Oh, indeed. They've shown real practical common sense here, absent in the previous choice

One other thing: in the case of many of the board (in whichever guise)'s previous appointments, but two in particular, it's not even been a question of "well, that makes sense I suppose - I doubt it'll work, but he's got a track record etc etc". It's just been completely bonkers in loads of cases: Hamilton, Grant, Roeder (though he was an impact manager I guess, which is what we needed at the time), Gunn and Adams.

Their only failure which I'd never question them on at all was appointing Hughton: because he had a good record, and *should* have 'fit' us. Based on all of that, I just grew more and more exasperated. It was like football as coitus interruptus. Now, I have a completely different feeling. :)

Posted By: thebigfeller, Jan 12, 10:52:13