Instead of sacking Flitcroft and co...

Why don't they appoint a director of football? Someone like Warnock or even Megson. He'd surely benefit from it. And if the results are still not picking up there'll be someone waiting in the wings to take a stab at the management job.

 

because we dont have the money..
and flitcroft is only on a 12mth rolling contract so it would be cheaper to sack him

 

Wouldn't it be better to have a Director of Football who's teams' actually play football?

 

Because that wage would make our budget even worse and how often does a manager like a director of football getting involved? Rarely at best.

 

In my opinion Director of Football is 90% likely disaster in all cases.

Players need to know who is the gaffer. With such a set up it isn't clear & undermines authority.

The answer to our plight is very simple. A "no fear" approach ala 2nd half of last season. Certain under performers have to be dropped & we have to be more positive.

 

Unless the director of football is someone like Joe Kinnear who no-one takes seriously!

I change my mind on this particular topic every time I read a post about it, there aren't any easy games but the next few look particularly tough, it's hard to see where a point is coming from before the next international break. At the moment I'm thinking if we lose these games and then don't beat Middlesborough after the break then it will be an easy decision for the board. It's a shame it's not as easy to sack players instead because a good number of them are really to blame, playing at nowhere near the level they did last season.

We've been in the position of looking for a new manager more than most clubs in the last 15 years or so - we've recruited experienced higher level managers and it's not worked out and given people their first management role and they've done relatively well for a period (Flitcroft and Simon Davey) so it's hard to know which direction to go in should it come to it.

Obviously in January we had the embarrassment of being publicly turned down by two managers who you would have expected to be within our reach, but I'm convinced we'd have been relegated if either of those had come in as the changes they'd have tried to implement would have taken too long for the players to get used to, obviously with Flitcroft it was just a case of tweaking a system he had been working under with Hill, who to be fair didn't have us playing that badly, we just couldn't hit the proverbial door with a string instrument.

Original poster mentions Warnock - speaking purely hypothetically, I'd have him as manager in a shot. Not a very popular person on this board over the years, not helped by his past managerial associations, but he always has good things to say about us when we're mentioned in the media (he's been doing a lot on Talk Sport lately), the players would respect him, knows this league better than most and he has played for us so I think he would accept the job. Only question mark would be could he work within our budgets?

 

Personally I'm against it as, in effect it's a vote of no confidence in Flitcroft. It's on a par with Flitcroft bringing in Mike Pollitt and expecting a positive reaction from not only Luke Steele but the Alnwick who thought he was number 2 to Steele. If those at the top have such an issue with Flitcroft they should just pay him off.

 

As Harry Redknapp said when Mandaric tried it on him 'only one director of football here...and it's me'

 

Correct. Can't think of one example where bringing in a Director of football has had a positive impact on any club

 

We don't want Colin or that ginger pig *******