Next Aston Villa Manager

[Lerner's Driver]

21 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I thought it was Pardews alleged gambling debts meant he needed a hefty pay day ?

guesd it could be both .... or neither 

Either way, he's a chippy c*ck womble.

[sheepyvillian]

1 hour ago, Lerner's Driver said:

Do 'they' say forums wouldn't exist without it?

They certainly would without that kind of gossip . What next a Jeremy Kyle thread ?

[Rob182]

7 hours ago, TRO said:

This is not a 5 minute job and whether Steve Bruce is here or anyone else the difficulties still remain.....Building is not easy, because while you are redesigning the house and that costs money, the bills still have to be paid.....we still have to get wins, while the development takes place....its tricky.

...of course, there's always the Harry Redknapp method of building. Convince the land owners to take out a load of loans, then use the money to over-pay some contractors to get the work done quickly, and when it all goes tits up and they do a shit in the new sink, leave the house and blame it all on the dog.

[Wezbid]

10 hours ago, Nigel said:

Wonder if Alan Pardew has ever topped a poll of who fans want?

If he had, I'm sure he'd have let everyone know about it. 

[DaveAV1]

7 hours ago, Rob182 said:

...of course, there's always the Harry Redknapp method of building. Convince the land owners to take out a load of loans, then use the money to over-pay some contractors to get the work done quickly, and when it all goes tits up and they do a shit in the new sink, leave the house and blame it all on the dog.

I think the dog does have to face up to his responsibilities, after all he has had all the money .

[Lerner's Driver]

9 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

They certainly would without that kind of gossip . What next a Jeremy Kyle thread ?

So, you'd rather not hear anything about the private lives of players and managers, despite knowing this kind of information could and probably will have an impact on their performance? I find that unlikely. All we do on here is speculate whether Steve Bruce's bunion is behind his lack of tactical nous.

[sheepyvillian]

20 minutes ago, Lerner's Driver said:

So, you'd rather not hear anything about the private lives of players and managers, despite knowing this kind of information could and probably will have an impact on their performance? I find that unlikely. All we do on here is speculate whether Steve Bruce's bunion is behind his lack of tactical nous.

Whose we ?

[Lerner's Driver]

1 hour ago, sheepyvillian said:

Whose we ?

Not you, but almost everyone else, I guess.  

[TRO]

11 hours ago, Rob182 said:

...of course, there's always the Harry Redknapp method of building. Convince the land owners to take out a load of loans, then use the money to over-pay some contractors to get the work done quickly, and when it all goes tits up and they do a shit in the new sink, leave the house and blame it all on the dog.

We've had a few of them

[TRO]

Small Article in the daily express yesterday on jokanovic citing him as a thinking manager who weighs up the possibilities of the opposition before setting out his team.

[lexicon]

18 hours ago, peterms said:

I'd say they should have a plan for what to do, which should involve a short-term arrangement of having someone internal act up or else knowing a couple of stand-ins who might take it as a short-term contract, should have an idea of the shortlist they want to recruit from, and should know how they plan to handle recruitment, eg external advisers or not.

That would be very far removed from sacking someone and then wondering what to do next.

The idea that you go round lining up a permanent replacement before sacking the current one is not just poor as a principle, it's also likely to create a very poor atmosphere once it gets out, and may create an impression that the management are not to be trusted.

With all due respect Peter, I think you're living in a bygone era with respect to this. I agree that it's not a particularly nice thing to do but it's the way that the modern game works and it's better for the club to be able to get a permanent replacement in as soon as possible. I seem to remember about 15-20 years ago there was an unwritten rule among PL chairmen that you didn't take each other's manager but that fell to the wayside long ago, as did player and manager loyalty and a host of other things that were great about the game. It's a different world now, where the standard is much higher but a lot of things were sacrificed to get there.

[sidcow]

1 minute ago, lexicon said:

With all due respect Peter, I think you're living in a bygone era with respect to this. I agree that it's not a particularly nice thing to do but it's the way that the modern game works and it's better for the club to be able to get a permanent replacement in as soon as possible. I seem to remember about 15-20 years ago there was an unwritten rule among PL chairmen that you didn't take each other's manager but that fell to the wayside long ago, as did player and manager loyalty and a host of other things that were great about the game. It's a different world now, where the standard is much higher but a lot of things were sacrificed to get there.

Football is a ruthless dog eat dog world. 

Anyone who wants good manners and chivalry in their sport better get themselves down their local fencing club. 

[peterms]

6 minutes ago, lexicon said:

With all due respect Peter, I think you're living in a bygone era with respect to this. I agree that it's not a particularly nice thing to do but it's the way that the modern game works and it's better for the club to be able to get a permanent replacement in as soon as possible.

But on a practical level, why does secretly sounding out people behind Bruce's back either make the process of getting someone quicker, or produce a better outcome, compared to dismissing him and doing it in the open, meaning that other potential candidates would make themselves known?

Seems to me it just prolongs his period of office, which most seem to agree should be ended.  And it slows down the search by having to do it secretly.

It's presented as a ruthless and decisive and efficient course of action.  My view is it's indecisive, ineffective, and a failure on a very practical level as well as being a sly and untrustworthy way to work.

The only possible reason for doing it like this is if the club believe they can't make any interim arrangement that would be better than having Bruce linger on, in the knowledge that his own management are intending to axe him. 

[lexicon]

3 minutes ago, peterms said:

But on a practical level, why does secretly sounding out people behind Bruce's back either make the process of getting someone quicker, or produce a better outcome, compared to dismissing him and doing it in the open, meaning that other potential candidates would make themselves known?

Seems to me it just prolongs his period of office, which most seem to agree should be ended.  And it slows down the search by having to do it secretly.

It's presented as a ruthless and decisive and efficient course of action.  My view is it's indecisive, ineffective, and a failure on a very practical level as well as being a sly and untrustworthy way to work.

The only possible reason for doing it like this is if the club believe they can't make any interim arrangement that would be better than having Bruce linger on, in the knowledge that his own management are intending to axe him. 

- Managers have agents too and if the agents are aware that a club is looking (mainly because that's how clubs make contact), they'll relay that to their clients and interest will be logged. Whether the position is open or not is immaterial for potential candidates making themselves known. 

- Of course it'll be quicker because if you can get the guy you want in the next day, you don't have to deal with the interim at all because everything is ready to go. 

- If everyone involved in the industry knows the score, then it's not really sly and untrustworthy by the standards set. You know what will happen if you don't perform, you know it's a results business with high managerial turnover. If a person can't accept it, then they're not going to make it in the game for very long with that level of sensitivity. 

 

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, lexicon said:

- Of course it'll be quicker because if you can get the guy you want in the next day, you don't have to deal with the interim at all because everything is ready to go. 

There is no "no interim" option.  We are in the interim now.  The choice is an interim manager, or keep Bruce on while someone else is found.  I think an interim manager would be better than limping on like this, but let's not pretend that the current approach avoids an interim arrangement.

Edited September 16, 2017 by peterms
clarification

[sheepyvillian]

1 hour ago, Lerner's Driver said:

Not you, but almost everyone else, I guess.  

Correct !

Now I can get my coat .

[lexicon]

14 minutes ago, peterms said:

There is no "no interim" option.  We are in the interim now.  The choice is an interim manager, or keep Bruce on while someone else is found.  I think an interim manager would be better than limping on like this, but let's not pretend that the current approach avoids an interim arrangement.

If you want to get bogged down in semantics, yes I suppose. Are you happy with everything else then?

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, lexicon said:

If you want to get bogged down in semantics, yes I suppose. Are you happy with everything else then?

It's not semantics, it's the question of what is the quickest and most efficient way to change the manager.  In my view pretending you're not doing it while trying to do it in secret is not quicker or more efficient, and those people who think it's a ruthlessly efficient, hardnosed way of dealing with a tough environment are kidding themselves.  Get rid of him, put someone else in temporary charge, and recruit a permanent replacement as quickly as you can manage while still taking enough time to get it right.

No, I'm not happy with everything else.  I'm not happy with what I see on the pitch, not happy with the decision-making that has led to this position, and not happy with people spouting fantasies about top five in the world while presiding over directionless drift.

[lexicon]

27 minutes ago, peterms said:

It's not semantics, it's the question of what is the quickest and most efficient way to change the manager.  In my view pretending you're not doing it while trying to do it in secret is not quicker or more efficient, and those people who think it's a ruthlessly efficient, hardnosed way of dealing with a tough environment are kidding themselves.  Get rid of him, put someone else in temporary charge, and recruit a permanent replacement as quickly as you can manage while still taking enough time to get it right.

No, I'm not happy with everything else.  I'm not happy with what I see on the pitch, not happy with the decision-making that has led to this position, and not happy with people spouting fantasies about top five in the world while presiding over directionless drift.

OK, I give up.

Yes mate, you're right and everyone else who posts a view that isn't exactly the same must be wrong and there's no point entertaining anything they have to say in anything other than an aggressive, indignant manner 

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, lexicon said:

OK, I give up.

Yes mate, you're right and everyone else who posts a view that isn't exactly the same must be wrong and there's no point entertaining anything they have to say in anything other than an aggressive, indignant manner 

Well I'm sorry if it sounds aggressive.  I'm just pissed off with things drifting along like this, with no apparent strategy beyond big talk, and a lack of decisiveness in the face of a growing problem.