Home
It's significant that there are more threads on this forum about replacing the current manager than games we've played this season, and although this forum doesn't really represent the views of all BWFC fans, I think it does capture the concerns of many.
So having had 5 managers (I think) since Allardyce left, why is it that we're so eager to change, welcome each incumbent as the next Messiah, and then condemn them so quickly as soon as we have a bad run?
I understand that some fans are in total denial about the financial situation we are currently in as evidenced by some of the players that are suggested we buy and that's understandable after some of the daft purchases that were made in recent times in a final bid to keep us at the top table, but even those fans are finally recognising that we can no longer throw money at the problem.
Looking at the latest "Freedman out" thread, Sluffy nicely summarises Freedman's problem, but I think it runs a lot deeper than laying the blame at the door of OC (and IMO Megson before him)
I think it comes down to this:
After years of spending big on salaries under Allardyce we were stuck with a decision - go for broke and try to turn those 6th and 8th places in the prem into regular European contenders (which would have brought in decent income from TV etc. to offset the high wage bills) or try to get there on a budget to keep the rising debt under control. The Board opted for the latter and Allardyce walked.
But to be a contender on a budget required changes in the way we play and recruit.
SL didn't get any time worth mentioning to see what he could do to bring about the necessary change, but was regarded as a failure as our league position was poor and the fans, used to success were fairly vocal about it and the Board showed a lack of patience.
In came Megson who introduced a "don't lose" mentality which helped our league position, but in the process he had a final fling of profligate spending to try to redress the balance. Incredibly, the Board let him spend (money that many feel should have been given to Fat Sam). The debt rocketed, but we didn't really progress, although in fairness Megson made a few astute purchases like Cahill.
By the time OC came in, the job had changed again. The Board, having recognised that debt was now getting serious clearly moved the goalposts regarding net spending.
We saw the first round of clearing out players on high salaries and the first serious attempts to buy youngsters to develop. More spending followed but it was relatively balanced compared to Megson.
Throughout all this, the Board seemed to operate reactively rather than sticking to a plan. They reacted to fans opinions and reacted to results - even though we were and are going through a period of change during which bad results could only be expected.
Dream team? Not backed, so we'll never know.
Freedman was brought in probably because of his track record of bringing through young players and finding raw talent on a budget - which is exactly what needs to happen.
There have been problems with Megson, Coyle and Freedman. They've all made some bad decisions in the transfer market. It happens to the best of managers but the key difference is we can't afford mistakes - with our budget, we have to get it right.
All three have had more than their fair share of bad luck too, especially in terms of injuries to key players.
Add to that a dwindling fan base with high expectations and it's easy to see why we have problems.
But for me it comes back to the Board and the lack of consistent leadership and determination to stand behind their decisions. In short, they lack bollocks.
If the Board had decided that our priority when Allardyce wanted more money was to control our debt, then they should have planned for a new approach, appointed someone to deliver it and stuck with them through thick and thin - regardless of short-term results and regardless of the fans reaction to those results. By now, we would have a new financially sustainable structure and stability.
After all, the change from buying proven players with something to prove and with very high salary demands (Campo, Okocha, Stelios, Youri etc.) to sourcing relatively low cost talent and developing it is enormous in terms of creating the right infrastructure and takes years to get right.
But the Board chopped and changed, reacting to everything and we became a rudderless ship characterised by what appeared to be impulse purchases and multiple changes in policy depending on what they felt was needed at the time.
The baby was thrown out with the bathwater and what we're left with is little or no progress, a poor and demotivated squad and a manager under constant pressure to deliver now - not in the future as any restructuring plan would demand.
Freedman - and anyone else brought in - is on a hiding to nothing.
He's young and has obvious flaws, but that maybe an advantage if we stick with him. His media language has changed noticeably this season if you look at it carefully. Yes - he's still coming out with the trite comments you'd expect in a media interview and yes - he seems to have done a U-turn as regards loanees, but:
Dougie comes across as a stubborn little f***** but if we finally put an end to the knee-jerk management that the Board have been dishing out in recent years and stick to the plan and support the manager through this difficult period, maybe Dougie will be the one to bring back the good times. I think that if he stays, he'll loosen up his ideas and be able to get the most out of this squad - he'll have to.
He has a lot to prove, but he is young enough to change and develop and given that no manager in their right mind would come to BWFC unless the Board are stupid enough to hand out yet another big payment in a bid to show that we are still big time charlie's (which we're not) we may be better off sticking with a manager who sees the transformation of BWFC as a personal challenge.
If I were the Board, I'd give him a couple of months during which time I'd expect to see changes to the system, more appropriate and frequent use of younger players and an improvement in both performances and league position - basically enough time to show that he is capable of change and to implement it.
And if he doesn't make it we'll be back to square one again, but at least we'll have given him the time to show that he isn't frightened of accepting that it isn't working and having the balls to do something about it. I like managers who can admit they're wrong from time to time.
My only worry is that the Board will f*** up again.
So having had 5 managers (I think) since Allardyce left, why is it that we're so eager to change, welcome each incumbent as the next Messiah, and then condemn them so quickly as soon as we have a bad run?
I understand that some fans are in total denial about the financial situation we are currently in as evidenced by some of the players that are suggested we buy and that's understandable after some of the daft purchases that were made in recent times in a final bid to keep us at the top table, but even those fans are finally recognising that we can no longer throw money at the problem.
Looking at the latest "Freedman out" thread, Sluffy nicely summarises Freedman's problem, but I think it runs a lot deeper than laying the blame at the door of OC (and IMO Megson before him)
I think it comes down to this:
After years of spending big on salaries under Allardyce we were stuck with a decision - go for broke and try to turn those 6th and 8th places in the prem into regular European contenders (which would have brought in decent income from TV etc. to offset the high wage bills) or try to get there on a budget to keep the rising debt under control. The Board opted for the latter and Allardyce walked.
But to be a contender on a budget required changes in the way we play and recruit.
SL didn't get any time worth mentioning to see what he could do to bring about the necessary change, but was regarded as a failure as our league position was poor and the fans, used to success were fairly vocal about it and the Board showed a lack of patience.
In came Megson who introduced a "don't lose" mentality which helped our league position, but in the process he had a final fling of profligate spending to try to redress the balance. Incredibly, the Board let him spend (money that many feel should have been given to Fat Sam). The debt rocketed, but we didn't really progress, although in fairness Megson made a few astute purchases like Cahill.
By the time OC came in, the job had changed again. The Board, having recognised that debt was now getting serious clearly moved the goalposts regarding net spending.
We saw the first round of clearing out players on high salaries and the first serious attempts to buy youngsters to develop. More spending followed but it was relatively balanced compared to Megson.
Throughout all this, the Board seemed to operate reactively rather than sticking to a plan. They reacted to fans opinions and reacted to results - even though we were and are going through a period of change during which bad results could only be expected.
Dream team? Not backed, so we'll never know.
Freedman was brought in probably because of his track record of bringing through young players and finding raw talent on a budget - which is exactly what needs to happen.
There have been problems with Megson, Coyle and Freedman. They've all made some bad decisions in the transfer market. It happens to the best of managers but the key difference is we can't afford mistakes - with our budget, we have to get it right.
All three have had more than their fair share of bad luck too, especially in terms of injuries to key players.
Add to that a dwindling fan base with high expectations and it's easy to see why we have problems.
But for me it comes back to the Board and the lack of consistent leadership and determination to stand behind their decisions. In short, they lack bollocks.
If the Board had decided that our priority when Allardyce wanted more money was to control our debt, then they should have planned for a new approach, appointed someone to deliver it and stuck with them through thick and thin - regardless of short-term results and regardless of the fans reaction to those results. By now, we would have a new financially sustainable structure and stability.
After all, the change from buying proven players with something to prove and with very high salary demands (Campo, Okocha, Stelios, Youri etc.) to sourcing relatively low cost talent and developing it is enormous in terms of creating the right infrastructure and takes years to get right.
But the Board chopped and changed, reacting to everything and we became a rudderless ship characterised by what appeared to be impulse purchases and multiple changes in policy depending on what they felt was needed at the time.
The baby was thrown out with the bathwater and what we're left with is little or no progress, a poor and demotivated squad and a manager under constant pressure to deliver now - not in the future as any restructuring plan would demand.
Freedman - and anyone else brought in - is on a hiding to nothing.
He's young and has obvious flaws, but that maybe an advantage if we stick with him. His media language has changed noticeably this season if you look at it carefully. Yes - he's still coming out with the trite comments you'd expect in a media interview and yes - he seems to have done a U-turn as regards loanees, but:
- he has finally publically stated that our financial position dictates that we will be dependent on developing young players and finding raw talent - something that should have been said years ago
he has finally admitted that he has a lot to learn (and is committed to doing so)
he has pointed out that some of our senior players are not performing - which we know to be true
he has made it clear that BWFC will no longer pay over the odds in the transfer market
Dougie comes across as a stubborn little f***** but if we finally put an end to the knee-jerk management that the Board have been dishing out in recent years and stick to the plan and support the manager through this difficult period, maybe Dougie will be the one to bring back the good times. I think that if he stays, he'll loosen up his ideas and be able to get the most out of this squad - he'll have to.
He has a lot to prove, but he is young enough to change and develop and given that no manager in their right mind would come to BWFC unless the Board are stupid enough to hand out yet another big payment in a bid to show that we are still big time charlie's (which we're not) we may be better off sticking with a manager who sees the transformation of BWFC as a personal challenge.
If I were the Board, I'd give him a couple of months during which time I'd expect to see changes to the system, more appropriate and frequent use of younger players and an improvement in both performances and league position - basically enough time to show that he is capable of change and to implement it.
And if he doesn't make it we'll be back to square one again, but at least we'll have given him the time to show that he isn't frightened of accepting that it isn't working and having the balls to do something about it. I like managers who can admit they're wrong from time to time.
My only worry is that the Board will f*** up again.
