Are you seriously suggesting that some random bunch of independent management consultants knows better than the stellar array of managerial talent on this forum? I mean, [ireally[/i?

Yet he wouldn't get rid of his mate Mcrae when we were in an even worse slump?

Because there was no relegation. Less pressure from upstairs.

Are you sure Simms has the power to sack the coach, thought this was a board call.

Harrison had to go, he was outstanding the season we were relegated and our first season back in SL. Harrison however failed to adapt, look at the games we lost late in that first season and this poor form continued in the following season. I can remember standing at the Catalan game knowing we would go down. It was still early in the year but teams knew how to play us.

Agree although would be interesting to know what role our director of football played in giving Mcrae a whopping 4+ year deal meaning that even if we had wanted to it was likely that we couldn't afford to pay him him off.

As far as I know, and BF will be quick to remind me of any mistakes here, the granting of a contract and the assessmant of anyone's performance in their roles and duties are part of the reponsibility of the board of directors; they may delegate the actual task to someone charged with HR but the legal responsibility lies with the board.


Therefore the "firing and hiring" and "contact" decisions are fundamentally not Simms' remit. Conspiracy theories (and Mr Alker's book) do give a much more exciting picture but often fail to reflect the truth.


To also remind those for whom the past is always rosey: the period under Harrison was good for some of that season but we continually lost from May (I think) to the end of the season and then continually into the next season through to the Catalans game. (We may have won the odd game but my memories are loss followed by loss followed by loss.)
Fans were dmonstrating to get rid of the coach and criticism were made of the tactics used on the field.
We forget.