| Welcome to bcfcforum.co.uk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| At Last From Our Owner !; Bruce decision in 10 days (merged thread | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 30 2006, 09:21 PM (2,945 Views) | |
| blueberry | May 3 2006, 09:00 AM Post #101 |
![]()
Frank Worthington
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I always got the impression that the Bruce-outers have been in the majority ever since Christmas. But like any survey, it depends how you phrase the question. ;) |
![]() |
|
| Dugarry | May 3 2006, 09:01 AM Post #102 |
![]()
Geoff Horsfield
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I washed my 'Gregory Peck' whilst wearing the 'Pete St. John' to keep the buttocks nice and tight. |
![]() |
|
| honkybluenose | May 3 2006, 09:04 AM Post #103 |
|
Peter Enckelman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think its fair to say the fan base is fairly split on the decision, whether its 60-40 or 40-60 is really a moot point. I personally dont think its as simple as bruce staying or going but if they get rid of him who is the new man. I would support them if we could attract a top quality manager like Curbishley. I would not support them if the alternative as Big Ron or McCarthy (as have been suggested on here). Its all about making sure any change is a real improvement, not just a change for changes sake. Over 100 years of failure and every time we change the manager- its never worked yet!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
![]() |
|
| Mash | May 3 2006, 09:10 AM Post #104 |
|
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spot on **thumbup |
![]() |
|
| blueberry | May 3 2006, 09:31 AM Post #105 |
![]()
Frank Worthington
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Totally agree. Curbishley will want to progress when he comes back to management though, and something like the vacant Boro or Bolton job would be a lot more appealing than Blues (or vile for that matter!!). I think he would want a shot at a club who would give him financial backing - what he didn't get at the Valley. This would suggest Boro or Newcastle, or someone bigger. I don't think he would be interested in us at all. I think many decent managers will be tempted by Blues, but the best of these is probably Mcleish, unless more start to become available in the next couple of weeks. I could make wilder suggestions like Keegan or unambitious suggestions like Martin Allen, but I'm not sure if they're sensible really. ;) |
![]() |
|
| bluelowe | May 3 2006, 11:27 AM Post #106 |
|
Steve Claridge
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I know he means well, but sometimes the facts dont quite get there do they!! We've now got to face the reality that we're relegated and get ourselves back together. "I know it sounds a bit negative but I think they were incredibly lucky. They got two penalties in their last two games. "The penalty against Sunderland the guy just jumped up and handballed it with two minutes to go, we had a good shout for a penalty with minutes to go, the TV said it was a penalty, and didn't get it. "If we'd beaten Newcastle we'd still be there. "Middlesbrough put out a weakened side against them, West Ham put out a weakened side against them, Arsenal didn't play (Thierry) Henry. I think if Im right, henry scored Arsenals goal!! I do agree that they were lucky towards the end, very lucky, though the £15m ain January helped, but that doesnt excuse our previous 30 games performances does it!! KRO We Will Be Back |
![]() |
|
| carlo | May 3 2006, 11:30 AM Post #107 |
![]()
Geoff Horsfield
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yup Henry Scored against pompey |
![]() |
|
| andyjjj | May 3 2006, 11:32 AM Post #108 |
|
Geoff Horsfield
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh well, still he does make some good points. But in the interview he says fair play to them, and he does acknowledge that it was all our fault anyway. I say Eric Black out! He's the reason for our team playing poorly since he arrived even though we had the best squad for 25 years! |
![]() |
|
| dr.nick | May 3 2006, 11:32 AM Post #109 |
![]()
Trevor Francis
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i to agree with this, i think this has been said it he dos'nt except the pay off he 'HAS' been offered. SB decides on friday to take it up. |
![]() |
|
| gaz_bcfc_fan | May 3 2006, 11:38 AM Post #110 |
![]()
Peter Enckelman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Lets face it if it werent pompey it would be somone else. All along Bruce said we cant worry about what everyone else is doing. We just need to pick up points blah blah blah. SO why now are we blamning our relegation on Pompeys good luck?!?! they are only blaming pompeys good luck because it deflects the attention from how poor we actually were this season due to a combination of players not performing, the board not spending but more importantly bruce and his inept backroom staff. |
![]() |
|
| honkybluenose | May 3 2006, 11:53 AM Post #111 |
|
Peter Enckelman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
David Sullivan said we have made our proposal to steve Bruce and the ball is now in his court. What do we read into this. I suspect the "proposal" goes further than a wage cut as this should be covered in his contract. I would imagine there are quite clear outlines on Specifically which players will go (some already made public). Specifically which backroom staff will go. Specifically which players will stay. The type of players that will come in (with examples- or maybe one or two targets) Specifically the matters the board will want to be involved with that they wernt before. If Bruce accepts Sullivans proposal how much in charge will he be. Are we relaxed about Sullivan being more hands on than before (probably whoever the manager is) |
![]() |
|
| dr.nick | May 3 2006, 11:57 AM Post #112 |
![]()
Trevor Francis
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
the proposal was a pay off. he said it was up to him to take it or stay. but i do think that sully has given him those sortof ultimatums if he does stay. |
![]() |
|
| Pewster | May 3 2006, 12:05 PM Post #113 |
|
Kenny Burns
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think its another example of what happened with TF, only its taken a lot longer for it to happen with SB ! Tf was given free reign, until the Mike Newell thing, then the board took a greater interest in who he got ! Hence TF got Horsefield, when he wanted Roberts ! I think SB has been given free reign to the extent that he has sometimes thrown it back in Sullivans face, something he could do for the first two seasons when we were overachieving, but something he will not be able to do now having failed so badly ! An example of this being Fig Roll, a player who we all knew was Sullivans, because SB made a point of telling us ! Not only that, SB took it further by insisting that he was only interested in young UK players as if to rub further salt in ! Which is all well and good until SB forgets hes said that, and goes out and gets Pandiani, Gronkjaer, Jarosik, Nafti, Melchiott and Forssell, all not UK and many not young ! Then throws in Butt and Sutton as opposed to the younger players he was lauding ! Not surprisingly, it all goes pear shaped and now he must accept that if he does stay, it will be under the boards terms, and not his free reign ! |
![]() |
|
| honkybluenose | May 3 2006, 12:14 PM Post #114 |
|
Peter Enckelman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is my feeling entirely. The proposal was more than you can take the pay off or stay. I think it was you can take the pay off or stay under these terms. We have already started to see the terms implemented. Sullivan is saying who is staying and who is going. Sullivan says he will be involved in all new purchases. Bruce has said nothing. Last week I thought he would stay but I am changing my mind. He is too proud to stay under the terms (whether implied or otherwise) of sullivans proposal. Its not to do with the payoff or not being up for the job, but he will not accept the loss of management control. |
![]() |
|
| gaz_bcfc_fan | May 3 2006, 12:20 PM Post #115 |
![]()
Peter Enckelman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
and so he should. It's his business - Bruce is only an employee |
![]() |
|
| Mash | May 3 2006, 12:20 PM Post #116 |
|
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
**thumbup |
![]() |
|
| northside blue | May 3 2006, 12:24 PM Post #117 |
|
Frank Worthington
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
well if sullivan carry on running the "buisness" the way they have lately its confereence here we come. **thumbup |
![]() |
|
| gaz_bcfc_fan | May 3 2006, 12:28 PM Post #118 |
![]()
Peter Enckelman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
mmmmm yes and no to be honest - i think a lot of the recent "decisions" (or the excuses we have bee told) have been down to gold who i dont think is ruthless enough. I know Sullivan was unimpressed with Bruce from the whole Savage and Bowen situation. He backed him in the summer some what reluctantly i feel. However when the team continued their crap form from last season it wouldnt suprise me if Sullivan was looking for a way to get rid of Bruce hence the lack of investment in jan |
![]() |
|
| honkybluenose | May 3 2006, 12:33 PM Post #119 |
|
Peter Enckelman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Agree but the normal way would be to do it behind closed doors in discussion with the manager and then let the manager announce it, hopefully when decisions have been come to mutually. That has changed already. Its all about telling Bruce that the proposal involves him having a lot less say in this business than he had before. |
![]() |
|
| northside blue | May 3 2006, 12:35 PM Post #120 |
|
Frank Worthington
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
if thats the case then its a shame he was prepared to let us get relegated so he could acheive his aim, doese'nt really make any sence. Also, nobody reall knows for a fact the reasons behind bowens sacking, it may be that bruce really had little choice. ;) |
![]() |
|
| gene autry | May 3 2006, 01:03 PM Post #121 |
![]()
Alex Govan
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Its a very difficult line the board have to walk, when all is considered. A future manager must feel he has the same loyalty as Steve has had, if not the dosh. So the board can't just drop him like a sack of spuds. But they can "negotiate" a mutual parting as they have done in the past with TF, and incorporate a silence clause. And I imagine that to do that after the season and not during it has always been their plan B. If Steve walks, the question could be...how soon does the new one come in? Have they always had this Plan B ? <_< |
![]() |
|
| dr.nick | May 3 2006, 01:13 PM Post #122 |
![]()
Trevor Francis
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
hang on i have been saying the same for the last 2 days and no one said a peep. now a bird says it and it's i agree. :angry: :lol: oh by the way standys , i totally agree. **thumbup |
![]() |
|
| honkybluenose | May 3 2006, 01:21 PM Post #123 |
|
Peter Enckelman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think there is a lot of agreement on this and ultimately Sullivans insistance on more control will be the reason Bruce walks. why is he coming out himself with all the decisions on who will be leaving in advance of Saturday- to spell out the reality of what staying on means to SB. I just hope that in doing this Sullivan has not scared off the better candidates should Steve elect to go. |
![]() |
|
| Forward62 | May 3 2006, 01:35 PM Post #124 |
![]()
Malcom Page
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If the names Sully has come out with are a surprise to Bruce, then he really has been in the dark all season |
![]() |
|
| Letsby Avenue | May 3 2006, 01:42 PM Post #125 |
![]()
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Because (imo) at the back of his mind are ST sales and selling the club to a new man. Sullivan's only said he would be surprised if one player still stayed (Sutton), that no one has to leave, as long as they accept the new wage era. Vastly different from assuming more control. For goodness sake, he's grumblin about havin to drive up from essex, how much more time will he have to spend on one of his projects if he's team building and buying? Nope, someone said somewhere that this is the Plan B. Dump him when its cheapest, the "deadwood" can go with him on Bosmans....and....it might explain their reluctance to turn this January into a Dugarry January. :o |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Blues Chat · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)










7:21 PM Jul 11