Search results

Even when he makes baseless snidey insinuations about other forum members?

Good point, none of this nonsense has got anything to do with the nonsense this thread is meant for discussing.

You really nailed them with that acerbic riposte..

His actual excuse for the inevitable non-event will probably be something on these lines.

I think he was being sarcastic. I know, not like G, but that's definitely the vibe I was getting.

Any further word from him since his vanishing act?

Some of us knew that all along.

We get one of those every season. So what if it had been 2017 or 2018 rather than 2016? The important thing is continuity, not short-term results. Being bottom after 10 games was not a sackable offence.

Ay yes, that explains our great run of prosperity and success these last few years! Arguably we should have given him another 18 months and then judged him then. Are you suggesting that we should sack a manager as soon as we begin a bad run of results?

Do you not feel that sustained success in the long term can't be produced unless we drop the "shotgun selection" policy whereby managers have 12-18 months to sink or swim, and that we'd do better if we invested in someone with backing over a longer time scale, allow them to fail in the short...

I'd give any manager 3 seasons. Why expect instant success? It's not a realistic expectation. What's your view on MR....sacked if we don't go up? Sacked if we don't make the play-offs?

Disagree. I do not see why a manager's job has to hang on performance over a single season. Judge him after 3 years; if we're not in League One by then, yes it's time to get rid.

I don't disagree, but nor do I think that failure after one season should be a sackable offence. Do you? - Edit - just saw your post above where you give your view on that question. IMO I'd give him three seasons minimum and judge him then.

I didn't use Wikipedia, the fact it was Forest in round 3 of the 1990 FA cup, after 3 trophyless years, is common knowledge. 3 years - not one season. You're using that example to argue that MR shouldn't be given three years but should be under pressure for his job after half a season at this...

Firstly it was Forest not Norwich. Second....Fergie was appointed in Nov 1986 and the game you mention was Jan 1990, so more than 3 years before things got close to the edge, the same 3 yeasrs i am saying MR should get. Third.....why does success have to be immediate? You can build a nice...

At first I thought you were kidding but then I came to the conclusion that you weren't......why on earth would you want a manager working under pressure with the threat of the sack hanging over his head? When has that EVER worked for us? Don't you consider it would be far better if he were given...

We're 3rd in the league and have won 3 out of the last 4, and yet still we're debating whether the manager has got much of a shelf life....what have I missed?

Good stuff City, feels like things are on the up at the moment, and I'm not talking about that forgettable early 90s Dennis Waterman sitcom, either.

Has it been confirmed he is ouy for 4 months?

Nah that's an easy trap to fall into...