Freedman out!

[jaffka]

smiley faces at full time, when we have lost

curtains and hand over face

Hall hand over face

I interpret that as the players being happy we have lost and Duggie is closer to being sacked.

...which is your right to do. Whereas Boris, who saw it and understands Twitter, thinks otherwise. On this one, I'll side with Boris (having sighed at The Kids).

I'll say again: Freedman's done plenty wrong without worrying about nonsense. I'm much less bothered about kids' tweets than I am about our manager watching yet another game slip away from him, paralysed by indecision or puzzled by inertia.

I'm not worrying about it one bit.

I have nothing to do today, so am enjoying the mud throwing.

Whatever your interpretation of the twittergate is, it has provided a page of entertaining debate.

[jaffka]

Says Mark Iles.

The same Mark Iles who incidentally says that Dougie Freedman makes his team selections before the players have had chance to complete the full gestational cycle in the womb?

Clearly a highly reliable source.

And if we're going to continue with this fantasy, Phil Gartside left the appointment of one of our managers (when it was still his f*cking job ) to Mark Curtis. The hierarchy at this club are rapidly becoming a standing joke.

So you think Gartside can sack Freedman without Eddie's consent? Is that what you're saying?

I'm not really arsed who sacks him. Are you?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Weirdly, I'm not enjoying watching folk dance round the bonfire while my club goes to shit.

[jaffka]

Weirdly, I'm not enjoying watching folk dance round the bonfire while my club goes to shit.

That's an over reaction.

Did you work late last night? Feeling a little tired and irritable today?

The club going to shit is out of my hands. I do my bit by spending my cash.

[Lord Kangana]

Says Mark Iles.

The same Mark Iles who incidentally says that Dougie Freedman makes his team selections before the players have had chance to complete the full gestational cycle in the womb?

Clearly a highly reliable source.

And if we're going to continue with this fantasy, Phil Gartside left the appointment of one of our managers (when it was still his f*cking job ) to Mark Curtis. The hierarchy at this club are rapidly becoming a standing joke.

So you think Gartside can sack Freedman without Eddie's consent? Is that what you're saying?

I think you've just succeeded in arguing yourself into knots. Yet again.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Weirdly, I'm not enjoying watching folk dance round the bonfire while my club goes to shit.

That's an over reaction.

Did you work late last night? Feeling a little tired and irritable today?

The club going to shit is out of my hands. I do my bit by spending my cash.

and "enjoying the mud-throwing". That's where you lose me.

[BWFC_Insane]

Says Mark Iles.

The same Mark Iles who incidentally says that Dougie Freedman makes his team selections before the players have had chance to complete the full gestational cycle in the womb?

Clearly a highly reliable source.

And if we're going to continue with this fantasy, Phil Gartside left the appointment of one of our managers (when it was still his f*cking job ) to Mark Curtis. The hierarchy at this club are rapidly becoming a standing joke.

So you think Gartside can sack Freedman without Eddie's consent? Is that what you're saying?

I think you've just succeeded in arguing yourself into knots. Yet again.

Not at all. If Eddie doesn't want to pay up Freedman, or doesn't want to bin him off, Freedman will not be sacked, regardless of what Gartside may want.

I don't think there is very much to dispute there.

Ultimately Eddie Davies is calling the shots. As is his right.

[jaffka]

Weirdly, I'm not enjoying watching folk dance round the bonfire while my club goes to shit.

That's an over reaction.

Did you work late last night? Feeling a little tired and irritable today?

The club going to shit is out of my hands. I do my bit by spending my cash.

and "enjoying the mud-throwing". That's where you lose me.

Oh come on.

There isn't much to be positive about at the moment.

Having a bit of humour helps. Try it.

Or the other option is, if you don't like, don't read it. That's what I do.

[Lord Kangana]

Says Mark Iles.

The same Mark Iles who incidentally says that Dougie Freedman makes his team selections before the players have had chance to complete the full gestational cycle in the womb?

Clearly a highly reliable source.

And if we're going to continue with this fantasy, Phil Gartside left the appointment of one of our managers (when it was still his f*cking job ) to Mark Curtis. The hierarchy at this club are rapidly becoming a standing joke.

So you think Gartside can sack Freedman without Eddie's consent? Is that what you're saying?

I think you've just succeeded in arguing yourself into knots. Yet again.

Not at all. If Eddie doesn't want to pay up Freedman, or doesn't want to bin him off, Freedman will not be sacked, regardless of what Gartside may want.

I don't think there is very much to dispute there.

Ultimately Eddie Davies is calling the shots. As is his right.

Which would make Phil Gartside's job superfluous. Which takes us back to where we started.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Weirdly, I'm not enjoying watching folk dance round the bonfire while my club goes to shit.

That's an over reaction.

Did you work late last night? Feeling a little tired and irritable today?

The club going to shit is out of my hands. I do my bit by spending my cash.

and "enjoying the mud-throwing". That's where you lose me.

Oh come on.

There isn't much to be positive about at the moment.

Having a bit of humour helps. Try it.

Or the other option is, if you don't like, don't read it. That's what I do.

True, both good options. I'll try them.

[jaffka]

Weirdly, I'm not enjoying watching folk dance round the bonfire while my club goes to shit.

That's an over reaction.

Did you work late last night? Feeling a little tired and irritable today?

The club going to shit is out of my hands. I do my bit by spending my cash.

and "enjoying the mud-throwing". That's where you lose me.

Oh come on.

There isn't much to be positive about at the moment.

Having a bit of humour helps. Try it.

Or the other option is, if you don't like, don't read it. That's what I do.

True, both good options. I'll try them.

There is another option as well.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Says Mark Iles. The same Mark Iles who incidentally says that Dougie Freedman makes his team selections before the players have had chance to complete the full gestational cycle in the womb? Clearly a highly reliable source. And if we're going to continue with this fantasy, Phil Gartside left the appointment of one of our managers (when it was still his f*cking job ) to Mark Curtis. The hierarchy at this club are rapidly becoming a standing joke.

So you think Gartside can sack Freedman without Eddie's consent? Is that what you're saying?

I think you've just succeeded in arguing yourself into knots. Yet again.

Not at all. If Eddie doesn't want to pay up Freedman, or doesn't want to bin him off, Freedman will not be sacked, regardless of what Gartside may want. I don't think there is very much to dispute there. Ultimately Eddie Davies is calling the shots. As is his right.

Which would make Phil Gartside's job superfluous. Which takes us back to where we started.

As is so often the case with you two, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Although he often (increasingly?) retains the veto on expenditure, Eddie Davies has no interest in running a football club day-to-day. He wants someone to do it for him, and it's Gartside.

I suppose Eddie could force Phil out if he wants – he does after all have 95% of the shares, so it wouldn't be much of a vote - but PG is the only chairman we've had during Eddie's time as benefactor, so he may not want to incur the potential negatives of change. It's a big job, and a hard job, and for all his faults Gartside is very far from the worst at it.

As something of an aside, I think Gartside's title of chairman is more suited to the football world than business. In business terms he's effectively a CEO (or MD), active and directly answerable to his shareholders (ie Eddie), rather than a chairman, venerable but frequently slightly removed from the front line.

Maybe there's truth in that rumour that Gartside is looking to leave: if ED is vetoing decisions you could argue PG's now in a position where his responsibility outstrips his power, rarely a good thing, especially in such a public sphere as football.

(The club does have a Chief Operating Officer, Bradley Cooper, of whom I'd never heard until checking just now. And a Safety Officer called Rod Cross, which amuses me.)

[BWFC_Insane]

Which would make Phil Gartside's job superfluous. Which takes us back to where we started.

His job is to operationally run the club on a day to day basis under strategic direction from ED. He will have various people reporting to him on a variety of matters from commercial deals to HR issues to contracts ticketing etc. Unless Eddie wants to do that all himself I don't see why his position is superfluous. He acts on Eddies behalf because Eddie doesn't want to do it. I'd have thought that was obvious. Doesn't mean Eddie isn't signing off the large cheques, deals and decisions.

[Lord Kangana]

We don't need a chairman if his job is operational not strategic. We have Bradley Cooper to do the job of principle operations director. Unless we need two operations managers. Which would be very unique, and very BWFC. But its pointless arguing this, its just common business practice.

[jaffka]

It is pointless arguing who sacks him, cos if he is sacked, that's all that matters.

It must ben getting to squeaky bum time in the board room though.

[boltonboris]

Nice to see Freedman's 'defenders' have gone from saying he shouldn't be sacked because he's good. Then to he shouldn't be sacked because the players are wank. Then to he shouldn't be sacked because we can't afford it.

Now we're at; he shouldn't be sacked because we don't know who it's up to to sack him.

Which all leads me to the fact that he most definitely should be sacked.

[jaffka]

and the 'we cant sack him, as the next manager could be worse'

[Lord Kangana]

Nice to see Freedman's 'defenders' have gone from saying he shouldn't be sacked because he's good. Then to he shouldn't be sacked because the players are wank. Then to he shouldn't be sacked because we can't afford it.

Now we're at; he shouldn't be sacked because we don't know who it's up to to sack him.

Which all leads me to the fact that he most definitely should be sacked.

[Prufrock]

Well tbf there are elements of truth in 2) and 3). And I don't think anyone is actually arguing 4).

Nobody seems to be going for 1) anymore though, myself included.

I hate football.

[Relentless09]

I don't care who sacks him but I just wish they'd hurry up and do it.