We have Hyam, Bayliss, Chaplin and Hiwula all contracted starters. Players like McCallum are coming through and others in the U23s are apparently close to making the step up. Bayliss could leave, but we’ll get a healthy fee if he does. As could Burge and Willis, but think Willis will end up staying.
You are such a numpty. There is no embarrassment. I have explained, but of course you chose to ignore it, so for the last time, I will spell it out so even you can understand. 1. At the time during the game I saw a deflection. 2. I didn't see any replays. 3. I then heard Chaplin claimed it, so assumed the deflection came off him. 4. Some on here then said there was no deflection. It was only much later that someone said no deflection off Chaplin. I honestly believed people were saying there was no deflection at all. What is embarrassing about a misunderstanding? Cos that's all it was.
It was news to just Otis and Chaplin. Also whoever it was at the club who asked for it to be looked at.
Yup. If someone had said at the start it WAS deflected, but not off Chaplin the debate wouldn't have perpetuated, but the argument came back when I said there was a deflection that there was no deflection at all, which I thought was nuts. Mind.... now it's been given, I think we all have to assume Chaplin DID touch it don't we?
Actally went to the dubious goals panel since who awarded it to Thomas last week (look in the telegraph for link). I did also say it was deflected from a defender.
I think everybody knew it hit a defender so assumed it that was known. The way Chaplin then started going on about it was weird. In his interview as well.
Yes you did, Rob and I clocked that. But that was weeks after the initial discussion. From my memory you were the first to say 'yes it was deflected, but off a defender not Chaplin.'
It's not embarrassing in the slightest. Just a misunderstanding. I should have watched the highlights.
So..............does anyone on here think that we should sack MR? It's a big NO from me, for what that's worth.
Going out on a limb here but I'd only pick Slade out of that lot, and he was a special case as was only there to the end of the season and allegedly wasn't even being paid. The rest I would have let continue for a full 5 year term, to give them a fair chance of instituting long term progress. The odd relegation here or there isn't justification for sacking a manager - i strongly feel that what we need is a long term (5 years not 15 months manager) and that results in the short term should be disregarded in order to create the conditions where long term decision making can be made. Yes, this is a licence to fail/struggle but since we have used the opposite "lose some games,sack the manager" tactic since dinosaurs roamed the earth i think it's time to try a different approach. Clearly giving each manager 15 months on average has not helped us progress as a club.
It’s a bit frustrating to see some reduce it to ‘he lost a few games so people wanted him out’. For each of those managers there wasn’t any light at the end of the tunnel. Take Coleman for example, wasting 2 generous budgets on the spin to finish 18th and run flat out of ideas. Or Adams, who again spent big and had us near the relegation zone with the players demotivated. Of those I think only Dowie could count himself hard done by after being let go after the change in ownership. When you really look at where we were, how we were playing and the manager’s willingness/ability to turn things around, we weren’t being trigger happy to let these guys go. Robins is another in a long list of managers who can’t or won’t change his approach unless it is forced on him.
