TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Gloomy Gull wrote: 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>

Gloomy Gull wrote:
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>

by hector » Today, 19:36

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.