I think that's very naive

It'd be up to the board to have the footballing knowledge of the guy leading to his being appointed (as Burnley's board did in Coyle's case for example). It'd then have been up to them to make plain his excellent record, and for Hodgson to have shown his ability to put a team together.

If people had been against it from the outset, they'd have been thick yokels who aren't worth bothering with. Those of us either opposed to or harbouring grave doubts over Grant, Roeder and Gunn's appointments did so because of their records - or lack thereof. Hodgson was on another planet to any of those men.

Posted By: thebigfeller, May 26, 12:52:28