Dougie Freedman - New Manager

[BWFC_Insane]

Sacking manager's after a few months continuously only leads to one thing. And it's not pleasant.

Chelsea might beg to differ - they have been FAR from unsuccessful in the last few years despite serial short-term manager-sacking...

of course - they have the cash not to care...

They have the cash not to care indeed.

But then again it's relative. Their fans are pretty unhappy right now. Especially with the sacking of Di Matteo and the appointment of Benitez.

And lets face it, aside from the Champions League win, they've never recreated the solid and consistent success they enjoyed under Mourinho. Who was their last manager to actually have a decent amount of time in the job.

that's a pretty big aside given that this was what they were aiming for!!

all I'm saying (unless your "only leads one way" meant "win quite a few trophies and the champions league") is that it doesn't in truth lead only one way to have serial short-term managers!

also - arsenal's experience is not the same as ManU's!

It's relative though. On balance I think most Chelsea fans would consider their relatively stable period under Mourinho more successful than since. And by relative I mean success and failure for Chelsea is framed differently to that of Bolton.

Indeed having changed manager yet again this season they will almost certainly be far less successful!

[SmokinFrazier]

I'd love us to have stability, and I definitely agree that it's always the best thing for a club, but that doesn't mean you have to persist with a manager who it isn't working out for. Both Blackburn and Wolves were right to get rid of their managers when it clearly wasn't working for them. It's not ideal to have three managers in one season but it's a better alternative than being loyal if things aren't working.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Are you suggesting we follow Blackburn's example? I suppose McLeish is free now...

[thebish]

It's relative though. On balance I think most Chelsea fans would consider their relatively stable period under Mourinho more successful than since. And by relative I mean success and failure for Chelsea is framed differently to that of Bolton.

Indeed having changed manager yet again this season they will almost certainly be far less successful!

indeed it is all relative - and I'm not sure how you'd attempt to measure relative happiness between now and under mourinho - it'd depend what day you picked to measure it! if you picked the day they won the chumps league - many of them would have been happier than under mourinho!!

as for us... I think you (of all people) would agree that stability with the wrong manager is damaging..

so what this boils down to is saying that having a great manager - and keeping him for a long period of time is a good thing! (which doesn't sound very gnomic!)

the hard thing is deciding whether this particular manager IS a great manager before the long time has elapsed... For dougie I'd say the jury is still out...

if (and I don't think he will - but bear with me) - he relegates us to div1 and the next season we finish in the bottom half - could you conceivably imagine yourself calling for his head and abandoning the stability theory in favour of a quick-fix new guy?

[BL3]

Are you suggesting we follow Blackburn's example? I suppose McLeish is free now...

They're 7 points off the play-offs, we're 13 points off. They've had three managers and a caretaker manager, not to mention the shambles off the pitch... and they're still out-performing us.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Are you suggesting we follow Blackburn's example? I suppose McLeish is free now...

They're 7 points off the play-offs, we're 13 points off. They've had three managers and a caretaker manager, not to mention the shambles off the pitch... and they're still out-performing us.

Change the record. You're exceedingly dull and pointless...

[Wandering Willy]

Again,he's right though.

[ChrisC]

Again,he's right though.

Yes he is.. but the only reason they are up there is because of Jordon Rhodes who cost 8 million quid. 18 goals so far. Suppose that doesn't matter though.

[wanderers_on_tour]

Again,he's right though.

Yes he is.. but the only reason they are up there is because of Jordon Rhodes who cost 8 million quid. 18 goals so far. Suppose that doesn't matter though.

The same as the (rumoured) combined transfer fees for David Ngog and Marvin Sordell then

[thebish]

Are you suggesting we follow Blackburn's example? I suppose McLeish is free now...

They're 7 points off the play-offs, we're 13 points off. They've had three managers and a caretaker manager, not to mention the shambles off the pitch... and they're still out-performing us.

interesting comparison.

what do you think their relative success should be attributed to?

[ChrisC]

Again,he's right though.

Yes he is.. but the only reason they are up there is because of Jordon Rhodes who cost 8 million quid. 18 goals so far. Suppose that doesn't matter though.

The same as the (rumoured) combined transfer fees for David Ngog and Marvin Sordell then

Shame neither are goal machines like Rhodes. Quality player who wont be at Blackburn much longer you would think.

[BWFC_Insane]

It's relative though. On balance I think most Chelsea fans would consider their relatively stable period under Mourinho more successful than since. And by relative I mean success and failure for Chelsea is framed differently to that of Bolton.

Indeed having changed manager yet again this season they will almost certainly be far less successful!

indeed it is all relative - and I'm not sure how you'd attempt to measure relative happiness between now and under mourinho - it'd depend what day you picked to measure it! if you picked the day they won the chumps league - many of them would have been happier than under mourinho!!

as for us... I think you (of all people) would agree that stability with the wrong manager is damaging..

so what this boils down to is saying that having a great manager - and keeping him for a long period of time is a good thing! (which doesn't sound very gnomic!)

the hard thing is deciding whether this particular manager IS a great manager before the long time has elapsed... For dougie I'd say the jury is still out...

if (and I don't think he will - but bear with me) - he relegates us to div1 and the next season we finish in the bottom half - could you conceivably imagine yourself calling for his head and abandoning the stability theory in favour of a quick-fix new guy?

Precisely. I mean after 20 games nobody well perhaps sir nut, but not many others would have thought Coyle was the wrong man.

It became apparent fairly early on last season and the club made the mistake of hanging on too long.

But as said with Dougie we just simply don't know yet. He certainly seems to be doing the right things and talking about the right things. But whether he can translate that into success for the club, time will tell. And yes we can't hang around if he's exposed as a duffer. But we are not there yet. Nor are we anywhere near handing him a long term deal. It's up in the air right now.

And to add to that one of the many arguments used, by you and others I think, when searching for a manager, was that with a manager like say McLeish or McCarthy, we do sort of already know their limitations.

[SmokinFrazier]

Are you suggesting we follow Blackburn's example? I suppose McLeish is free now...

Blackburn shouldn't have got rid of Kean, I don't think. However, they were right to sack Berg when they did. That was good, decisive leadership.

[BWFC_Insane]

Are you suggesting we follow Blackburn's example? I suppose McLeish is free now...

Blackburn shouldn't have got rid of Kean, I don't think. However, they were right to sack Berg when they did. That was good, decisive leadership.

Hmm. Well I guess good and decisive leadership is different in your book to mine.

Good and decisive leaders don't tend to appoint someone then sack them 10 games later.

It shows that they either don't have the confidence in their own decisions or that they just make incredibly bad decisions.

And let's be clear, Berg wasn't appointed from within as an experiment. They went out and went through a recruitment process that took a long time and made a decision.

[SmokinFrazier]

Are you suggesting we follow Blackburn's example? I suppose McLeish is free now...

Blackburn shouldn't have got rid of Kean, I don't think. However, they were right to sack Berg when they did. That was good, decisive leadership.

Hmm. Well I guess good and decisive leadership is different in your book to mine.

Good and decisive leaders don't tend to appoint someone then sack them 10 games later.

It shows that they either don't have the confidence in their own decisions or that they just make incredibly bad decisions.

And let's be clear, Berg wasn't appointed from within as an experiment. They went out and went through a recruitment process that took a long time and made a decision.

The decision to give him the job in the first place was a poor one, yes. However, they did the right thing by not persisting with Berg like many other clubs would have done. They realised they were wrong and amended that mistake as quickly as possible. That's what you need to do sometimes when it's clear that things aren't working out, rather than being stubborn and paying for it in the long term.

[BL3]

And to add to that one of the many arguments used, by you and others I think, when searching for a manager, was that with a manager like say McLeish or McCarthy, we do sort of already know their limitations.

Whereas with Dougie we get learn about his limitations on a game by game basis.

[BL3]

Good and decisive leaders don't tend to appoint someone then sack them 10 games later.

How long did Sammy Lee get?

[BWFC_Insane]

Are you suggesting we follow Blackburn's example? I suppose McLeish is free now...

Blackburn shouldn't have got rid of Kean, I don't think. However, they were right to sack Berg when they did. That was good, decisive leadership.

Hmm. Well I guess good and decisive leadership is different in your book to mine.

Good and decisive leaders don't tend to appoint someone then sack them 10 games later.

It shows that they either don't have the confidence in their own decisions or that they just make incredibly bad decisions.

And let's be clear, Berg wasn't appointed from within as an experiment. They went out and went through a recruitment process that took a long time and made a decision.

The decision to give him the job in the first place was a poor one, yes. However, they did the right thing by not persisting with Berg like many other clubs would have done. They realised they were wrong and amended that mistake as quickly as possible. That's what you need to do sometimes when it's clear that things aren't working out, rather than being stubborn and paying for it in the long term.

But you know when they appointed him they did so for a set of reasons.

Did those reasons genuinely disappear ten games later?

Or did they just not have any valid reasons in the first place?

[LeverEnd]

Good and decisive leaders don't tend to appoint someone then sack them 10 games later.

How long did Sammy Lee get?

Sammy Lee was like a Steve Kean appointment. Took a club that was stable and doing well and started a drastic downturn in fortunes, whereas DF has undoubtedly made a disappointing start but I'm bearing in mind that he inherited a pile of shit and hasn't managed to make it smell like roses. He's got new signings to come in and can only be judged accurately when they've had chance to settle in. He also knows the division, unlike Solbakken and Berg.

Problem is, if you're us Wolves or Blackburn you don't just get a great manager cos they go to bigger clubs, you take a punt on someone and develop him. Or you get a manager proven in relative mediocrity like we did with megson.

Problem with taking a punt is you take a risk, we'll see if Gartside's paid off in due course.

[CAPSLOCK]

Has BL3 ever said whether he thinks Coyle was a clueless cock who had to be sacked?