THE Ardley In/Out Thread [Multiple threads merged]

[irishpete]

Do we know who applied Kev? I honestly can't remember whose name was even mentioned, we had so many that season.

Gump, Hardy insulted the shortlist when Kewell was appointed, so if a Chairman is going to do that, the football world is not going to have too much respect for you. One clown has gone, hopefully the other will follow suit. think i will watch paint dry Saturday, more entertaining.
Ken & Deidre will disagree though

[upthemaggies]

It would be interesting to get the the Out Brigades opinion on Mikes words regarding how long it takes to build a team and his words regarding former Manager's & Coaches of Notts in during his time at the club and the Revolving Door System we have used since the turn of the Century, .

Not sacking managers on a regular basis is an ideal, but it's like asking people if they want world peace.

If it is the obvious solution, why aren't all clubs sticking with their manager?

Well, what if all clubs did do that, what if all clubs agreed to stop the merry-go-round for 5 years and nobody was allowed to sack or poach a manager. What would it prove? All it would prove is that sticking with a manager works for some and not for others, it depends who the manager actually is.

Which managers of the last 20 years should we have stuck with? Any of them or are we being selective?
If we're being selective, then we've got one group we would have stuck with and one group we wouldn't.
Which group are we more likely to place managers who were at least partially responsible for relegations into?

Is it being assumed that the Reetz bros would appoint a weaker manager than one appointed by Alan Hardy? If we're not assuming that, why would we assume that the owners - who stuck with a manager they didn't appoint (and who got us relegated) for over a year - would not give their own man time?

[laddo]

No mate & we probably never will but the quality of our appointments & our reputation for sacking them a few games later suggests that the quality was gradually getting worse & given the mess that he was walking into I doubt very much if Ardley was fighting off competition.

"Reputation" being the key word there. We must have been considered a complete joke in football circles that season.

[Elite_Pie]

Not sacking managers on a regular basis is an ideal, but it's like asking people if they want world peace. If it is the obvious solution, why aren't all clubs sticking with their manager?

Which managers of the last 20 years should we have stuck with? Any of them or we being selective?

I've said similar before. To all those who preach the "we need to stick with a manager and allow him to build his own team" doctrine, do you think we should have stuck with Jamie Fullarton and allowed him to build his own team?

If not, why not?

[upthemaggies]

I've said similar before. To all those who preach the "we need to stick with a manager and allow him to build his own team" doctrine, do you think we should have stuck with Jamie Fullarton and allowed him to build his own team?

If not, why not?

Steel-manning "stick with Ardely", with the best logical argument I can think of, would be the premise that we don't want to have to start all over again, sacking him will set us back a season. But this assumes two things, 1. that we WILL get promoted under Ardley and 2. he WILL be good enough to handle the job of managing Notts County in League Two. Otherwise, we're going to be set back anyway and will have to start all over again in a position in which we're either more demoralized (having not gone up) or we'll be struggling to stay up and the next manager's first job will be to fight fires rather than build.

[countygump]

I've said similar before. To all those who preach the "we need to stick with a manager and allow him to build his own team" doctrine, do you think we should have stuck with Jamie Fullarton and allowed him to build his own team?

If not, why not?

30 managers in 30 years and only a dozen or so have left us in a better position than they found us in, when sacked.

How many actually deserved more time? Bearing in mind you have to leave out those who resigned or chose not to sign a new contact.

Conclusion: we hire too many chit managers.


PS Was Charlie McParly only in charge for 2 years? Seemed a Hell of a lot longer.


https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport...ers-30-2233611

[laddo]

This has been answered on more than one occasion previously but happy to explain again.

The answer is not and below is why not.

The desire to "stick with a manager " aka give a manager time doesn't apply to all appointments. For example a completely underwhelming internal appointment like Kiwomya , doesn't apply. A complete left field, unheard and frankly insult to the fans appointment like Fullarton doesn't apply. Put these in the category of "Never should have been appointed in the first place".

Think of it more as a general overall philosophy rather than a strict rule for every appointment.


Now look at some of the other more
expected managerial appointments over the past two decades. Opinions will naturally vary on who but many of those managers weren't given long enough for the supporters or chairman to actually know whether they were good average or bad appointments in the first place. As soon as we hit a bump in the road, went through a bad patch or the chairman read too much on the internet and they were sacked and replaced. Obviously with the club's thanks for the work they had done and best wishes for the future etc etc.

They weren't given a full season or more , they weren't given transfer windows to build their own squad.

Instead we have had two dozen managers all adopting someone else's squad, trying to change the players approach to games etc. All whilst we sacked managerial teams and replaced with new managerial teams who wanted their own players, this is really costly. Then there is the reputational damage to the club as a hire em fire em club, likely resulting in a declining quality of applicants. It's a vicious cycle which in Notts case hasn't worked. The evidence is overwhelming sadly. We've tried that it's failed countless times, how many times have we tried the alternative? Rarely.


In summary we don't have to stick with every manager , giving every manager two full seasons, but every now and then would be nice.

[upthemaggies]

In summary we don't have to stick with every manager , giving every manager two full seasons, but every now and then would be nice.

We could theoretically appoint a new manager this week and do just that. Who's to say the next manager won't last even longer?

If anybody is seriously investing all their faith in Ardley, above that of the owners - and they are prepared to say so, then fair enough. If anybody thinks Neal Ardley is more important to this club's future success than the owners, in light of all that's happened, then I admire their conviction.

If the owners are more important than Ardley, then ask yourselves this.

What if the owners have had doubts about him?
What if they have doubts about him in the future?
What if, in private, they are not happy with what they have seen this week?
Have they never considered bringing in their own man? Would that not be unusual for new owners if they hadn't?
Would they or are they at least feeling some pressure from the fan base not to change manager because the majority of fans are fed up with the merry-go-round. Are they afraid of a back-lash?

[MAD_MAGPIE]

I had reservations when Ardley was appointed, and I still do, but I also see positives in his management style as well. I reckon it's fair to say he's a slow-burner in terms of impact, rather than a revolutionary like Warnock, Allardyce and Allen were.

I think the owners have certainly been right to put a stopper in the revolving door in the manager's office and give patience and time to the manager they inherited, and I would imagine they were reasonably satisfied overall with last season, given the circumstances in which it started, but obviously disappointed to get so close to promotion and miss out in the play-off final.

Ardley's aim this season must be to succeed where we fell just short last time, ideally by winning the league, but certainly by finishing in the top 3 again and hopefully going one better than last year. I would think that by mid-season, the owners would want us to be top of the league or within spitting distance of it. If we're any lower than that, say outside the play-off positions, then their patience might start to be tested.

I think that Neal Ardley will see out his contract and the owners will review at the end of the season.

Some on here have said do we give him this season? We already appear to have done the way I see it because we have allowed him to strengthen the squad and also have appointed an assistant manager.

I can’t see these owners being like Hardy or Trew letting managers bring players in then sacking them when the waters get stormy and the cost and upheaval associated with it.

Also because of this Covid 19 and whatever further disruption comes along during the season, and with the hits to all football clubs finances sacking a manager causes more disruption.

Who’s to say it would work anyway? Sacking Nolan didn’t save us. When Curle was sacked the players were not happy and it didn’t help us. The problem Notts have had in the past is sacking managers at will but then never seemingly having a better one that replaces them. Alas the slide down the leagues continued.

For me I just think it would have to be something along the lines of a collapse like the Nolan 18/19 season after the playoff season that would make the owners part company with Neal Ardley this season.

One thing is certain at some point Neal Ardley will leave the club like every other manager . Whenever that is the most important thing is who we replace him with..

[Elite_Pie]

This has been answered on more than one occasion previously but happy to explain again.

The answer is not and below is why not.

The desire to "stick with a manager " aka give a manager time doesn't apply to all appointments. For example a completely underwhelming internal appointment like Kiwomya , doesn't apply. A complete left field, unheard and frankly insult to the fans appointment like Fullarton doesn't apply. Put these in the category of "Never should have been appointed in the first place".

Think of it more as a general overall philosophy rather than a strict rule for every appointment.


Now look at some of the other more
expected managerial appointments over the past two decades. Opinions will naturally vary on who but many of those managers weren't given long enough for the supporters or chairman to actually know whether they were good average or bad appointments in the first place. As soon as we hit a bump in the road, went through a bad patch or the chairman read too much on the internet and they were sacked and replaced. Obviously with the club's thanks for the work they had done and best wishes for the future etc etc.

They weren't given a full season or more , they weren't given transfer windows to build their own squad.

Instead we have had two dozen managers all adopting someone else's squad, trying to change the players approach to games etc. All whilst we sacked managerial teams and replaced with new managerial teams who wanted their own players, this is really costly. Then there is the reputational damage to the club as a hire em fire em club, likely resulting in a declining quality of applicants. It's a vicious cycle which in Notts case hasn't worked. The evidence is overwhelming sadly. We've tried that it's failed countless times, how many times have we tried the alternative? Rarely.


In summary we don't have to stick with every manager , giving every manager two full seasons, but every now and then would be nice.

My summary of that would be a bit shorter - if you think the manager in the job has the ability to take us forward, stick with him. If you don't think he's capable of taking us forward, get rid.

I think we agree on the philosophy, just not the current bloke in charge.