What doe's this tell us about the new Manager?

[CITY FOR LIFE]

To accept a job while there is a manager still in place. It looks like all this took place after the Hull or Arsenal game.

Or is it the management we should look at, and I mean by that Marwood and Cook.

I have 62 people working for me, if I was to employ someone to cover a post already filled I think we all know where it would end up.

I suppose if your pockets are deep it may not matter but the image of your company or in our case of the Club it does.

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

Happens all the time, baconface was in a private jet on the way down from Scotland, while fat Ron was still manager of the rags. Keegan, Horton both did the same thing Horton was at Reid's last game in-charge.

 

[pee dubya]

If you're sacking your manager, it makes sense to have your replacement lined up already.

If Mancini gets told Hughes is going, no matter whether Mancini himself takes the job or not, then it tells us nothing about him.

 

[lancs blue]

Keegan was approached to see if he was interested in the job before we sacked Royle. It seems quite common to do this in football now, especially at the top level. I can see why it's done, there are a lot of crucial fixtures coming up and clubs want to avoid the uncertainty of having a caretaker in charge for a few weeks while they search for a replacement.

 

[johnny on the spot]

What doe's this tell us about the new Manager?

This gamble could cost us deer

 

[pissedagain]

great sack the manager and have no one lined up, that would have gone down really well

 

[charliebigspuds]

to me it absolutely stank! but at least they haven't sacked him and then spent two weeks waiting to get someone in. The timing's also really bad as we have a lot of games coming up and he hasn't got much time to get to know the players. Personally I can't decide if its a good thing or not. As for him taking the job before its actually vacant, football's a cut throat business and there isn't much of a community spirit!

 

[morleyswife]

To accept a job while there is a manager still in place. It looks like all this took place after the Hull or Arsenal game.

Or is it the management we should look at, and I mean by that Marwood and Cook.

I have 62 people working for me, if I was to employ someone to cover a post already filled I think we all know where it would end up.

I suppose if your pockets are deep it may not matter but the image of your company or in our case of the Club it does.

This keeps being mentioned and its irritating, to the OP this is the perfect way to do it, not a knee jerk reaction with Bowen being caretaker

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

Keegan was approached to see if he was interested in the job before we sacked Royle. It seems quite common to do this in football now, especially at the top level. I can see why it's done, there are a lot of crucial fixtures coming up and clubs want to avoid the uncertainty of having a caretaker in charge for a few weeks while they search for a replacement.

Plus with us having all Hughes's mates, how many people would be left to even caretake the club!

 

[bellwhaft]

To accept a job while there is a manager still in place. It looks like all this took place after the Hull or Arsenal game.

Or is it the management we should look at, and I mean by that Marwood and Cook.

I have 62 people working for me, if I was to employ someone to cover a post already filled I think we all know where it would end up.

I suppose if your pockets are deep it may not matter but the image of your company or in our case of the Club it does.

It's foootball mate and the normal rules don't apply. If Les was a dead man walking after the Hull game what I can't get my head round is how they could have justified sacking him if we'd won the games against Bulltown and Spuds as well as the matches we did win.