THE CONCRETE ROUNDABOUT (TCR)

I don't really understand why every day we have this same discussion on here. We are all reasonably well informed on the issues being discussed, so no one is providing any new information to any of us, or even new opinions. It's just the same opinions being repeated over and over again. How many of us are going to change our opinion just because the same thing has been posted for the hundredth time just worded ever so slightly differently?
Surely we've covered this topic for now?

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?!"

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

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.

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 .

Even if Pete had done the right thing and sacked Neilson a couple of weeks ago, he still would have given him more time than 99% of other clubs. It's not like Neilson hasn't had time, in the world of football.

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.