Are you? Didn't read that way to me.Vodka_Vic wrote:Gramps, I'm agreeing with you on this point and adding to it. Why are you saying I'm arguing it?Darlogramps wrote:Plenty of people. You always get out of work managers etc applying, regardless of the circumstance. Whether these are the right candidates is a different matterVodka_Vic wrote:A couple of points to build on previous posts.
1. Gramps says that People now have a ready made excuse as to why TW should stay. I'll also add that it certainly won't help our profile if we were to look for a replacement. Who would want to come here as manager at the moment?
but the idea no one at all would want the job is incorrect.
TW's performance needs to be judged on how we perform on the pitch. I still expect to see effective tactical plans, coherent strategy, sensible formations which fit our squad, and motivated players. The departures of people who are largely fringe players (with the exception of Styche - O'Hanlon is technically still with us), doesn't change that.
So if we judge that Wright isn't achieving this, complaining about departures isn't an excuse. I still expect to see commitment, effort and some level of tactical coherence.
Nor should he be kept by default, which is in essence what you're arguing ("no one wants it, so you have to keep Wright" is a bad argument). We judge Wright on his merits for the job and whether he can take us forward.
From point 1, you say the budget cuts won't help us if we were to look for a new manager and question whether anyone would want to come here. I disagree on that point.
The implication I took from that was you were saying it's harder to get rid of Wright because we're a less attractive proposition to other managers.
If that's not the case then fair enough, but that is how it came across to me. However it is an argument others are using.