Board Out, Kelly Out, Stowell Out

Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeff said:
Only a few matches before the end of season 2005/6 you were saying RK should have been given the job permanently, so what changed in a couple of games to make it so obviously the wrong decision by the end of the season - and if you believed that at the end of last season, why didn't you say so at the time?

Of course people can change their mind, I'm not criticising anyone for that. But you seem to be trying to change history by saying you were against the appointment in the first place, which is obviously not true, and by saying the board only appointed him to save money - when the majority of fans wanted him to be given the job and the board would have received loads of stick if they hadn't given him the job.
Click to expand...

I think you are spot on with your last statement (not sure how to make it bold)
 
Jeff said:
Only a few matches before the end of season 2005/6 you were saying RK should have been given the job permanently, so what changed in a couple of games to make it so obviously the wrong decision by the end of the season - and if you believed that at the end of last season, why didn't you say so at the time?

Of course people can change their mind, I'm not criticising anyone for that. But you seem to be trying to change history by saying you were against the appointment in the first place, which is obviously not true, and by saying the board only appointed him to save money - when the majority of fans wanted him to be given the job and the board would have received loads of stick if they hadn't given him the job.
Click to expand...

1. Never said that I was against the decision to appoint him in the first place. Have said that the board make a mistake in appointing him on a permanent basis - they are supposed to be near to the 'coalface' and took the easy way out.

2. Not sure you are right about saying the board getting loads of stick when at the point when they apparantly rejected Newell etc. By that time I think RK's stock was falling and I think there would have been mixed feelings.

3. In any case the board is supposed to make good decisions and sometimes these have to be 'hard' and less than universally popular.

4. The main issue is that the team continues to underperform with Kelly and he lacks communication skills and he also seems to set very low objectives e.g. the 16 points from 16 games and the repetitive clutching at straws from unconvincing performances.
 
Redditch Fox said:
1. Never said that I was against the decision to appoint him in the first place.
Click to expand...

You said.. "By the end of season 2005/6 that had become widely obvious" [that he wasn't right for the job]

Yet only a few matches before the end of the season you said he should have been given the job permanently.

So will you tell us exactly when you feel it became "widely obvious" that he wasn't the right man to be given the job in those last few matches of last season - and why you didn't say anything about it at the time?
 
Jeff said:
It's very easy to criticise the board in hindsight, and blame them for choosing the cheap option, but most fans - including you - were in favour of keeping RK in charge for this season.
Click to expand...

I was also in favour but then I am not a chairman who should know better.
 
Chrysalis said:
I was also in favour but then I am not a chairman who should know better.
Click to expand...

I would be interested to know why you think the chairman should know better. He would have had little more information at his disposal than we did at the time he had to make his decision.
 
well, I was in favour of kellys appointment based on the choice been him or levein with a review in the summer so a till end of season appointent so I didnt totally agree with what the board did, after the decision was made I then said we should back kelly as he is now in the job.

The board spoke with newell, none of us know the reasons why he wasnt appointed I would expect it was either due to newell costing too much or him turning us down due to lack of transfer of funds or even both, davies was clearly for the taking in the summer but derby beat us to the punch. As others have noticed our results did drop off at the end of last season before this season started.

After the start this season if I was on the board I would certianly be reccomending a change of manager, maybe I am impatient but I cant see kelly turning it around in a major way even with funds.
 
Chrysalis said:
well, I was in favour of kellys appointment based on the choice been him or levein with a review in the summer so a till end of season appointent so I didnt totally agree with what the board did, after the decision was made I then said we should back kelly as he is now in the job.

The board spoke with newell, none of us know the reasons why he wasnt appointed I would expect it was either due to newell costing too much or him turning us down due to lack of transfer of funds or even both, davies was clearly for the taking in the summer but derby beat us to the punch. As others have noticed our results did drop off at the end of last season before this season started.

After the start this season if I was on the board I would certianly be reccomending a change of manager, maybe I am impatient but I cant see kelly turning it around in a major way even with funds.
Click to expand...

Agree totally.
 
Chrysalis said:
well, I was in favour of kellys appointment based on the choice been him or levein with a review in the summer so a till end of season appointent so I didnt totally agree with what the board did, after the decision was made I then said we should back kelly as he is now in the job.

The board spoke with newell, none of us know the reasons why he wasnt appointed I would expect it was either due to newell costing too much or him turning us down due to lack of transfer of funds or even both, davies was clearly for the taking in the summer but derby beat us to the punch. As others have noticed our results did drop off at the end of last season before this season started.

After the start this season if I was on the board I would certianly be reccomending a change of manager, maybe I am impatient but I cant see kelly turning it around in a major way even with funds.
Click to expand...


Davies made the right choice IMO, Derby have cash, cash, cash!!!
 
bollvok
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool2150
2Arsenal2244
3Nottm F2244
4Chelsea2240
5Manchester C  2238
6Newcastle2238
7Bournemouth2237
8Aston Villa2236
9Brighton2234
10Fulham2233
11Brentford2228
12Palace2227
13Manchester U2226
14West Ham2226
15Tottenham 2224
16Everton2120
17Wolves2216
18Ipswich2216
19Leicester2214
20Southampton226

Latest posts

Back
Top