Hmm... Agree with pants and Yorkie to an extent, actually...
You know what fans are like: Grant will take the flak if things keep sliding, and most of our supporters still take the attitude that Delia and Michael are essentially good, well-meaning people who are doing their best.
So I agree in part: thing is though, as MdoY said, they didn't sack Hamilton, which was one of the most alarming aspects of the whole saga. I sat in front of my PC the Monday after that shambolic defeat at Pompey fully expecting to hear that he'd gone: every manager has a tipping point, and that was his (memo to Smith and Jones: Worthington's was at QPR last season, you morons!) But he only went because most of the players told him they had no confidence in him: hardly surprising, given his disgusting treatment of a number of our better ones (notably telling a few, even those that were injured, that they were drinking at the last chance saloon). If he hadn't quit, we can't be at all sure the board wouldn't have continued to back him, while blaming those nasty local journos for all that was going wrong.
So they failed to act in Hamilton's case; but also treated Rioch disgracefully. His was as clear a case of constructive dismissal as you'll see: no backing from the board whatsoever, Eadie sold against his wishes, and Delia and Michael spent the next few months cosying up to the Blarneymeister (who was plainly doing his utmost to stab Rioch in the back too).
I spoke to a very well-known club employee months afterwards who was disgusted by the way Rioch had been treated: indeed, the only conclusion to be drawn is the board keep getting it wrong. Walker sacked too early (and with shocking lack of dignity or gratitude for the way he bailed us out by returning against his better judgement), Rioch forced out in favour of the worst manager in our history, Hamilton backed against all evidence to the contrary, and Worthington the same. Basically, whatever's the obvious option to most people who understand anything at the game, you can count on them to do the opposite: doesn't bode well really, does it?
Posted By: thebigfeller on February 1st 2007 at 10:43:33
Message Thread
- Yesterday proved for me that the situation at this club is a board fault only (NCFC) - pants, Feb 1, 09:54:57
- Hmm... Agree with pants and Yorkie to an extent, actually... (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Feb 1, 10:43:33
- What are you talking about? (NCFC) - Charles21, Feb 1, 10:30:08
- Didn't sack Hammy though did they? He walked (n/m) (NCFC) - Mcduke of York, Feb 1, 09:59:58
- They didn't sack Rioch though did they? He walked (NCFC) - Norman Norks, Feb 1, 10:11:02
- Fair enough then, it's all grants fault (n/m) (NCFC) - pants, Feb 1, 10:12:30
- Personally I blame (NCFC) - Norman Norks, Feb 1, 10:22:01
- Bosh... (NCFC) - Brom, Feb 1, 10:29:05
- Unlike Thorne in the Prem. (n/m) (NCFC) - Johnny Comecardiff, Feb 1, 10:32:54
- I make that 2-0 (n/m) (NCFC) - Brom, Feb 1, 10:40:57
- Unlike Thorne in the Prem. (n/m) (NCFC) - Johnny Comecardiff, Feb 1, 10:32:54
- Ha ha....... (NCFC) - Johnny Comecardiff, Feb 1, 10:26:47
- Bosh... (NCFC) - Brom, Feb 1, 10:29:05
- Personally I blame (NCFC) - Norman Norks, Feb 1, 10:22:01
- Fair enough then, it's all grants fault (n/m) (NCFC) - pants, Feb 1, 10:12:30
- respectable way of being sacked (n/m) (NCFC) - pants, Feb 1, 10:04:54
- Vote of no confidence from the players (n/m) (NCFC) - Mcduke of York, Feb 1, 10:05:50
- this isn't a post about hamilton (n/m) (NCFC) - pants, Feb 1, 10:07:38
- why mention him? (n/m) (NCFC) - Wee Jock McBrandonio, Feb 1, 10:10:43
- Lol 'Wee Jock McBrandonio' (n/m) (NCFC) - Brom, Feb 1, 10:17:42
- why mention him? (n/m) (NCFC) - Wee Jock McBrandonio, Feb 1, 10:10:43
- this isn't a post about hamilton (n/m) (NCFC) - pants, Feb 1, 10:07:38
- Vote of no confidence from the players (n/m) (NCFC) - Mcduke of York, Feb 1, 10:05:50
- They didn't sack Rioch though did they? He walked (NCFC) - Norman Norks, Feb 1, 10:11:02
- sort of agree (NCFC) - Bacon, Feb 1, 09:59:56
- seems to me.. (NCFC) - mr carra, Feb 1, 10:05:22
- think it's the mix of players and a whole load of legacy issues (NCFC) - Tomblander, Feb 1, 10:05:14
- FAO: pants, Up there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (NCFC) - Tomblander, Feb 1, 10:15:21
- Maybe they dont understand him? (NCFC) - conker, Feb 1, 10:01:09
- I can't stand the thought of our new yellow and green (NCFC) - Bacon, Feb 1, 10:03:53
- its the future (NCFC) - conker, Feb 1, 10:07:48
- I can't stand the thought of our new yellow and green (NCFC) - Bacon, Feb 1, 10:03:53
- cracking post (n/m) (NCFC) - Tomblander, Feb 1, 09:55:47
- thanks (n/m) (NCFC) - pants, Feb 1, 09:58:08
- Don't fucking start you pair of cunts. (NCFC) - Aberdeen Bay, Feb 1, 09:59:33
- *pops head over fence* (NCFC) - Tomblander, Feb 1, 09:58:53
- "Hellllloooooo, paging pants" (n/m) (NCFC) - Tomblander, Feb 1, 10:06:11
- a bit (NCFC) - pants, Feb 1, 10:10:07
- ah, good post then. (NCFC) - Tomblander, Feb 1, 10:11:14
- a bit (NCFC) - pants, Feb 1, 10:10:07
- "Hellllloooooo, paging pants" (n/m) (NCFC) - Tomblander, Feb 1, 10:06:11
- thanks (n/m) (NCFC) - pants, Feb 1, 09:58:08
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.