Some people on this board wanted SoD out - some wanted SoD to stay. I was in the "stay" camp, but could understand the reasoning behind all of you who wanted a change. Therefore I can also understand the leadership at our club also wanting to make a change. What I don't understand was the timing of the dismissal - it appeared City had turned a bit of a corner with results improving. One defeat in seven games. The most recent game seeing City gain a good point against the leaders (who previously had only lost 2 and drawn 2 games all season). He still "had the dressing room" because the players were still trying to implement his tactics (whether they were the right tactics is another matter?). Also the sacking on the final day of the loan window meant that no-one came in - all our rivals seemed to be getting what look to be decent loan signings in. Surely then the board must have someone lined up. If not then it appears a ill-judged knee-jerk reaction. I've defended the City Board/Owners in the past, and wait to see with interest what happens next. So I understand the decision, but not the timing. Sacking the manager is the easy bit - the important bit is who they get in. http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/City-got-timing-badly-wrong/story-20243601-detail/story.html
I think there is more to this than we will ever know. The public announcement makes league position and results as the prime reason but this cannot be the whole story. I suspect that SO'D's "grumpy" persona has much more to do with it. But we'll never find out unless the closed world of a football club decides to "dish the dirt".
It was done the day it was because of the Ashton Gate redevelopment meeting. Wouldn't look good if we went into it having just fired our manager. There was also a poor lack of communication between SOD and the Board but the most important thing is, like JL said we are 5 games away from the midway point of the season and are sitting in the relegation zone. The football was **** and the results were ever worse. People say its only 1 loss in 7 but how many of those 6 games were any good? The crawley one was dire as was sheff utd. He had to go when he did because it wasn't getting any better.
The stats say 1 defeat in 7 but that was a game we needed to win- Of those 7 games, one was a home cup game against a league 2 side.- The haul from the others was W2 D3 L1.-Improvement, but hardly pulling up trees. When you look at the overall league record, in 38 games, it was only 7 wins and most of those came at the start, 13 draws and 18 defeats- That's a win ratio of 18.42% and frankly Im surprised that he got as long as he did.
"Also the sacking on the final day of the loan window meant that no-one came in - all our rivals seemed to be getting what look to be decent loan signings in." This is the part that is most mystifying to me? Maybe it was deliberate in order to avoid bringing any players in? He said he was looking for a defender and I don't reckon he was all that impressed with Flint, the board have just spunked £300k plus on Flint and thought not another one disillusioned and not getting any football. Thats my guess anyhow..
Maybe just maybe SoD keeps harping on about the people who had to come in had to be the right sort of person. The board just might of thought that the players he wanted wasn't going to get us out of the **** quick enough? But like Shiny says they made the decision a few days possibly weeks ago but wanted the ground sorted this time without any hitches. And didn't a huge majority blame the board for sacking Del to late, like JL says we are 5 games away from half way plus we might not of got loans in but at least this way the new manager has a few weeks to a month to see who they want for the final assault. And plus if they done it a weeks time the new man ends up with loans he might not want. Don't think there was anything in it apart from getting the ground sorted without any chance of a set back like AV.
My thoughts exactly, and it definitely ties into the theory that the board wanted relegation to League 1. Perhaps if we're still struggling, they'll be happy to see the club slip to League 2 if it'll mean the club can become self-sufficient.
Some really interesting points guys. I don't think the board would be happy with us slipping into League 2 because that has further financial implications If the decision was made weeks ago, why not do it then? Surely us sacking a Manager would not have an impact on a planning application?? Agree that the stat of 1 win in 7 possibly hides the real position. However we can't deny that results were improving and the team were "playing for the manager". But I do take your point Shiny about the football. If the decision had been made some weeks ago, then you would assume that the board have already quietly sounded out potential replacements?
Apparently we are 11th in the League 1 Form Guide http://www.footstats.co.uk/index.cfm?task=formguide
The way both Bristol clubs have been held back on stadiums new or redeveloped, I would not blame them not showing any unrest in the camp.
I really cant see how manager unrest would make any difference to a long term planning decision. Of the councillors that voted I bet 80% don't even know who our manager was anyway..
Most of them don't know there's football clubs in the City, but would you take that chance with the council?
I expect none come from Bristol outsiders dictating about two very important stadiums for both Bristol clubs.
