Fisher: Why Andy had to go (7 Viewers)

skyblu3sk

Well-Known Member
TIM Fisher has insisted that Andy Thorn was sacked because the board did not believe he was getting the best out of the squad he had hand-picked.
When the decision was confirmed on Sunday morning, the official club statement included the phrase “there are several other factors in this decision, not just three disappointing results.” That prompted a rash of internet speculation about what those other reasons might be.

But chief executive Fisher – who this season is based at Ryton rather than the Ricoh Arena– told the Telegraph: “Let me be very clear, this was a football decision, not some dark-side innuendo or whatever. Andy has gone because he failed on the football side.

“To me the second half against Bury, abjectly losing two points from a position of strength, was a symptom of an underlying problem that we had aimed to correct during the summer and that progression hadn’t happened.

“It was another data point suggesting
we’d gone from a pattern to a deep-set trend. And we had to break that trend – insanity, as defined by Einstein, is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.
“We employ a manager, a head coach, whatever you want to call him, who puts out the players who he thinks are in the right state of mind, the right state of fitness.

“At the end of last season we sat down and Andy made a presentation along the lines of ‘if I get what I want then this will change.’ “He told us that he needed Richard Shaw and thought we should bring Lee Carsley up. He gave us a list of players which Steve Waggott delivered.

“You’ve changed nine resources – not one, not two,
and Andy made a presentation along the lines of `if I get what I want then this will change.' “He told us that he needed Richard Shaw and thought we should bring Lee Carsley up. He gave us a list of players which Steve Waggott delivered.

“You've changed nine resources * not one, not two, not seven but nine – and you get the same result! You’re given all the tools and we don’t see any change. “With a trend you’ve got to extrapolate.

We did that and we felt as a management team, as a board and as an owner that we didn’t have the confidence Andy would be able to take on all the resources that he had chosen and be able to actually get it over the line.

“You’ve got the tip of the iceberg which is the 90 minutes on the pitch – the rest of the iceberg is Ryton, all the practices, all the training that is going on there, all the discussions between manager, development director, assistant managers.

”It's about translating from the training pitch to the Ricoh and we're based at Ryton. I'm there, Steve * who's the football expert * is there for many weeks, watching and observing. Under scrutiny is the phrase I’d use.”” Fisher denied that Coventry City approached Dave Jones about replacing Thorn last season when the former Sky Blues defender was between managerial jobs.
“We didn’t offer the job to Dave Jones,” he said. “Andy was in full employment with us so we couldn’t have done that; it would not have been a legal process.” As to the qualities he expects from Thorn’s replacement, he said: “It’s about getting somebody who can deliver what they promise. Ron Atkinson said, ‘I promise you results, not promises’ and we have to start to see results.

“We’ve managed to divorce ourselves from success and divorce ourselves from the community.

“We have got a generation of fans who have lived with mediocrity and we need to change that.”
 

Last edited by a moderator:

skyblu3sk

Well-Known Member
I guess I am on drugs too then as he seems to talk sense a lot of the time, Apart from the random quoting of course...
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
I guess I am on drugs too then as he seems to talk sense a lot of the time, Apart from the random quoting of course...

Well yes, that's what I mean.

Einstein and icebergs? Dark-side innuendo? Data point? "With a trend you’ve got to extrapolate?"
 

theprince

New Member
Can't say anything else can he. We must all remember it is he and sisu who systematically stripped this club of it's best players and will continue to do so. We have yet to pay a decent fee for a player when we do i'll listen.
 

SkyBlueGuy

Well-Known Member
There was a lot of upper middle management speak in that quote. I half expected him to start talking about streamlining the management infrastructure and maximising our resources to increase goal productivity...

Was a fair point though.
 

LastGarrison

Well-Known Member
He keeps mentioning the 9 changes but fails to mention how many players were sold or not kept hold of under Thorne's tenure.

It's almost as if he expects everyone to forget the wholesale that has happened over the last few years just because they've put together a side of free transfers and cheap signings.
 
Who cares it makes sense to me ie: it was shite and se did something about it. Hats off for not waiting till half way through the season when we bring in a manager to help us stay up.

I thought a couple more games under thorn. Seeing not only a second half performance but also two halves of extra time changes my view completely. It shows we have a capable team but require a more capable leader IMO.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
It has to be more surely. It has to be.Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

I didn't have faith in AT, but then the board aren't me are they. Seemingly they did have faith in him. If they did then they had to give him more than 3 games this season.
 

Colonel Mustard

New Member
It has to be more surely. It has to be.Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

The thing that stuck out at me about the interview was how thick Fisher was laying it on. The tone. I can't quarrel with anything he had to say, but there was no diplomacy when it came to his assessment of Thorn. It is clear that no love has been lost there, but no clue as to why...
 

Ccfc1979

Well-Known Member
Interestingly, he and Waggot are based at Ryton. Lurking. Nose through the blinds. Ha ha. A good thing, or like Dullieu on the bench?
 

smileycov

Facebook User
I thought it made sense. AT asked for a team of his own, he got it. As a club we needed to break the poor run it was not happening, i liked AT, but i love my club more. We have a good Squad, last year we had good enough players to stay up and they didnt perform. We need someone in now to get the best out of them. The time was right, Yeovil are top and Sheff Utd are favourites, so in context not a bad set of draws, however when you look at the fact we were beating both but couldnt hold on and more importantly only played in patches then it has too change. We are a good side we just need belief and also a manager to get us to play consistently well for 70 - 90 minutes not just 20 or 45. Blues was a start, but to me it just showed that with the right man we can compete and potentially gain promotion. We need experience, shaw may be great, but i want someone who has managed and not a has been like, megson or blackwell.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
The thing that stuck out at me about the interview was how thick Fisher was laying it on. The tone. I can't quarrel with anything he had to say, but there was no diplomacy when it came to his assessment of Thorn. It is clear that no love has been lost there, but no clue as to why...

Well, think you are like me and though accepting all the constraints AT was under, felt that he came up well short of what was required to be a manager.

For the likes of you and I we could see the same pattern as last year emerging. For the likes of Fisher though if he backed AT last season I can't see that there could have been any issue with a continuing pattern and totally backing him last season but only giving him 3 games this just seems so much at odds.
 

@richh87

Member
Much as I hate SISU and their puppets, this statement actually makes sense to me. Thorn promised he had a plan to stop relinquishing 3 points from winning positions - and clearly didn't.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
What he says may carry substance but using Byron-esque language all the time to convey it makes him appear difficult to take seriously.
 

BurbageSkyBlues

New Member
I too, have mixed feelings on this. Sad for AT, but like some of the clarity and desire that comes from the statement.

I wonder if, perhaps, the club have financially gambled as much as they dare, on getting straight back up. Failure could be disastrous, so they are being very mercenary about this?

AT received a lot of criticsm on here, but it sounds as though he was arguing his case, behind the scenes at least.
 

Colonel Mustard

New Member
For the likes of Fisher though if he backed AT last season I can't see that there could have been any issue with a continuing pattern and totally backing him last season but only giving him 3 games this just seems so much at odds.

I don't think it's as crazy as all that. The following argument can be made: if they had sacked AT in the summer it would have produced more, lingering, bad PR for the club, especially if they gave resources to a new manager ("what could AT have done with this kind of backing?")

Considering they had all of last season, this pre-season, and three full games to work with, they may very well have swung the axe at the optimal moment - not so soon as to cause a riot, but not too late as to handicap the club in a bid for promotion.

There's a lot of talk about AT bringing in nine of "his" players, but from the sounds of the interviews today it seems like Steve Waggott carefully supervised the signings. A double stamp-of-approval shows some confidence that another manager ought to get on well with the players available.
 

psgm1

Banned
Much as I hate SISU and their puppets, this statement actually makes sense to me. Thorn promised he had a plan to stop relinquishing 3 points from winning positions - and clearly didn't.

Precisely. Its all very good saying the right stuff claiming he told the lads certain things would happen etc etc. But ultimately Thorn has had well over a full season in charge. Lost 24 leagye games - and conceeded the lead in roughly 1 game in 3!

At any level these stats alone would have been reason to sack him.

My honest opinion, the only reason he wasn't sacked last season, was fan outpourings of support to Thorn!

Very difficult for a board trying to curry favour to sack a manager who had a vocal minority acting as the majority of fans saying thorn should be given a chance.

It took an underwhelming pre-season and a poor start to give them the excuse they needed.

I thought it was odd they kept him when he openly criticised the board. Its just a shame yet again SISU have been underhand in their dealings.

True I am relieved Thorn has gone, but he was only ever part of the problem!

Only when SISU are finally gone can the club I love and have supported since the mid 70's can city move forward.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
It has to be more surely. It has to be.Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

I didn't have faith in AT, but then the board aren't me are they. Seemingly they did have faith in him. If they did then they had to give him more than 3 games this season.

I listened to his interview in the build up to the brum match. He said the three draws were unnacceptable. Everyone agreed to a strong start including Andy. They had a board meeting on the Sunday after that second half against Bury which was totally unacceptable and the decision was made.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Ridiculous to suggest he was sacked just over football matters. Ask a few on here and they will tell you what was really going on, Mr Fisher. ;)
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Fisher does worry me a bit.
Thorn has gone now and today Kilbane has said the players are dissapointed.

I am worried if we do get a new manager he won't be strong. After reading about waggot today. It seems he is fishers right hand man. Fisher has said whoever comes in will still have to have waggot as an effective director of football. No strong manager will agree to that.
 

SkyBlueGuy

Well-Known Member
Fisher does worry me a bit.
Thorn has gone now and today Kilbane has said the players are dissapointed.

He was hardly going to come out and say that the players were all really happy! Kilbane is probably aware that if a new manager comes in, he might want to choose his own captain. Will want to come across as diplomatic and in touch with the players...
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
What I am also worried about Fisher is......

We now have to pay AT the rest of this year's salary on top of the new man's salary.
How much are we paying for legal fees on the rent battle.
The council offered 650k he wants 150k but also accepts he can't bankrupt ACL. High courts don't come cheap. If he gets ACL down to 250k will SISU have paid 200k on top in legal fees?.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Well, whether they work out or not, at least we'll know who identified this summer's signings: "He gave us a list of players which Steve Waggott delivered."

Yes AT is one hell of a talent spotter. Our club needs to buy freebies to sell on. Shame we have lost one if the best in the business at that. The club will be able to sell Fleck, Barton, Elliott and Cody for tidy sums in the future I think.
A new manager may subject us to Kevin Kyle's and drinkwells before we know it :)
 

Sky Blues

Active Member
Confusingly though Don, I've just read in another thread Waggott reportedly saying the signings were a collective decision...
Anyway, assuming for the sake of a middle ground, the signing's were largely selected by Thorn and approved collectively, yes, he certainly looks to have picked some good ones based on the evidence so far.
 

davebart

Active Member
I would say it makes sense only in as much that it is vaguely english. It actually tells you a big fat nothing you couldn't work out for yourself.

Clubs that sack their manager after three games don't have a plan - they are making a knee jerk reaction.

My guess - if it is not connected with the stadium negotiations - is that it is a direct result of the size of the gate on Saturday.

If they were worried about being in Div 1 they should have done something about it LAST year.
 

Sky Blues

Active Member
You might be right, but didn't Thorn say the Bury game was an important one? Waggott says they wanted 7 or 9 points from the first three games. Maybe Thorn knew if he didn't get to at least 5 by the end of the Bury game he could be out of work? Maybe that was the reason for his angry reaction (see Waggott's comment about kicking the advertising hoarding... )
 

Nick

Administrator
It makes sense to me. He made promises and didn't keep to them?

What would happen if we gave him 10 games and we were still underperforming? What if we gave him until Christmas and we still were? Would it be too late then for us to catch up with the other teams who haven't been dropping leads etc?
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
I would say it makes sense only in as much that it is vaguely english. It actually tells you a big fat nothing you couldn't work out for yourself.

Clubs that sack their manager after three games don't have a plan - they are making a knee jerk reaction.


My guess - if it is not connected with the stadium negotiations - is that it is a direct result of the size of the gate on Saturday.


If they were worried about being in Div 1 they should have done something about it LAST year.






Well this is what crossed my mind.

It wasn't just the fact that we were drawing games, but we have budgeted for 11,000 and it fell below that on Saturday against Bury and it was clearly apparent after the 2nd half effort that the attendance would only drop further in games to come,
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top