Mad Eyed Screamer
Moderator
What was interesting was the team that Allison couldn't get to win, got to the semi final of the league cup with Bond as Hutch / B Mac and Gow were cup tied. That night at Anfield in the 2nd leg with the likes of Dave Bennett and Gary Buckley ripping into Liverpool's defence and desperately unlucky to draw 1-1 (to lose 2-1 on aggregate).Yes - I agree with you. Those were my thoughts at the time too.
However - it can't be denied that :
a) Within 2.5 seasons of him taking over we were relegated with his team;
b) His dealings meant we had a small squad with a lot of aged players;
c) Bringing in the players he did (Boyer, Hareide, Francis, Hartford, K. Bond, Baker, Cross) broke the back of the parlous finances;
d) Hutch and Gow (who played such a big role in 80/81) were finished at City in not more than a year after joining (arguably losihg us several 100k).
So - simply in terms of outcomes - I do wonder (without suggesting an answer) if in the long run (and ignoring the sticking plasters of 1981) we might have been better sticking with Allison and his kids! At least it wouldn't have put the club further in debt. And they might have managed to stay up.
However - my question was more aimed at Bond as a person. He doesn't come across well at all for me in the City video and other ones. And I got the impression a lot of the City players (Reid/ Ranson etc) weren't keen on him - although that might have been to do with money.
That was evidence that Allison had the right players but for whatever reason it didn't work for him with them.
Admittedly unpopular decision were made (bringing in Bond Jnr at the expense of Nicky Reid - yet Bond was voted player of the year.)
I met John Bond at a Rochdale branch meeting a few years back. He was controversial in what he said but there wasn't much he said that you could argue against. He stated (and I think he has elsewhere) that he almost resigned shortly after taking over as he realised all of Swales's promises were empty gestures.
Last edited: