Would you stop going if Flitcroft got the job?

At the time we were looking for a new manager, there were new manager polls after Hill left, after SoD turned us down and after TB turned us down. I voted for Flicker every time. I did so for several reasons, but the main one was continuity. There were 3 of us on the first poll and 7 of us on the second. By the third poll, Flicker had seen some success and it was quite obvious that every other credible manager in the league had decided that we were a hopeless case, so the majority piled in.

The board had totally misjudged the situation and risked having to appoint a manager with a CV which was infinitely worst than the manager who had just left. If there is any conclusion to the whole sorry situation it is that the board is unfit for purpose. The conclusion is underlined by the misleading and mendacious statements that have emanated from the same source over the last six months, which were aimed at deflecting pressure away from the administration and on to team management or ex-players. Pinning down Don Rowing's words to an actual meaning has become almost impossible.

 

And lets be right, when Hill was appointed he made it absoutley clear what his strategy and style of play was and that he wouldn;t compromise. Now that lack of pragmatism may ultimately prevent him from being a top football manager, but the board and the fans should have been in no doubt from the start that he wasn't going to change.

 

If you can't be good be lucky, and the board got every bit of luck going in ending up with Flitcroft in charge.

 

I said at the time I wanted Sean O'Driscoll to add some type of continuity to the style of play and players we had. I think Butcher was a mistake made on personality rather than football and luckily it didn't work out.

Like you I said we should give Flitcroft the job because I never, ever felt we were a million miles away. The chopping and changing of players never helped Keith and I think that's got a lot to do with why we're doing better now. Clubs that we look to emulate have had success through continuity. Not just keeping the same manager but by building slowly on the work each one did.

 

'risked having to appoint a manager with a CV which was infinitely worst than the manager who had just left'......he was the worst manager in the Football League at the time, thats why he was sacked . Theres an argument that Cryne has taken a massive leap in faith to appoint the best mate and assistant to the worst Manager in the football league at the time.

 

That argument would stick if he'd appointed him even after O'Driscoll turned us down. In the end we were forced into giving Flitcroft the job.

 

The problem for me is the board tend to behave like fans. They put a strategy in place and get bored of it when it isn't bringing short term gain. When they sacked Hill and went for O'Driscoll I actually cut them some slack, as you could see a natural continuation of the work the club was doing.

Then they fail to attract him (presumably based on him being unwilling to work within the budget given he rocked up at Bristol City who's wage bill is 3 times ours) and then go for a manager who plays a rigid 4-4-2 system and direct balls to a target man.

At the point I returned to my initial opinion that they'd sacked Hill without any thought as to what kind of manager they wanted, what type of vision they had, whether we are an attractive proposition for a new manager, and whether we just want to stay up at all costs or genuinely build for the long term.

They've ultimately got lucky due to one result and performance which led to a complete ground swell of opinion for someone who was cheap, wanted to continue the strategy in place, and had new ideas to address Hill's failings. But that was not down to their abilities as a board.

I don't for one second criticise the board for trying to make us break even. I just think they should be man enough to explain to the fans that this may result in us not seeing Championship football every season.

 

Exactly!

 

I can't believe that anyone is still trying to make a case for the berk. Nine wins in 48 under the berk, five in seven under Flitcroft. It's like night and day. If the berk was laying the foundations then he laid them on quicksand.

 

I like how you completely ignore the part where I say 'he made loadsa mistakes' and I've also agreed before that he needed to go. Expected, though.

And you make yourself look a tit calling him the berk.

 

That's the most polite name I can think of.

I didn't ignore the fact that you said he made mistakes. I just don't see how anyone can make a case for him.

Have you changed your mind about going to MK Dons?

 

Nope.

 

I was other on that first poll!!! Said Flicker all along!!!

Think we should get a badge a summat!!

Not read all this thread by the way. Guna wait till ive got ten mins and have a good read - Looks interesting......

Oh and i love r Keef too - Always did - Always will!!!

 

See you at Palace then.

 

"I can't believe that anyone is still trying to make a case for the berk"

Because to do otherwise would be to admit that they were wrong. And that is simply beyond some of them.

So it was the fan's fault or the board's fault or the lack of finances and anyway they wanted Flitcroft all along and we're playing exactly the same way now as we did under Hill it's just we're lucky now and were unlucky then. Anything, anything at all rather than admit a lack of good judgement on their own behalf.

Simple fact of the matter is that Keith Hill was no damn good. There are no mitigating factors.

Don't know what's hard about admitting you're wrong myself, I think it does you good. I didn't want Flitcroft to take over. I thought he would continue the same style as we'd played under Hill. He didn't, we've changed, I was wrong and I'm glad he's now our manager. Even if we go down I think he's already shown enough to prove he was worth the chance.

 

Yep, agreed. People have to accept Hill was an absolute disaster or they do themselves no credit at all as it flies in the face of all the empirical evidence.

Same way I'm happy to admit it looks like I was wrong about not wanting Flitcroft - delighted to be proved wrong about that, very much hope it continues, particularly as it's been the catalyst for me to start going to a few games and enjoying it again.

Oh, and this "berk" thing - it's even gayer than the Pep thing. And nearly 60% as gay as people who call Sheffield Wednesday "Wendy".

 

Gotta agree about the berk thing. Gayer than a **** up your bum.

 

Gayer than giving a rimjob to Matthew Parris.

 

Not at least admitting some of the positives he brought proves exactly the same.

He had to go. He tried his best, made too many mistakes and paid with his job. But I'll be thankful for him bringing on players like Vaz Te, Butterfield, Davies, Perkins & Stones along with taking on the challenge in the first place (see O'Driscoll/Butcher) That's a lot of good players we've had over the past 18 months - many more than I remember us having in a similar period of time and considering we didn't pay a penny for any of them.

He brought together a decent squad on a limited budget, he just failed to get the best out of them. Flitcroft is doing that at the minute and has had the rub of the green since he took over. Simple. And I think that's all I've really said on it.

 

Surely a **** up your bum is the very definition of gayness? Only other thing as gay is a man not liking football but liking Meg Ryan films.