Guus Hiddink

[lestajigs]

We won't get Klopp but there's no harm in trying to entice him. We may have already but it would be nice if Sky or somebody got wind of it and reported it. For me, a slightly more realistic target would be Moyes, and I think we should go all out for him. He had a tough time at Man United but he's had a while to get over that in Spain, and seems to be enjoying it, he's got his mojo back.

He's somebody who spends well, builds competitive teams who play decent football, sticks around and tries to improve year upon year, and I genuinely believe he can take us to the next level, which should be establishing ourselves as a top flight side, not wildly aiming higher, which is what it seems like the owners are trying to do. Of course he may not want to join, but like Klopp we should just go for it, we are a circus at the moment anyway, what's the worst that could happen?

. Yea can't argue with this

[ElusiveEd]

It's not impossible, just highly unlikely.

 

 But then we said that about Cambiasso.

[Steve Earle]

Exactly

[purpleronnie]

Comparing getting Cambiasso to getting Klopp is very amusing.

[ElusiveEd]

According to FiveLive Klopp is at Wimbledon today! 

 

He's getting closer! ..

[NeilLCFC]

Please stop mentioning Klopp!! Didn't he pretty much turn down Madrid last month?!

Cos he was already speaking to Top about coming here. All the signings have been made by Klopp this summer.

[inckley fox]

I am not looking to history but to the situation that must of been confronting the current board.  History has nothing to do with it.  Frankly too many of our fans live in fear of the past rather than deal with the here and now.  For this board to take the action they did, there must of been  no alternative available. This would of been a very difficult decision and they would have known the reaction they would get. 

We are now enjoying the strongest and most financially stable LCFC we have ever had. We have to to start acting like fans of a Premier League team and not living in fear of going down.  Yes it is a possibility as it is for all clubs, but we need to start believing that we are here to stay and act like it.  Everyone wants us to sign great players, then complain that it is to much if we go down.  Well I for one would like us to be a PL team for a long time and behave like one.  That should include the fans who are ambitious.

If  we as fans are always preparing to be a yo-yo club then that is a miserable place to be and I for one won't and wont live in fear or the past.

 

Our new owners are putting THEIR money where it counts.  If they felt they had to sack Pearson then I am sure they had to sack Pearson.  Do you think they will hand over their prized possession of this club over to a crap manager?  I don't and think they will find the best available. 

 

Yes, I know it's 'their' money. Just because clever, wealthy people spend lots of money doesn't necessarily mean it's spent well. There are plenty of precedents, especially in football, of it being spent incredibly badly.

 

And you've made a massive assumption in your repeated claim that they had 'no choice' in firing Pearson. Very, very rarely is their 'no choice' in such a decision, especially if just a couple of days earlier they'd opened their chequebook for him to the tune of 7m. You've assumed that he did something beyond the pail to make his position untenable, something which the board could have done nothing to avoid. You've assumed that their working relationship was 'no longer viable' because of Pearson's actions and have taken their word as gospel without having heard any of the details pertaining to the argument. You've assumed that it had nothing to do with the board wanting to expand their fanbase in the Far East, or Hiddink becoming available hours before Pearson was fired, or them appointing a DoF whom they knew would have a barely viable working relationship with the manager, or simply that it was their actions - rather than his - which had caused the breakdown in relations.

 

Bearing in mind this is all eerily similar to what happened in 2010 - successful manager forced out by board wanting a big continental name - and that the manager in question and the board (or board-in-waiting, as they were then) are all precisely the same people, it would be blinkered beyond sense not to feel a little apprehensive.

 

Yet your worst assumption is the one that equates what has just happened with ambition. Firstly, because Pearson appeared to be perfectly ambitious himself, secondly, because 'ambition' is no guarantee of effective decision-making. Sven, for instance, was massively ambitious. He talked about the Champions League. So did Taylor some years back. But even if 'ambition' is necessarily a positive quality - and it isn't, of course - it's massively misleading to present Pearson's sacking as a straight choice between Ambition on the one hand, and Nigel Pearson on the other.

 

 

• Fear is bulit from risk. 
• risk is probable or improbable, high or low consequence
• risk can be mitigated
• risk can be underwritten

the historical examples people refer to are highlighting the risk in many peoples minds

the risks historically were more probable then than they are today as there are now measures in place to prevent them

There is substantial income today to help mitigate

We have owners who are able and willing to underwrite

 

The fact that the historical risk exist mean greater awareness exists and governance to prevent is in place today.

 

In life to grow, you must take risks, but if you assess them, mitigate them where possible and are willing (in this case) to finance them in the event of failure, then you will ultimately succeed.

 

With all due respect to most on the forum, including me, we live day to day in our own lives determining our path based on lots of detailed knowledge about our lives, but our view on the lives of others, on organisations and cultures is generally based on much less information, much of it which comes from what we read and hear and hence we work on perception, and we are susceptible to being swayed by the opinions and perceptions of others who also are not close to the detail. We view things from afar uneducated as to the detail those involved are aware of.

 

But it is human nature. Anyway my point is, those, close to the details believe they have the funds and ability to grow this club, their plans to me seem viable, there is a PCG in in place, they are successful, know how to manage risk and we need to let them. We only need to trust and support and until the day comes when they do something that really breaks that trust and it is broken (broken , not up for challenge) where we have sufficient detail to believe it is broken then to grow, we must trust in those that have all the detail

 

The first risk most of you guys took was to get on 2 legs and walk. If you never took that risk, well for most  it's a long crawl every week to the KP 

 

 

According to this argument every businessman, politician, leader and football club would automatically become better-run as time went by because more risks would be taken and more lessons would automatically be learnt. You've worded it elaborately and intelligently, but surely this is an incredibly hopeful argument. Not least because no matter what you are doing, you should by this theory make progressively better decisions regardless of the nature of the decisions you have made. So the longer Blair was in power, the better his foreign policy became, the longer Franco was in power, the further his country advanced, the longer Paul McCartney made records, the better they became, the longer Mandaric spent running football clubs, the better he became, the longer Clough was managing, the better he became.

 

But it's not actually right, not at all. People do make the same mistakes more than once and they backfire more than once. It's the nature of the decisions people make in response to having got it wrong in the past which dictates whether their risks lead to improvement, not simply that if they keep making enough errors and enough decisions things will end up getting better.

 

And the assumption that none of us on here are educated enough to look at decisions in football and make a valid criticism is plain silly. We can look at a performance by a player or team, a decision by a manager and make a reasonable assessment, even if we're not experts in the field (as the managers and players invariably are), just as we can do the same in other walks of life. But where football club owners are concerned - people who might be experts in their business field but usually aren't in football - the critics quite often get it right. Just look at Blackburn, Hull, Cardiff. They also had the 'funds' you talk about and were, at various points, willing to spend them. But their decision-making looked to all the world like it would lead their clubs backwards in the end - and so it did. On their forums I assure you there were people saying 'but look at all the money they've got' and 'these are clever people otherwise they wouldn't be rich'.

 

Sometimes these things do work out. We've got to hope this turns out to be a giant shift forwards rather than the almighty surge backwards it initially appeared to be. But I'm amazed people are still trying to find new ways of framing what is, basically, a non-starter of an argument. 

[The Doctor]

Cos he was already speaking to Top about coming here. All the signings have been made by Klopp this summer.

 

       - your evidence for this being? And why wouldn't he have been announced by now?

[sdb]

This might persuade some...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jul/04/guus-hiddink-premier-league-managers-brendan-rodgers-roberto-martinez

 

Not sure you'd find a Cotterill article like that!!

[ElusiveEd]

       - your evidence for this being? And why wouldn't he have been announced by now?

Too soon after NP's sacking.

 

Would have made a mockery of the reasons given if they had already been in negotiations to bring him here.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Klopp is ideal, young and hungry but he surely is so far out our league, but reading that article he seems to be looking for a challenge. He will be backed well here and have a sporting director to handle deals... so we kind of fit the bill. If we got him it would be a massive coup for the club and certainly a huge step forward.

This.

[Sharpe's Fox]

This might persuade some...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jul/04/guus-hiddink-premier-league-managers-brendan-rodgers-roberto-martinez

 

Not sure you'd find a Cotterill article like that!!

It's going to take more than two paragraphs.

[Matt]

Think Klopp would be the only way of pacifying the majority of fans.

 

Pretty much anyone else we are linked with is a step down, anyone else we are linked with wouldn't warrent sacking Pearson.

 

Klopp is about the only positive, forward thinking name on the list.

 

These owners have money, these owners have ambition? Well hook em' out a show the ambition and dollar.

[Steve Earle]

That

[inckley fox]

The pro-board arguments are bizarre.

 

Previously it was said that you could support Leicester without supporting Pearson. That you should get behind Leicester City, not necessarily a very successful manager who was just a custodian of the club. This was absolutely 100% correct. But to see many of the same people suggesting that Leicester City is, basically, King Power and you can't support the club if you don't get fully behind the owners seems massively convenient to me. Unless, of course, you take the view that our club is King Power. If that were true then I'd just conveniently stop supporting them, seeing as my allegiance was always to Leicester, not to a Bangkok-based duty free company closely associated with a king who has spent decades repressing democracy.

 

On top of that, people are saying we shouldn't argue against the decision because we don't know 'all the facts', and therefore shouldn't draw logical links between the facts we do know. So assuming Pearson stood up for his son is as silly as assuming that Pearson's departure had anything to do with wanting to expand in the Far East, or Hiddink's sudden availability. But a lot of people seem to be willing to accept that Pearson must have done something which made his departure unavoidable, while simultaneously crying out that we can't criticise the board because we don't know exactly what has gone on.

 

Worst of all, people seem to be saying that on the one hand the club will have learnt from their past errors. But on the other hand we should basically 'get over' the past, i.e. what we've achieved under Pearson, put all of that to one side and start focusing on the future. As far as I can see, you can't learn from the past and use it to make educated assertions about the future if, at the same time, you conveniently forget pretty much everything that's ever happened.

 

The best argument in favour of the board is that they are willing to invest in the club, that they are ambitious and that they previously made a very good managerial appointment (albeit one which essentially backtracked on a couple of previous, near-catastrophic managerial appointments). None of these have ever guaranteed success, in fact as often as not these raw ingredients result in failure. Now I'm not going to be chanting for them to get the hell out, I'm not going to be singing Pearson's name the second things go wrong, but neither am I going to - in their words - 'trust that the  fans understand that the board always acts in the best interests of the club'. It seems remarkable to me that, after a clearly very questionable decision which has been made once before in our recent history, and backfired then, other people are so keen to do so.

 

The club will always get my support. But it doesn't change the fact that they have deviated from a road which led to almost certain year-on-year improvement, to another road which leads god-knows-where.

[Frost]

The amount of people thinking Klopp is even a slight possibility is embarrassing. Absolutely no chance. People need to get some perspective, we're not a massive club. We've been in the PL one season and bottom for the majority of it.

[fleckneymike]

According to this argument every businessman, politician, leader and football club would automatically become better-run as time went by because more risks would be taken and more lessons would automatically be learnt. You've worded it elaborately and intelligently, but surely this is an incredibly hopeful argument. Not least because no matter what you are doing, you should by this theory make progressively better decisions regardless of the nature of the decisions you have made. So the longer Blair was in power, the better his foreign policy became, the longer Franco was in power, the further his country advanced, the longer Paul McCartney made records, the better they became, the longer Mandaric spent running football clubs, the better he became, the longer Clough was managing, the better he became.

 

But it's not actually right, not at all. People do make the same mistakes more than once and they backfire more than once. It's the nature of the decisions people make in response to having got it wrong in the past which dictates whether their risks lead to improvement, not simply that if they keep making enough errors and enough decisions things will end up getting better.

 

And the assumption that none of us on here are educated enough to look at decisions in football and make a valid criticism is plain silly. We can look at a performance by a player or team, a decision by a manager and make a reasonable assessment, even if we're not experts in the field (as the managers and players invariably are), just as we can do the same in other walks of life. But where football club owners are concerned - people who might be experts in their business field but usually aren't in football - the critics quite often get it right. Just look at Blackburn, Hull, Cardiff. They also had the 'funds' you talk about and were, at various points, willing to spend them. But their decision-making looked to all the world like it would lead their clubs backwards in the end - and so it did. On their forums I assure you there were people saying 'but look at all the money they've got' and 'these are clever people otherwise they wouldn't be rich'.

 

Sometimes these things do work out. We've got to hope this turns out to be a giant shift forwards rather than the almighty surge backwards it initially appeared to be. But I'm amazed people are still trying to find new ways of framing what is, basically, a non-starter of an argument. 

 

How dare you! It is attitudes like that which mean you're probably one of those people who sit there whilst a very well paid consultant peddles 'wisdom' to them thinking 'this is bullshit', how the **** has no one called bullshit on this before and how ****ing much are we paying for this patronising shit?'

[Matt]

The amount of people thinking Klopp is even a slight possibility is embarrassing. Absolutely no chance. People need to get some perspective, we're not a massive club. We've been in the PL one season and bottom for the majority of it.

 

I know it's unlikely, unrealistic, but let's show some ambition, the main frontrunners we're being linked with makes me wanna be sick. ****ing pathetic. We can do better than them, alot better.

[Frost]

I know it's unlikely, unrealistic, but let's show some ambition, the main frontrunners we're being linked with makes me wanna be sick. ****ing pathetic.

 

Yeh, especially if we appoint Cotterill. But still, being ambitious is great but lets not be deluded. This guy (as many have said) could walk into a top European club, we're irrelevant.

[Bagworthblue]

Yes, I know it's 'their' money. Just because clever, wealthy people spend lots of money doesn't necessarily mean it's spent well. There are plenty of precedents, especially in football, of it being spent incredibly badly.

 

And you've made a massive assumption in your repeated claim that they had 'no choice' in firing Pearson. Very, very rarely is their 'no choice' in such a decision, especially if just a couple of days earlier they'd opened their chequebook for him to the tune of 7m. You've assumed that he did something beyond the pail to make his position untenable, something which the board could have done nothing to avoid. You've assumed that their working relationship was 'no longer viable' because of Pearson's actions and have taken their word as gospel without having heard any of the details pertaining to the argument. You've assumed that it had nothing to do with the board wanting to expand their fanbase in the Far East, or Hiddink becoming available hours before Pearson was fired, or them appointing a DoF whom they knew would have a barely viable working relationship with the manager, or simply that it was their actions - rather than his - which had caused the breakdown in relations.

 

Bearing in mind this is all eerily similar to what happened in 2010 - successful manager forced out by board wanting a big continental name - and that the manager in question and the board (or board-in-waiting, as they were then) are all precisely the same people, it would be blinkered beyond sense not to feel a little apprehensive.

 

Yet your worst assumption is the one that equates what has just happened with ambition. Firstly, because Pearson appeared to be perfectly ambitious himself, secondly, because 'ambition' is no guarantee of effective decision-making. Sven, for instance, was massively ambitious. He talked about the Champions League. So did Taylor some years back. But even if 'ambition' is necessarily a positive quality - and it isn't, of course - it's massively misleading to present Pearson's sacking as a straight choice between Ambition on the one hand, and Nigel Pearson on the other.

 

 

According to this argument every businessman, politician, leader and football club would automatically become better-run as time went by because more risks would be taken and more lessons would automatically be learnt. You've worded it elaborately and intelligently, but surely this is an incredibly hopeful argument. Not least because no matter what you are doing, you should by this theory make progressively better decisions regardless of the nature of the decisions you have made. So the longer Blair was in power, the better his foreign policy became, the longer Franco was in power, the further his country advanced, the longer Paul McCartney made records, the better they became, the longer Mandaric spent running football clubs, the better he became, the longer Clough was managing, the better he became.

 

But it's not actually right, not at all. People do make the same mistakes more than once and they backfire more than once. It's the nature of the decisions people make in response to having got it wrong in the past which dictates whether their risks lead to improvement, not simply that if they keep making enough errors and enough decisions things will end up getting better.

 

And the assumption that none of us on here are educated enough to look at decisions in football and make a valid criticism is plain silly. We can look at a performance by a player or team, a decision by a manager and make a reasonable assessment, even if we're not experts in the field (as the managers and players invariably are), just as we can do the same in other walks of life. But where football club owners are concerned - people who might be experts in their business field but usually aren't in football - the critics quite often get it right. Just look at Blackburn, Hull, Cardiff. They also had the 'funds' you talk about and were, at various points, willing to spend them. But their decision-making looked to all the world like it would lead their clubs backwards in the end - and so it did. On their forums I assure you there were people saying 'but look at all the money they've got' and 'these are clever people otherwise they wouldn't be rich'.

 

Sometimes these things do work out. We've got to hope this turns out to be a giant shift forwards rather than the almighty surge backwards it initially appeared to be. But I'm amazed people are still trying to find new ways of framing what is, basically, a non-starter of an argument. 

this could be the longest quote ever :-)

 

 

I drafted a whole response and my laptop overheated and cut out so here we go again....

 

My get out of jail free card was the reference to broken trust. Yes people make the same mistakes more than once (i'm a prime example :-) ) But over time, the amount of fact builds, trends build to the point people can often have enough factual and circumstantial evidence to form a correct opinion.

 

The more people study and look for the detail and consider over time, the more accurate a decision they are likely to come to. 

 

I am currently shutting out the conjecture of others (but listening to reasoned opinion) but internally fighting with myself as to whether the owners strategic growth plan is too aggressive or needs to be aggressive to succeed. It annoys me as I crave the info they have, I crave seeing the books as I live for such strategies - it is my career after all. 

 

So right now, I can only go on the facts I have within the below bullets,

 

• their record since joining the club,
• their success in their parent business
• proof of any learnings they have made in what is an alien industry to them. 
• previous industry case studies and the environment at the time compared with the environment today

I am currently of the conclusion that although their strategy appears high risk, there is sufficient mitigation in place and the backstop is their underlying wealth and the investments they have made to date reduces the risk of cut and run. They have shown in the past they have dug deep to cover the cost of their mistakes and took advise from football people in the recruitment of Nigel Pearson rather than another big spending big name. I was gutted that they sacked Pearson as I was supportive of the brick by brick building strategy in place. 

 

They now appear to feel the foundations are secure enough to go more aggressively to get to where they want to be and their strategy has therefore moved on from brick by brick to an extent. it is clear they are trying to globalise the brand of King Power and LCFC, and they feel to be taken seriously, they have to show the globe in a way people understand - high profile leaders and the spending of money. They may also feel that Team Pearson carried too much risk of relegation and wasn't as ambitious as they would like it to be. My experience tells me - if you are going to be aggressive, you have to follow it through, however hard things get, however the risk increases, if you pull out half way you lose.I don't think they will do that.

 

Look to be fair the jury is out - it's either too aggressive too soon or it's necessary aggression and I'm torn. For now I don't have access to enough fact, there haven't been enough poor decisions made, for me to have my trust broken. It seems they are now taking advise of football men like Paulo Sousa, John Rudkin and others to make key decisions on footballing matters so that is at least a learning albeit are these people making good decisions? and are they right to put their trust in them?

 

So I have to trust them to get this right until the trust is broken. I can see the merits of a positive aggressive strategy but equally I am well ware of the risk but feel sufficiently confident it is mitigated.

 

My final point is an apology. I was bleary eyed and rushing ahead of taking my U9s training this am and re-reading it, it comes across as very patronising and it wasn't meant to be. There are plenty of people on here that are fully able to form their own opinions and base it on a number of relevant criteria. There are some however, that are emotion lead and I can be too so in effect, it was an attempt to get those people to think clearly as well as re-confirming in my own head that I was forming my position based on reasoned judgement rather than emotion.

 

I am going to back the Thais now until the trust is broken because if we all get behind them, the chances of LCFC success is greater than if we are divided. 

 

 **** me - that's enough for now cos I sound like a right tw@at. 

[fleckneymike]

this could be the longest quote ever :-)

 

 

I  drafted a whole response and my laptop overheated and cut out so here we go again....

 

My get out of jail free card was the reference to broken trust. Yes people make the same mistakes more than once (i'm a prime example :-) ) But over time, the amount of fact builds, trends build to the point people can often have enough factual and circumstantial evidence to form a correct opinion.

 

The more people study and look for the detail and consider over time, the more accurate a decision they are likely to come to. 

 

I am currently shutting out the conjecture of others (but listening to reasoned opinion) but internally fighting with myself as to whether the owners strategic growth plan is too aggressive or needs to be aggressive to succeed. It annoys me as I crave the info they have, I crave seeing the books as I live for such strategies - it is my career after all. 

 

So right now, I can only go on the facts I have within the below bullets,

 

• their record since joining the club,
• their success in their parent business
• proof of any learnings they have made in what is an alien industry to them. 
• previous industry case studies and the environment at the time compared with the environment today

I am currently of the conclusion that although their strategy appears high risk, there is sufficient mitigation in place and the backstop is their underlying wealth and the investments they have made to date reduces the risk of cut and run. They have shown in the past they have dug deep to cover the cost of their mistakes and took advise from football people in the recruitment of Nigel Pearson rather than another big spending big name. I was gutted that they sacked Pearson as I was supportive of the brick by brick building strategy in place. 

 

They now appear to feel the foundations are secure enough to go more aggressively to get to where they want to be and their strategy has therefore moved on from brick by brick to an extent. it is clear they are trying to globalise the brand of King Power and LCFC, and they feel to be taken seriously, they have to show the globe in a way people understand - high profile leaders and the spending of money. They may also feel that Team Pearson carried too much risk of relegation and wasn't as ambitious as they would like it to be. My experience tells me - if you are going to be aggressive, you have to follow it through, however hard things get, however the risk increases, if you pull out half way you lose.I don't think they will do that.

 

Look to be fair the jury is out - it's either too aggressive too soon or it's necessary aggression and I'm torn. For now I don't have access to enough fact, there haven't been enough poor decisions made, for me to have my trust broken. It seems they are now taking advise of football men like Paulo Sousa, John Rudkin and others to make key decisions on footballing matters so that is at least a learning albeit are these people making good decisions? and are they right to put their trust in them?

 

So I have to trust them to get this right until the trust is broken. I can see the merits of a positive aggressive strategy but equally I am well ware of the risk but feel sufficiently confident it is mitigated.

 

My final point is an apology. I was bleary eyed and rushing ahead of taking my U9s training this am and re-reading it, it comes across as very patronising and it wasn't meant to be. There are plenty of people on here that are fully able to form their own opinions and base it on a number of relevant criteria. There are some however, that are emotion lead and I can be too so in effect, it was an attempt to get those people to think clearly as well as re-confirming in my own head that I was forming my position based on reasoned judgement rather than emotion.

 

I am going to back the Thais now until the trust is broken because if we all get behind them, the chances of LCFC success is greater than if we are divided. 

 

 **** me - that's enough for now cos I sound like a right tw@at. 

 

For ease of reading I've removed all the cliches and hollow jargon for the above post

[Bagworthblue]

The pro-board arguments are bizarre.

 

Previously it was said that you could support Leicester without supporting Pearson. That you should get behind Leicester City, not necessarily a very successful manager who was just a custodian of the club. This was absolutely 100% correct. But to see many of the same people suggesting that Leicester City is, basically, King Power and you can't support the club if you don't get fully behind the owners seems massively convenient to me. Unless, of course, you take the view that our club is King Power. If that were true then I'd just conveniently stop supporting them, seeing as my allegiance was always to Leicester, not to a Bangkok-based duty free company closely associated with a king who has spent decades repressing democracy.

 

On top of that, people are saying we shouldn't argue against the decision because we don't know 'all the facts', and therefore shouldn't draw logical links between the facts we do know. So assuming Pearson stood up for his son is as silly as assuming that Pearson's departure had anything to do with wanting to expand in the Far East, or Hiddink's sudden availability. But a lot of people seem to be willing to accept that Pearson must have done something which made his departure unavoidable, while simultaneously crying out that we can't criticise the board because we don't know exactly what has gone on.

 

Worst of all, people seem to be saying that on the one hand the club will have learnt from their past errors. But on the other hand we should basically 'get over' the past, i.e. what we've achieved under Pearson, put all of that to one side and start focusing on the future. As far as I can see, you can't learn from the past and use it to make educated assertions about the future if, at the same time, you conveniently forget pretty much everything that's ever happened.

 

The best argument in favour of the board is that they are willing to invest in the club, that they are ambitious and that they previously made a very good managerial appointment (albeit one which essentially backtracked on a couple of previous, near-catastrophic managerial appointments). None of these have ever guaranteed success, in fact as often as not these raw ingredients result in failure. Now I'm not going to be chanting for them to get the hell out, I'm not going to be singing Pearson's name the second things go wrong, but neither am I going to - in their words - 'trust that the  fans understand that the board always acts in the best interests of the club'. It seems remarkable to me that, after a clearly very questionable decision which has been made once before in our recent history, and backfired then, other people are so keen to do so.

 

The club will always get my support. But it doesn't change the fact that they have deviated from a road which led to almost certain year-on-year improvement, to another road which leads god-knows-where.

put it like this bud, It's my career of 25 years albeit in a different industry but I make decisions involving big big £ms (sound like a tw@t again I know) and having read articles, studied the owners business dealing and past case studies I am not sufficiently equipped with enough information to decide if they are right or wrong to do what they are doing and neither my good friend are you.

 

Hence I base my current judgement on what is available, as do you and we draw different conclusions. This in effect proves my point that we lack the detail to be sure. My default therefore is to categorise and assess the risk and my conclusion is that if the strategy is right or wrong, the risk is reasonably well mitigated and underwritten - it is not completely mitigated but you will agree, i am sure,  that you have to take some unmitigated risk to achieve anything and certainly to grow. 

 

Look time will tell and only then will we know but for now my trust in the owners has been challenged but is not yet broken

[Bagworthblue]

For ease of reading I've removed all the cliches and hollow jargon for the above post

you could at least have left my last line in - That i am sure you agree with 

[fleckneymike]

you could at least have left my last line in - That i am sure you agree with 

 

Whilst true, I considered it to be too obvious.

[Bagworthblue]

Whilst true, I considered it to be too obvious.

in all seriousness mate, I'm only stating what I feel is true and took a while to sit and offer my view. I am open to criticism, you may sway my judgement, I'm not always right (friggin understatement) and if you disagree, present your case. I am usually laid back but in recent weeks a few things have cropped up that I feel passionate about so have put my case realising some will think  I'm a tw@t and whilst I disagree with Inckley, I also respect the time he has taken to form his own opinion and even gave him a rep when he slated my post as he was at least prepared to table his views and subject himself to the same level of criticism as I have. Is it beer o'clock yet?