I think he'd still be in a job. His signing for me has disjointed the whole team, split up a great partnership and he has provided very little in 90% of the games he's played in. It was clear when he signed that it was an unnecessary signing and it was the defence that needed bolstering so hopefully when he goes that a new manager will get the same backing as Wilson and strengthen accordingly.

I always think you should work from the defence upwards so hopefully the new boss will address this area first (left back is a priority, am 50/50 on Budtz are seeing his first two games and something has to be done about the centre halves even if its Clarky back there).

I personally think Wilson has left us with a very good base to work on with some very good players but he was struggling to get the best out of the majority of them. If a new manager can come in and improve their games then I think we might appreciate Wilson's reign a bit more.

at the time we had three strikers and only 2 were good enough. We loaned barker out to bring in a better player, what was wrong with that?

I firmly believe if we used kyle properly then we would have seen much better performances. He is simply yet another player that wilson never got the best out of

He split up a perfectly good partnership in to replace someone who has an absolutely appalling record as a goalscorer. For me it was a non sensical decision. You only have to compare the amount of goals scored pre Kyle, compared to how many we have scored since he signed to realise that something has gone badly wrong in the final third.

'only 2 were good enough'- EXACTLY! We play 4-4-2 and we had two strikers who were performing very well and formed a great partnership, why do we need more with the resources we have? We had a defence that was leaking goals by the bucketload yet he brought in a striker that we didn't need. I think that answers the 'whats wrong with that' question.

What makes you think Kyle could have been better? Every team he has played for hasn't rated him and his record as a striker is abysmal. He put in a few good home performances but away from home he has been pathetic.

If he hadn't signed and we'd kept the Brown/Joel partnership then I'm confident things would be much brighter.

well you do need back up players. We would be royally fucked without kyle right now. Mackay and foley up front anyone?

There were probably better players than barker available for cheaper than kyle which may have allowed an extra player on loan

But Kyle hasn't been brought in as backup, has he??!!

He's started every game he has been available for and played the whole match in every one.

I agree we could have done with backup but the defence should have been Wilson's priority and it wasn't. As a result we have been on a poor run of form and Wilson is out of a job.

'There were probably better players than barker available for cheaper than kyle which may have allowed an extra player on loan' kind of proves my point!

the argument is that we needed another striker just as much as another defender. For all the benefits of a brown and porter partnership Brown hadnt scored in around 8 games before kyle arrived. And we were rubbish away from home. Wilson thought kyle would have solved part of the away form problem, but he didnt. But kyle is still a good player and will be hugely important in the next two weeks. So everyone should get behind him

I'd be surprised if Wilson "left" for footballing reasons.
Maybe if we were adrift at the bottom he might have done. But we aren't.

Maybe there was a kipper involved?

It finished newell.

It's enough to finish wilson

I did see monkhouse looking very suspicious at the fish counter at the asda the other week...

We'd conceded 13 goals in the previous 6 games before Kyle signed while we'd averaged 1.5 goals per game. Yet you think we needed another striker more than a defender? Christ. Also Brownie hadn't scored in 3 games before his last goal.

We were rubbish away from home, but if Wilson thought one striker could solve the defensive side of things by throwing money at a player like Kyle then he deserves the boot IMO.

'Kyle is still a good player'- where's your proof?! Because apart from a couple of good home performances when he first signed, there is plenty to suggest he isn't.

So if we hadn't signed Kyle Brown would have been playing up front and not on the wing?

And if he hadn't been on the wing he wouldn't have got injured when he did?

So it was Wilson's fault that Browny got a knackered knee?

Evidence enough for me. He's a witch. He had to go.

Nah, he'd have still moved Brownie to the right as he was tactically inept!

What an utter load of bollocks!!!

In what way is he a good player?? duffy in on loan was a good player, he created and scored goals. Take away the Huddersfield game, what has Kyle done????

We were scoring more goals without him and teh defence was utter shite and needed looking at. As someone else said, start from the back. Especially when your already scoring by the bucket load.


Possibly one of the worst signings ever and as stated-it cost Wilson his job.