TOUGH QUESTIONS

[Lloyder5]

Back to form Matt.

[tomogull]

It did hit our chances, very much so. With a little match practice, we could well have seen off Oxford. If we'd have played Northants when we should have, we would undoubtedly have beaten them. Without the loss to the Cobblers fresh in the memory, we might well have beaten Accrington too. Add on those nine points and, so tight is this division, that we're officially "on the cusp of the playoffs." It's those sorts of margins which are going to see us relegated. In years gone by, teams have been 15 points adrift and relegated. This year, we might well be 15 points adrift of the playoffs and still go down.
Matt.[/quote]
I agree with Matt on this one. Hargreaves got off to a good start with an encouraging win at Wimbledon and then we had a succession of games postponed, including Northampton. If we'd played Northampton before the appointment of Chris Wilder (and before the signing of Emile Sinclair) we would have probably beaten them cos they were doing nothing at the time. The time lapse between the Wimbledon match and Hargreaves first home game seemed to have a big impact on the 'new manager' impetus.

[Dave]

Yep and very small investment in waterproof pitch covers could have avoided that as other clubs did and benefitted from, what a priceless investment that could been.

[arcadia]

[quote="Dave_Pougher"]Tough questions need to asked and answered in the post mortem of our losing precious league status.

Personally I would like to know first of all what Bill Phillips does it's been pointed out to me he does what he does voluntarily but human nature being what it is I can't help noticing that we went down hill when he came in, maybe a coincidence but having it explained what a man does and what his interest is who's entire experience is non league would clear that one up for me.

Secondly, We have players here who have been great servants to the club who's contracts are up at the end of the season. In my opnion if we are a league club those contracts would not be renewed, most notably Nicholson. Why was he brought back? That for me has been CH biggest error. Teams for nearly two years have targeted our left back position, if he's there at all he's easily beaten, don't even get me started on his corners. What I wish to know is will these players have their contracts renewed if we drop into the conference?

Ask yourself if you were manager who would you play at left back if Cruise is injured or Nicholsons not playing well. I can only think of Cooper who I would have thought was CH's plan. Cruise is no better than Nicholson. I find it more frustrating that Craig is out on loan when he's got a lot going for him to help the team.

[Dave_Pougher]

Anyone have a TOUGH questions today?

[ferrarilover]

I didn't sign the players I wanted, I signed the players we could afford (those who were free). A club with zero budget cannot blame the manager if they go down. Mr Chairman, you know as all as I do that you could employ A.Ferguson to manage this side, but with absolutely no investment, we're going to have to sprint to stand still. Money talks, even at this level. I signed players from Manchester United, Bournemouth, Bolton, Millwall and other clubs. My contacts list is just fine. My judgement is sound, but when you're scraping the bottom of the barrel (as you have indicated we shall be and as I was at Torquay) you can't expect me to turn up the next Wayne Rooney. If you give me a budget of £500 and send me out to buy you a car, don't expect me to be coming home with a Bentley.
Mr Ling has a history of mental illness and getting sacked.
If, Mr Chairman, you understood the first thing about football, you'd know that my taking over a club in the bottom two of L2 and, on a budget of £0.00 failing to get them out of that situation is hardly a black mark against my name.

Need question?

Matt.

[Dave_Pougher]

I've now reduced my question to one.

Q. Why the feck is Nicholson still playing when his contract is up at the end of the season?


Probable answer. Because it was known as soon as CH came in he would be getting another one next season!

[tommyg]

Getting a bit bored of this Nicholson bashing now. Hargreaves dropped him but he was recalled to the side after Cruise got injured. Signed Cooper who may have been a left-back replacement but he quickly got crocked. Nicholson then actually started playing quite well (certainly no worse than our other defenders - Pearce aside). He had a stinker at York and Hargreaves immediately brought in a left-back from Bournemouth, who has a slight injury but could be fit for next week. If everyone was available, Nicholson could well be fourth-choice left-back. So I think it's unfair to say Hargreaves hasn't tried addressing this problem.

[PlainmoorRoar]

Exactly who else is meant to play LB with cruise and Cooper injured?

Mansell and Nicho are some of the higher earners, they have to be moved on.

I'd also let cruise go too, use the funds to try and keep Cooper on the basis he's first choice. Then sign a LB like the young lad we have now as cover

[Gloomy Gull]

What went wrong was he was brought in when the club has already well on the way down, confidence, morale was rock bottom and there are far too many sub standard players on the books

CH was not "brought in" because that would suggest that he was working elsewhere in the organisation and the Board decided that he should be moved into a new role.

CH APPLIED for the job, he (presumably) WANTED to take the job, he CHOSE to accept the offer made to undertake the role in PREFERENCE to an alternative role at Northampton (or so we are led to believe).

He MUST take responsibility for the current debacle - if he thought this job was too hard and was concerned he would/may not succeed then he should not have APPLIED for the bloody role in the first instance - if he took the job believing in his own ability to achieve at it but cannot make a difference - who is supposed to take responsibility for that - Knill (for the "dross" he left behind) ?? Surely not.

The buck stops at the door of the candidate who convinced the Board he was the right man for the job ............or did the Board somehow blackmail him into taking the job.

All this "it's not his fault", he "was left a lot of rubbish" etc.etc - is cr*p.

He should be a man and admit he is out of his depth and was from day 1.

If you had applied for and accepted a managerial position in the working real world and failed at it, would your employers accept the excuse that I was left with a load of sh1t that I could do nothing with ......unless you have a particularly philanthropic employer I doubt you would be seen as completely blameless as you had been employed because YOU convinced the employer that YOU could make a difference and improve on what was already there. Otherwise why employ someone new>

[Dave_Pougher]

Getting a bit bored of this Nicholson bashing now. Hargreaves dropped him but he was recalled to the side after Cruise got injured. Signed Cooper who may have been a left-back replacement but he quickly got crocked. Nicholson then actually started playing quite well (certainly no worse than our other defenders - Pearce aside). He had a stinker at York and Hargreaves immediately brought in a left-back from Bournemouth, who has a slight injury but could be fit for next week. If everyone was available, Nicholson could well be fourth-choice left-back. So I think it's unfair to say Hargreaves hasn't tried addressing this problem.

You know, what so am I. Because it isn't his fault an adequate replacement should have been brought in ages ago.

He has been a good servant to the club and he should have not been placed in this position whereby he's been treated this way and the situation where if we remained up he would have been let go. I don't think for one minute he's playing badly to ensure we go down and he can secure a contract next year in the Conference. I just believe his best days are past now, it happens to us all, at 52 I'm just starting to realise my chance of playing in the Premier League may just may be slipping away.

[SuperNickyWroe]

CH was not "brought in" because that would suggest that he was working elsewhere in the organisation and the Board decided that he should be moved into a new role.

CH APPLIED for the job, he (presumably) WANTED to take the job, he CHOSE to accept the offer made to undertake the role in PREFERENCE to an alternative role at Northampton (or so we are led to believe).

He MUST take responsibility for the current debacle - if he thought this job was too hard and was concerned he would/may not succeed then he should not have APPLIED for the bloody role in the first instance - if he took the job believing in his own ability to achieve at it but cannot make a difference - who is supposed to take responsibility for that - Knill (for the "dross" he left behind) ?? Surely not.

The buck stops at the door of the candidate who convinced the Board he was the right man for the job ............or did the Board somehow blackmail him into taking the job.

All this "it's not his fault", he "was left a lot of rubbish" etc.etc - is cr*p.

He should be a man and admit he is out of his depth and was from day 1.

If you had applied for and accepted a managerial position in the working real world and failed at it, would your employers accept the excuse that I was left with a load of sh1t that I could do nothing with ......unless you have a particularly philanthropic employer I doubt you would be seen as completely blameless as you had been employed because YOU convinced the employer that YOU could make a difference and improve on what was already there. Otherwise why employ someone new>

well said.

and the frightening thing is that we were told that CH was "the best candidate" outof those who had applied for the job.
god, we must have attracted some dross to apply.
I knew we would go down as soon as he was unveiled as manager.

[cambgull]

I don't really get all these comparisons to Ling, a manager who nearly saw us relegated. Granted, he nearly got us promoted too but his insistence in playing the same knackered players every match put paid to that one.

We played awful football. It wasn't fun, despite it's success. How is it enjoyable to watch us defend for 89 minutes every game?

There has one been one decent manager since Leroy and that's Paul Buckle. He is the only one who has managed to combine good football and success. I do think we'd be a League 1 side if he were still here.

[hector]

My theory, and that is all it is and I may be way off the mark, is that the club may well have been considering a mentor arrangement with CH but that CH was the long-term target.

Had Northampton not been in the frame, I suspect TUFC would have had a great deal more bargaining power in terms of what role they were prepared to offer CH. It could have been 'start at no.2 and take over at the end of the season.'

I suspect that would not have seemed as attractive as a no.1 slot at Northampton, if CH, as rumoured, was offered the post there. So with another club interested, he was obviously in a position to demand terms a little more proactively than he might have been able to had TUFC been the only club interested.

There seemed to be suggestion in the press and certainly there was rumour of a Sturrock/Hargreaves partnership, so I was a little surprised at that the time, that no old head came in with him.

I do not believe there is anyone at TUFC deliberately messing up - I suspect they have tried their best to salvage things - but I just feel they are misguided. A proper recruitment process for a new manager seemed to happen after Buckle left and there were one or two decent candidates amongst the contenders, yet this didn't happen when Ling was sacked and neither was the lesson learnt again when Knill was sacked.

The club were determined to go for CH, without, it would appear, really scrutinising whether or not he was the best man for the job - without considering other options. They heeded the call of the gut, that many of the fanbase who don't think, appear to draw inspiration from, and went for it. It would be the same fans as used to call for Martyn Rogers or Sean Joyce - who don't see beyond the county of Devon for answers - yet one of those linked when Ling got the job, John Hughes, is now managing in the Scottish Premiership.

Our history is littered with opportunities missed when it comes to appointing managers - Bateson passed up on Mickey Adams and Gary Megson, because he felt Eddie May and Wes Saunders would be better options. It seems, historically, that those who run TUFC, take the easy option, appoint people they know, regardless of how good or poor they are, whilst often the most imaginative appointments e.g. O'Farrell, Knowles, Rosenior, work out to be our best compared to the easy, known options: Compton, Saunders.

I suppose the club need to think long and hard in the summer. Up to now, I have thought that they have to go with CH into the new season.

For one - they probably cannot afford to sack him.
Secondly, he probably needs to have an opportunity to build his own team...

BUT

...can we trust him to do that? Does he have the contacts, know the players he will need in the Conference? Does he have any credibility left? Can we afford another whole overhaul of the playing squad, only for it to be as disastrous as this season and have to wield the axe again.

Probably, if sacking managers and paying them off wasn't an issue, we would be best going for someone like Steve Burr, who I believe would get us back up or at least consistently around the play-offs. I think he is at Chester now.

Another option, although he did end up losing his job at FGR, is Dave Hockaday, who up to his departure had done a good job at the New Lawn. Wrexham have just appointed the hot property manager at non-league level but someone successful and experienced at that level usually are the managers who seem to get repeated success, such as John Still, at Luton...probably the 3rd or 4th time he has won that league.

However, I would imagine we will be entering the new season with CH but I fear his stock is shot and if things don't improve next season, I suspect he too will be gone by Christmas.

[tommyg]

You know, what so am I. Because it isn't his fault an adequate replacement should have been brought in ages ago.

He has been a good servant to the club and he should have not been placed in this position whereby he's been treated this way and the situation where if we remained up he would have been let go. I don't think for one minute he's playing badly to ensure we go down and he can secure a contract next year in the Conference. I just believe his best days are past now, it happens to us all, at 52 I'm just starting to realise my chance of playing in the Premier League may just may be slipping away.

I agree with most of what you're saying, Dave. But I don't think you can blame Hargreaves for the left-back problems. It's not a case of him picking his mate. Had Cruise or possibly Cooper (not sure what position he was signed for) not got crocked then I think Nicholson would be on the bench. And that's where he could be next week if Cargill is fit.