The difference is anyone under ME was a puppet and Ashton has been given and taken all the power. He clearly has a greater understanding of football and more contacts in football than any of those in similar positions under ME but sometimes I think that can also have a downside because they want to interfere in ways they shouldn't
If it’s a binary choice between the two I’d far rather it was an involved/engaged CEO as opposed to a clueless uncaring puppet.
True and I'd rather pee my pants than soil them. Just need to be aware of some of the things fans at previous clubs have said about Ashton, they appear to be happening already at Ipswich and so far we're giving him the benefit of the doubt because we haven't had someone like this in place for years, so it's refreshing
It is annoying but it might be a bit unfair as it’s a minor niggle abs he’s done a helluva lot of work to lead the change in how the club operates. As in it literally didn’t operate under ME. if we start winning and getting promoted it’ll pale in significance and we’ll all be chanting his name and it’ll be the last thing on our minds. if it goes horribly wrong it’ll be something we use to knock him. It’s a results business as they say.
I like others am happy that he has overseen massive changes at the club, and if these translate soon into results, performances, competence, professionalism, supporter and community engagement, our beloved Club back, then I will forgive him his arrogance! 20 yrs ago, I had to have a similar air, attitude, management style and confidence in transforming a major £200m canal restoration project. Most of my staff were volunteers. It worked.
to be fair Bucky, I think the meds may have scrambled gaffers memory & he is thinking about the time he watched over his missus cleaning the bath
Redruth, no meds, that was my job in those days, managing canal restoration schemes and making sure the water supply didnt leak, not the bathwater!
