What changed between Swindon dressing room and the meeting with the Board?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


Revolution said:
Irrational? Charming :) It was hope rather than expectation on my part, certainly.

Incidentally, I heard Clough had been sacked when I was in the airport in Bangkok. I heard Weir had been fired when I was in a taxi in Hong Kong. If I'm on the move in Asia, United managers want to watch out.
Click to expand...
I was at Woolley edge services car park letting the dog take a shit. Quite disappointed really as I found out the last 3 managers were sacked in the same place in the US.
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
It's a very good question. Particularly as the fans' view seemed to have settled 65/35 on keeping him - at least till Christmas.

Any falling out would have had to have been pretty spectacular: no cooling off period, no time to reflect for either side.

There's also the removal of all of Clough's staff. Is it naive to think that given any sort of ultimatum on playing style, recruitment etc he wouldn't at least have gone to his staff and asked for their opinions.

My money is on a decision by the board, or by the Prince possibly based on targets not being met and no confidence on them being met next season either.

But that's based on not much and doesn't really fit the evidence that well.

The most relevant pieces of the jigsaw afaics are: the fans' views, Phipps's apparent support after the Swindon game, the video, and the meeting.

From these it's difficult to put together a coherent picture.

What also might be relevant is whether potential replacements were approached before the announcement.

Was there definitely a meeting before the announcement and if so who was present?

There are all sorts of plausible and implausible (the Board read my posts, realised I was right and confronted Clough, he arrogantly refused to do what I said and got sacked, serves him right) scenarios but without clear evidence or a statement from the relevant parties or BOS bumping into someone at Meadowhell I can't see that we'll know for sure - and even then.

UTB
Click to expand...
If you look back at JPs comments over the last month it is clear that Clough was on very thin ice.

Going into the dressing room and talking positively to the players after scoring 5 goals away and coming back from the dead does not necessarily say anything about the manager.

The PR side of the club should not know the board are about to sack the manager, if they did it would be completely unprofessional. As others have said the retained list etc are simply processes to go through, not indicating long term support for the manager.

The is in my opinion no change between that night in Swindon and the sacking, it just takes time for the co-owners etc to finalise things, and it is very likely they were taking steps to review replacements during this period.
 
Woodwardfan said:
Apparently Jim Phipps went to the dressing room after the Swindon away leg and according to Clough gave the dressing room a boost by thanking everyone for a valiant effort and looking forward to next season.

One day we will learn what happened after that. But in the absence of any facts whatsoever heres what I once more wish to shove down your gizzards.

My guess is that the Board introduced some conditions for the coming season:

1. Change the Head Scout.

2. Take Garner away from the touchline and find a new Assistant Manager, maybe Morgan, but certainly an "encourager" with a positive manner.

Of course Clough said no. Did he resign or was he sacked? He's probably not daft enough to resign.

Pure conjecture but maybe something happened. We'll find out one day perhaps.
Click to expand...

There, my input is in red but the important bit that saves everyone else time is in blue and bold. Don't worry its a public service I undertake from time to time to save good people reading stuff they don't need to.

You said you had moved on, have you? Really? Time to laud the new king soon and hopefully he will bring in a team of back room boys to your liking.
 
Prior to the play-offs JP said now is not the time for inquests - its time to support the team even though automatic promotion was the target. But after the play-offs the Board would review front office and the footballing side to see what changes were necessary. The first Board meeting after the play-offs (JP went on holiday straight after them) was last Friday I believe. Woody's death may possibly have delayed the public announcement by a day or so. In the meantime the club had to continue to function - season ticket promotion, retained list etc and Clough was doing the "business as usual" stuff like the rest of the club, though it was interesting that someone tweeted that Clough wanted to sign the crocked CH from Derby but would have to wait till June to make the offer (presumably after the Board meeting when the transfer funds were released to him), plus a few other comments here and there of a similar nature. So I don't think I am surprised at any of that - SUFC's Board and JP in particular don't strike me as the sort to let it be widely known in advance that the Manager was on the way out even if that was the case.

I have no idea if it was a done deal before the Board meeting that NC would be got rid of, was put in a position of having to compromise his loyalty to his team (whom he seems more loyal to than any club) or simply had a row and blew his chances of staying. No idea. No-one has a clue except those who were there and the why's and wherefore's are all history now. Sheffield United carries on and that is what is important. Whether it was the right or wrong decision is academic and far less important than what happens next.
 
I suspect (purely speculate) what happened here is that Clough was asked to change to a particular style, perhaps with some requirements given on recruitment, and Clough probably refused on the basis that this wasn't the requirement when he agreed to take the job. Phipps has gone to great lengths to highlight at every stage of the season that the board leaves the specific footballing decisions to the management team - I.e no boardroom interference on footballing matters. I reckon whatever was discussed considerably changed that arrangement, with the conclusion that if Clough won't meet the requirements then someone else who would is what they need.
 
Some of the more imaginative interpretations of events remind me of a quote from Carl Sagan, something like...

Astronomers looked at Venus but they couldn't see anything.
Therefore there must be clouds.
If there are clouds then there must be a swamp.
If there's a swamp there must be dinosaurs.

Observation: Nothing.
Conclusion: Dinosaurs.
 
I speculate that giant space monkeys came down and kidnapped Jim, replacing him with an anti Cloughbot who shot NC with a laser of positive energy. NC being so negative the positive beam bounced off him like light off a mirror shooting around the room and filling everyone with a love for life (and space monkeys). NC got so pissed off with this he resigned.

There, its as good as anything else written down of late.
 
Bladesway said:
I speculate that giant space monkeys came down and kidnapped Jim, replacing him with an anti Cloughbot who shot NC with a laser of positive energy. NC being so negative the positive beam bounced off him like light off a mirror shooting around the room and filling everyone with a love for life (and space monkeys). NC got so pissed off with this he resigned.

There, its as good as anything else written down of late.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is, but what about the stuff everyone else writes?
 

William Henry Foulkes said:
It's a very good question. Particularly as the fans' view seemed to have settled 65/35 on keeping him - at least till Christmas.

Any falling out would have had to have been pretty spectacular: no cooling off period, no time to reflect for either side.

There's also the removal of all of Clough's staff. Is it naive to think that given any sort of ultimatum on playing style, recruitment etc he wouldn't at least have gone to his staff and asked for their opinions.

My money is on a decision by the board, or by the Prince possibly based on targets not being met and no confidence on them being met next season either.

But that's based on not much and doesn't really fit the evidence that well.

The most relevant pieces of the jigsaw afaics are: the fans' views, Phipps's apparent support after the Swindon game, the video, and the meeting.

From these it's difficult to put together a coherent picture.

What also might be relevant is whether potential replacements were approached before the announcement.

Was there definitely a meeting before the announcement and if so who was present?

There are all sorts of plausible and implausible (the Board read my posts, realised I was right and confronted Clough, he arrogantly refused to do what I said and got sacked, serves him right) scenarios but without clear evidence or a statement from the relevant parties or BOS bumping into someone at Meadowhell I can't see that we'll know for sure - and even then.

UTB
Click to expand...

super_pig said:
yeah come on BoS.. spill the beans :)
Click to expand...

Meadowhall?

Geeooo'er

:D
 
The only thing i can think of that the board put forward that clough wouldn't be happy with would be taking the responsibility of player recruitment out of his hands and possibly bringing someone else in. I don't think they will have asked him to change his style of play but I can see the board being unhappy with the money they've laid out on his say so for players which, so far, don't seem to have improved us.
 
Woodwardfan said:
Apparently Jim Phipps went to the dressing room after the Swindon away leg and according to Clough gave the dressing room a boost by thanking everyone for a valiant effort and looking forward to next season.

One day we will learn what happened after that.

My guess is that the Board introduced some conditions for the coming season:

1. Change the Head Scout.

2. Take Garner away from the touchline and find a new Assistant Manager, maybe Morgan, but certainly an "encourager" with a positive manner.

Of course Clough said no. Did he resign or was he sacked? He's probably not daft enough to resign.

Pure conjecture but maybe something happened. We'll find out one day perhaps.
Click to expand...

What an astonishing coincidence. The board elected to impose two conditions identical to two of the crazy bees you've had in your bonkers bonnet for several months. Who'd have thought it?

Why on Earth would we appoint Hoofy Morgan to Assistant Manager? Is it a reward for the full part he played in the failure of the departing management team? Promoted? He should have been sacked. He still should be. The "give an injured defender a coaching job to save money" experiment has failed.
 
I believe that the board wanted a more attacking approach - you may remember the "speechless" tweet from JP - to stop the likes of Fleetwood, Crewe etc repeating - or at least not happening if we had had a go at them rather than sitting back on a lead. Clough would not have changed something that had given him a near 60% win ratio and there's your answer. Just like any job.
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
Some of the more imaginative interpretations of events remind me of a quote from Carl Sagan, something like...

Astronomers looked at Venus but they couldn't see anything.
Therefore there must be clouds.
If there are clouds then there must be a swamp.
If there's a swamp there must be dinosaurs.

Observation: Nothing.
Conclusion: Dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
There's dinosaurs on Venus? Shit. What happens if they learn how to build a spaceship?
 
LoughboroBlade said:
I suspect (purely speculate) what happened here is that Clough was asked to change to a particular style....
Click to expand...


Re style/attacking football etc... that has become a focus of speculation by many on the forum.

I really don't buy it.

I'd suggest "style of play" is totally and utterly irrelevant for people risking millions.

It's more likely that there were clashes with respect to management style and outcomes, future costs and implications for the organisation rather than playing style. And that against a backdrop of an atrocious end to the season, poor results against frankly crap teams, weak points per game ratios etc ...And these came to ahead in the planning/review meeting with the board.

Perhaps a meeting with him had discussions, for example, along the lines JP: "Well, we can't afford to keep paying players you've fallen out with when they clearly could contribute something"..... NC:"I make those decisions and I'll continue to do so"....JP:"May I remind you Nigel, that you aren't paying the wage bill". NC: "Not my concern, that's how I do things".

I'm sure the subjects discussed will have been considerably wider than that too, so that really is just a speculative example.

Board meet later: "We didn't anticipate this kind of thing in our planning 2 years ago, and we are wiser now, so can we continue to fund this approach".

Point is, nothing to do with style of football, but with money, risk and control.
 
I think it's probably down to a few things:

Clough backed with money and failed - world have worried the money men thinking about whether to give him any more

Lost control of either transfer policy or told to change style of play - not many mangers will accept that - especially one as stubborn as Clough.

Board became aware a manager they rate was open to coming.
 
I understand Jim said something like 'at the top of the club is the chairman and directors, then there's the supporters and the players and then, right at the fucking bottom, who everyone can do without, is the manager. I suggest you bear that in mind.'
 
metalblade said:
If as reported Clough was looking at to bring in centre backs from Derby one who had not played for 3 years through injury then there is little wonder the board pulled the plug on him.
Click to expand...

I believe the bells of our local church are going to chime out the day you report something positive about anything at the club.
 
Mustela Putorius Furo said:
Re style/attacking football etc... that has become a focus of speculation by many on the forum.

I really don't buy it.

I'd suggest "style of play" is totally and utterly irrelevant for people risking millions.

It's more likely that there were clashes with respect to management style and outcomes, future costs and implications for the organisation rather than playing style. And that against a backdrop of an atrocious end to the season, poor results against frankly crap teams, weak points per game ratios etc ...And these came to ahead in the planning/review meeting with the board.

Perhaps a meeting with him had discussions, for example, along the lines JP: "Well, we can't afford to keep paying players you've fallen out with when they clearly could contribute something"..... NC:"I make those decisions and I'll continue to do so"....JP:"May I remind you Nigel, that you aren't paying the wage bill". NC: "Not my concern, that's how I do things".

I'm sure the subjects discussed will have been considerably wider than that too, so that really is just a speculative example.

Board meet later: "We didn't anticipate this kind of thing in our planning 2 years ago, and we are wiser now, so can we continue to fund this approach".

Point is, nothing to do with style of football, but with money, risk and control.
Click to expand...

You and Cyprus are not far off the mark. The outcome of Clough being sacked had nothing whatsoever to do with tactics outright .

Financial expenditure on player recruitment , the risk of fitness / age against there net value was discussed . The players Clough had got lined up , with negotiations taking place , which was carried out without the MD , boards knowledge , (allegedly ) was for Davies ( PNE ) , Rickets ( Swindon ) , Barker , Eustace ( Derby ). All these players have had serious injuries or are past there sell by date.

The first 2no players are a little bit like last seasons blunder in Higdon and Butler.

The Collins , Butler scenario was discussed , with observations from Morgan. ( he was not at the meeting )

Thats all i know . What caused the actual sacking , after there was no intention of it happening , will only be known fully by the board , and others in the room . We will never know IMO.

UTB
 

LSF said:
Oh FFS!
Click to expand...



FFS what a good thread emerged after LSF's epic 1st reply "FFS" which got 3 "likes" too from the Brains Trust Bladesway, Silent and Sheffielder. 55 posts later it's still going so what's going on FFS LSF? Not quite tuned in obviously or is it hard to express your views adequately? You don't understand when a thread is thrown out for discussion do you? No harm in tossing around ideas about the sequence of events, it has been a momentous few days after all FFS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom