THE Ardley In/Out Thread [Multiple threads merged]

[TheBlackHorse]

... if you think that we have more capable owners than before, it makes sense to back their judgement. That judgement appears to be stick with NA. If that is the case they are relying on NA's 'slower burn' approach. If that is the case, the anti-NA mob may as well say get rid of the owners because they don't agree with the owners judgement. Of course no one can address that situation unless (a) the owners want to sell, (b) someone has enough money and resolve to pick up the tab. To summarise, since that appears to be a current vogue expression by some, the anti-NA mob might wish to put their creative talents into something else... their is a shorter version of that, but I might offend delicate ears ...

[Elite_Pie]

... if you think that we have more capable owners than before, it makes sense to back their judgement. That judgement appears to be stick with NA. If that is the case they are relying on NA's 'slower burn' approach. If that is the case, the anti-NA mob may as well say get rid of the owners because they don't agree with the owners judgement. Of course no one can address that situation unless (a) the owners want to sell, (b) someone has enough money and resolve to pick up the tab. To summarise, since that appears to be a current vogue expression by some, the anti-NA mob might wish to put their creative talents into something else... their is a shorter version of that, but I might offend delicate ears ...

I couldn't help but notice that you seemed a bit more critical than usual on the match thread yesterday Horsey.

Was it the performance of the players that caused your displeasure, or was it the manager's tactics?

[upthemaggies]

... if you think that we have more capable owners than before, it makes sense to back their judgement. That judgement appears to be stick with NA. If that is the case they are relying on NA's 'slower burn' approach. If that is the case, the anti-NA mob may as well say get rid of the owners because they don't agree with the owners judgement. Of course no one can address that situation unless (a) the owners want to sell, (b) someone has enough money and resolve to pick up the tab. To summarise, since that appears to be a current vogue expression by some, the anti-NA mob might wish to put their creative talents into something else... their is a shorter version of that, but I might offend delicate ears ...

The owners have said and revealed very little of their thought process, so most of what's being said about them is an assumption.

Granted it does look as though they want to stick with Ardley through thick and thin at the moment but we can't be certain of that.

I do find it a little disturbing that they are being placed on the same pedestal as Trew and Hardy by some and venerated as "saviours", which carries the obvious risk that they end up believing that to be the case themselves and acting accordingly.

They've done more than enough to justify the trust of the fan-base to get on with it, but that would entail not applying pressure to stick with a manager no matter what just as much as not pressuring them to make a change.

[BigFatPie]

... if you think that we have more capable owners than before, it makes sense to back their judgement. That judgement appears to be stick with NA. If that is the case they are relying on NA's 'slower burn' approach. If that is the case, the anti-NA mob may as well say get rid of the owners because they don't agree with the owners judgement. Of course no one can address that situation unless (a) the owners want to sell, (b) someone has enough money and resolve to pick up the tab. To summarise, since that appears to be a current vogue expression by some, the anti-NA mob might wish to put their creative talents into something else... their is a shorter version of that, but I might offend delicate ears ...

Stick to politics Hoss, you talk more sense about that.

[navypie]

... if you think that we have more capable owners than before, it makes sense to back their judgement. That judgement appears to be stick with NA. If that is the case they are relying on NA's 'slower burn' approach. If that is the case, the anti-NA mob may as well say get rid of the owners because they don't agree with the owners judgement. Of course no one can address that situation unless (a) the owners want to sell, (b) someone has enough money and resolve to pick up the tab. To summarise, since that appears to be a current vogue expression by some, the anti-NA mob might wish to put their creative talents into something else... their is a shorter version of that, but I might offend delicate ears ...

Stick to politics Hoss, you talk more sense about that.

The same can't be said.

[laddo]

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.

Your Fullarton specific hypothetical question showed you clearly needed full chapter and verse and not just a summary.

If you appoint someone in the first place doesn't that mean the owner/board think they have the ability to take us forward? If the answer to that is yes, then the real question is how long do you need to give them to find out if you were right or wrong when appointing?

As a club we haven't given anywhere near enough managers enough time to find out. We've also appointed a lot of trash. It's a recipe for no progression and ultimately relegation.

I'm not talking about the current manager by the time he is successful or leaves by mutual consent he will have had long enough. I'm talking about the last 20 years, it's a horror show of both appointments and sackings. I hope we don't go back to that approach anytime soon.

[upthemaggies]

If you appoint someone in the first place doesn't that mean the owner/board think they have the ability to take us forward? If the answer to that is yes, then the real question is how long do you need to give them to find out if you were right or wrong when appointing?

Depends on the competence of the person appointing the manager. In AT's case, any length of time is too long.

[Elite_Pie]

Your Fullarton specific hypothetical question showed you clearly needed full chapter and verse and not just a summary.

The question was Fullarton specific, so give a Fullarton specific answer.

Do you think he deserved time to build his own squad, and once again, if not why not?

[laddo]

That's been answered earlier this evening.

No for the reasons given above. A person that clearly shouldn't have been given the job in the first place doesn't deserve the time. I don't blame him one bit he was hung out to dry and put into almost impossible untenable position.

Now your turn. Think about all the Notts managers since Big Sam, bar Fullarton. Ignore Fullarton for this question/answer, how many would you say deserved more time than they got to build their own squad? How many didn't get long enough to show what they were made of?

[Elite_Pie]

Now your turn. Think about all the Notts managers since Big Sam, bar Fullarton. Ignore Fullarton for this question/answer, how many would you say deserved more time than they got to build their own squad? How many didn't get long enough to show what they were made of?

I've told you before that I don't do the knee-jerk 'sack the manager' thing after a bad run, I only do it when I think they are not capable of taking us forwards. Since Big Sam the only managers I've wanted sacked before they actually got the boot were Dearden (good for most of his time but had lost the plot at the end), McParland (useless) and Ardley. That means I would have given all the others longer - some of them admittedly only a bit longer because I wasn't disappointed when they were fired, but some I think definitely deserved more time to show their worth.