Steve Bruce

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I don’t 7nderstand your first point. They could’ve fired him, they didn’t, so to all intents and purposes they chose him, surely ?

With no CE in place, getting a new manager would be more difficult than with a CE.  I can see why they would leave the manager in place, rather than get rid, disrupt preparations for the new season and possibly spend weeks with no permanent manager.

That is not a vote of confidence or a positive choice, it's deferring a decision until there can be arrangements put in place to deal with the consequences of the decision.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

4 minutes ago, terrytini said:

But that’s my whole point. They’ve already done exactly that. 

The fact is they’ve arrived at a different conclusion than some ( or the same, but had no preferred candidate) .

People keep trying to use this.

However that is without skipping the fact that everything happened so quickly and right before the season there would have been hardly any time to make any realistic changes without rocking the boat or having a certain set of fans lose their nut.

I think all they did was take the stable short term option while they figure and sort things out in the background, put a structure in place and have candidates deemed suitable.

I don't for a second think any multi billionaire/consortium with modern sports experience and high ambitions goes into a club think STEVE BRUCE is the chosen one for a club the level of ASTON VILLA.

It even sounds ridiculous when I say it to myself.

Edited September 2, 2018 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN

[terrytini]

4 minutes ago, sne said:

They are new to owning football clubs, making mistakes is to be expected.

Important thing is to learn from them and make sure they don't have long term effects.

Considering they came in without being surrounded by "football people" it's no surprise they hesitated in making a big call around the manager situation.

Nah. If that’s a ‘mistake’ we are in worse trouble than ever.

But it wasn’t a mistake. I’d say that’s just wishful thinking !

[Johnnyp]

The links with Henry, which i think was much more than rumour as tv, radio and printed media were all over it, suggests to me that they were thinking of replacing Bruce from the off. We lose at Blackburn and I'm certain they'll pull the trigger. But we won't. And we'll probably be back here in 4 weeks after another defeat

[terrytini]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

With no CE in place, getting a new manager would be more difficult than with a CE.  I can see why they would leave the manager in place, rather than get rid, disrupt preparations for the new season and possibly spend weeks with no permanent manager.

That is not a vote of confidence or a positive choice, it's deferring a decision until there can be arrangements put in place to deal with the consequences of the decision.

Fair enough if that’s your opinion.

Id say if they basically just said “ who knows, there’s no time to think anyway, give it him for now” that’d be an appalling error.

Isnt it FAR more likely ( but doesn’t satisfy the calls for his head) that they looked at his record, and looked at who or what they wanted - which wouldn’t be Bruce in a million years in my view - found they couldn’t have the type they wanted yet, so decided to stick with him.

That would make sense on every level.

And therefore, they stick.

[ozvillafan]

1 minute ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

People keep trying to use this.

However that is without skipping the fact that everything happened so quickly and right before the season there would have been hardly any time to make any realistic changes without rocking the boat or having a certain set of fans lose their nut.

I think all they did was take the stable short term option while they figure and sort things out in the background, put a structure in place and have candidates deemed suitable.

I don't for a second think any multi billionaire with sports experience and high ambitions goes into a club think STEVE BRUCE is the chosen one.

It even sounds ridiculous when I say it to myself.

Spot on.

This isn't a lack of planning on the part of the new owners.....

.... quite the opposite. Plans have been afoot from the beginning. They will ring the changes when those plans bear fruit.

[NurembergVillan]

5 minutes ago, terrytini said:

We’d have to disagree there.

They are the owners, they took over, they could’ve retained him, or sacked him. They will - one hopes - have studied his record, taken whatever soundings they wanted, and chose him.

As I keep saying, if they DIDNT, and simply said “ oh you are already here, why not have a go” I wouldn’t be impressed with them. But I don’t see it.

When I've worked at companies that've been taken over, the new guys don't fire everyone on day 1.

"The business is underperforming, and your role is a key one in turning that around.  It's also a key one in why we're underperforming.  Show us what you can do, why this mess isn't your fault, but make it snappy."

[dudevillaisnice]

With how close Bruce is to the media I think we would’ve heard something by now if they were getting rid 

[jim]

5 minutes ago, Johnnyp said:

The links with Henry, which i think was much more than rumour as tv, radio and printed media were all over it, suggests to me that they were thinking of replacing Bruce from the off. We lose at Blackburn and I'm certain they'll pull the trigger. But we won't. And we'll probably be back here in 4 weeks after another defeat

No probably about it. We know exactly how it will play out. He will always do “just enough” Unless our owners our decisive and act very soon we will be stuck in this division for another 2 seasons. 

Edited September 2, 2018 by jim

[jacketspuds]

12 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/the-dinosaur-thing-coming-out-15101126

Oh his latest comments are incredible.

It's annoying that he states that we were up against a very good Sheff Utd team who will be contenders this year. That's the sort of comment that I would expect if we had managed a hard-fought draw against them, not after a 4-1 hammering as he's basically admitting that we are not ready to compete at the top end of the table with teams like that. It's the sort of thing that a manager of a club happy to finish mid-table would come out with.

[sne]

Is it still "Silencio stampa" from the club and players or have there been any noise yet?

[terrytini]

4 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

People keep trying to use this.

However that is without skipping the fact that everything happened so quickly and right before the season there would have been hardly any time to make any realistic changes without rocking the boat or having a certain set of fans lose their nut.

I think all they did was take the stable short term option while they figure and sort things out in the background, put a structure in place and have candidates deemed suitable.

I don't for a second think any multi billionaire/consortium with modern sports experience and high ambitions goes into a club think STEVE BRUCE is the chosen one for a club the level of ASTON VILLA.

It even sounds ridiculous when I say it to myself.

I fully agree with paragraph 4 and 5.

But think you are missing the fact that your explanation in paragraphs 2 and 3 effectively does the same thing. “ ohhh it’s all happening too quick.....les figure things out .......”........ “ too quick”...... enough time to instigate and conclud3 a huge financial deal, to plot FFP, but no time to phone a preferred manager ?

tgat sounds ridiculous.

In my view he’s not their man, but they couldn’t get their man, so for now, it’s him.

[Guest av1]

19 minutes ago, terrytini said:

You are allowing your desire for him to go to influence what you think I’m saying.

I agree all down to Bruce.

I am saying if they had no better alternative, knowing all about him, a month ago, what’s changed ?

I'm sorry if I'm interpreting your posts incorrectly, you may be right that my desire to see the bloke gone means I'm jumping on bits of posts without completely digested eveything that has been said, if thats the case i apologise. 

The reason i asked is because i see (and this isn't aimed at you) a lot of people jump to his defence when replying to critical posts like my own, but i can't recall seeing any posts (maybe I'm just not looking hard enough) that have said 'Bruce still has my backing because of XYZ' 

Onto the bit in bold. 

Whilst both very successful business man, none of our owners have any experience at all in football, so i think it was maybe prudent of them to hold fire on any decisions pending guidance from "football men"

So nothing necessarily has changed, it's difficult to determine Bruce ever had their backing solely because they retained his services, they may simply have acknowledged their lack of experience in this field and waited until they found someone better placed to decide upon a replacement. 

Either way, with CP now in position i guess their intentions will become clear sooner rather than later. 

Edited September 2, 2018 by av1

[srsmithusa]

16 minutes ago, terrytini said:

You don’t put someone in charge, give them their players, then sack them because of 1 defeat and 3 draws.

As I keep saying, one assumes he was their desired candidate ( whether by lack of alternatives or choice).....don’t see them sacking him after a month.

Deciding to keep him in August is one thing.  100% confidence in him going forward is another.  

I have had meetings with poor performing employees in which we made clear expectations and Frank discussion of failures on their part, with the decision to retain their employment,, but they were “skating on very thin ice” and their margin for error going forward was very slim

again, keeping him and having full faith and backing are not necessarily the same thing.  Not all “we’ll keep your contract in place” decisions come with a clean slate  

FWIW, I do agree that there is only a small chance they will sack him. But that’s because  I’ve been Bruce out for so long, with what I think we’re such obvious reasons, that are only becoming more and more apparent.... I’ve learned not to get my hopes up.  

[terrytini]

2 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

When I've worked at companies that've been taken over, the new guys don't fire everyone on day 1.

"The business is underperforming, and your role is a key one in turning that around.  It's also a key one in why we're underperforming.  Show us what you can do, why this mess isn't your fault, but make it snappy."

Fine. I see no relevance in that.

For many reasons, not least his record was there for them to see, and the availability of alternatives would’ve been greater back in August. They had nothing to gain by giving him a month. They’d have actually made their job harder.

If you sack an office manager, or an accountant, or whoever, there is often a long list of potentially suitable candidates, and, you don’t only have one chance at getting it right

These guys had the knowledge that if they kept Bruce, there was at best a hope for 2 Points a game and an iffy style. At worst, mid table.

Why would they have “ given him a chance” IF they had a - to them - better alternative ?

[Keyblade]

44 minutes ago, Fight Like Lions said:

Next 6 fixtures (up to the next international break)-

Blackburn (A)

Rotherham (H)

Sheffield Wed (H)

Bristol City (A)

Preston (H)

Millwall (A)

With our squad all of those are winnable. Bring in a new manager now and we start to build the run needed to go into November and December when things start to get tougher. If Bruce is still here and messes this lot up like he has the first 6 games then we can kiss goodbye to promotion. 

We only managed 9 points from these 6 arguably easier fixtures:

Hull (A)

Wigan (H)

Ipswich (A)

Brentford (H)

Reading (H)

Sheffield United (A)

If we make it to November without at least 12 points from those games we're out of the promotion race imo. Do you trust Steve to get 12 points? I don't. I have no hope for the rest of the season if he stays in charge.. Don't give him any more "runs". He's shot, that's it. 

[terrytini]

12 minutes ago, av1 said:

I'm sorry if I'm interpreting your posts incorrectly, you may be right that my desire to see the bloke gone means I'm jumping on bits of posts without completely digested eveything your saying, if thats the case i apologise. 

The reason i asked is because i see (and this isn't aimed at you) a lot of people jump to his defence when replying to critical posts like my own, but i can't seeing any posts (maybe I'm just not looking hard enough) that have said 'Bruce still has my backing because of XYZ. 

Onto the bit in bold. 

Whilst both very successful business man, none of our owners have any experience at all in football, so i think it was maybe prudent of them to hold fire on any decisions pending guidance from "football men"

So nothing necessarily has changed, it's difficult to determine Bruce ever had their backing solely because they retained his services, they may simply have acknowledged their lack of experience in this field and waited until they found someone better placed to decide upon a replacement. 

Either way, with CP now in position i guess their intentions will become clear sooner rather than later. 

 

10 minutes ago, srsmithusa said:

Deciding to keep him in August is one thing.  100% confidence in him going forward is another.  

I have had meetings with poor performing employees in which we made clear expectations and Frank discussion of failures on their part, with the decision to retain their employment,, but they were “skating on very thin ice” and their margin for error going forward was very slim

again, keeping him and having full faith and backing are not necessarily the same thing.  Not all “we’ll keep your contract in place” decisions come with a clean slate  

FWIW, I do agree that there is only a small chance they will sack him. But that’s because  I’ve been Bruce out for so long, with what I think we’re such obvious reasons, that are only becoming more and more apparent.... I’ve learned not to get my hopes up.  

I don’t rate these comparisons with other workplaces, as I’ve outlined above.

Finally - I’ve tried to explain my views for over an hour now - I would reiterate my OP. Which had 2 parts.

I don’t expect them to sack him - I don’t think their replacement is there (99%) Or they wanted him - Bruce - and still do (1%)

If they did, I wouldn’t be impressed - because if they did’ make a mistake’, put him on a ‘ work improvement plan’, ‘ wait to talk to football guys ‘ or’ not realise how poor he is’ or whatever, I think thars deeply unimpressive. They should’ve ( and I think did have) candidates in mind from Day 1 ( which would be the day they decided to purchase, not the start of the season).

The only scenario where I think they WOULD sack him, and where it wouldn’t be unimpressive, is if their candidate becomes available.

That won’t be dependent upon what Bruce does, or doesn’t achieve.

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by terrytini

[terrytini]

18 minutes ago, Johnnyp said:

The links with Henry, which i think was much more than rumour as tv, radio and printed media were all over it, suggests to me that they were thinking of replacing Bruce from the off. 

I agree 100%.

[terrytini]

Having drawn a line under that bit. I’ll say this.

I would be absolutely amazed if they originally  retained Bruce through choice.

I would be equally amazed if they just decided to defer a decision.

Therefore - in my view - they made a decision on a candidate, or a short list, and, for whatever reasons, couldn’t do what they wanted.

If I’m right they will only, therefore, sack him, when they CAN do what they want. I suspect he knows this.

I just cannot picture guys like these 2 not wanting their own man. If already in place was Fergie, or Pep, maybe, but not an ordinary manager.

Edited September 2, 2018 by terrytini

[Thug]

7 minutes ago, terrytini said:

 

I don’t rate these comparisons with other workplaces, as I’ve outlined above.

Finally - I’ve tried to explain my views for over an hour now - I would reiterate my OP. Which had 2 parts.

I don’t expect them to sack him - I don’t think their replacement is there (99%) Or they wanted him - Bruce - and still do (1%)

If they did, I wouldn’t be impressed - because if they did’ make a mistake’, put him on a ‘ work improvement plan’, ‘ wait to talk to football guys ‘ or’ not realise how poor he is’ or whatever, I think thars deeply unimpressive. They should’ve ( and I think did have) candidates in mind from Day 1 ( which would be the day they decided to purchase, not the start of the season).

The only scenario where I think they WOULD sack him, and where it wouldn’t be unimpressive, is if their candidate becomes available.

That won’t be dependent upon what Bruce does, or doesn’t achieve.

 

I think you're right with this.

 

They won't sack him until they have a replacement.

 

But the actual decision to replace him should no longer be up for debate, regardless of the next few results.