I don't think they would, nor do I think that's why he's out of work. They'd mention it of course but let's face it he wouldn't be getting a high profile job and I don't see the press getting too excited about it second time around. Not to mention that I highly doubt there'd be an issue about it if he took a job abroad, somewhere like his own country. The reason he's not working is that he's not a good manager.
Oh look, it's happened before, and that's before the media blow out. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/may/21/swindon-di-canio-sponsor-gmb
and we had problems with our own. http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/spor...erland-shirt-sponsors-refuse-involved-2501136 Not to mention our chief executive resigned.
And the autobiography in which he made his comments about Mussolini was published 13 years before he was appointed as our manager. So I reckon they'd still kick up a fuss if it made for column inches.
But it may stop others in future. No is manager's permanently out of work after excelling at lower league then failing at a top job. **** sake Paul ince has had bags of work. The media took his working practices and put a fascist spin on it. Banning ketchup, it was all over the news, there was up roar cause it fed a media agenda. I remember it well. Yes results got him sacked, not denying that but that's not what we're disputing. There's no way those results alone have stopped him from getting more work, I think that whole notion is ridiculous. We don't see eye to eye on this but fair dos, clear as day to me though imo.
I'm not saying his poor performance with us is why he's not working I was making the point that despite the media wetting themselves about it we didn't sack him because of it, if he'd been winning games he'd still be at Sunderland or have moved up. Aye agree to disagree, it's not like we could find out the truth without chatting to the chief execs of clubs that have turned him down.
I don't see it being big news if he took over at some division one side. It was only because we were a premier league side that it attracted attention.
Oh it was a media spin and a half triggered by that kernt David Miliband who throw the club to the dogs, he opened the floodgates. Then he banned ketchup and the media mad him out to be phychotic. It was even coined as Ketchupgate by some of the media. Nobody said **** all when Conte banned it at Chelsea, but then Conte didn't have a **** storm over his politics a few months earlier, there wasn't the momentum they had over PDC. That came at the perfect time to keep the spotlight on to sell more papers and get more website hits. Nobody was touching him after the media spat him out. I mean a 23.1 win percentage at Sunderland and 56.8% at swindon, yet he's still got a managerial average of 52.8% win ratio cause he was only in charge for 13 games for us. I don't buy a manager becomes unemployable over a 13 game bad stint. He's got a good record. All folk knows is what the media spun, nobody was a fly on wall with a platform which bypasses the media. Everything went through them.
I never said we didn't sack him cause of results though, we did, that combined a player revolt acording to the press, but we were talking about why he can't get work so I'm confused.
I worded it badly, I meant that we didn't sack him because of the media bullshit. That's what I meant by "it" not that you could tell from how I said it.
It wouldn't be as bad no. But sponsors won't give a **** about the level of media involvement now. Swindon's sponsor pulled out and the media made minimum fuss about them appointing him well before the blow up so it must be amplified, logically. You may say but they hired him like you said with Sunderland but they're the only two who have in his 6 year managerial career. He's got an impressive record. Politics has to be an issue in him getting work. Makes no sense otherwise. He's perfectly employable on footballing paper for a lower league side.
Let's not forget the media tied his methods with his politics so they're pretty much one of the same thing now. I feel sorry for the bloke personally. Wouldn't have sacked him either. The poison was in back then, he saw it and he challenged it, the biggest mistake Short made was backing the rot. The bloke he brought in to replace him was a soft touch, we needed a disciplinarian, if not Paulo, another, but Short didn't, and the infection spread
I do wonder where we would be if we'd backed Di Canio, or even stuck with Keane who had 'lost the group' but had the balls on him to ride it out. We've said about players being a bit flakey but ****ing hell do have the managers been. I didn't mind Bruce but he couldn't handle big players. MON accepted no responsibility for anything, whatsoever. Dick, tried to walk once and was a ****ing coward when he returned. Moyes. Defeated since the day he left United. Grayson seems to have the heart and spirit for it but he's working with a fair few lacking a spine and as mentioned before, we need to recruit players with the right outlook. Can we honestly say, to this point, any of the latest batch of recruits look to have the fight? Vaughan does, but lacks the ability. The 3 deadline day are exempt for now but all of the rest can be accused of shortcomings already. We simply don't seem to learn. I'd take 14th now, from a squad that ability wise is top 4. Even a whole new team can't handle the expectation at home, the club has been piss week to its core for 6 years and nobody seems able to find a solution, it's ****ing ridiculous. This should be a top 10-12 Prem club, how can we continue to fail in all fundamentals?
