Fulham Eye Steve Bruce

[Logicalman]

I'm not a great fan of the Sun but for those that claim that EVERYTHING written in it (and spoken in Talksport) is utter made up rubbish and they get nothing right, what news sources do you swear by? I'm keen to find these 100% correct media outlets

Quite correct Leon, there are no 100% correct rags out there as they all need to either spice up the news, or be creative in what news they 'report', it's just some are perhaps a little more creative than others, and The Sun has been known to be one of the more creative ones, taking a possible mouldy old nugget and making a complete roast chicken dinner of it.

[epsomraver]

You lost me at "the Sun".

Why people continue to read that utter comic, beats me!

Cos they tell the truth about what LT train drivers earnings and conditions ? :hook:

[Logicalman]

No smoke without fire. This is the 3rd time now isn't it? It was no secret that Bruce was the 5 man panels main guy, but his contract at Hull was the stumbling block. Would be a good appointment in my eyes, especially for what we need to achieve first and that's getting out the Championship. We can worry at the Premiership when we get there.

So could this not be the Sun just bringing up old stuff to make a new story? Not exactly one of the most exalted sources of accurate info, is it?

Then again, I would contend with your last assertion (as bolded above) regarding worrying about the Prem when we get there, as this is just a recipe for disaster, and failing to plan a long-term return to the top flight. We need a team in place that can gain promotion and hold the fort for at least the first season without having to replace the squad wholesale in summer just after promotion.

The Sun or not, the owner isn't stupid, and if Kit doesn't start to deliver results, then he will start looking for a guy who can (might already be). Pretty sure he never bought FFC for the money he did just to let them wallow around in the Championship.

In regards to worrying about the Premiership, I meant manager wise. Bruce will get you out this Division, that I'm certain, and he'll prob keep you up for a couple of season. If Kahn feels that we need to push on, like Southampton for example, we can worry about that then.

As stated above, all teams that go up invest in half a new team anyway. All this 'building for the Premiership' can take years, and before we know it, we'll be another Blackburn, Ipswich of the Championship.

To put my cards on the table, I think Bruce is a good manager, always liked him, and believe he has the passion, very similar to Pardew in the way he handles himself, and overall a good guy. Both those two seem to get the best out of players, even if/when they appear to have lost the dressing room somewhat.

I do now see your point reading the 'worrying about the prem' now, and can agree with that, if Kit were to get us back into the Prem, I cannot with any heart, say that he is a Premiership manager, he still has far too long to go for that.


If I had a choice of managers now, following Pardew, my next choice would be Cookie. Like Kit, he does bleed Fulham, but unlike Kit, he has been elsewhere, suffered both loss and gained success, and has the experience now to take control of a club going places, and by that I mean in an upwards direction!

My choice would have been Pardew, but that boat sailed ages ago, still kicking myself now that we didn't pursue him.

Anyway, as a fan, I get this feeling that other fans just want Fulham to be Fulham, and would be happy for us to rattle around the Championship, win a few games, and have done with it.

I've nothing against Kit personally, he's a good a Fulham man, part of our most successful history, but I want my Club back up mixing it with the elite, and I don't believe he can deliver that.   

I think all fans wan  the club to be as  successful as possible -that is the nature of being a fan - a supporter, rather than just a casual spectator who enjoys watching a football match.

I remember praying to God for Fulham to win things when I first started following Fulham.

Just because some are cautious about sacking the manager whenever there is  string of poor results, doesn't mean fans lack ambition - they are maybe more realistic and honest in their ambitions, compared to someone who talks a good talk -'get this man, or that, spend loads of money - what's wrong with the club?', when the only person with the money needed is the owner, who we rely on to keep going, and he'll presumably spend his money as he sees fit.

Talk is easy - anyone can say 'sack the manager, get this feller in' , then not far down the line, after the inevitable run of not so brilliant results , it's 'sack him' - and so it goes on.

Some fans think that it might be good if there could be some continuity at the club - trying to build something, and it's hard for this to happen if you have the upheaval of the manager sacked and a new man in, every six months are so.

But, of course, football is results driven, and Kit will ultimately be sacked if he doesn't deliver -that's reality, but some think that sacking the manager isn't always the immediate answer - clubs that very frequently sack their managers, as Fulham have in recent years don't tend to do that well.

Good points all. Yep Pardew went and we missed a possibility there, unfortunately.

I see it the same way as Ray, too many changes cannot be good for any team, be they continuous squad changes or the manager, it all adds a hit to the team each week.
I was against sacking rene in such a short time, I believe he was one of our shortest stints since returning to the Prem wasn't he? And I always asked the question: What could he really achieve in the short time he had? He was unfortunate to be appointed when he was, had that been the start of the season he might have survived a lot longer, but advice is what it is to an owner that relied, perhaps, far too heavily at the time.

[Slaphead in Qatar]

bruce or not - if this story is true i am pleased the club hierarchy is growing impatient with kit.

[Woolly Mammoth]

You lost me at "the Sun".

Why people continue to read that utter comic, beats me!

Cos they tell the truth about what LT train drivers earnings and conditions ? :hook:

Very amusing, that did make me chuckle.

[alexmur]

According to a report in The Sun, Fulham will target Hull City boss Steve Bruce if current manager Kit Symons doesn't post a considerable improvement.

Fulham have experienced a frustrating start to their Championship campaign, with the team bereft of consistency as they seemingly follow up every impressive victory with defeat.

The club's hierarchy are growing impatient with Symons, and without a considerable improvement reports in The Sun suggest they will seek Hull City's Steve Bruce to take over in his place.

"Fulham will move for Steve Bruce in the next few weeks if boss Kit Symons does not get the club climbing the table," the report states.

Potential step in the right direction?

Since dropping down to the Championship, Fulham haven't been shy in splashing the cash and it was in fact their deal to sign Ross McCormack which prompted an increase in transfer fees across the board.

After a disastrous spell under Felix Magath, Symons has steadied the ship but there seems little signs of the club really pushing for the playoffs – an evident target set by those in power.

For every impressive 4-0 defeat over decent opposition such as Queens Park Rangers, a damaging defeat has ensued and such inconsistent form is damaging for morale.

The report states that Bruce has been identified as an ideal replacement and it's easy to see why, considering the job he has done at Hull City and Wigan Athletic previously,

The Tigers are in a good position to make an immediate return to the Premier League, so it is hard to see him walking away from his job at the KC even if the money is right.

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2015/10/10/tt-report-fulham-eye-hull-city-boss-as-potential-kit-symons-repl/?

I think the key point in that is reported by the sun, nor exactly known for their accurate reporting

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[peaty]

Steve Bruce? Does this sound familiar?

"Arguably one of the principal reasons Bruce is no longer in charge at the Stadium of Light concerns his apparent inability to tweak formations or tactics during matches. Whenever a rival manager re-configured his system mid-game, Bruce invariably failed to come up with a countermeasure."

"Always rather amorphous, if not downright scrappy, Sunderland's high-tempo style lacked creativity, not to mention control, in central midfield. Unable to dictate play, the team frequently failed to press home early advantages."

This comes from one of the most scathing pieces on a football manager I've ever seen in the UK press, written by Louise Taylor in the Guardian in November 2011.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2011/nov/30/steve-bruce-sunderland-sacked

Worth reading.

Bruce always sounds like a nice guy on the telly. But he's about as far away from Mike Rigg's modernizing tendencies as you can get.

[alexbishop]

Steve Bruce? Does this sound familiar?

"Arguably one of the principal reasons Bruce is no longer in charge at the Stadium of Light concerns his apparent inability to tweak formations or tactics during matches. Whenever a rival manager re-configured his system mid-game, Bruce invariably failed to come up with a countermeasure."

"Always rather amorphous, if not downright scrappy, Sunderland's high-tempo style lacked creativity, not to mention control, in central midfield. Unable to dictate play, the team frequently failed to press home early advantages."

This comes from one of the most scathing pieces on a football manager I've ever seen in the UK press, written by Louise Taylor in the Guardian in November 2011.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2011/nov/30/steve-bruce-sunderland-sacked

Worth reading.

Bruce always sounds like a nice guy on the telly. But he's about as far away from Mike Rigg's modernizing tendencies as you can get.

That article is my greatest concern about Bruce and I remember reading it at the time.

[alfie]

Steve Bruce? Does this sound familiar?

"Arguably one of the principal reasons Bruce is no longer in charge at the Stadium of Light concerns his apparent inability to tweak formations or tactics during matches. Whenever a rival manager re-configured his system mid-game, Bruce invariably failed to come up with a countermeasure."

"Always rather amorphous, if not downright scrappy, Sunderland's high-tempo style lacked creativity, not to mention control, in central midfield. Unable to dictate play, the team frequently failed to press home early advantages."

This comes from one of the most scathing pieces on a football manager I've ever seen in the UK press, written by Louise Taylor in the Guardian in November 2011.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2011/nov/30/steve-bruce-sunderland-sacked

Worth reading.

Bruce always sounds like a nice guy on the telly. But he's about as far away from Mike Rigg's modernizing tendencies as you can get.

That article is my greatest concern about Bruce and I remember reading it at the time.

Of course it could be that that writer just does not like Bruce.

[alexbishop]

Steve Bruce? Does this sound familiar?

"Arguably one of the principal reasons Bruce is no longer in charge at the Stadium of Light concerns his apparent inability to tweak formations or tactics during matches. Whenever a rival manager re-configured his system mid-game, Bruce invariably failed to come up with a countermeasure."

"Always rather amorphous, if not downright scrappy, Sunderland's high-tempo style lacked creativity, not to mention control, in central midfield. Unable to dictate play, the team frequently failed to press home early advantages."

This comes from one of the most scathing pieces on a football manager I've ever seen in the UK press, written by Louise Taylor in the Guardian in November 2011.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2011/nov/30/steve-bruce-sunderland-sacked

Worth reading.

Bruce always sounds like a nice guy on the telly. But he's about as far away from Mike Rigg's modernizing tendencies as you can get.

That article is my greatest concern about Bruce and I remember reading it at the time.

Of course it could be that that writer just does not like Bruce.

Then surely the article would read - 'I don't like Steve Bruce'

Guardian journalists should be a little more above that kind of tabloid journalism.

[Logicalman]

Steve Bruce? Does this sound familiar?

"Arguably one of the principal reasons Bruce is no longer in charge at the Stadium of Light concerns his apparent inability to tweak formations or tactics during matches. Whenever a rival manager re-configured his system mid-game, Bruce invariably failed to come up with a countermeasure."

"Always rather amorphous, if not downright scrappy, Sunderland's high-tempo style lacked creativity, not to mention control, in central midfield. Unable to dictate play, the team frequently failed to press home early advantages."

This comes from one of the most scathing pieces on a football manager I've ever seen in the UK press, written by Louise Taylor in the Guardian in November 2011.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2011/nov/30/steve-bruce-sunderland-sacked

Worth reading.

Bruce always sounds like a nice guy on the telly. But he's about as far away from Mike Rigg's modernizing tendencies as you can get.

That article is my greatest concern about Bruce and I remember reading it at the time.

Of course it could be that that writer just does not like Bruce.

Then surely the article would read - 'I don't like Steve Bruce'

Guardian journalists should be a little more above that kind of tabloid journalism.

:005: :012:  :54:

[rubbernecca]

If not Steve, I hear that Harry Redknapp's knee has healed.

[Neil D]

I said Hoddle a year or so ago after Mcgath and I will still chuck his name in the ring

Keep trying - one day he's bound to come back as something.  Maybe even a football manager in his next life...