Thorn Starting to get impatient? (2 Viewers)

[SkyBlueJohnso]

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.

 

---

[Grendel]

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.

The point of a decent debate is to present a constructive argument - I present statistics that show Thorn is the worst manager in our history and lacks qualities for the job. You avoid and swerve these issues and throw some childish insults out. Excellent.

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

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?

Now we're getting to the crux of the matter.

Granted he was a novice when he started and as such had to learn from a few mistakes (namely the timing and making of substitutions tactically). As for a system and style of play, with the players at his disposal he had no choice. If you want to dispute that then I'd like to hear suggested alternatives...

I could never understand his motivational ability being questioned last season though. The players gave their all for him and it was the only reason we had a fighting chance towards the end. We had clubs around us competing for survival with far superior squads and who were only there in the first place because they hadn't pulled their collective fingers out.

Like most, I'm very much of the thinking that nothing much more could have been done by the manager to keep us up and that what really cost us was that missing quality and experience to see off matches.

Inevitably, if you disagree with this then you'll see us as "defending him blindly" whereas we'll see you as ignoring the aforementioned circumstances:

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

 

[Grendel]

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.

 

[Grendel]

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.

Your whole support of his managerial ability is based on 10 games. What about Boothroyd with the same players in his first 10 games - oh the same points total. What about there win ratios over the same season they were in charge? Oh the same. So even in his heady days he was no different to Boothroyd.

"It's impossible to judge him" - what an odd thing to say. In that case have no manager and save the club money as what you are ultimately saying is that he is protected from scrutiny due to a perilous financial state. That is absurd. He has no managerial experience, was appointed by owners who you say are unsuitable and know nothing about how to run a football club and yet we should let him stick around "just in case" he comes good.

The flaw of course is once SISU are out so is he as his CV is hardly a powerful read is it?

 

[dongonzalos]

"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 am surprised anyone thinks they can confidently say that.

 

[Clive Plattini]

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.

 

[Grendel]

"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.

But it's Colonel Mustards excellent post that is the issue. If we have a terrible budget, if we struggle to attract players then so be it. We have what we have. Last season we were relegated. You, me, no-one can ever know if some other manager may have engineered survival. The notion no-one could would seem dubious given the major faults were shocking away form and a disastrous start to the season. There comes a point when we need to move on. The owners are here for as long as they want and will impose whatever budget they want. Regardless of that we need a change.

 

[Grendel]

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.

Has he signed his contract then? Also the severance terms are likely to be very small.

 

[lordsummerisle]

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.

Just edit your settings to 40 posts a page, then you'll only have to look through 2 pages of bickering.

 

[Grendel]

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?

This is the question that I would like you to answer Don - regardless of budget, SISU what is the tipping point?

 

[Astute]

I agree with you Duffy when you say statistically he is our worse manager for years. Do these statistics take into account the way SISU have decimated our playing squad?

Over the years we have always sold our best players. Over the years we have also replaced players though. Not with players as good, but we have had replacements. We have lost players to teams better than us. We have lost our best players. We have replaced them with academy players. We have had too many academy players in at the same time. We have made too many mistakes. AT has made mistakes. Name me a manager that never makes mistakes.

We have not had players to play certain formations. We have not had the players on the bench to make changes. We have played players with knocks as we had nobody else to play. Did you ever look at the bench of teams we played last season and think most of them would have walked into our 1st team?

If AT was ever able to bring a few players in and we were in the bottom half I would agree he needs to go. As things stand it looks as though we are going to continue to lose our best players and not replace them. What we do need is more stability. Stability with a manager. Stability with our playing squad. Stability with our finances. With this in place we will go forward. Without it we will be stuck in the lower divisions for years.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

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.

 

[SonofErnie]

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.

 

[Grendel]

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.

 

[lordsummerisle]

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?

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

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.

I'd always assumed that "a rolling 12 month contract", simply referred to the notive period required.

So at any point either party would have to give 12 months notice of termination.

 

[SonofErnie]

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.

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 ?

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

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?

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)

 

[lordsummerisle]

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 ?

About 30 points?

 

[lordsummerisle]

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)

Statistically he is(well in our small universe anyway!).

Never disliked him, just don't think he's a manager.

Now Coleman, him i did dislike!

 

[Grendel]

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.

 

[rob9872]

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

 

[Grendel]

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

 

[Nick]

I always thought rolling contract was like a phone contract. You have it for 1 year, at the end of the year you can either carry on or say cheerio. If I wanted to leave I have to pay out the rest of the contract.

I'm no expert though.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

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

 

[Grendel]

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

Yes your right it's not a legal term and it's speculation but I think it's unlikely sisu would tie themselves into a deal where they would owe 12 months compensation. Thorn would have signed an annual deal anyway so I guess that is it and the same contract is offered again the next season.

 

[Astute]

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.

 

[IrishSkyBlue]

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.

this i agree with always said it, ill admit at times in games AT got wrong but he can spot a very good player problem is sisu wont cough up the mula to let him give it a proper go like rest of the clubs, if sisu can offer higgs trust 10mill for half stadium this what pisses me off the most, give it to thorn let him have proper crack he will get a good team then see what happens. i think sisus feel they have inested enough and dont want to make anymore of a loss they did this all backwards until they actually give a proper transfer kitty i really cant find it very hard to blame thorn unless ive seen what he can do with a budget first then judge him every owner has to take a risk invest metn but sisu pricks jsut want bleed us dry and ruin our club!

 

[sw88]

He can spot a good player , no doubt about it, but that's a scouts job and not a manager! Hence him being a much better scout than manager

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

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?

Couldn't disagree more. Lots of these people can't wait to jump on the managers back. You rate the football intelligence of those posters much higher than I do! I have no idea what game they are watching most weeks...

As far as AT is concerned, I don't believe he was given even close to resources to do the job of keeping us up last season. I will not go over the same old arguments yet again in a middle of an off-season when he has so far been able to sign ZERO players! Where the hell people who want to have a go at the manager now are coming from I do not know, but I have to conclude that they are just naturally vindictive.

 

[IrishSkyBlue]

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!

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

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?

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.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

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!

I wouldn't say they bottled it, Forest game aside, they just had nothing left to give as the squad was so small compared to all of our relegation rivals. They could rotate two thirds of their side, we kept selecting people who needed operations as there was literally no-one else.

 

[mexico88]

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.

Ive never read so much crap in all my life.

We are talking about a manager who despite being ahead against blackpool in the nth minute - didn't do the MOST BASIC practice of bring on all of his subs to waste the remaining time to zero and therefore lost the game 1-2?

Tactically inept, one dimensional, but nice bloke and good scout.