| How long 15:34 - Oct 18 with 5941 views | Lblock |
Until the chants of "You don't know what you're doing" turn into "Said we want Ramsey out" I wonder?
I actually think the next goal scored in W12 could be as pivotal as the next two results
The sad thing is it'll lead to venom between fans which nobody wants to see
#deadsmilingmanwalking |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |  |
| How long on 13:14 - Oct 19 with 1280 views | daveB |
| How long on 13:06 - Oct 19 by gobbles |
Well for starters, Ramsey said he wasn't interviewed for the post. That kind of hints that nobody else was either. And the names you mention again fall into the trap of looking at the same obvious people. Look at Norwich who cast their net a bit wider and got Alex Neil.
Do you really think that the five players we expected to sell but kept make no difference? Fer is a fantastic player when his talents are harnessed. Against Bolton we saw a glimpse of what Fer and Chery could be when playing together. Yet we just seem to play like an unmotivated, disorganised rabble. |
They did speak to Clement and Sherwood but wasn't a formal interview for either of them |  | | |
| How long on 14:21 - Oct 19 with 1222 views | PinnerPaul |
| How long on 20:37 - Oct 18 by Northernr |
Well firstly I'd say that no club apart from Chelsea is consistently successful while sacking managers that regularly.
Secondly I'd say that although it may not be unusual, the flatline of results, performance etc etc at QPR despite all the changes is. Sunderland are a prime example of a club that starts every season poorly, sacks a manager, results lift, they stay up, it repeats. new manager bounce is a thing elsewhere and if it was a thing here then maybe four managers in four years isn't bad because it gives us that lift when we change.
At QPR it never happens. The manager gets sacked, the results stay the same. Why would you continue to repeat the same action when it makes no difference? It surely, strongly, suggests you need to be making some changes elsewhere? Or give the latest thing you've settled on some more time?
I've seen people saying we need a more experienced manager, which is laughable considering the two we sacked before Ramsey were as experienced as you can possibly get and were both still sht here.
Nigel Pearson seems to be flavour of the month at the moment. Pearson was appointed Hull manager in summer 2010. He won one of his first six, lost 4-0 at mightly Millwall in his second match and by November 9 his record was P17 W3. The QPR support base as it is at the moment would be baying for a sacking in those circumstances.
He rejoined Leicester in November 2011 and obviously went on to build a fine set up there which is now the bedrock of their Premier League success. But he only won three of his first 11 games there and finished that season with six defeats and three draws from his final 15 games. He only won one of the last four games that season, and one of his last four home games. They started the following season with three defeats in the first five league games and were beaten 4-2 by Burton Albion at home in the League Cup. Again, I'd suggest we'd be baying for a sacking if he came here and did that. From february 9 to until the final day of the season they won three, drew six and lost nine of their 18 games - three wins in 18. He definitely wouldn't survive that here.
So the achievement we're craving for Pearson to bring here actually took him 18 months at Leicester, during which there were at least three points that QPR fans would have wanted him sacked, and another 18 month spell at Hull where he did little and, again, we'd have been baying for his blood.
It doesn't, and isn't, fcking working.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
HOORAY!
Spot on and great research.
Some fans really are in denial "Just one more manager"
Its like "Just one more drink or cigarette, then I'm giving up" |  | | |
| How long on 14:25 - Oct 19 with 1218 views | PinnerPaul |
| How long on 01:50 - Oct 19 by Mvpeter |
People like to bring up how 'changing managers never helps'
It does not because we do not hire effective managers. For all of our many managers how many could you consider the one that got away? Slim pickings. Those that had been or would go on to be decent, how many of them were hounded out unfairly by the fans? I can't think of one. Ramsey is a special kind of incompetent, so woefully inadequate that the fans cannot contain their incredulity.
Pointing to his self appointed remit as a defense for the clearly crazy decision making, clearly poor organisation and steadfast refusal to play younger more talented players in place of under-performing aging players (despite bizarrely claiming to be doing the exact opposite) is absurd and willfully ignorant. This coupled with the complete lack of justification for him ever getting the job and it is inevitable that any group of fans would demand the immediate correction of the mistake and justifiably so.
He's making football painful. |
Ah but how do you know anyone is going to be an "effective manager" before they start?
As Clive has pointed out, you would never have called Pearson "effective" in any of his jobs based on his first dozen games. | | | |
| How long on 15:19 - Oct 19 with 1174 views | Mvpeter |
| How long on 14:25 - Oct 19 by PinnerPaul |
Ah but how do you know anyone is going to be an "effective manager" before they start?
As Clive has pointed out, you would never have called Pearson "effective" in any of his jobs based on his first dozen games. |
Well for starters putting two long term unemployed youth coaches both of whom do not have a good reputation in football despite the parroting of certain fans in charge of the entire football club is highly unlikely to fail. You wager that they will be effective based on their record. Not their win loss record that certain fans are absolutely obsessed with even though its not the stick used to beat him. It is what the individual manager does while at a club that is judged not the record. Managers who just keep a club up against the odds do not have high win percentages but they have managed well.
If we're taking Pearson as the example then you see that he had a long history of coaching and then assisting with the management of senior players and even successfully kept Carlisle up as a caretaker and performed well as a caretaker of West Brom. Note that read 'performed well as a caretaker.' The differences are becoming stark.
During this time he worked with the likes of Bryan Robson, Sam Allardyce and Stuart Pearce. Is it inconceivable that a referral was offered?
His spell at Southampton was short and difficult to gauge. They stayed up.
His first spell at Leicester (in league two) was brilliant and he finished 5th in his first season in the Championship.
There is nothing to suggest that a small period of poor form on the back of this in seasons that went 9th, 6th and 1st would have had the QPR crowd baying for blood. It's revisionism when not one of the last 10 managers I can think of were driven out by the fans. We have been remarkably patient with what we've been made to suffer. | |
| |
| How long on 15:42 - Oct 19 with 1155 views | PinnerPaul |
| How long on 15:19 - Oct 19 by Mvpeter |
Well for starters putting two long term unemployed youth coaches both of whom do not have a good reputation in football despite the parroting of certain fans in charge of the entire football club is highly unlikely to fail. You wager that they will be effective based on their record. Not their win loss record that certain fans are absolutely obsessed with even though its not the stick used to beat him. It is what the individual manager does while at a club that is judged not the record. Managers who just keep a club up against the odds do not have high win percentages but they have managed well.
If we're taking Pearson as the example then you see that he had a long history of coaching and then assisting with the management of senior players and even successfully kept Carlisle up as a caretaker and performed well as a caretaker of West Brom. Note that read 'performed well as a caretaker.' The differences are becoming stark.
During this time he worked with the likes of Bryan Robson, Sam Allardyce and Stuart Pearce. Is it inconceivable that a referral was offered?
His spell at Southampton was short and difficult to gauge. They stayed up.
His first spell at Leicester (in league two) was brilliant and he finished 5th in his first season in the Championship.
There is nothing to suggest that a small period of poor form on the back of this in seasons that went 9th, 6th and 1st would have had the QPR crowd baying for blood. It's revisionism when not one of the last 10 managers I can think of were driven out by the fans. We have been remarkably patient with what we've been made to suffer. |
remarkably patient
Now that IS "revisionism"  | | | |
| How long on 15:50 - Oct 19 with 1138 views | CiderwithRsie |
| How long on 01:50 - Oct 19 by Mvpeter |
People like to bring up how 'changing managers never helps'
It does not because we do not hire effective managers. For all of our many managers how many could you consider the one that got away? Slim pickings. Those that had been or would go on to be decent, how many of them were hounded out unfairly by the fans? I can't think of one. Ramsey is a special kind of incompetent, so woefully inadequate that the fans cannot contain their incredulity.
Pointing to his self appointed remit as a defense for the clearly crazy decision making, clearly poor organisation and steadfast refusal to play younger more talented players in place of under-performing aging players (despite bizarrely claiming to be doing the exact opposite) is absurd and willfully ignorant. This coupled with the complete lack of justification for him ever getting the job and it is inevitable that any group of fans would demand the immediate correction of the mistake and justifiably so.
He's making football painful. |
It does not because we do not hire effective managers
I hate to say this, because I loathe the bloke, but Hughes quite clearly was and is an effective manager, as his record outside of QPR shows. | | | |
| How long on 16:21 - Oct 19 with 1118 views | derbyhoop |
| How long on 20:53 - Oct 18 by Watford_Ranger |
All 20 of which would have made more sense than Toszer for Sandro and Polter for JET. |
Could Sandro do a full 90 minutes, considering it was his first start this season?
Do you think we should have kept JET on then. I cannot recall him having a single effort, neither on nor off target, in the 85 minutes he was on the pitch. |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| How long on 16:36 - Oct 19 with 1108 views | simmo |
| How long on 16:21 - Oct 19 by derbyhoop |
Could Sandro do a full 90 minutes, considering it was his first start this season?
Do you think we should have kept JET on then. I cannot recall him having a single effort, neither on nor off target, in the 85 minutes he was on the pitch. |
Is that really his (JET's) fault? Did he spurn oppportunities or were they not presented to him? Despite anything else he carved out an opportuntity and scored almost single handedly the previous game, in the 94th minute no less. Would you not want him on the pitch to the end just incase he can replicate it, would another striker alongside him not increase his chances to get an opportunity, espcially since Birmigham had given up trying to attack themselves by then?
Agree RE Sandro, him and Fer being slowly introduced makes sense, but it doesn't make sense to do a like for like swap with just a few mins to go and leave 1 up front with 2 one-paced holding midfielders still on the pitch. Where is the sense there? We lost anyway! |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| How long on 16:38 - Oct 19 with 1102 views | BklynRanger |
| How long on 01:50 - Oct 19 by Mvpeter |
People like to bring up how 'changing managers never helps'
It does not because we do not hire effective managers. For all of our many managers how many could you consider the one that got away? Slim pickings. Those that had been or would go on to be decent, how many of them were hounded out unfairly by the fans? I can't think of one. Ramsey is a special kind of incompetent, so woefully inadequate that the fans cannot contain their incredulity.
Pointing to his self appointed remit as a defense for the clearly crazy decision making, clearly poor organisation and steadfast refusal to play younger more talented players in place of under-performing aging players (despite bizarrely claiming to be doing the exact opposite) is absurd and willfully ignorant. This coupled with the complete lack of justification for him ever getting the job and it is inevitable that any group of fans would demand the immediate correction of the mistake and justifiably so.
He's making football painful. |
*cough* Paulo Sousa *cough*
 |  | | |
| How long on 17:23 - Oct 19 with 1064 views | Bushman |
| How long on 20:37 - Oct 18 by Northernr |
Well firstly I'd say that no club apart from Chelsea is consistently successful while sacking managers that regularly.
Secondly I'd say that although it may not be unusual, the flatline of results, performance etc etc at QPR despite all the changes is. Sunderland are a prime example of a club that starts every season poorly, sacks a manager, results lift, they stay up, it repeats. new manager bounce is a thing elsewhere and if it was a thing here then maybe four managers in four years isn't bad because it gives us that lift when we change.
At QPR it never happens. The manager gets sacked, the results stay the same. Why would you continue to repeat the same action when it makes no difference? It surely, strongly, suggests you need to be making some changes elsewhere? Or give the latest thing you've settled on some more time?
I've seen people saying we need a more experienced manager, which is laughable considering the two we sacked before Ramsey were as experienced as you can possibly get and were both still sht here.
Nigel Pearson seems to be flavour of the month at the moment. Pearson was appointed Hull manager in summer 2010. He won one of his first six, lost 4-0 at mightly Millwall in his second match and by November 9 his record was P17 W3. The QPR support base as it is at the moment would be baying for a sacking in those circumstances.
He rejoined Leicester in November 2011 and obviously went on to build a fine set up there which is now the bedrock of their Premier League success. But he only won three of his first 11 games there and finished that season with six defeats and three draws from his final 15 games. He only won one of the last four games that season, and one of his last four home games. They started the following season with three defeats in the first five league games and were beaten 4-2 by Burton Albion at home in the League Cup. Again, I'd suggest we'd be baying for a sacking if he came here and did that. From february 9 to until the final day of the season they won three, drew six and lost nine of their 18 games - three wins in 18. He definitely wouldn't survive that here.
So the achievement we're craving for Pearson to bring here actually took him 18 months at Leicester, during which there were at least three points that QPR fans would have wanted him sacked, and another 18 month spell at Hull where he did little and, again, we'd have been baying for his blood.
It doesn't, and isn't, fcking working.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
To be fair if you could see a vision or tactics or even the players look like they are organised and give a sh1t or substitutions or team selections or fking anyrthing people would be patient...but you cant |  |
| I know almost nothing about the Premier League even though I try to catch the big games every now and then at the end of the season. But I will say this, Queens Park Rangers is just a fukking sick ass team name. Just sounds so cool. |
| |
| How long on 17:53 - Oct 19 with 1042 views | stuabd |
| How long on 17:23 - Oct 19 by Bushman |
To be fair if you could see a vision or tactics or even the players look like they are organised and give a sh1t or substitutions or team selections or fking anyrthing people would be patient...but you cant |
Exactly. People would show more patience with Ramsay if they could see some kind of improvement while he's been in control. A youth team coach pure and simple. A good one for sure but not a manager based on this season and the last 4 months of last season. |  | | |
| How long on 18:06 - Oct 19 with 1030 views | wombat |
| How long on 17:53 - Oct 19 by stuabd |
Exactly. People would show more patience with Ramsay if they could see some kind of improvement while he's been in control. A youth team coach pure and simple. A good one for sure but not a manager based on this season and the last 4 months of last season. |
jet won I'd say 90% of the headers sat but didn't have the ball in front of him once, if you take Fer off because he's not fit bring polter on give jet some space , or move cherry into the whole behind jet . Henry once again lasted 90 mins I have no idea why as didn't make once tackle the entire game. Why when we are pushing for a goal does he bring Tozer on ? A player who isn't exactly pulling trees up so far , yet leave faurlin on the bench once again ?
His tactics baffle me his subs baffle me ever more his entire tactic for 90mins is swap Phillips and cherry every 15 mins |  |
| |
| How long on 19:03 - Oct 19 with 990 views | Mvpeter |
| How long on 15:50 - Oct 19 by CiderwithRsie |
It does not because we do not hire effective managers
I hate to say this, because I loathe the bloke, but Hughes quite clearly was and is an effective manager, as his record outside of QPR shows. |
And he was not hounded out unfairly. He lost control of a toxic dressing room and acheive 4 points in a third of a season. There weren't open protests and banners on planes. We aren't Newcastle or Blackburn or West Ham even though we'd have far more of a right to be. | |
| |
| How long on 19:05 - Oct 19 with 987 views | Mvpeter |
| How long on 16:38 - Oct 19 by BklynRanger |
*cough* Paulo Sousa *cough*
|
Was he hounded out unfairly? I thought it was classic Briatore nonsense not the fans. | |
| |
| How long on 19:14 - Oct 19 with 976 views | Watford_Ranger |
| How long on 16:21 - Oct 19 by derbyhoop |
Could Sandro do a full 90 minutes, considering it was his first start this season?
Do you think we should have kept JET on then. I cannot recall him having a single effort, neither on nor off target, in the 85 minutes he was on the pitch. |
100% should have kept JET on. I'd have taken off any other outfield player ahead of him at that time. Polter looked like he'd never seen a football before and any tiny hope of getting an undeserved result evaporated with that sub.
Sandro surely can do 90 mins now- wasn't exactly a high tempo game- but if he had to come off was Toszer really the best option? Faurlin or Doughty for different reasons surely. Even Angella as a big lump at set pieces. A midfield of Henry and Toszer when you're chasing a game doesn't make any sense to me. | | | |
| How long on 19:36 - Oct 19 with 888 views | derbyhoop |
So, if I read it right, Ramsey was an idiot for taking off Sandro, Fer and JET. And a fool for leaving Karl Henry on for the full 90 minutes. I can fully understand and agree with the latter statement.
Should he have removed Sandro?
Or Fer?
Who should he have brought on then?
I'm guessing that Polter should have been brought on to play alongside JET in a system we haven't played in any of the 12 previous games. All because we are losing 2-1 away from home to a side that are fourth in the division.
Simple, this management game, isn't it. | |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| How long on 20:18 - Oct 19 with 863 views | Watford_Ranger |
If you're going to rely on lumping it forward and long throws, it makes little sense to take off your big lump striker who takes the long throws | | | |
| How long on 22:14 - Oct 19 with 813 views | CiderwithRsie |
| How long on 19:03 - Oct 19 by Mvpeter |
And he was not hounded out unfairly. He lost control of a toxic dressing room and acheive 4 points in a third of a season. There weren't open protests and banners on planes. We aren't Newcastle or Blackburn or West Ham even though we'd have far more of a right to be. |
None of which is relevant to your statement that "we don't hire effective managers"
Hughes is effective. We hired him. Your statement was factually wrong, or to be more fair, only partially correct.
Come to that, Redknapp has not only been effective at other clubs but he did the job of getting us promoted. Hughes and Redknapp were managers more most of the Fernandes era, which started with the undeniably effective Warnock.
The point, as Clive has made better than me before, is not that "we don't hire effectively managers"; we do. It is what we do with them when we've got them. For example, on the example you give, we hire the sort of players who create a toxic dressing room. Which is also pretty much what happened to Warnock, in fact some of the players were the same. Or, we hire a manager (Redknapp) whose effectiveness depends on buying shedloads of expensive players, which we can't afford to do at Premier League level at could only do at Championship level by breaching FFP.
Or, and here's the rub, we hire a manager whose remit is to rebuild the club over a long time, with particular reference to youth development, and we simultaneously let him loan out some of our best youth players and want to sack the long-term man before Bonfire Night let alone Christmas. | | | |
| How long on 22:47 - Oct 19 with 782 views | gobbles |
| How long on 14:21 - Oct 19 by PinnerPaul |
HOORAY!
Spot on and great research.
Some fans really are in denial "Just one more manager"
Its like "Just one more drink or cigarette, then I'm giving up" |
No one is saying "just one more manager". People are saying, "not Ramsey". A lot of people said that before he got the job. It's nothing like "just one more drink, or one more cigarette", you need a manager to run the team, so why stick with the wrong one.
Tell you what it is like. Say you needed a car to get to work and you bought one that broke down all the time, so you couldn't get to work. Would you say "just one more car", or would you get one that worked. Obviously, if it was TF buying the car, he'd probably buy a hovercraft. |  | | |
| How long on 23:16 - Oct 19 with 754 views | isawqpratwcity |
| How long on 22:47 - Oct 19 by gobbles |
No one is saying "just one more manager". People are saying, "not Ramsey". A lot of people said that before he got the job. It's nothing like "just one more drink, or one more cigarette", you need a manager to run the team, so why stick with the wrong one.
Tell you what it is like. Say you needed a car to get to work and you bought one that broke down all the time, so you couldn't get to work. Would you say "just one more car", or would you get one that worked. Obviously, if it was TF buying the car, he'd probably buy a hovercraft. |
And how does 434 constitute 'so you couldn't get to work'? Seems a fairly workmanlike performance to me. |  |
| |
| How long on 06:09 - Oct 20 with 697 views | LadbrokeR |
Am I missing the point here is Ramsay involved in a rebuilding exercise ? | | | |
| How long on 07:04 - Oct 20 with 682 views | ozexile |
| How long on 06:09 - Oct 20 by LadbrokeR |
Am I missing the point here is Ramsay involved in a rebuilding exercise ? |
Nobody knows anymore. | | | |
| How long on 09:05 - Oct 20 with 648 views | Mvpeter |
| How long on 22:14 - Oct 19 by CiderwithRsie |
None of which is relevant to your statement that "we don't hire effective managers"
Hughes is effective. We hired him. Your statement was factually wrong, or to be more fair, only partially correct.
Come to that, Redknapp has not only been effective at other clubs but he did the job of getting us promoted. Hughes and Redknapp were managers more most of the Fernandes era, which started with the undeniably effective Warnock.
The point, as Clive has made better than me before, is not that "we don't hire effectively managers"; we do. It is what we do with them when we've got them. For example, on the example you give, we hire the sort of players who create a toxic dressing room. Which is also pretty much what happened to Warnock, in fact some of the players were the same. Or, we hire a manager (Redknapp) whose effectiveness depends on buying shedloads of expensive players, which we can't afford to do at Premier League level at could only do at Championship level by breaching FFP.
Or, and here's the rub, we hire a manager whose remit is to rebuild the club over a long time, with particular reference to youth development, and we simultaneously let him loan out some of our best youth players and want to sack the long-term man before Bonfire Night let alone Christmas. |
'It does not because we do not hire effective managers. For all of our many managers how many could you consider the one that got away? Slim pickings. Those that had been or would go on to be decent, how many of them were hounded out unfairly by the fans? I can't think of one. '
When you ignore most of the statement you sure can make anything seem factually wrong. Those few exceptions were already covered. Fans hounding them out was central to the discussion. I'm well aware that off field influence spoiled Hughes reign. I do not think he thought Ji Sung Park's commerciability made him a good choice for captain.
Getting us promoted is not good management intrinsically. To reduce to the adsurd, it does not indicate good management to get the Brazil squad out of the Ryman league. Management is simply efficiently allocating resources. Our spending was 6 times that of our rivals who finished above us.
'Or, and here's the rub, we hire a manager whose remit is to rebuild the club over a long time, with particular reference to youth development, and we simultaneously let him loan out some of our best youth players and want to sack the long-term man before Bonfire Night let alone Christmas.'
Your statement was factually incorrect after 9 words. If the situation you described had actually happened then the reaction would be different. Notice that you said that we 'let him out some of our best youth players.' Is that what someone (who is supposed to be a manager) does when given that remit? Is failure to adhere to your remit not the first thing that people look at when evaluating employees? | |
| |
| How long on 11:30 - Oct 20 with 603 views | CiderwithRsie |
| How long on 09:05 - Oct 20 by Mvpeter |
'It does not because we do not hire effective managers. For all of our many managers how many could you consider the one that got away? Slim pickings. Those that had been or would go on to be decent, how many of them were hounded out unfairly by the fans? I can't think of one. '
When you ignore most of the statement you sure can make anything seem factually wrong. Those few exceptions were already covered. Fans hounding them out was central to the discussion. I'm well aware that off field influence spoiled Hughes reign. I do not think he thought Ji Sung Park's commerciability made him a good choice for captain.
Getting us promoted is not good management intrinsically. To reduce to the adsurd, it does not indicate good management to get the Brazil squad out of the Ryman league. Management is simply efficiently allocating resources. Our spending was 6 times that of our rivals who finished above us.
'Or, and here's the rub, we hire a manager whose remit is to rebuild the club over a long time, with particular reference to youth development, and we simultaneously let him loan out some of our best youth players and want to sack the long-term man before Bonfire Night let alone Christmas.'
Your statement was factually incorrect after 9 words. If the situation you described had actually happened then the reaction would be different. Notice that you said that we 'let him out some of our best youth players.' Is that what someone (who is supposed to be a manager) does when given that remit? Is failure to adhere to your remit not the first thing that people look at when evaluating employees? |
You can't make anything seem factually wrong, it either is or isn't and yours not only was but when called on it your response simply pretended that didn't matter. They weren't "few" exceptions either, as pointed out, they covered the whole of the Fernades period up to Ramsey's appointment.
The first 9 words of my statement are clearly factually accurate unless you either can't count, or dispute that Ramsey was hired as a manager, or deny that the word "we" in this context means QPR even though you used it in exactly that sense yourself. Perhaps you deny that Ramsey was hired with the remit I gave, (14th word, if that helps) in which case, here's an idea, why don't you do what I did with your post and cite some evidence to the contrary, eh? I don't mean your opinion, I mean something from someone in authority at the club saying what Ramsey's remit was.
You know what, I wasn't particularly looking to get into an argument with you, I just couldn't help noting a blaring flaw in one of the planks in your argument. It doesn't mean your overall argument is necessarily wrong, nor that you are entitled to make it.
I completely disagree with, say, L Block on this issue but I can also completely understand where is coming from, his passion for the club, he's always been fair minded enough to acknowledge if Ramsey gets something right and he confines himself to factual criticisms such as the selection of individual players rather than unsubstantiated accusations such as cronyism. Frankly your attitude to anyone who dares to have a different opinion from you is getting on my wick and I think your comment to Northern on another thread oversteps a line. Time, I think for the Ignore User button for my first time on here. | | | |
| How long on 11:31 - Oct 20 with 602 views | PinnerPaul |
| How long on 22:47 - Oct 19 by gobbles |
No one is saying "just one more manager". People are saying, "not Ramsey". A lot of people said that before he got the job. It's nothing like "just one more drink, or one more cigarette", you need a manager to run the team, so why stick with the wrong one.
Tell you what it is like. Say you needed a car to get to work and you bought one that broke down all the time, so you couldn't get to work. Would you say "just one more car", or would you get one that worked. Obviously, if it was TF buying the car, he'd probably buy a hovercraft. |
On the car front, that's just the point.
You say "get a manger/car that works"
MV Peter says 'hire an effective manager"
Its NOT like a car, how do we know if new manager is going to "worK"?
If 12th and W4 D3 L4 is not good enough, then pretty good chance we'll be having same conversations about yet another new manager in the new year even if we get rid of CR tomorrow.
You can't keep changing managers over and over again, its not working! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
