s still buffering off elsewhere.
Greedy little toad.
‘**** Alex Neil’ chants were agreed by Danny Baath mind. Anyone else notice him enthusiastically clapping it at full time near the Roker End?
Seems some of the players are really ****ed off at Neil.
Agreed, players were spot on yesterday with their effort. Keep that up and we are fine.We've heard suggestions that the players are fuming at Speakman and gutted about Neil, but there was no signs of their heads dropping yesterday.
We've either got some brilliant professional and resilient young players or they felt like proving they were up to the challenge without Neil. Either way, I was happy with the response.
Interesting thread this and some interesting views.
To me its quite simple, weather Speakman has ****ed up the contract / promises or not. I have never ever heard of a manager, turn up the day before a game, take training, pick the team, then **** off to talk to another club.
I have also never heard of another manager ever sitting in the stand of the other team while the club he is employed by are playing a game.
Dress it up how you want and blame the club all you want but Alex Neil pulled a ****s trick Friday and continued it yesterday. The bloke is a grade one ****er