Mess from top to bottom

[WORTHINGFULHAM]

So our first choice of manager Clarke crashed and burned, and for the better in my opinion, our second choice of Pearson also crashed and burnt for different reasons so whoever we get now surley is going to be a bit of a tail between our legs appointment?
Managers will be a bit more wary about joining us as they are clearly down the picking order and not a main target
We will obviously hire someone but I am worried about who we are linked to and our ambitious approach seems to be taking a back foot for a cheaper option in which case we should of kept with kit. . At least for the time being. This is a complete mess from top to bottom and I am not being filled with confidence by the club currently.

[Fulham76]

So our first choice of manager Clarke crashed and burned, and for the better in my opinion, our second choice of Pearson also crashed and burnt for different reasons so whoever we get now surley is going to be a bit of a tail between our legs appointment?
Managers will be a bit more wary about joining us as they are clearly down the picking order and not a main target
We will obviously hire someone but I am worried about who we are linked to and our ambitious approach seems to be taking a back foot for a cheaper option in which case we should of kept with kit. . At least for the time being. This is a complete mess from top to bottom and I am not being filled with confidence by the club currently.

Looks like Kit was sacked without a solid plan B, which is pretty poor from the club. We always seem to want to haggle on cost & 9 times out of 10 we end up losing out!

[Loz]

Have to say I agree. Khan said sacking Kit was about wanting to move a level up but then failed to put enough money on the table to attract any managers proven at a higher level. Rigg jumped the gun announcing this whole 'Head Coach' reform plan publically, effectively making diminished responsibilities for the new man non-negotiable, which limits our options even more. All the indications from the club suggested we'd get this wrapped up during the international break; now we haven't we look silly and increasingly desperate.

Not one for club-bashing usually, especially after good work in the summer transfer market, but Kit's replacement was always going to be a crossroads moment for our club, and so far we've made a pig's ear of it.

[H4usuallysitting]

The problem is we are not coming from an angle of power, and a new coach/manager can dictate the odds.....why we didn't have someone lined up is beyond me - we don't even appear to have Curbs running the coaching side of the first team why I have no idea.......as a club we appear to be reacting to everything rather that being proactive.... All a bit Mickey Mouse

[Roberty]

Hum - what is a "solid plan B"

We cannot contract a new manager until the old one got the bullet

As with all expenditure the salary of the manager cannot be limitless because we have to stay within the FFP rule - I suppose we could sell Ross to Hull and use the money saved to pay for Pearson and his "team" but I think that would not be a good idea

The one good thing this time is that we have appointed Peter Grant as caretaker and he's stated that he does not want the job on a permanent basis

This will give some continuity to team affairs and leaves the club to find a manager without the farce we had last time

[andy]

I agree that we do not have last time's farce....   we have a whole new opportunity for a whole new farce, and boy it looks like we are making a Brian Rix of it (sorry to younger readers you'll have to research that yourself).

[Fulham76]

Hum - what is a "solid plan B"

We cannot contract a new manager until the old one got the bullet

As with all expenditure the salary of the manager cannot be limitless because we have to stay within the FFP rule - I suppose we could sell Ross to Hull and use the money saved to pay for Pearson and his "team" but I think that would not be a good idea

The one good thing this time is that we have appointed Peter Grant as caretaker and he's stated that he does not want the job on a permanent basis

This will give some continuity to team affairs and leaves the club to find a manager without the farce we had last time

A realistic plan would be nice!
If the rumours are true, we've made contact with Steve Clarke, Nigel Pearson & maybe some others & all have been willing to speak with us but seems all have rejected us? The 2nd part to my post was about losing out due to cost & our offer not being good enough.
Everyone else manages to get the manager they need & stay within FFP. I get the impression we're offering below the going rate if we've been rejected by the above names already.

[Buffalo76]

If our owner wants us to move to a higher level of success then start showing the money - simple. Stop fart arsing about haggling over cost all the time. I don't want another cheap option. Spend spend spend. Lets get a ' name' in and end this mess the club are making of appointing a new manager.

[GW02]

Hum - what is a "solid plan B"

We cannot contract a new manager until the old one got the bullet

As with all expenditure the salary of the manager cannot be limitless because we have to stay within the FFP rule - I suppose we could sell Ross to Hull and use the money saved to pay for Pearson and his "team" but I think that would not be a good idea

The one good thing this time is that we have appointed Peter Grant as caretaker and he's stated that he does not want the job on a permanent basis

This will give some continuity to team affairs and leaves the club to find a manager without the farce we had last time

Am not trying to attack you personally but the view about not being able to get a new manager lined up before the old one is a vey naïve view - yes they can't put pen to paper and sign a contract as you state but clubs this does, underhand as it may be, line up managers before firing the old one. Liverpool sacked BR and had Klopp in by the end of the week, even at championship level the day Blackburn sacked bowyer Lambert was linked and then appointed.

Clubs regularly look behind a managers back to see if they can get better, I am even more surprised we weren't when Rigg states he has been planning for the divorce since the summer. Whether you agree with this approach or not it is the way clubs operate and it makes sense to me - I wouldn't expect us to get rid of a key striker without a replacement lined up, yet this is exactly what we have done with the manager.

[LBNo11]

Re: Mess from top to bottom - you missed out the middle..!

[Arthur]

I am pleased that the Club, having told Kit the terms on which he could continue (i.e. a run of good results), did not show itself to be deceitful by then going behind his back.

I am pleased that when the Club said: 'Look Kit, you're on the brink. You need to get us moving up the table to save yourself,' it was not double-speak for 'Look Kit, we're leading you to believe you've still a chance, but the reality is that as soon as we find our man, you're out of the door.'

I am pleased even if others who have posted above clearly are not.

Our new Head Coach will indeed know that we tried to appoint others before him. He will also know, however, that he can have more confidence in what the Club tells him than ever can anyone who is lined up in secret with the man he will replace oblivious to what is going on.

'Swings and roundabouts' as one might say.

[ToodlesMcToot]

Hum - what is a "solid plan B"

We cannot contract a new manager until the old one got the bullet

As with all expenditure the salary of the manager cannot be limitless because we have to stay within the FFP rule - I suppose we could sell Ross to Hull and use the money saved to pay for Pearson and his "team" but I think that would not be a good idea

The one good thing this time is that we have appointed Peter Grant as caretaker and he's stated that he does not want the job on a permanent basis

This will give some continuity to team affairs and leaves the club to find a manager without the farce we had last time

A realistic plan would be nice!
If the rumours are true, we've made contact with Steve Clarke, Nigel Pearson & maybe some others & all have been willing to speak with us but seems all have rejected us? The 2nd part to my post was about losing out due to cost & our offer not being good enough.
Everyone else manages to get the manager they need & stay within FFP. I get the impression we're offering below the going rate if we've been rejected by the above names already.

I'm curious. If everyone else seems to get the manager they need, then why are we not bottom of the table? Why are there so many sackings every year? I know your statement was a bit hyperbolic but, sometimes it sounds like some believe we are Barca ( I can use hyperbole too ). Ours is not first on a list of many dream jobs. So, it isn't a matter of calling whoever we want next and asking them which font they'd like us to use when we paint their name on the space in the car park.

Because of our situation, our aspirations, and the seeming mental state of our players (often lose their concentration/focus) we have to be right. When one adds in that not every target will say "yes" and jump at our offer, then talking to many is necessary. Having a plan A (one choice in mind) before interviewing the first candidate eliminates possibilities. The right candidate isn't always the first or the most obvious (Roy for example). Plan A should be cast a wide net and find the man who fits us.

[Baszab]

Arthur - unfortunately you are not correct - KS was told - "top 6 or else" and that was his target for the season - and he was working on that basis - to sack with no replacement doesn't make sense given his job objectives

[Arthur]

Arthur - unfortunately you are not correct - KS was told - "top 6 or else" and that was his target for the season - and he was working on that basis - to sack with no replacement doesn't make sense given his job objectives

It is unclear to me what you think I am not correct about. Would you please clarify this?

[Baszab]

"the terms on which (KS) he could continue"

[jarv]

It could be worse. We could support Newcastle and have the wally with the brolly.....wait a minute...he should be available in about 3 weeks.

[Arthur]

"the terms on which (KS) he could continue"

Thank you for your clarification.

I agree that his target for the season was 'top six or else' and that the 'or else' was that his contract would not be renewed.

I do not agree, however, that this should be interpreted as a guarantee that Symons would be afforded the whole season and that, as such, the Club acted deceitfully by sacking him in the first place.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

"the terms on which (KS) he could continue"

Thank you for your clarification.

I agree that his target for the season was 'top six or else' and that the 'or else' was that his contract would not be renewed.

I do not agree, however, that this should be interpreted as a guarantee that Symons would be afforded the whole season and that, as such, the Club acted deceitfully by sacking him in the first place.

I thought that someone said that there was also a points target after a certain number of games and that by losing to Birmingham Symons could not meet that target.

[Woolly Mammoth]

"the terms on which (KS) he could continue"

Thank you for your clarification.

I agree that his target for the season was 'top six or else' and that the 'or else' was that his contract would not be renewed.

I do not agree, however, that this should be interpreted as a guarantee that Symons would be afforded the whole season and that, as such, the Club acted deceitfully by sacking him in the first place.

I thought that someone said that there was also a points target after a certain number of games and that by losing to Birmingham Symons could not meet that target.

Bullseye