I agree with the OG summary and Charles here. And also disagree a bit too!!

I had, and still have, no real problem with the Grant appointment.
I liked the idea behind it, it showed a bit of forward thinking for me in that they tried to give a promosing coach a go, instead of going to the usual (failed AT LEAST twice elsewhere) suspects.
It failed.
Grant is back in work though, which shows exactly what his reputation in the game is, which is something us fans can never really know.

Maybe the timing was wrong, was it a good time to try that route?
I dunno, can it ever be a bad time? If you take a 'safe' option that you know is never going to be brilliant, then at some point, by default, that means you know you'll have to sack them to suceed. Whats the point in that?
By trying to be the club that gave a great new manager his first job we were trying the right thing.
The only way this club will get a GREAT manager, is if we find him first.
That COULD have been Grant.
It wasn't.
How do you inteview and select a football manager? How did Spuds interview Ramos? Chelsea interview Scolari? etc etc.

Posted By: megson, Mar 24, 16:13:10