Gibson reluctance to appoint managers in work at other clubs

I think this bizarre self inflicted policy drastically limit and hampers us a club s it restricts our options to green novices sacked failures or dinosaur has beens.
It does but its his 'do unto others' principle and he holds that above his desire to please the fans, rightly or wrongly. Of all the things to knock him for, this isn't one imho.

No question he's ****ed up with the Woodgate appointment.
 
It does but its his 'do unto others' principle and he holds that above his desire to please the fans, rightly or wrongly. Of all the things to knock him for, this isn't one imho.

No question he's ****ed up with the Woodgate appointment.
But it’s madness and naive though as no other top flight club does this and it drastically reduces our options.

so far from saying it's a small petty point I’d argue that’s it is fundamental to what is going wrong at the club. Surely we want the next available people not just those who no one else wants or needs.

this policy also makes sacking woodgate pointless as we know his replacement he’s similar candidate.
 
it was a Q based on Zorros criteria - I just wondered If he had his eye on a manager for Boro who is already with a club ?

I do think Woody should stay , talks of dismissals and sackings is not my way of how good football clubs operate and this is a good football club
The brothers from Lincoln were mentioned now at Huddersfield now they may not have worked out but who knows but why can Huddersfield sign them from Lincoln but we can not.
It makes no sense.
It’s this bizarre parochial logic that I think I’d a fundamental flaw at the club.
 
I think this kind of sums up Gibson’s attitude to everything in life - he’s right and everyone else is wrong, no matter how many times he repeats the same mistakes over and over again



🐔
 
Should always be the best man for the job and do everything to get them. If anyone powers up PowerPoint - walk away!!
 
But AT using your argument why are we happy to sign players from other clubs but not managers I just don’t see the the logic behind this at all. If Hartlepool can then surely we can.
 
But AT using your argument why are we happy to sign players from other clubs but not managers I just don’t see the the logic behind this at all. If Hartlepool can then surely we can.
He obviously just applies a different principled approach to managers and players. I'm not saying he's 'right' to do so, but I'm sure he has his reasons.

All I'm saying is that he gets criticised for a lot of stuff these days, but do we have to criticise him for EVERYthing?
 
Woodgate is a walking disaster for our club.
Keane seems to have done absolutely nothing, Leo well was that a good appointment, I'm not so sure to be honest.
 
Come on, Monk was obviously poached from Leeds, despite his “resignation”. I wish to God he had stayed there.
He was out of contract though. Gibson doesn't seem in the business of paying compo to clubs for their managers. TBF in Robson, McClaren and Karanka he has 3 good examples of giving rookies jobs and it working out, and its his 'go to' approach. Now, with Southgate and Woodgate, he has almost balanced things out with poor examples. Who knows, maybe he'll change his mind on it.
 
I think Lennie & before him, John Neal, were the last managers we took from other clubs & both, IMHO, were good for the football club, John Neal one of my favourites
 
The major flaw with the chairman's philosophy that there are more managers in work than there are out of work and the ones that are out of work are in that position for a reason.
 
So using this “principled” vision we will never appoint an Eddie Howe a Graham potter, a Dean Smith a young hungry aspiring coach that has cut his teeth in the lower league but I’d crying out for a bigger club.
How can this be seen as a positive.
 
Back
Top