Posts below suggesting appointing CH was a mistake.

I don't understand the logic.

It can be correct to appoint a manager and also correct to sack them.

Was it a mistake to appoint Holloway at CP when they were a midtable champs club?

Was it right to let him go in the PL when he was a bit out of his depth?

In my opinion we made the correct appointment at the time, given the information we had.
He stabilized the club and kept us up when we needed stability to pay off our debts.

He DID exactly what he was employed to do, against the odds.

Obviously the next level is when we are debt free and now move on to a much higher class of player.

IMHO he has failed at this level, we need a new person/regime to take us forward or least something different is needed even if the result (staying up ) is the same.

Posted By: usacanary, Feb 1, 20:13:33