OOhhhh who is that again? who said that? Let me think?..... Winston Churchill? No not him. Was it Lady Asquith? NNaahh nna, it wasn't him...Byron? aaahhh no, i've got it... It was Oscar Wilde wasn't? Definitely oscar wilde...

MisterB, all i'd need to measure your contribution to this forum is a nit comb... keep howling fella...

HHHooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllllllllllllllll!

The turnover of Managers is it that critical?, I mean take Crewe for example....Dario Gradi has been there in one role or another for 29 years. Now the club have been loyal to him and vice-versa, but they have experienced many promotions and relegations during that period, more than we have I'd guess, but they seem to have accepted that every season cant be a successful one and have acted accordingly.

Now look at his stats.....1983-2007 - win ratio 37.25%.(Manager)
2008 - " " 33.33%.(Caretaker Mgr)
2009-2011 - " " 31.03%. " "
Notice the decline, yet Crewe are any better/worse than us?, currently league 2, stability is it that relevant?
Those figures are a lot worse than some of the guys who applied for our job.

See long winded and ultimately pointless!

any normal bunker member would have just told me to welcome to the board, short and sweet

welcome to the board

Oh and also, David Moyes and Alex Ferguson...

I don't believe that they applied.

What a ding you are.

We had 48 serious applicants for the position according to Russ Green in the Mail. Wonder how many were from people (like Hughes) already in a coaching/managerial role.

.... FFS Are you 12 years old?

Regarding Alex Ferguson and David Moyes, i imagine most people (who aren't drooling) are aware of why i raised their names in a thread that contains discussion about the longevity (that means like 'a long time') of managerial terms.

If you think it's good that our managers average a shade over a year in post then that's up to you.

... and awaits the next long winded cut and paste that you want to put on here.

Do you mean my long winded cut and pastes (never proven by the way, despite various claims from various people that they are) that you don't like to read and presumably think are boring, and contain too many big words for you?

Or do you mean my 'long winded cut and pastes' that various people have commented are amongst the best posts ever put on the bunker?

Which is it please?

For what it's worth MisterB and I have settled our differences over a PM or 2 and all* is good in the world.


*except for Barron still being at Pools.

What an accolade.

Fair point ...

FFS, look ... here's a link to it. (the facts). Look at how the LMA classify the tenures of our managers since 2006 and also the length they deem tait's spell to be...

http://www.leaguemanagers.com/managers/ ... ?clubid=78

If you count upwards from 2006 it comes to 11.

HHHOOOOOooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwllllllllllllllllllllll!.... feck me, there's goes another car.

Apologies for the language.....But does it fucking matter how many managers we have had, you 11, I say 16, you say 12...We've got a manager now, we don't know how long he is going to last, hopefully long term... But jesus christ what a petty argument.

Straw man again fella. . . yyyaaawwwwnnnnn. My source is the official association of which practically every manager in England is a member of. So yeah. . . totally unreliable. You obviously know far more than the official body virtually all managers belong too.

Ok. so a big handshake all around. i do think (whatever the number) the time we keep our bosses for is an issue. but lets leave it.

Could it be that the LMA website has a vested interest in making it look like the turnover of managers is even higher than it is?

Could it be a not very big organisation that has a bloke in a cupboard cobbling together statistics to suit their belief that managers deserve longer before being sacked?

If the answer to either of those questions is yes then you can't really start claiming that things they say are facts.

The LMA don't count the caretakers when dividing up the actual manager's tenures though, the stats on Pools for example (these ones):

average manager durations in charge (seasons)
Since Premier League
1.16
Previous 5 Seasons
1.20
Previous 10 Seasons
1.31
Previous 20 Seasons
1.16
aren't fudged in anyway, and only count full time managers when arriving at those numbers. Those stats therefore, are made up of what i think are kind of, ermmmm.... 'things' that have really occurred or were actually definitely the case, the usual test for a 'thing' like that, is to check it's validity, its verifiability?, can be proven? Can you show data to actually prove beyond any shadow of a doubt the such a 'thing' actually occurred. If you can, then the 'thing' you've claimed to be the case stops becoming a 'thing' and becomes a fact...

I agree though born toulouse. I really should check my 'things' before making statements....

Has asianladyboys.com crashed again like Mad John?

Who cares about our average 'Since Premier League', and isn't that the same as 'Previous 20 Seasons' anyway?

Suppose so, not sure why they do that. I'd guess it might well be to demonstrate a link between the formation of the prem and the average tenure dropping (kind of getting at Born Toulouse said). That's just my opinion though, i don't know that.

Yes hence the figures being the same as the Premier League's first season was 1992/93... And problem with quoting facts straight from other sites. it probably better if you at least know what you posting. that not a dig but anyone can copy and paste something but knowing why when asked something usually comes in useful

Well i've said why i think they do it. To show a drop in average since the prem being formed, which is clearer than to separately quote stats entitled 'since 1992/93. Presumably in 3 years time they'll still show the 'since the prem was formed stat' AND the 20 seasons stat. It happens to be essentially the same figure THIS year (as it's the 20th year since the start of the prem), but next year it won't be. (Cue the sound of a large penny dropping for some...)

My point was what relevance does 'since premier league' have for little old 'artlepool. I undestood why the LMA might be using the stats, but saw no need for you to include that particular average in your diatribe.

The only abuse or verbals came in defense of my comment after stuff from others. The LMA choose the include that stat, not me. I put it in as it seemed fair if i put all the others in. Is it relevant to us? How many managers have we had recently (or nearly had) who've at some stage managed in the prem? (I'll let someone else answer that).

Could this be the worlds most boring agrument?

I've tried to kill it off 3 times... people won't let it lie or actually discuss the main point i made.

As i've said before, i'm happy to back track and hold my hands up as i'm wrong and been proved wrong. Classifying it as 11 probably was OTT. My frustration though, was down to the fact, sorry not fact, opinion whether it's 7, 9 11 or whatever in that ball park, it's a lot over 6 years.

That and 1 manager per season (almost) over 20 years is a big indicator in the problem in my opinion.

Shall we leave it at that?

"talks stalled over a clause in Phil Browns contract, nothing to do with Micky Barron or the exit of back room staff"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0105pbh

Bloke from the Mail @ approx 49 mins

John Hughes from about 4 mins 50.

Some bloke from BBC Scotland 19 mins 10

What do you expect him to say? "I was blatantly obviously second choice, and i'd like to publicly disclose the reason why Phil Borwn didn't come ..... (then give the reason on the radio)?"

If the clause has nothing to do with Barron or anything like that, the easy way to kill it of if to disclose FULLY the actual clause that caused it to break down. All we have to go (as far as I can see) is an ambiguous 'talks broke down due to a clause'...

I think a fair question is 'what was the clause'.... do we know that yet?

VOR arguing about Pools stats with Mad John brilliant. Its like me arguing about physics with Steven Hawking

That's me Mutters...............I am santa on the Xmas sleigh round our village. The number of kids who come up and whisper "we know it's you Frankie but we won't tell anyone"
Maybe it has something to do with the presence of tins of quality street on the sleigh !!!! lol.
It's absolute magic and I love it. It raises heaps of cash for charity as well.............brilliant.

No we don't and probably never will.
It hardly matters now, but just for the record and another rumour i have headd this morning why the talks possibly broke down is that Brown wanted out if we went down but a big fat bonus if he kept us up!
Just like the Neale Cooper sacking first time round, people will talk and various reasons will be stated!!

What if Hughes was watching a potential new signing for Pools?




Unlikely maybe, but the thing is with the info we get we're unlikely to ever know!

Personally I'm not convinced Brown wasn't playing Pools all along, hence the mass media coverage. If he was maybe Pools were wise to it and although they would've liked him to take the job they had another plan already in place, in fact Hughes arrived too quickly for them not to have already been pursuing that option prior to whatever allegedly went tits up with Brown.

If I had to guess (hey, everybody else is so I'll have a go) at what went wrong with Brown it would be that he wanted some release clause if what he perceived to be a better job came up as he was just wanting to put himself in the shop window rather than having a long term ambition at Hartlepool. We know that IOR / Pools don't like what they class as not being 100% committed from Wilson's departure when he asked for permission to speak with Swindon so this would tie in with their previous form and appear plausible to me.

AGAIN!!!!!!!!

Some lads i know get tutorials off him..... (stephen hawking i mean, not mad john).

You appear to be a bit gullible.

We're talking IOR here, originally known as The Bilderberg Group

well I have seen him in vodka Rev's in Cambridge so there you do go. And yes he was drinking.

Well elaborate then?

Come on...


I know it's not as sensational as shouting about how inept Pools are, or how they're continually lying to the fans, or how they're inherently evil and just want to make Pools fans suffer for their own personal gratification but it is possible that Brown was the one messing about here and not Pools.

Ok, so Brown has a reputation as a shy retiring type who doesn't like playing up to the media at all, but it doesn't mean that he didn't play them a bit this time around...

I have no idea or any proof to the contrary. But like Chipfireball has said the club spoke to the mail and told them talks broke down at the 11th hour, then Green stated that Hughes was always first choice. That means one of them is lying.

Maybe John Hughes was the first choice and had turned the job down because he didn't agree with the length of contract offered and so the club turned to Brown.
After hearing Brown's demands the club decided that Yogi's demands were more acceptable than Browns and turned Brown down. At which point they rang Yogi and agreed a long term contract, as stated in most of yesterday's interviews.
So Yogi WAS their first choice.
If Brown's clauses were acceptable to the club then he would have got the job but would have been second choice.
Chew that one over boys cos I am saying this account is a lot nearer the mark and so is a little birdie!!!!!

I'd say that's a lot more believeable than some of the stuff being spouted on various Internet sites!!

what difference does it make if the club are lying? Really, what difference?