moseeds Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 Lets "weigh" the current situation in a logical manner: POSITIVES ------------ 1) Having 3 different managers in 3 consecutive weeks is surely demanding on the players' intellects ( - Just see Mike Bassett England Manager). 2) There are only 15 odd games to go for a new manager to figure out who his good players are and how best to play them. 3) By the time the new manager has figured out "his best team" it wil be the end of the season. 4) We are currently actually winning games. 5) We may appoint Holloway and regret "what if". Leaving Kelly in charge means we do not have to entertain such thoughts. 6) Our best striker (Fryatt in case you are wondering) wants Kelly to remain. NEGATIVE ------------ 1) Kelly's short run of wins may come to an abrupt end at the next match and remain so till the end of season. 2) Delaying appointment may mean missing out on the excellent Mike Newell. 3) Delaying appointment may seem like indecision from the board making players nervous and hence "jump ship" as soon as possible. 4) Kelly is making the same decisions as Levein (out of position players etc) and this may ultimately be his downfall. 5) Kelly was part of the staff that managed to get a city side on a winning run of one. In my opinion, Kelly should remain in charge until the end of the season. Thereafter, assess the situation with regards to 1) results 2) style of footy 3) attendance post Kelly. If these 3 requirements are not met, then appoint someone new. Otherwise let the Kelly era begin. What does everyone else think regarding the Positive and Negative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gené and Tonic Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 Get Newell, or leave it how it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonbluefox9 Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 Lets "weigh" the current situation in a logical manner: POSITIVES ------------ 1) Having 3 different managers in 3 consecutive weeks is surely demanding on the players' intellects ( - Just see Mike Bassett England Manager). 2) There are only 15 odd games to go for a new manager to figure out who his good players are and how best to play them. 3) By the time the new manager has figured out "his best team" it wil be the end of the season. 4) We are currently actually winning games. 5) We may appoint Holloway and regret "what if". Leaving Kelly in charge means we do not have to entertain such thoughts. 6) Our best striker (Fryatt in case you are wondering) wants Kelly to remain. NEGATIVE ------------ 1) Kelly's short run of wins may come to an abrupt end at the next match and remain so till the end of season. 2) Delaying appointment may mean missing out on the excellent Mike Newell. 3) Delaying appointment may seem like indecision from the board making players nervous and hence "jump ship" as soon as possible. 4) Kelly is making the same decisions as Levein (out of position players etc) and this may ultimately be his downfall. 5) Kelly was part of the staff that managed to get a city side on a winning run of one. In my opinion, Kelly should remain in charge until the end of the season. Thereafter, assess the situation with regards to 1) results 2) style of footy 3) attendance post Kelly. If these 3 requirements are not met, then appoint someone new. Otherwise let the Kelly era begin. What does everyone else think regarding the Positive and Negative? If we can't get a man that we want we should stick with Rob Kelly. We should not appoint a manager just because we don't have one. We have to appoint the right man. If Holloway is 2nd or 3rd on the list we shouldn't bring him in for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommeh Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 Get Newell, or leave it how it is Agree with you there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trumpet Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 If we can't get a man that we want we should stick with Rob Kelly. We should not appoint a manager just because we don't have one. We have to appoint the right man. If Holloway is 2nd or 3rd on the list we shouldn't bring him in for example. But if he is 2nd or 3rd, we might aswell not have him 2nd or 3rd... if he wont be brought in. Lets wait til the end of the season to see who is available, who knows, kelly might want to stay on if hes done a good job. Just shows a good record isnt everything to be a succesful manager Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommeh Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 Get Newell in this week or end of the season no later I don't mind us sticking with Kelly and i'm enjoying us being linked with most managers in the division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 Agree with you there me too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonbluefox9 Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 But if he is 2nd or 3rd, we might aswell not have him 2nd or 3rd... if he wont be brought in. Lets wait til the end of the season to see who is available, who knows, kelly might want to stay on if hes done a good job. Just shows a good record isnt everything to be a succesful manager The point I was trying to make is the club shouldn't bring Holloway in because they feel that they have to bring someone in. If he isn't the man they truly believe will do well for us in the future they should delay appointing someone long term and stick with Rob Kelly until the end of the season. Get the one we want or don't get anyone in. Don't settle for a second choice for the sake of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 Agree with you there That's three of us then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moseeds Posted 6 February 2006 Author Share Posted 6 February 2006 The point I was trying to make is the club shouldn't bring Holloway in because they feel that they have to bring someone in. If he isn't the man they truly believe will do well for us in the future they should delay appointing someone long term and stick with Rob Kelly until the end of the season. Get the one we want or don't get anyone in. Don't settle for a second choice for the sake of it. Completely agree with that. We shouldn't appoint a manager "on the rebound". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommeh Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 The point I was trying to make is the club shouldn't bring Holloway in because they feel that they have to bring someone in. If he isn't the man they truly believe will do well for us in the future they should delay appointing someone long term and stick with Rob Kelly until the end of the season. Get the one we want or don't get anyone in. Don't settle for a second choice for the sake of it. Bit like newcastle did with souness and portsmouth did with perrain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonbluefox9 Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 Bit like newcastle did with souness and portsmouth did with perrain Yes, because let's be honest, Souness would not have been top of Newcastle's list by a long way when they sacked Robson. I bet there were 5 managers above him at least. At least as a club it would seem like our board are asking managers even if it would seem like they are out of our reach. If you don't ask you'll never find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookwhaticando Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 Yes, because let's be honest, Souness would not have been top of Newcastle's list by a long way when they sacked Robson. I bet there were 5 managers above him at least. At least as a club it would seem like our board are asking managers even if it would seem like they are out of our reach. If you don't ask you'll never find out. There were a lot of managers above Souey, Steve Bruce for instance - but Birmingham declined. O'Leary at Villa, too and I think Sam Allardyce was mentioned at the time but didn't come - so Souey was at best 3rd or 4th choice. At the time it was a shock appointment - not only because it came out of the blue, but also because of who it was. Rob Kelly has stated a few times he doesn't want the job long term, he sees himself as a coach - perhaps if he was given the rest of the season and he did well, his mind would change. Even if he doesn't want to manage, just coach, then I think we should keep him around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston. Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 If Kelly can get the team winning consistently, then let him have the job. The players need to prove the recent turnaround in form isnt just a knee-jerk reaction to Levein's departure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyJ Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 Aslong as he's winning let's keep him. As 'caretaker he doesn't have the pressure others would, which is what we need right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scow Posted 6 February 2006 Share Posted 6 February 2006 We shouldn't rush in to anything. We have to be sure we're appointing the right man - if the board are confident of that, then I don't mind Kelly being moved out, despite what he's done so far. However, at the same time, Kelly will know this set of players better than any other manager out there. So, to avoid any further disruption, keeping Kelly on may be the wisest choice - and if we do stay up, we'll be seen as a more attractive prospect to potential managers in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.