THE CONCRETE ROUNDABOUT (TCR)

How many more do you want to leave or be sidelined? Andrew Cullen?

_________________
Disclaimer: All my comments are my opinions unless stated otherwise. I'm just a fan following my club.

This is just on the basis of us being relegated this season. No need for them to leave, Pete is an always will be a big part of our club, he can retain ownership and just step aside. I think anyone heavily involved in the decision making should seriously be considering their positions, perhaps that includes other board members. But Pete seems to be the one calling most of the big shots.

So you would have Pete still as the owner, Andrew Cullen as Chief Executive and A N Other as Chair?

_________________
Disclaimer: All my comments are my opinions unless stated otherwise. I'm just a fan following my club.

Not sure on the other board members, but if we are relegated, and especially if that is due to sticking with Neilson, then Pete should seriously consider his responsibilities at the club. Too many mistakes under his ownership directly attributable to him.

But it's too early for speculation like that, even I think we'll stay up by the skin of our teeth through luck more than anything. The thread was called 'Something has to change, either on or off the pitch', and more direct changes could be made simply by changing the first team manager (and likely many of the staff that came with Neilson), as well as changes to the way we recruit and manage communication with fans.

You’re not comparing like for like.

Sacking someone after six years for being 19th is not the same as sacking someone after a year in the same league position.

You might disagree with it but it isn’t active mismanagement.

Looks like you haven't thought this through. Who would interview and appoint A N Other, not Pete surely, as you question his judgement? Maybe not the other Board members either.

_________________
Disclaimer: All my comments are my opinions unless stated otherwise. I'm just a fan following my club.

Would we have to wait for an appointment of a new manager until we have a new Chair & Board?

_________________
Disclaimer: All my comments are my opinions unless stated otherwise. I'm just a fan following my club.

In your opinion it's not. I feel it is.

They both had the same role. This isn't a month or two in. It's over a year now.

If I joined a company as manager, I might be given a few months grace to settle in, but I'd expect 6 months or a year in to be at least as competent as my predecessor, ideally performing considerably better, and if my successful predecessor was sacked for performing badly, then I'd sure as hell expect my job to be under serious threat if I'd performed worse. Robinson had no first team management experience when he took the the job and achieved back to back playoff finishes.

Even if Pete was right to stick with Neilson, it just demonstrates further inconsistency from Pete by not sacking him. I imagine whoever replaces Neilson will have uncertainty around what the parameters are: "well he sacked the popular manager for being in 19th, but then gave the less popular manager more time despite worse results and being in 20th, where do I stand?!"

What makes you think that I haven't thought it through? I said very clearly that I feel Winkie's position should be under consideration if we are relegated or scrape survival.

My original post wasn't about the technicalities and the very complex process of completely overhauling the club's board of directors, simply that the man at the top with overall responsibility for the major decisions needs to consider his role should things get any worse.

You're clearing trying to find holes wherever you can, when you obviously understand the very simple point I'm trying to make.

The new manager would want to know he would be sacked earlier for consistency sake.

_________________
Disclaimer: All my comments are my opinions unless stated otherwise. I'm just a fan following my club.