The stability argument
- Thread starter Steven
- Start date
- Status
Disco Bob
New Member
I haven't read any of the thread aside from this post - have we missed out do you think?
Trifull
New Member
As much as I'd like to see Holloway gone, none of us can predict the future. None of us knows if changing the manager would be a positive or negative step. I'm all for stability, but we have to have the right manager in charge to achieve that stability. It's my view that Holloway isn't that man and therefore stability at this time is pointless and could be very costly to our place in the CCC. If Holloway does stay, as I've said before, I hope he proves me wrong, that would only be good for the club.
DesertFox
Well-Known Member
I seriously doubt it Bob.
Not saying we should get rid, really, just that things can't get worse if we do. And that there are decent alternatives, and plenty of them would come here. Stability is only a good thing if it brings results, consistent poorness is worse than instability.
When I say 'overwhelming evidence' suggests things would get better with a different manager, I mean that other people would probably be better prepared to do this job. Yes, I concede it's shocking to be on your 6th manager in 12 months.
That said, the stakes are very very high now. I disagreed with the Megson out calls and MA's sacking, but this time I can understand it.
When I say 'overwhelming evidence' suggests things would get better with a different manager, I mean that other people would probably be better prepared to do this job. Yes, I concede it's shocking to be on your 6th manager in 12 months.
That said, the stakes are very very high now. I disagreed with the Megson out calls and MA's sacking, but this time I can understand it.
The Old Fox
Well-Known Member
I thought that Milan was the lunatic talking about twenty managers, etc. but, whilst the headless chickens on here bay for blood, he has made a very clear commitment to Holloway.
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co....tentPK=19878131&folderPk=77460&pNodeId=132401
Of course stability is a bad thing. Look at the teams walking away with the Premiership, change their managers every couple of days, don't they?
OK, Holloway has a way to go before being mentioned in the same breath as, let alone compared to, Wenger and Ferguson but, the fact remains that stability is good. Even supposing that Davies or Dowie would fall over themselves to take the reins at city, is their record so impressive? Nobody is irreplaceable, but change for changes sake would guarantee relegation.
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co....tentPK=19878131&folderPk=77460&pNodeId=132401
Of course stability is a bad thing. Look at the teams walking away with the Premiership, change their managers every couple of days, don't they?
OK, Holloway has a way to go before being mentioned in the same breath as, let alone compared to, Wenger and Ferguson but, the fact remains that stability is good. Even supposing that Davies or Dowie would fall over themselves to take the reins at city, is their record so impressive? Nobody is irreplaceable, but change for changes sake would guarantee relegation.
Sure most people on here don't read what they're commenting on. The top teams are top teams because they have good managers, not just because they don't sack their manager every two months.
If your manager isn't up to the job, what's the point in stability?
My question was, if you backed the sacking of Kelly (who with no money kept us up in 06) and wanted Megson gone (after 5 weeks) why are you supporting a guy who's won 4 out of 17 and spent more money than both of them? Here's someone you actually, finally have a reason to dislike. Not only has he had an appalling start, but his past record isn't very impressive, he totally betrayed Plymouth and he'll quite possibly take us into the third tier for the first time in history.
I'm genuinely neutral on this, but I'm mystified as to why so many fans seem obsessed by 'Olly'. Is it because you like the nickname, or maybe his hilarious analogies about football and shagging? Or maybe because you get to see him on TV? On what grounds do you refuse to see that there is a very very real case developing for this manager to be fired?
I only hope those out there who are being arrogant about this were equally supportive of previous managers, or even O'Neill at Sheff U in '96, or Little at half-time vs Notts County in 94. And I hope you'll acknowledge your errors if we keep him and go down, or sack him and stay up. Me, I'm looking at both sides of this. The one side that doesn't make sense is when people say 'we can't sack him, if we do we'll go down' without justification, then accuse everyone else who's looking into the argument of being 'simplistic'.
If your manager isn't up to the job, what's the point in stability?
My question was, if you backed the sacking of Kelly (who with no money kept us up in 06) and wanted Megson gone (after 5 weeks) why are you supporting a guy who's won 4 out of 17 and spent more money than both of them? Here's someone you actually, finally have a reason to dislike. Not only has he had an appalling start, but his past record isn't very impressive, he totally betrayed Plymouth and he'll quite possibly take us into the third tier for the first time in history.
I'm genuinely neutral on this, but I'm mystified as to why so many fans seem obsessed by 'Olly'. Is it because you like the nickname, or maybe his hilarious analogies about football and shagging? Or maybe because you get to see him on TV? On what grounds do you refuse to see that there is a very very real case developing for this manager to be fired?
I only hope those out there who are being arrogant about this were equally supportive of previous managers, or even O'Neill at Sheff U in '96, or Little at half-time vs Notts County in 94. And I hope you'll acknowledge your errors if we keep him and go down, or sack him and stay up. Me, I'm looking at both sides of this. The one side that doesn't make sense is when people say 'we can't sack him, if we do we'll go down' without justification, then accuse everyone else who's looking into the argument of being 'simplistic'.
Chuck T Masala
New Member
That's exactly what I said ('the one side that doesn't make sense is that which says if we do sack him, we'll go down'). Surely if you believe the above then you come into exactly that category.
What I'm saying is, is that we could well already be in freefall. So what, exactly, would the difference be? It's a case of Stability vs More Experienced Manager. And we have no reason whatsoever to believe Holloway is the man to keep us up. Has he ever steered a club clear of the drop in this league from this position? At QPR he didn't.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it's not a clear-cut situation. It's not a simple case of stability equals success. If it was then Real would never have won anything! And for our part if stability was so vital we'd have been more likely to go down switching to Gordon Lee than sticking with Pleat, and ditto Kelly / Levein.
Macky
Gruntled Member
Okay, take your point. In post previous to this I was asking, rather than stating, whether these same people had backed the dismissals or departures of Kelly, Allen, Megson. Interesting that there's no reply to that question, especially when you consider that if we'd still got Megson or Allen we'd most certainly be higher up than we are now.
I can remember having a good few rows with City fans in favour of keeping Mr. O'Neill back in '96. Maybe some of them are on here, I don't know, scared of being wrong again.
I don't believe another change of manager guarantees relegation. I'd say Mandy should think long and hard before he goes down that road, but if Holloway is a totally inept administrator and organiser (and right now it's starting to look that way) then I'd accept the instability and go for the better man. It's a big gamble but it certainly doesn't guarantee relegation. Especially if Holloway has lost the dressing room. Someone made a v good point that if the players are behind him, you'll certainly see it on Saturday. If not, then they will definitely go down if he stays. That IS guaranteed.
On the whole though inefficiency is far more worrying to me than instability.
I can remember having a good few rows with City fans in favour of keeping Mr. O'Neill back in '96. Maybe some of them are on here, I don't know, scared of being wrong again.
I don't believe another change of manager guarantees relegation. I'd say Mandy should think long and hard before he goes down that road, but if Holloway is a totally inept administrator and organiser (and right now it's starting to look that way) then I'd accept the instability and go for the better man. It's a big gamble but it certainly doesn't guarantee relegation. Especially if Holloway has lost the dressing room. Someone made a v good point that if the players are behind him, you'll certainly see it on Saturday. If not, then they will definitely go down if he stays. That IS guaranteed.
On the whole though inefficiency is far more worrying to me than instability.
Oh, and as for the yawner, well you're just an idiot, clearly. Can't you read that much in one sitting?
And as regards betrayal, I was referring to his promises the week he left. His professions of love for the fans. I didn't like the way he left Plymouth and their fans do have my sympathy. I'd be laughing my pants off if I was one of them too. Fair play.
And as regards betrayal, I was referring to his promises the week he left. His professions of love for the fans. I didn't like the way he left Plymouth and their fans do have my sympathy. I'd be laughing my pants off if I was one of them too. Fair play.
Well, all depends what nugget of information you-re going on, but looking at things in the light of 3 consecutive defeats and solid relegation form...
- Status
Championship
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Leicester | 46 | 97 |
| 2 | Ipswich | 46 | 96 |
| 3 | Leeds Utd | 46 | 90 |
| 4 | Southampton | 46 | 87 |
| 5 | West Brom | 46 | 75 |
| 6 | Norwich City | 46 | 73 |
| 7 | Hull City | 46 | 70 |
| 8 | Middlesbro | 46 | 69 |
| 9 | Coventry City | 46 | 64 |
| 10 | Preston | 46 | 63 |
| 11 | Bristol City | 46 | 62 |
| 12 | Cardiff City | 46 | 62 |
| 13 | Millwall | 46 | 59 |
| 14 | Swansea City | 46 | 57 |
| 15 | Watford | 46 | 56 |
| 16 | Sunderland | 46 | 56 |
| 17 | Stoke City | 46 | 56 |
| 18 | QPR | 46 | 56 |
| 19 | Blackburn | 46 | 53 |
| 20 | Sheffield W | 46 | 53 |
| 21 | Plymouth | 46 | 51 |
| 22 | Birmingham | 46 | 50 |
| 23 | Huddersfield | 46 | 45 |
| 24 | Rotherham Utd | 46 | 27 |
