Taken we a while to wade through this thread but this was my take.
I think there was truth in what Doug was saying, but it certainly wasn't the whole truth and I felt it was carefully edited to paint him in a better light, which I guess is hardly surprising.
The thing about MR and AV falling out at the top seemed a bit 'dead cat strategy' to me, as people would be focusing on that rather than the rest of what he was saying.
I thought there were also inconsistencies in some stuff he said.
For example, he thought the coaching setup implemented by MR was wrong and wasn't working, but has said when sacking Robins a new Head Coach would have to work within the existing set-up. So that suggests he doesn't think the set-up is wrong, just those in it.
That suggests he thinks the current coaches aren't good enough, which is short-sighted given they're still here for the time being and also unprofessional. And if he blames those that have been recruited, why place all the blame on MR when he was not the only person on the recruitment panel. In fact, one of the others, Dr Roberts, came out of it with glowing praise so why are they not accountable?
Also the thing about not finding a suitable AM yet there was a lot of talk about Ramsey being agreed by MR only for Dr Roberts to tell him it wasn't happening (although that has never been confirmed).
As for them having people interviewed but all wanting to be No.1 not No.2? That's just weird. The only way that is even remotely possible is we totally fucked up the advert and everyone thought Head Of Coaching meant Head Coach, but then surely those people would have thought "but Robins is there?" and we'd have had a lot of rumour and talk of MR getting fired because this position was available?
The DoF was also strange. We're looking to appoint the Head Coach and then looking at the DoF. Wouldn't it be the DoF's job to look for the HC? What if we get a DoF and they don't approve of the HC we've just appointed?
I also didn't like the use of the word 'deck' for the squad. Just seemed unprofessional and not a term that would motivate players or impress potential signings.
However, my main take is how would that meeting have looked to outsiders, or potential HC's? Airing all this stuff about AV and MR falling out and how bad the structure and coaches are? For someone who talks about 'elite' that sure as hell makes us look tinpot and unprofessional.
If you're looking to hire an elite HC then you don't let stuff like that leak out as it will put people off. Let alone having it come straight out of the chairman's mouth. If what he's said is true and he has, acceptably, got rid of MR because of it, fine. Of course it will lead to a backlash and you getting criticism, but you take it on the chin so that the club is not hampered finding a successor. If you're in that kind of position then you're supposed to not care about what people think. That's why you get the big bucks to make the decisions.
And that for me is the crux behind the meeting. King was not happy about the criticism he had received and so wanted a way to save face, deflect blame and massage his bruised ego.
