Isegrim 8868 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I'm a bit surprised at Isegrim to be honest, I wouldn't have thought I had to say this but read what we wrote. We're saying Souness shouldn't have been sacked as soon as he arrived, as some were saying. If that highly improbable scenario had occurred, we'd arguably be in a worse state than we are now. Who on earth would we have got under those circumstances? 65072[/snapback] Well, I think it would have been the same scenario as now. The probably only solution would have been implementing someone as caretaker. Who knows, maybe with the squad he had at his proposal he even would have qualified for Europe. I can understand those people who were saying to give Souness until the end of last season. In my eyes it was madness not to part company with him in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34166 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 So it was deluded to say that a manager needs to be given time once he's employed to prove or disprove his ability? Sorry but I don't see it that way. It was deluded when the tactical inaptitude became obvious as well as the inability to keep players fit to think that giving the manager more time (and money) would change anything of these problems. Far from lacking common sense, those that said he should be given time were displaying it. It's those that said he should be sacked from the minute he arrived that want to have a word with themselves. 65066[/snapback] Please I still want to read a rational argument why keeping an inapt manager in charge who has been producing one bad performance after another is or has been a decision of common sense. And I didn't say that he should have been sacked from the first minute. But I always thought that his time in charge would and should be short. I'd loved it if I had been proven wrong (so far)... 65082[/snapback] I think we're all agreed that having given the bloke time we can see that he's not up to the job. Yes, some people were prepared to give him more time than others, but when was the right time to sack him? I still think last close season was too early - what is the point in giving a manager less than a season in the job? There's no way that that is enough time. IMO. He needed to be given time to succeed or fail. He's failed, so we move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I'm a bit surprised at Isegrim to be honest, I wouldn't have thought I had to say this but read what we wrote. We're saying Souness shouldn't have been sacked as soon as he arrived, as some were saying. If that highly improbable scenario had occurred, we'd arguably be in a worse state than we are now. Who on earth would we have got under those circumstances? 65072[/snapback] Well, I think it would have been the same scenario as now. The probably only solution would have been implementing someone as caretaker. Who knows, maybe with the squad he had at his proposal he even would have qualified for Europe. I can understand those people who were saying to give Souness until the end of last season. In my eyes it was madness not to part company with him in the summer. 65085[/snapback] I agree with the last bit, it was the perfect opportunity for the chairman. As with the previous summer, he showed poor judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8868 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 So it was deluded to say that a manager needs to be given time once he's employed to prove or disprove his ability? Sorry but I don't see it that way. It was deluded when the tactical inaptitude became obvious as well as the inability to keep players fit to think that giving the manager more time (and money) would change anything of these problems. Far from lacking common sense, those that said he should be given time were displaying it. It's those that said he should be sacked from the minute he arrived that want to have a word with themselves. 65066[/snapback] Please I still want to read a rational argument why keeping an inapt manager in charge who has been producing one bad performance after another is or has been a decision of common sense. And I didn't say that he should have been sacked from the first minute. But I always thought that his time in charge would and should be short. I'd loved it if I had been proven wrong (so far)... 65082[/snapback] I think we're all agreed that having given the bloke time we can see that he's not up to the job. Yes, some people were prepared to give him more time than others, but when was the right time to sack him? I still think last close season was too early - what is the point in giving a manager less than a season in the job? There's no way that that is enough time. IMO. He needed to be given time to succeed or fail. He's failed, so we move on. 65086[/snapback] With probably two seasons that have to be written off. Well done. If there had been any indication that he was up to the job I would have never advocated sacking him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34166 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 So it was deluded to say that a manager needs to be given time once he's employed to prove or disprove his ability? Sorry but I don't see it that way. It was deluded when the tactical inaptitude became obvious as well as the inability to keep players fit to think that giving the manager more time (and money) would change anything of these problems. Far from lacking common sense, those that said he should be given time were displaying it. It's those that said he should be sacked from the minute he arrived that want to have a word with themselves. 65066[/snapback] Please I still want to read a rational argument why keeping an inapt manager in charge who has been producing one bad performance after another is or has been a decision of common sense. And I didn't say that he should have been sacked from the first minute. But I always thought that his time in charge would and should be short. I'd loved it if I had been proven wrong (so far)... 65082[/snapback] I think we're all agreed that having given the bloke time we can see that he's not up to the job. Yes, some people were prepared to give him more time than others, but when was the right time to sack him? I still think last close season was too early - what is the point in giving a manager less than a season in the job? There's no way that that is enough time. IMO. He needed to be given time to succeed or fail. He's failed, so we move on. 65086[/snapback] With probably two seasons that have to be written off. Well done. If there had been any indication that he was up to the job I would have never advocated sacking him. 65089[/snapback] Well done? Is it my fault then? I'm satisfied now that the bloke isn't up to the job. If we'd sacked him in the summer I wouldn't have been sure. That's just my opinion. What I think most of us agree on is that he needs to go now. Although I have to confess I am shitting myself at what Shepherd has in mind for a replacement. When Portsmouth sort things out with Harry Redknapp I might breathe a little easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocChip 0 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 There's plenty of self-righteous types who are just out antagonise the rational, just gently sway your hand in the 'wanker' expression and ignore them. Jimbo must advise you to just have a wank but i'd be worried about what you might thinking about at such a senseitve time..............you don't images of Allardyce popping into your head at unexpected moments of rapture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8868 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 What I think most of us agree on is that he needs to go now. Although I have to confess I am shitting myself at what Shepherd has in mind for a replacement. When Portsmouth sort things out with Harry Redknapp I might breathe a little easier. 65095[/snapback] In the end common sense prevails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythetoon 0 Posted December 7, 2005 Author Share Posted December 7, 2005 (edited) Jimbo must advise you to just have a wank but i'd be worried about what you might thinking about at such a senseitve time.............. 65101[/snapback] George Burley most likely. Edited December 7, 2005 by Howaythetoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now