Maybe phil brown seen into the future seen this thread n thought fuck that, i'm not joining that club if threads like this exist.

He got off lightly i reckon.

Trust me.

I suppose in the short term 'who gives a feck why Brown didn't come'.... I guess in the long term, if the 'clause' is a factor in an ex-premiere league manager (apparently) not being willing to join us, and such a situation happens AGAIN, THEN the clause potentially becomes significant? If that situation were to arrise, perhaps then all fans would be in agreement that we deserve to know what the nature of the clause is. Is that a fair place to leave this one?

You can leave it where you like.
All I am interested in is the fact that Russ Green is a friend of mine and I'm not having him branded a liar. Not where he isn't in a postion to defend himself.

That is the only reason I have spoke out on the subject.
No one is lying, it's just that the facts are being interpreted wrongly.
The sequence of events are the key here.

The only people who know exactly what happened and the sequence in which they happened are RG and KH.

All anyone can do is ask one or both of them.

The media speculated that although Brown had left the meeting there was a possibility that talks would resume. I am sure that's what Brown thought as well. In the meantime Yogi was called, terms were agreed and it was announced. It was done as quick as that and announced an hour or two later, even though Yogi was hundreds of miles away at a reserve fixture.

I think people are asking though, aren't they?

It's all a bit cloak and dagger, as is the way with IOR. We could pontificate on the ifs, buts, whys and why nots, but it isn't going to solve anything.

What matters is that the club have appointed a new bloke, and while many of us aren't chuffed with the way it panned out the fact remains that we can't change it.

People's feelings are now pretty much well known, but Yogi has the perfect start of a double header of '6 point' home games against teams not exactly setting the league on fire and an opportunity to show those of us who appreciate a win more than some tackles that he is the right man for the job.

I'll be there for both of them, I'd have swerved at least one had Barron been in charge.

There is a video of the press conference on the OS. In it Russ Green specifically stated that John Hughes was the club's first choice, in answer to a media question, so the question has been answered by one of the only two people who know who their first choice was.
Unless evidence can be produced to the contrary or RG or KH admit he wasn't then that is it.

Yep, that's what he said then, so it must be true. I mean, once it's been on tele/video or in the press it's always 100% true isn't it? Lee Harvey Oswald definitely shot Kennedy, 9/11 was some terrorists from the middle east (some of whom are still alive today) and Jimmy Saville was a top bloke according to the media (prior to a month or so ago).
Howay derwent, i accept it's harsh to say 'Russ is a liar', but surely it's fair for people to have a degree of doubt as to the validity of his answer, given it's common knowledge they were trying to come to a deal with another bloke 2 hours or so before they eventually gave their job to their 'first choice'.

Thanks for answering Chip, you have a fair point.

See my post timed at 1-38pm on this thread. I'm saying no more on the matter.

You would like someone to clarify?
You'd better ask Craig Hope.
It's not unusual for Reporters to get things wrong!

I'd guess his:)

The fact that Pools were in talks with Phil Brown doesn't mean that John Hughes wasn't first choice. Maybe he was interviewed, was put in pole position for the job by Hodcroft and Green and then went off back to get on with his current job. Like you do.

Then Pools were involved in a second interview/talks with Phil Brown giving him a chance to knock Hughes out of top spot. Possibly because of his public blabbing or possibly because of a clause under discussion talks broke down and he wasn't offered the job. We only ever had Brown's say so that the talks were anything more than a normal part of the interview process and, even then, he only implied that he'd been offered it, he didn't say he had. Once the Brown talks/interview were over the process was finished and Pools phoned their first choice. Nobody lying to anybody if that scenario is correct. I'm only saying if mind you...

If they mention something 18 years before it happens they always claim "we exclusivly revealed 18 years ago that one day in the future it might be a white christmas".

Their exclusive revalations are terrible and makes them look stupid most of them time.

Has anybody picked up on the fact that all the announcements about Phil Brown came from....errrr....Phil Brown??

On the now extremely tedious subject of managers tenure, Sheffield Wednesday, Preston, Notts County, Crystal Palace, Southampton and loads of others are, if not beating us, at least, competing.

In the event it's not really that important, is it.

"Talks have broken down" is not the kind of thing the IOR regime says.
"We have no comment to make" is not even the kind of thing the IOR regime says.

"We are considering the applications" is about the most explicit thing you ever get off them in these situations.

Which is kind of an echo of what Spender just said before I got the chance to press the submit button.

Yep.

Hence why for the last couple of days I've been suggesting that Brown was playing the media and trying to get himself in the shop window.

It puzzles me somewhat the amount of people on here who've taken what Phil Brown has said to the media as gospel and used it as an excuse or reason to have a pop at Pools and IOR. I guess most of them like "reality telly" programmes too. Or think that Bellenders and Horrornation Street are real.

Agree.
I don't like blokes with orange danglers anyway.
Well someone said he had.....................hey gerroff...............hey.....................I'm only sa...............aaaarrrrggghhh.

Sorry marra

I'm just completely bored with petty squabbles so I thought a shove in the 'obvious' direction was called for.

Mr F, I stopped The Mail about a month ago cos it had turned to shit and I haven't missed it. Hence I haven't read what tripe they've been spouting in the last few days.

If I had to choose though I'd believe RG over The Mail any day of the week, even though I know that Pools can be economical with the truth when they want to be.

That said, I believe that there's a world of difference between economical with the truth and lying. I can't think off the top of my head when Pools have lied about anything instead the problem that people have with them is that they don't tell us owt (although no doubt somebody on here will be able to prove the contrary! )

Yeah, so Green said at the press conference that Phil Brown wasn't number one choice. That's that covered.

Phil Brown, rejected for a job at the bottom club in League 1 but with an ego the size of Jupiter needs to cover his arse.

Craig Hope with his trousers down in public needs an out.

I'd call that quid pro quo.

Spender wrote:


Spender, I obviously agree that they have all had a similar number of managers to us over ten seasons or so. (see below, your point is very true). But, my point wasn’t really to do with the ‘raw numbers’, it was about the effect that all these constant changes have. A record for chopping and changes hardly ever represents a good thing, it generally indicates a totally shit thing...

Sheff Wed, on their 9th manager in 10 seasons.3 relegations and 3 promotions in the last 10 seasons.Longest serving manager in the last 60 years or so? Jack Charlton, 6 seasons.

Preston, on their 8th manager (+ 5 caretakers) in 10 seasons.1 relegation in the last 10 years. Longest serving manager in the last 50 years? David Moyes, 4 seasons.

Notts County, on their 13th manager (+3 caretakers) in 10 seasons.1 relegation, 1 promotion in the last 10 years. Longest serving manager in the last 40 years? Neil Warnock, 4 seasons.

Crystal Palace, on their 11th manager (+ a couple of caretakers) in ten seasons. Longest serving manager in the last 35 years or so? 1 promotion, 1 relegation in the last ten years. Terry Venables, 4 seasons.

Southampton, on their 11th manager plus (2 or 3 caretakers) in ten seasons. Longest serving manager(s) over the last 25 years or so... tie in terms of seasons between Gordon Strachan, Dave Jones, George Burley .... all 3 seasons each. 2 promotions and 2 relegations over the last ten years.

Between them, those 5 clubs you mentioned have chalked up 52 managers between them over the last 10 seasons. 52!? (+ about 13 caretakers). In those 10 years of chopping and changing, those 52 managers have delivered ......8 relegations and 7 promotions between them. So basically, until the very recent success of Southampton, who are now back where they were 10 years ago, the other 4 clubs are actually in the same or a worse position than they were before they even started on the road to ’52’ managers.

So all in all, with the notable exception of Adkins, the vast majority of those 52 managers delivered feck all, and a lot of them would argue it was because they weren’t given the time to do so. The final irony in all of this, is that Adkins, who arguably did better than any of the other 51... is in danger of becoming the next one to be sacked.

But yeah, who gives a feck, i've obviously raised a 'nothing' point...

Russ was using Phil Brown as a decoy to deflect interest from Sven, who in turn was acting as a distraction for a take-over of the club by dodgy Thai businessmen, which in itself was a ruse to allow the two British Airmen to escape from Rene's cafe with the fallen Madonna with the big boobies, which was a smoke screen for the Israeli's to bomb Gazza that distracted the world's media, allowing Yogi to arrive in Hartlepool unnoitced and take the job from under the nose of the ghosts of Brian Clough and Peter Taylor.

Did you read that in The Mail?

No. Got it from a bloke in Throston bookies. Where else do you get such accurate information?

Craig Hope??

No. This bloke.

From what I've seen so far I'm really happy with the Pools decision to appoint John Hughes. I hope he does bring a tried and trusted coach with him but that is a side issue. Now I've seen his interviews I'm glad he was picked rather than Phil Brown because I think he is more of a long term option. That said though I still think Phil Brown and his backroom could have shaken things up and doe a good job. Phil Brown might not be to everyone's taste but I've always liked him as a manager and I'm not going to slag him off just because he isn't the Pools boss.

All the evidence suggests that PB and Pools were close to a deal. No one knows what would happen but at a guess I would think PB has said something that would piss the people interviewing him off and they've just thought fuck yer. The 2 things that immedietly come to mind that would piss people off would be giving the perception of lack of commitment (so asking for a release clause to discuss terms with a bigger club or similar). Or asking for more more money (too big of a bonus for promotion, avoiding relegation or whatever).

I don't think that JH was first choice but I'm glad we've got him.....

This thread is disruptive. Brown is not our man and for one I can't wait to usher in the new era.

Forget Brown and his namesake fake tan, or is it orange ?

Thats all fine and dandy as long as it is a new era. At the moment its just a new manager, or is it head coach? I havent read a single post saying they dont wish John Hughes well. I just dont think he quite knows what he is up against.

Its going to be strange celebrating a win tomorrow, thinking thank god for that, yet not wanting to clap these players off at the end. Dont think I have ever disliked a crop of players so much. And then having Hartley going on twitter telling his followers that he told you so.

Is it possible to clap the new boss off yet tell the players I am not clapping you.

Take a banner.

It might be easier though if you just sneak in at the end when they open the gates rather than taking it through the turnstile.

Chelsea on there 8th manager in last 6 years...CHAMPIONS LEAGUE WINNERS.... F*** sake we can all find facts to use to try to prove an argument.They also have 2 TITLES 1 FOOTBALL LEAGUE CUP 4 FA CUPS 1 COMMUNITY SHIELD.... SO GIVE IT A REST.. Didn't do them no harm..

Matteo became caretaker manager in March 2012 by May they had become Champions League winners. Not bad that

Possibly the worst point you've ever made Bob... but it's hardly worth the effort of me explaining why.

Those clubs came completely off the top of my head Mr Reason. I'm sure there's a good few more as well. All I was pointing out was that it's not uncommon. Football manager probably ranks high if not top of the precarious jobs charts.

I agree with you Spender. I don't disagree that a lot of clubs sack a lot of managers. My point was that a lot of the time, it just perpetuates the problem.

N.B Fettish: The 8 managers Chelsea have had in the last 6 years BETWEEN them, have done slightly better (in terms of trophies) than Jose M did on his own. (using mainly, the team he built). Who is by a distance the longest serving Chelsea manager of the last ten years???..... Jose M. (That's why your 'comeback' was bo**o*ks BTW).
Mourinho lasted longer than Scolari, Hiddink and Ancelotti combined.
Aside from the gloss put on by what most people consider a 'lucky' champions league, are Chelsea any better off 8 managers later than they were under Jose? Which manager do you think the fans would have back in a heart beat given the chance?

...and which manager do you think they have absolutely ZERO chance of getting back?

The same guy...it's a russian thing. They NEVER go back or admit they're may have been wrong. He'll be at city by next summer. (If pep doesn't want it).

There's a fair chance you have the right city but the wrong team there Mr Reason.

Unles you mean Bristol, like.

I guess we'll see. Either is possible i guess. Personally i'd go for Moyes to end up at O.T and specialbrew to end up at city. (pep back to barca after a break).

Quack Quack Whoops ...Mourinho is not the longest serving manager of Chelsea in the last 10 years

Mourinho joined Chelsea in June 2004 leaving in September 2007 a period of approx 39 months

A certain Ranieri left Chelsea in May 2004 (which puts him in your 10 last ten years. He joined them in September 2000 approx 44 months Sorry but that means within the last 10 years the answer is Ranieri. Technicality but FACT. 2012-2004 is 8 years and thats why it within your timescale.

So in your words That's why your 'comeback' was bo**o*ks BTW).

Now you're trying to twist what i said because you looked a dick. It's now November 2012 (you at least accept that i'm assuming? although probably not). That means the 'last ten years' are from November 2002 until November 2012 (still with me? or is that too hard to understand?). From November 2002 until May 2004 (when Ranieri left) is a tenure of 18 months (as before that was not within the last 10 years) , (which is what said). Then came Jose's 39 months within the last 10 years, then came Grant, Scolari etc etc, until you arrive at the present day (that's today) and thus we reach the end of the quote "last ten years" end quote. All the others after Scolari, are significantly less than Mourinho, but between them, they make up a the ten year period of then to now that i was on about.

So, if you're trying to argue that a manager who has been in charge for 18 months of 'the last ten years' means that he's been in charge for longer than a bloke who was manager for 39 months of 'the last ten years', then I think you've achieved a 'bunker first'. That being that you've managed to make the same point twice and look a dick both times. Well done, well done you. x

and i was told that didn't count. I think it was clear what i meant, and what's also worth remembering was even IF you count Ranieri as being longer (i dont, not in the 10 years, but whatever) he was sacked because he wasn't deemed good enough. Jose left/was sacked/whatever for reasons nothing to do with his ability as a manager.

Practically every person in professional football is of the general opinion that overall, on balance, managers aren't given enough time. That was basically all i said that triggered all this bollocks.

Obviously some people on here know more than virtually every pundit and pro footballer you speak to who's ever played the game.

I haven't even bothered mentioning this little 'fact'... but whatever, here we go.

In 1990 a manager who made a very shakey start at his club was under severe pressure, into his fourth season he'd hadn't yet delivered a lot and people (both the fans and media) were on his case, calling for the chop... the board though stuck by him long enough to get a cup run going... 22 years later, he's still manager at old trafford.

eerrrrrmmmm...... my initial point?

You didn't read his post, did you?

Arguing with Mr Mad on Pools stats is like giving Henry Ford a lecture on how to build a popular little black car.

If you mean did i read his post about his assertion that Sir Alex Fergusons managerial ability is less to do with longevity and more to do with the formation of the premiere league? If so, yes i READ it... I just chose to laregly ignore it, mainly because it marks a new bench mark (and is clear leader) in the 'most stupid post in bunker history' competition.

Well without doubt that post qualifies you for my Ignore list!

I go on your ignore list for 'being right'?
Fine.