AGM ( merged )

[Byyy The Light]

18 minutes ago, innerjambo said:

 

Nah, Google and news articles say so, and have credible quotes and references. But the candidates and names are just a small sample of relatively experienced coaches who have been interested in the Hearts job previously. And there are many more. 

And never got anywhere close to it because it was all utter nonsense. Nevio Scala and Claudio Ranieri too perhaps? David Moyes another one. All bollocks. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

3 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

And never got anywhere close to it because it was all utter nonsense. Nevio Scala and Claudio Ranieri too perhaps? David Moyes another one. All bollocks. 

Steve Bruce applied post JJ one. We did the right thing appointing Levein then though.

[Thomaso]

5 hours ago, jock _turd said:

 

I come from a period of supporting where Hearts finishing thrid and fourth in the league in successive seasons whould have been regarded as a stelar performance by a manager... how times change? Mind when JJ near got us fighting relegation anybody?

The season after we won the cup in 1998 we had lost various players and we got off to a terrible start. After the turn of the year JJ made a couple of prudent signings and we jumped up the league and finished 6th.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Thomaso

[innerjambo]

6 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

And never got anywhere close to it because it was all utter nonsense. Nevio Scala and Claudio Ranieri too perhaps? David Moyes another one. All bollocks. 

 

You cannot say that indefinitely, regarding every experienced coach, that has been specifically linked to Hearts, and has commented on being interested in the position. That's also bollocks.

[SectionDJambo]

12 minutes ago, innerjambo said:

Anyway, cheers guys........time for a wee nightcap. I'm sure we'll batter smeltic tomorrow.......maybe not 🥃

Prost!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Thomaso said:

The season after we won the cup in 1998 we had lost various players and we got off to a terrible start. After the turn of the year JJ made a couple of excellent signings and we jumped up the league and finished 4th.

We got off to a great start and were top of the league after the first 3 games. We were upper nid table pre Christmas until Neil McCann was sold to the Orcs. That's when things went tits up as we couldn't score.

 

It was the return of Colin Cameron along with the signing of Darren Jackson that got us out of the slump. That, and that prick McSwegan actually remembering how to score goals.

[Byyy The Light]

3 minutes ago, innerjambo said:

 

You cannot say that indefinitely, regarding every experienced coach, that has been specifically linked to Hearts, and has commented on being interested in the position. That's also bollocks.

One of them would’ve been given the job. 

[innerjambo]

5 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

Prost!

 

Chin chin, upwards and onwards.....eventually  🙂

[japanjambo]

Will to give Naismith a bit more time...but his coat is on a shoogly peg. I think back to when Arsenal appointed Arteta. If the fans had had their way he would have been gone during the first year. But they stuck with him and it has paid off. I live in hope that Naismith can get it right. But time is running out. 

[innerjambo]

3 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

One of them would’ve been given the job. 

 

I'm having a drink, goodnight fellow Jambo 🍻

[Byyy The Light]

8 minutes ago, innerjambo said:

 

I'm having a drink, goodnight fellow Jambo 🍻

cheers 🍻 

[DalryJambo]

1 hour ago, innerjambo said:

Chris Wilder, Thornton Fink, Felix McGath, Neil Warnock. All previously interested in the Hearts job. That took 2 minutes, I  would imagine there are many more. 

 

Who has confirmed this? Just nonsense in the press?

[innerjambo]

15 minutes ago, DalryJambo said:

 

Who has confirmed this? Just nonsense in the press?

 

Everything is nonsense. Only Neilson and Naismith have expressed any interest in the job. All previous press reports, interviews, expression of interest, are complete fantasy.

[Bazzas right boot]

5 hours ago, Rogue Daddy said:

The thing with Nelson is that he didn’t replace Halkett. If he had brought in (for arguments sake) Kent, he would still be here and we would have sewn up 3rd at a canter. We were all shouting for a commanding CB for almost a year, and it cost him his job. 

 

Yip, but was that him or Savage. 

 

Findlay would have done the trick, we passed on him.

[Bazzas right boot]

4 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

Yes, I agree that not finding a proper experienced CH replacement in the last January window was one of his undoings.   Another was persisting with Snodgrass's role in the team  long after it was clear that every other manager was setting his  tactics to nullify him.   

 

I think the main reason the board sacked him was money - what looked like a surefire 3rd place entry into the Europa League  (and parachute into Conf Lg group stage), with the big prize money that would bring.  

 

Without that prize money dangling in front of them, I doubt the Board would have sacked him, and @Bazzas right boot would not still be having regular breakdowns  😜

 

 

 

 

If they had sacked Bob and the new manager got us 3rd and started well this season it would have been justified. 

 

It's not that easy tho,  we just scraped 4th and this season is very much in the balance and we haven't done and better than Bob would have, likley worse off- although that is up for debate. 

 

[SectionG]

Got to remember people may be interested when job becomes available, but once they hear the package, what they have control of, transfer budget, how much of a team they can bring in. Then their interest may change, easy enough to report someone is interested before they know all the facts.

[May98]

4 hours ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

If they had sacked Bob and the new manager got us 3rd and started well this season it would have been justified. 

 

It's not that easy tho,  we just scraped 4th and this season is very much in the balance and we haven't done and better than Bob would have, likley worse off- although that is up for debate. 

 

Neilson was sacked because he had lost the dressing room and the results were a complete and utter shambles leading to a caretaker coming in because the board correctly thought that with him still in charge we may have not made Europe at all.  He completely and utterly blew guaranteed European Group stage football and deservedly lost his job.  Since leaving the only club interested was a tin pot b-grade club in USA.  Build a bridge, Naismith might not be the correct replacement but the sacking of Neilson was 100% the correct decision.  

 

Did you say at the time it was the wrong thing to do or are you becoming a revisionist because it's not going the best with the next guy? 

[Bull's-eye]

2 hours ago, SectionG said:

Got to remember people may be interested when job becomes available, but once they hear the package, what they have control of, transfer budget, how much of a team they can bring in. Then their interest may change, easy enough to report someone is interested before they know all the facts.

 

Forget about all the other Shit, it's money 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Then probably the ambition of the club. Then look at the career path. 

From the clubs point of view, we want best available at low wages & someone who might hang around for a season or two. That equates to a former player starting out on his career. Or backroom staff promoted from within. Maybe an ex manager who's looking to get back into things and knows the club well.

 

It's an appealing job to a Hearts supporter. nobody else unless we break the bank & that ain't happening anytime soon.

[May98]

1 minute ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Forget about all the other Shit, it's money 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Then probably the ambition of the club. Then look at the career path. 

From the clubs point of view, we want best available at low wages & someone who might hang around for a season or two. That equates to a former player starting out on his career. Or backroom staff promoted from within. Maybe an ex manager who's looking to get back into things and knows the club well.

 

It's an appealing job to a Hearts supporter. nobody else unless we break the bank & that ain't happening anytime soon.

 

There's a clear pathway from Europe/Japan/Oz to the English Championship at least if you are successful enough with the third biggest club in Scotland.  It's the same reasons these type of players come to the club unless they always dreamed of playing in Dundee and Dingwal of course. 

[jimbojambo]

6 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Forget about all the other Shit, it's money 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Then probably the ambition of the club. Then look at the career path. 

From the clubs point of view, we want best available at low wages & someone who might hang around for a season or two. That equates to a former player starting out on his career. Or backroom staff promoted from within. Maybe an ex manager who's looking to get back into things and knows the club well.

 

It's an appealing job to a Hearts supporter. nobody else unless we break the bank & that ain't happening anytime soon.

We will never break the bank again after the last time. We've grown turnover from £1 million to over £20 million in 10 years which is phenomenal and early bookings for the hotel are good. This is important as the profits go into the team as a huge gap in the football income against the costs. Be proud we are well run but my take is that Naisy is running out of time - MacKinlay says as he is a football man like Robbie he will know the consequences of a poor season and MacKinlay didn't seem happy taking the flak for him. As you say it's all about money but staggering the crap prize money in Scotland. Around £250k if we win the Scottish Cup is laughable and by diversifying we are safeguarding our future. I am not a happy clapper before anyone starts but after spending a summer 10 years ago worrying if I would still have a team to support and I am confident we'll be around for another 150 years unlike several of our competitors. Tin hat on now.... 

[gregzy2k7]

1 hour ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Forget about all the other Shit, it's money 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Then probably the ambition of the club. Then look at the career path. 

From the clubs point of view, we want best available at low wages & someone who might hang around for a season or two. That equates to a former player starting out on his career. Or backroom staff promoted from within. Maybe an ex manager who's looking to get back into things and knows the club well.

 

It's an appealing job to a Hearts supporter. nobody else unless we break the bank & that ain't happening anytime soon.

Well unfortunately in life, you get what you pay for and currently we are getting the equivalent of a rusty old banger that's about 40 years old and falling to bits, no ones asking us to break the bank as you put it, but surely we can afford better than what we have, given the fact that we are the 3rd biggest club in the country and are a profitable one as well. Most clubs aren't even in profit in our league and they can afford better management than us? 

For example i would personally take Mcinnes, Robinson and i hate to say it but even Montgomery, as they are all experienced coaches with an identifiable clear style and plan on what they want to achieve during a game. With us it's just hit and hope Shankland scores every match.

Edited December 16, 2023 by gregzy2k7

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, May98 said:

Neilson was sacked because he had lost the dressing room and the results were a complete and utter shambles leading to a caretaker coming in because the board correctly thought that with him still in charge we may have not made Europe at all.  He completely and utterly blew guaranteed European Group stage football and deservedly lost his job.  Since leaving the only club interested was a tin pot b-grade club in USA.  Build a bridge, Naismith might not be the correct replacement but the sacking of Neilson was 100% the correct decision.  

 

Did you say at the time it was the wrong thing to do or are you becoming a revisionist because it's not going the best with the next guy? 

 

Somebody had to go if there was a divide, I think they sacked the wrong group.

Sacking Bob clearly wasn't 100% the correct decision or we wouldn't have all these threads about how shite we are and how the board have been making the wrong calls.

 

 

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Forget about all the other Shit, it's money 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Then probably the ambition of the club. Then look at the career path. 

From the clubs point of view, we want best available at low wages & someone who might hang around for a season or two. That equates to a former player starting out on his career. Or backroom staff promoted from within. Maybe an ex manager who's looking to get back into things and knows the club well.

 

It's an appealing job to a Hearts supporter. nobody else unless we break the bank & that ain't happening anytime soon.

 

These are the facts.

[Bad Religion]

Levein was shit 

Cathro was shit 

Stendel was shit (although not given a fair chance)

Neilson was shit

Naismith is currently shit

 

All just shit and judging by the AGM, they have no intention of changing anything in the short to medium term.  

Edited December 16, 2023 by Bad Religion

[Phil D. Corners]

4 hours ago, SectionG said:

Got to remember people may be interested when job becomes available, but once they hear the package, what they have control of, transfer budget, how much of a team they can bring in. Then their interest may change, easy enough to report someone is interested before they know all the facts.

This. A manager might say something out of politeness and then journalist runs away with the quote, and fans run away with story. It doesn’t mean anything really. 
 

Then as you said the package is a big factor. Pep and Mourinho would manage Hearts if the price was right. Nobody in football thought about playing in Saudi 12 months ago. 
 

Remember Milinkovic? He spent the summer posing on social media in Hearts gear making positive comments, then his agent requested a ridiculous package and Levein, rightly, told his agent to bolt.

 

So it takes a lot to get a deal happen. 
 

 

 

Note: I just looked up Milinkovic. I thought he we great and would have taken him then and would take player like him today. According to Wiki he just played 11 times since leaving us. What a waste of a footballer.

[joondalupjambo]

1 hour ago, jimbojambo said:

We will never break the bank again after the last time. We've grown turnover from £1 million to over £20 million in 10 years which is phenomenal and early bookings for the hotel are good. This is important as the profits go into the team as a huge gap in the football income against the costs. Be proud we are well run but my take is that Naisy is running out of time - MacKinlay says as he is a football man like Robbie he will know the consequences of a poor season and MacKinlay didn't seem happy taking the flak for him. As you say it's all about money but staggering the crap prize money in Scotland. Around £250k if we win the Scottish Cup is laughable and by diversifying we are safeguarding our future. I am not a happy clapper before anyone starts but after spending a summer 10 years ago worrying if I would still have a team to support and I am confident we'll be around for another 150 years unlike several of our competitors. Tin hat on now.... 

Nah no need, some good points in there.

 

A stable business model with a longer term strategy for that is what we needed and that appears to be on course.  The Board has rolled the dice in relation to the management of the team, recruitment and their ongoing acceptance of our style of play.  If they come to the time that they realise that backing was wrong, and they want to change again then a good bulk of the support will be scared that it just goes belly up again.  The CEO is a political animal who say anything at any point in time and will jump onto his next gig when the heat gets too much and also the current Board seem to be getting poor advice on the football side of things.   Then can we continue with our current recruitment strategy whatever that is.  All a bit if a conundrum.

 

I think the club will want to see if Naisy can get back on track, get third and go on a decent cup run so they do not need to change things again.  If it looks like he is failing to get third by the spring, even if he does go on a cup run then they will most likely line up a new manager for next summer.  However the Board will want to save themselves as well so can they stick to a plan like that? Only time will tell.

[May98]

26 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Somebody had to go if there was a divide, I think they sacked the wrong group.

Sacking Bob clearly wasn't 100% the correct decision or we wouldn't have all these threads about how shite we are and how the board have been making the wrong calls.

 

 

 

 

No, sacking Neislon was the correct decision, he had lost the dressing room and the team had collapsed.

 

His replacement not being adequate doesn't change that. 

[Bazzas right boot]

4 minutes ago, May98 said:

No, sacking Neislon was the correct decision, he had lost the dressing room and the team had collapsed.

 

His replacement not being adequate doesn't change that. 

 

It does.

The are linked, particularly at board level. They should be strategic and the sacking and replacement are linked.

 

Fans can ofc scream and shout for sackings for everyone,  but the big decision is the what next, and if you don't improve on the what next then the sacking was incorrect.

 

If there was a divide,  then the jury is out if the correct group was let go.

 

Takes a bit joined up thinking to put the puzzle together and most folk don't like that tho.

 

Naismith might also prove to do OK, and get us back to 3rd/4th.

 

 

 

 

[May98]

15 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

It does.

The are linked, particularly at board level. They should be strategic and the sacking and replacement are linked.

 

Fans can ofc scream and shout for sackings for everyone,  but the big decision is the what next, and if you don't improve on the what next then the sacking was incorrect.

 

If there was a divide,  then the jury is out if the correct group was let go.

 

Takes a bit joined up thinking to put the puzzle together and most folk don't like that tho.

 

Naismith might also prove to do OK, and get us back to 3rd/4th.

 

 

 

 

So what you are saying is any manager that loses the dressing room and goes on a disastrous run of a results shouldn't be sacked or it's the wrong decision to be sacked unless there's a complete guarantee the next guy is going to be a success?  That's not how football works mate, Neilson was correctly sacked for throwing away guaranteed European group stage football and the performances were abysmal.  Because the successor could be the incorrect call doesn't change that.  Over at the huns Gio was sacked and Beale was a disaster then sacked, both the correct decision and now they look like they have made the correct choice of manager. 

[Bazzas right boot]

1 minute ago, May98 said:

So what you are saying is any manager that loses the dressing room and goes on a disastrous run of a results shouldn't be sacked or it's the wrong decision to be sacked unless there's a complete guarantee the next guy is going to be a success?  That's not how football works mate, Neilson was correctly sacked for throwing away guaranteed European group stage football and the performances were abysmal.  Because the successor could be the incorrect call doesn't change that.  Over at the huns Gio was sacked and Beale was a disaster then sacked, both the correct decision and now they look like they have made the correct choice of manager. 

 

Never said any of that. Ever.

 

 

[May98]

6 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Never said any of that. Ever.

 

 

It does.

The are linked, particularly at board level. They should be strategic and the sacking and replacement are linked.

 

The reason Naismith was sacked was because of the run of results and us losing third place having an 11 point advantage.  The board acted to try and save our season when everyone and their dog could see the season was going tits up.    They gave Neilson a new three year deal and weren't probably expecting the disastrous run or the dressing room being lost so they rightly or very wrongly had no contingency plan.

 

It's clear you have a complete fondness of Robbie Neilson and there's no problem with that but over the last week or so especially you have banged the drum that he shouldn't have been sacked and it was somehow the supports fault he was sacked - he was sacked because the results and the capitulation of the season, no more, no less and having the right or wrong replacement in for him just now can't and won't change that. 

Edited December 16, 2023 by May98

[FERRY HEARTS]

Spot on post 98

time to move on from this Bob shite !

if the team can get something out todays game We,ll all be delighted and  Naismith gets another weeks grace and rightly so . But if we don’t this subject and torid football banter will rave on .

Playing the game in the opposition half more is what is needed from players . Naisy interview yesterday said he wants us to play attacking football  Today is his free hit and hopefully it works 

[Bazzas right boot]

10 minutes ago, May98 said:

It does.

The are linked, particularly at board level. They should be strategic and the sacking and replacement are linked.

 

The reason Naismith was sacked was because of the run of results and us losing third place having an 11 point advantage.  The board acted to try and save our season when everyone and their dog could see the season was going tits up.    They gave Neilson a new three year deal and weren't probably expecting the disastrous run or the dressing room being lost so they rightly or very wrongly had no contingency plan.

 

It's clear you have a complete fondness of Robbie Neilson and there's no problem with that but over the last week or so especially you have banged the drum that he shouldn't have been sacked and it was somehow the supports fault he was sacked - he was sacked because the results and the capitulation of the season, no more, no less. 

 

Disagree 

Never said any manager.

Bob had a good record with us and was sitting  4th when sacked. 

 

When sacking someone, I assume the goal is to replace and do better?

 

With that in mind it was a big ask and one that I think is and will be  difficult to replicate, never mind do better. I still think this.

So far that has proven to be correct,  it was also correct the first time he ****ed off.

 

My fondness or not is irrelevant,  his record with Hearts very much is tho as is the difficulty in getting another manager who will do  as well.

 

So far the board have failed twice to do this, although there is still time for Naismith. 

 

The dressing room is another issue and I wouldn't be suprised if there is more on this still, but no one knows.

 

Results and time will prove if the board were correct sacking him,  if we finish 3rd this season they will be justified,  if we finish 4th or lower then they won't be.

 

 

 

 

 

[May98]

13 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Disagree 

Never said any manager.

Bob had a good record with us and was sitting  4th when sacked. 

 

When sacking someone, I assume the goal is to replace and do better?

 

With that in mind it was a big ask and one that I think is and will be  difficult to replicate, never mind do better. I still think this.

So far that has proven to be correct,  it was also correct the first time he ****ed off.

 

My fondness or not is irrelevant,  his record with Hearts very much is tho as is the difficulty in getting another manager who will do  as well.

 

So far the board have failed twice to do this, although there is still time for Naismith. 

 

The dressing room is another issue and I wouldn't be suprised if there is more on this still, but no one knows.

 

Results and time will prove if the board were correct sacking him,  if we finish 3rd this season they will be justified,  if we finish 4th or lower then they won't be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was done when he was sacked mate and deserved to be relieved of his duties, it was the correct thing to do based on results and performances, it happens to managers at every club all over the world. 

 

I disagree, results and time will prove if his successor has been the correct appointment BUT if you feel that way can you give it a rest of bob this and bob that and slagging off others for wanting him removed until it becomes conclusive on Naismith based on results and time, please?

[Rogue Daddy]

11 hours ago, Hearts1975 said:

It wasn't the centre back, although it certainly would have helped from a defensive perspective.

It was mostly to do with the run of games he lost and that was at exactly the same time rumours were abound about real problems in the dressing room, and the board most probably linked the 2 issues together. 

I don't think they would have sacked him, if it was just the one or the other. 

I was for Naismith, and not for Robbie, but there is no doubt that might have been the wrong move. 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing I guess, but at the same time there ain't any guarantees Robbie would have reversed the slump either, and if the board had afforded him more time.

It was definitely that run of games, yes, the point I was making I really don’t think we would have lost all of them (or other games) if we’d had a commanding CB. I think we’d have been out of sight in 3rd. I mean, how many goals did we lose to cross balls?… of course, it’s easy with hindsight as you say, but I can’t remember a single poster on here not shouting for a CB for almost a whole season. 

[Bazzas right boot]

8 minutes ago, May98 said:

 

He was done when he was sacked mate and deserved to be relieved of his duties, it was the correct thing to do based on results and performances, it happens to managers at every club all over the world. 

 

I disagree, results and time will prove if his successor has been the correct appointment BUT if you feel that way can you give it a rest of bob this and bob that and slagging off others for wanting him removed until it becomes conclusive on Naismith based on results and time, please?

 

Feel free to ignore me  or not respond and kndly put your advice where the sun don't shine -please!

 

I think the sacking of a manager and their immediate replacement are linked and if the club goes backward it can be the wrong decision, feel free to disagree,  but **** off with the censorship. 

 

Folk don't like joining the dot's,  it often makes them face reality and often shows them up to be incorrect and face past mistakes,  I get that but don't advise folk to give it a rest.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by Bazzas right boot

[Bull's-eye]

20 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Disagree 

Never said any manager.

Bob had a good record with us and was sitting  4th when sacked. 

 

When sacking someone, I assume the goal is to replace and do better?

 

With that in mind it was a big ask and one that I think is and will be  difficult to replicate, never mind do better. I still think this.

So far that has proven to be correct,  it was also correct the first time he ****ed off.

 

My fondness or not is irrelevant,  his record with Hearts very much is tho as is the difficulty in getting another manager who will do  as well.

 

So far the board have failed twice to do this, although there is still time for Naismith. 

 

The dressing room is another issue and I wouldn't be suprised if there is more on this still, but no one knows.

 

Results and time will prove if the board were correct sacking him,  if we finish 3rd this season they will be justified,  if we finish 4th or lower then they won't be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sacking Neilson was the wrong call and a mistake, that part is undeniable. But, at the time it was an easy call to make for the board, still a mistake though and the only one they don't get any stick about ironically. 

 

Behind closed doors I'm 100% positive they will regret the decision and will have learned a great deal from it. 

 

The one caveat being, did Robbie himself want to continue? 

 

I suspect not personally because I think the board had the chops to see out the season but Robbie himself made his position untenable. 

[May98]

2 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Feel free to ignore me  or not respond and kndly put your advice where the sun don't shine -please!

 

I think the sacking of a manager and their immediate replacement are linked and if the club goes backward it can be the wrong decision, feel free to disagree,  but **** off with the censorship. 

 

Folk don't like joining the dot's,  it often makes them face reality and often shows them up to be incorrect and face past mistakes,  I get that but don't advise folk to give it a rest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Such arrogance.  I was being polite as well. 

 

It's you that is having extreme difficulty accepting Robbie Neilson was correctly removed from his position, but you seem the type that is never wrong so I can understand why you won't accept that as it would mean accepting you were in fact incorrect. 

 

Have a good day and hopefully we get a win this afternoon, cheers for the interaction. 

[May98]

7 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Sacking Neilson was the wrong call and a mistake, that part is undeniable. But, at the time it was an easy call to make for the board, still a mistake though and the only one they don't get any stick about ironically. 

 

Behind closed doors I'm 100% positive they will regret the decision and will have learned a great deal from it. 

 

The one caveat being, did Robbie himself want to continue? 

 

I suspect not personally because I think the board had the chops to see out the season but Robbie himself made his position untenable. 

Why was it the wrong call and mistake?  Results and performances were shocking and we blew a massive lead in third to end up in fourth and were falling off a cliff.    I'm unsure how you can come to the conclusion that it's undeniable that he should have stayed in his position, based on what? 

Edited December 16, 2023 by May98

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

3 minutes ago, May98 said:

Why was it the wrong call and mistake?  Results and performances were shocking and we blew a massive lead in third to end up in third and were falling off a cliff.    I'm unsure how you can come to the conclusion that it's undeniable that he should have stayed in his position, based on what? 

Based on being an apologist 

[soonbe110]

59 minutes ago, May98 said:

It does.

The are linked, particularly at board level. They should be strategic and the sacking and replacement are linked.

 

The reason Naismith was sacked was because of the run of results and us losing third place having an 11 point advantage.  The board acted to try and save our season when everyone and their dog could see the season was going tits up.    They gave Neilson a new three year deal and weren't probably expecting the disastrous run or the dressing room being lost so they rightly or very wrongly had no contingency plan.

 

It's clear you have a complete fondness of Robbie Neilson and there's no problem with that but over the last week or so especially you have banged the drum that he shouldn't have been sacked and it was somehow the supports fault he was sacked - he was sacked because the results and the capitulation of the season, no more, no less and having the right or wrong replacement in for him just now can't and won't change that. 

Not so sure the dressing room was lost rather than split. Either way it’s not a good place to be.  Split dressing room though suggests it’s not the manager, or just the manager, that players are unhappy with. Time will tell, it will eventually come out. 

[Hashimoto]

I'm not buying into this nonsense that Hearts could not attract a reputable, experienced manager either.

Any out of work manager I would assume would jump at the chance to get back in the game. Just look at Duncan Ferguson jumping at the chance to take on the ICT job. Wasn't that long ago he was being quoted for the Everton job! 

It's a cop out by our CEO. It was in every sense a lazy, unimaginative appointment.....On the one hand we are told that CV's from coaches / managers came flooding in from across the globe and "You'd be surprised at some of the names!" to "We hardly attracted any real attention!"......Which was it?

McKinlay is at it!......He like most does not take criticism well......He's been found out big time

Edited December 16, 2023 by Hashimoto

[Bazzas right boot]

1 minute ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Sacking Neilson was the wrong call and a mistake, that part is undeniable. But, at the time it was an easy call to make for the board, still a mistake though and the only one they don't get any stick about ironically. 

 

Behind closed doors I'm 100% positive they will regret the decision and will have learned a great deal from it. 

 

The one caveat being, did Robbie himself want to continue? 

 

I suspect not personally because I think the board had the chops to see out the season but Robbie himself made his position untenable. 

 

 

The thread is about the board and it's decisions.

 

Many want Naismith sacked  ( I don't), I've just went back another step to Bob getting sacked and it triggers folk.

 

Likley as all the dreams they had of a fancy foreign coach coming in and taking us to the next level and  playing great football hasn't materialised and are now are realising it never will- it doesn't exist. Many banged on about this for over a year.

They now feel a bit stupid,  but won't admit it, they'll blame the board for hiring Naismith- it's easy to do that, that is their get out. 

 

Naismith might be ok, but at best he'll get us exactly where Bob had us, and if he doesn't then McInnes is our best bet, and guess what- the best he'll do is get us back to  were Bob left us!

 

Then the goon squad can repeat the flair, next level, nae youth shite all over again.

It's actually depressing and amusing in equal measure. 

 

There was definitely more going on  behind the scenes with Savage/ McKinley/ Bob and the players.

 

 

 

 

[May98]

1 minute ago, soonbe110 said:

Not so sure the dressing room was lost rather than split. Either way it’s not a good place to be.  Split dressing room though suggests it’s not the manager, or just the manager, that players are unhappy with. Time will tell, it will eventually come out. 

That's true and I do agree with that.  Either way change was needed after the St Mirren home game that followed Aberdeen away, it was a complete and utter shambles.   I do think he lost some of the players after the game at home to the huns also and his refusal to play some players ahead of others despite form.  

[Bazzas right boot]

11 minutes ago, May98 said:

 

Such arrogance.  I was being polite as well. 

 

It's you that is having extreme difficulty accepting Robbie Neilson was correctly removed from his position, but you seem the type that is never wrong so I can understand why you won't accept that as it would mean accepting you were in fact incorrect. 

 

Have a good day and hopefully we get a win this afternoon, cheers for the interaction. 

 

You just told me to give it a rest then say your were being polite, I'll crack the jokes.

 

9 minutes ago, May98 said:

Why was it the wrong call and mistake?  Results and performances were shocking and we blew a massive lead in third to end up in fourth and were falling off a cliff.    I'm unsure how you can come to the conclusion that it's undeniable that he should have stayed in his position, based on what? 

 

For some one who doesn't want to talk about Bob,  you sure are on the case when he's mentioned?

 

To answer your question- He was 4th in the league,  that's the simple answer.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by Bazzas right boot

[periodictabledancer]

13 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Sacking Neilson was the wrong call and a mistake, that part is undeniable.

 

 

Only you & the obsessed Bazza could make that nonsensical claim with a straight face. 

Edited December 16, 2023 by periodictabledancer

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, periodictabledancer said:

Only you & the obsessed Bazza could make that nonsencial claim with a straight face. 

I'm glad I have them both on ignore.

 

Anyway, how did the AGM thread revert to a fecking Neilson debate?

[Bull's-eye]

9 minutes ago, May98 said:

Why was it the wrong call and mistake?  Results and performances were shocking and we blew a massive lead in third to end up in fourth and were falling off a cliff.    I'm unsure how you can come to the conclusion that it's undeniable that he should have stayed in his position, based on what? 

 

Because we didn't get 3rd. He could have turned it round. Getting 3rd was the only way it can't be seen as a mistake. All hindsight of course but still a mistake. 

 

That's generally how you find out you've made a mistake in life, after the event. 

 

The mass majority wanted Neilson gone, myself included, we where all wrong. 

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

7 minutes ago, Hashimoto said:

I'm not buying into this nonsense that Hearts could not attract a reputable, experienced manager either.

Any out of work manager I would assume would jump at the chance to get back in the game. Just look at Duncan Ferguson jumping at the chance to take on the ICT job. Wasn't that long ago he was being quoted for the Everton job! 

It's a cop out by our CEO. It was in every sense a lazy, unimaginative appointment.....On the one hand we are told that CV's from coaches / managers came flooding in from across the globe and "You'd be surprised at some of the names!" to "We hardly attracted any real attention!"......Which was it?

McKinlay is at it!......He like most does not take criticism well......He's been found out big time

Off course there's experienced managers with a track record who'd come to Hearts ! Billy Davies identified the problems years ago 

[May98]

2 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

You just told me to give it a rest then say your were being polite, I'll crack the jokes.

 

 

For some one who doesn't want to talk about Bob,  you sure are on the case when he's mentioned?

 

To answer your question- He was 4th in the league,  that's the simple answer.

 

 

 

No, you said time will tell if if Naismith's appointment was incorrect and if it is then sacking Neilson was a mistake or words to that effect, I only asked if you could wait until time shows this before banging that drum repeatedly, i wasn't saying give it a rest in any other way but polite.  Your reply was sheer arrogance and unfriendly.

 

He was 4th in the league, he was sacked because he blew a massive gap in 3rd and looked no way possible to recover that.   The absolute correct decision was made and nothing to do with any "goons" as you put it (unsure how you are allowed to constantly slag off fellow posters and supporters by calling them goons but hey ho).