How peculiar.
The owners recruited TR presumably as an independent voice with footballing experience. This made total sense given their collective footballing innocence.
It's always been noticeable that NP rarely mentions TR and was quite cold about his arrival. Who knows how they got on but frankly, it isn't the DofFs role to be mates with the manager and vice versa.
Last night the owners call in NP for a crisis meeting* (about fecking time too) and the result is TR is sacked. I wonder what was discussed at the meeting? Was it one where NP was fighting for his job or a meeting about how to improve the club's fortunes?
If the decision was based upon a lack of confidence in TRs ability to recruit well in January, why replace him with someone with no record outside youth academies? If the decision was based upon NP not liking TR or blaming him for something or other, why would the owners do this? After all, he is their employee, not NPs and this has been pretty clear from the outset. NP is hardly in a strong bargaining position and I can't believe that the owners would effectively strengthen his position at the club in this way. Were this to be true, why haven't they come out with an expression of support for NP?
A convoluted explanation could be that the owners have spoken to Pulis who has said that he'd not be interested in the job if TR was DofF. This would make sense if the rumours of them not getting on together at Stoke were true. Then last night the owners made this option a possibility and simply informed NP that the change was being made. Maybe they also wanted to hear NPs explanations and plans for January and are currently weighing up the pros and cons of making a change. Maybe he was given a specific target to achieve to keep his job?
Like I say, it's all quite strange. Still at least the owners have done something as their total inertia was becoming absurd.
*according to John Percy
