Case for the defence (or rational thinking person) Impossible to judge him until he is given the normal tools for the job if he then fails sack him. If he succeeds then he is suitable.
Basically it is impossible to fairly and impartially judge AT unless he does get some signings. You yourself have said on here at some point, we need at least 7 including 3 strikers.
QUOTE]
i think a lot of people have doubts over AT, myself included. But i have to agree with dongonzalos - look at the position he's been put in, the support he's been given (or lack of), the players gone he has publicly said he wanted to keep, lack of funds fo rnew signings etc etc etc
can you really judge him on that basis? i know some of the current squad were his recommendations as a scout, but being a manager is a different game altogether. provding we get a couple of decent signings in before season starts and keep hold of the majority of the current squad, you have to give AT at least 6 months to prove his worth.
Who said anything about " case for the defence" you join in other peoples chat's just to start an anti AT dig again!! I said without players in we will not achieve promotion, you really are a complete PRICK! thanks to dickheads like you, i am off this site. It is impossible to get a decent debate going with you and your cockboy sidekicks.
False.
Scan your eyes across the online CCFC community - the likes of KDuffy, Macca, Nick, LordSummerisle, LeamingtonBootBoy, most of the boys at GMK (Knowl, USSkyblue off the top of my head). Are they all wind-up merchants? Do they all ignore the context? I normally wouldn't isolate one statement aimed at one user, but this has been a recurring "argument" from AT supporters throughout the season.
Context has never been ignored. Nobody expected a great season because of corporate belt-tightening. Relegation may well have happened under any manager.
But that context has nothing to do with issues of tactics, character, motivational skills...ultimately whether he was getting the most out of the limited resources he had. That's a question that should be demanded of any manager regardless of whether they have the resources of Accrington Stanley or Barcelona. In AT's case it has been a very fair question to ask for some considerable time.
What I'm keen on knowing is how far you will let this "context" protect AT. Exactly how low would CCFC have to sink before you figure that it might be worth a change of manager to see if they can improve results?
i just don't get the sisu apologists,
how on earth is managing CCFC easy ?
zero funds, players sold without your control,
total lack of communication @ board level to anyone,
oh hang on we've got a PR guru in mr clarke, mmm,
this club has been blatantly miss-managed for the last 4 yrs, (& many years before),
that absolves no-one,
and still we hear 'the sound of silence',
so to those who profess to be superior, please give us your master plan
Case for the defence (or rational thinking person) Impossible to judge him until he is given the normal tools for the job if he then fails sack him. If he succeeds then he is suitable.
Basically it is impossible to fairly and impartially judge AT unless he does get some signings. You yourself have said on here at some point, we need at least 7 including 3 strikers.
QUOTE]
i think a lot of people have doubts over AT, myself included. But i have to agree with dongonzalos - look at the position he's been put in, the support he's been given (or lack of), the players gone he has publicly said he wanted to keep, lack of funds fo rnew signings etc etc etc
can you really judge him on that basis? i know some of the current squad were his recommendations as a scout, but being a manager is a different game altogether. provding we get a couple of decent signings in before season starts and keep hold of the majority of the current squad, you have to give AT at least 6 months to prove his worth.[/QUOoperly TE]
Of course you can judge him - the financial situation is irrelevant to his ability as a manager. If you applied to be a bus driver and did not have a driving licence it would not matter if the bus allocated to you had an engine or not - you would be incapable of getting it to work properly anyway.
Sorry Duffy but unfortunately this is not a kangaroo court
Case for prosecution (or is that persecution) according to you, no matter what funding players or support the manager is given he will fail
Evidence presented for this none as despite the managers first 10 games in charge since then the owners have gone hell bent on a cost cutting and insufficient replacement exercise.
Case for the defence (or rational thinking person) Impossible to judge him until he is given the normal tools for the job if he then fails sack him. If he succeeds then he is suitable.
Mitigation presented his first 10 games he took on the same players that had been on a dismal run and got some better results from the same players and some would argue got them playing poor football to more attractive football.
Basically it is impossible to fairly and impartially judge AT unless he does get some signings. You yourself have said on here at some point, we need at least 7 including 3 strikers.
Personally I think it is more, but if that is what you think maybe you should give him a break then judge him if he gets what you think it is needed to compete.
"Basically it is impossible to fairly and impartially judge AT unless he does get some signings. You yourself have said on here at some point, we need at least 7 including 3 strikers."
So if he does not get these signings (as I say I think it should be more) that you yourself have said we need. He then does not achieve success, you will be saying it is because he is a bad manager and not because he did not get the signings you yourself said we need? Bizzare,
However, thinking about it you are right. You can judge him it is not impossible, however you have to adapt your view of what is deemed successful accordingly.
I felt that saving us from relegation at the the end of the other season was a great success
I felt that nearly saving us from relegation despite what our owners did last season was a good effort (I know this one will be a controversial view)
I think if he gets no new signings now and the players who we think will leave do, then to keep us up would be over achieving
I think if we get 4 experienced signings he should keep us up
I think if he gets 7 reasonable signings if he does not keep us up he has failed, staying up should be expected playoffs would be a very good effort.
I think if he gets 10 reasonable free transfers and loanees if we dont finish in the top six he will have failed
Unlike you I don't feel that I can say what ever budget he gets i.e 20 million for example he will still fail, I surprised anyone thinks they can confidently say that.
I haven't bothered to sift through 8 pages of bickering so this may have already been brought up but:
Does no one realise that firing AT and hiring someone else would cost SISU money that they simply will not spend. So this debate is null and void.
So, love him/loathe him/like him/pity him, he will be here whilst SISU are, unless he stands by his word and walks.
I haven't bothered to sift through 8 pages of bickering so this may have already been brought up but:
Does no one realise that firing AT and hiring someone else would cost SISU money that they simply will not spend. So this debate is null and void.
So, love him/loathe him/like him/pity him, he will be here whilst SISU are, unless he stands by his word and walks.
What I'm keen on knowing is how far you will let this "context" protect AT. Exactly how low would CCFC have to sink before you figure that it might be worth a change of manager to see if they can improve results?
I haven't bothered to sift through 8 pages of bickering so this may have already been brought up but:
Does no one realise that firing AT and hiring someone else would cost SISU money that they simply will not spend. So this debate is null and void.
So, love him/loathe him/like him/pity him, he will be here whilst SISU are, unless he stands by his word and walks.
He's on a 1 year rolling contract-at the end of the first year they could have simply not renewed and let him go. It would take effort and resources to bring in another manager willing to act as the fall guy for what they're doing-or, they could simply promote from within and hand the reins to another managerial rookie in Carsley. As I said some pages ago, his position is very secure because SISU need him to remain in the post and the fans continue to respect him for the fact he's working with a skeleton crew, on top of the fact the expectations for the job are minimal. All Thorn's critics are saying is that he must shoulder some, not all, of the blame for a terrible season-the bulk of that still lies with SISU's mismanagement. I don't think many of us are actually in disagreement over that.
A rolling contract means that there is always the specified duration of the contract left to go, in this case 1 year, so the original point remains valid i.e. it will cost SISU to get rid of Thorn.
Unlikely. Most contracts of this nature are uni-agreed and require both parties to agree the extension. If either party terminates they are free to leave with no compensation.
Unlikely. Most contracts of this nature are uni-agreed and require both parties to agree the extension. If either party terminates they are free to leave with no compensation.
Never understood why some describe Thorn as "a fall guy" for Sisu?
Seems to get off scot free of any responsibility at all.
If we were taken over by somebody with a great deal of money, would you still have Thorn as your manager?
If that's the case why is it a 1 year rolling contract and not 1 week. The way you've described it, what would be the difference between them if no compensation is payable ?
Seems a bit odd to say that AT "seems to get off scot free of any responsibility at all" when half the posts on a thread like this seem to characterise him as "the worst manager of all time in the known universe" (OK, maybe mild exaggeration)
If that's the case why is it a 1 year rolling contract and not 1 week. The way you've described it, what would be the difference between them if no compensation is payable ?
A new contract is available at the end of the initial period and if both parties agree then they sign it. It works both ways. If only one party has to agree it then say thorn had got Coventry promoted? He would then not be allowed to leave as sisu would enforce the rolling period. It works both ways. As for the compensation terms that is entirely what the parties agree. It could be a full term of he has signed again or it may be 90 days.
Pretty sure this is wrong. 12 month rolling contract means that you always have 12 months until cancellation
No that is a misconception. Legally the employer has no obligation to renew at all. Below is a quote from someone on one that sums it up perfectly;
the contract is automatically renewed every 12 months unless conditions are reviewed or the contract is cancelled. I have a rolling contract with my job, I have a clause that allows me or the company to renegotiate bonuses every quarter and that my salary increases in line with Irish inflation each year. Other pay rises are negotiated in September each year and can are added to the rolling contract.
it makes no difference to me as if i was fired the company would stop paying me anyway
Personally, I've always thought that there were fixed term contracts and rolling contracts. Fixed term contracts ran for a fixed term and then stopped (although they could obviously be extended or renewed by mutual agreement), whilst rolling contracts "rolled on" until either party served the required notice period.
However, "rolling contract" is not a legal term and what the recent posts show is that different people have different understandings of what it means.
Perhaps if someone could get a copy of AT's contract and post the relevant clauses here, we could end this debate
Never understood why some describe Thorn as "a fall guy" for Sisu?
Seems to get off scot free of any responsibility at all.
If we were taken over by somebody with a great deal of money, would you still have Thorn as your manager?
I would keep Thorn if I came into enough money to take our club over. Some will disagree with me but he kept morale higher than it should have been. He had us playing better football than AB straight away with better results also. Results went down when he lost his 1st team. I would give him the money to sign players. Anyone disagree with his ability to spot a decent player? He would know what type of player would be needed.
If he then failed it would be time to make him scout again. But until he has been seen to fail whilst on a level playing field to all the other managers it would be a bad move to get rid of him. We need stability. We don't need scapegoats. Get rid of SISU and most of our problems would be gone as long as the bills were paid until the results got better and the fans came back.
False.
Scan your eyes across the online CCFC community - the likes of KDuffy, Macca, Nick, LordSummerisle, LeamingtonBootBoy, most of the boys at GMK (Knowl, USSkyblue off the top of my head). Are they all wind-up merchants? Do they all ignore the context? I normally wouldn't isolate one statement aimed at one user, but this has been a recurring "argument" from AT supporters throughout the season.
Context has never been ignored. Nobody expected a great season because of corporate belt-tightening. Relegation may well have happened under any manager.
But that context has nothing to do with issues of tactics, character, motivational skills...ultimately whether he was getting the most out of the limited resources he had. That's a question that should be demanded of any manager regardless of whether they have the resources of Accrington Stanley or Barcelona. In AT's case it has been a very fair question to ask for some considerable time.
What I'm keen on knowing is how far you will let this "context" protect AT. Exactly how low would CCFC have to sink before you figure that it might be worth a change of manager to see if they can improve results?
Never understood why some describe Thorn as "a fall guy" for Sisu?
Seems to get off scot free of any responsibility at all.
If we were taken over by somebody with a great deal of money, would you still have Thorn as your manager?
Reason for my last post i forgot to say is look at your results last season were wernt getting battered every game we were losing very close games if he had only been given the resources i believe been a different outcome each game, the players gave up end of the season they just bottled it plus amount of crap sisu caused off the field!
So if his ill-health was brought on by the stress of the job under the circumstances, you would say it's "not effecting him"? You seem to be assuming that he doesn't give a shit. The impression that I and most fans I know is that he gives more of a shit than any manager we've had since Gould! I'm not saying "let him off, he's a nice bloke" like some will read that as: I'm saying that he does care, and you have no evidence to suggest that he doesn't. Would you like an impossible job? Speaking as someone who is bearing the burden of being expected to manage with ever dwindling resources in the Public Sector, I can imagine how he feels, and it is not good, believe you me. It's the feeling of trying to breath whilst someone holds your head under water. But you keep going, you battle on and you do your best if you are passionate about your work.
If we had a load of money would I want Thorn as manager? Hell yes. Did you not see what he did with a few reasonable players that Aidy had heading for relegation season before last? Best football I've seen City play since Snoz. The same squad would have challenged for the play-offs if he'd had them last season, and based on his tenure the previous year, I have read no coherent arguments why we wouldn't have done. If he had just 2m to spend next season I'd expect top two, no problem. That's a darn sight less than Southampton, Huddersfield and Charlton have spent to get out of this division, too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?