Should Knight quit as chairman

[Easy 10]

Dick Knight has been a victim of his own success.

If we'd have trundled along in the 4th division in our shithouse stadium these last few seasons, which is perfectly conceivable given the SHAMBLES of a football club Dick inherited from his predecessors, then nobody would be batting an eyelid as long as Falmer was on the horizon. Yes it would have been dull, no we wouldn't have been deliriously happy about it, but given the resources and the crippling costs of that Public Enquiry, it would have been perfectly understandable if we'd basically been 4th division furniture these last 10 years.

As we know, thats not what happened. Back-to-back Champions, a couple of stints in the Championship, an amazing day out at Cardiff - given our circumstances, that success was f***ing MIRACULOUS. We had no right to expect such feats. But because this was achieved, its now made a rod for Dick Knights back, as some people seem to be under the delusion that the upper reaches of L1 and / or Championship football is the LEAST we should expect and demand ??!

Now its going a bit pear-shaped, we're on a downward slope heading back to whence we came, and so a large section of NSC start whining like the little bitches they are, demanding that Dick Knight (the architect of the clubs success, its very existance and its entire FUTURE) should now piss off because there's someone around who will obviously do oh-so-much better.

Get REAL for f*** sake. The success we've had while at Withdean was a fantastic BONUS, but its not something that we should expect as our right. This club will always be treading water until its got a stadium. I don't like where we are right now any more than anyone else, and the 4th division will be a right SHITTER to go back to. But we still have a club, and we finally have a stadium going up.

Some of you want to remember exactly who delivered that before you demand the blokes head on a stick.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I agree with you Easy. Dick Knight has been more than good for the club and his place in history is assured.

I believe there is a historic analogy with Churchill here. Like Winnie, he took over at the helm when the place was in crisis, steered us through the dark days of Gillingham, borught us back to Withdean and turned the corner with the success of the Falmer application. And we've had a few morale-boosting victories along the way too.

Yet like Britain in 1945, the fans are questioning whether Knight has the ability to lead us through the 'peaceful' times. In 1945 everyone agreed Churchill was a great man yet the public still chose Attlee to be PM because he offered a better way forward, and wasn't fatigued by the fight of the previous 6 years.

 

[vulture]

you think NSC is just for you and your bum pals don't you? sad little man.

says mr 81 posts

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Bhadeb is right though, he should never have sacked Wilkins, and the passing of time has only gone to show this to be more and more true.

From a purely football (ie on the pitch) perspective this looks a reasonable point of view to hold.
However, some of DW's actions/activities when team manager were outside of his business remit and rendered his position as a member of the Club's senior management untenable; that is what lead to the Board concluding that he should be removed from that position.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

In 1945 everyone agreed Churchill was a great man yet the public still chose Attlee to be PM because he offered a better way forward, and wasn't fatigued by the fight of the previous 6 years.

So ... who is today's Clement Attlee?

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

So ... who is today's Clement Attlee?

Damn you ...... beat me to it!!!

 

[Gritt23]

I agree with you Easy. Dick Knight has been more than good for the club and his place in history is assured.

I believe there is a historic analogy with Churchill here. Like Winnie, he took over at the helm when the place was in crisis, steered us through the dark days of Gillingham, borught us back to Withdean and turned the corner with the success of the Falmer application. And we've had a few morale-boosting victories along the way too.

Yet like Britain in 1945, the fans are questioning whether Knight has the ability to lead us through the 'peaceful' times. In 1945 everyone agreed Churchill was a great man yet the public still chose Attlee to be PM because he offered a better way forward, and wasn't fatigued by the fight of the previous 6 years.

I like that Pav, I think the Churchillian analogy works very well.

The job DK did on wrestling control away from our very own Adolf Hitler was an excellent one, and one that secure his place in all of our hearts for all time. Likewise the "rebuilding" of the club as far as the stadium is concerned, has been a tremendous achievement despite the endless obstacles which would have driven a lesser man to throw his arms up in despair and walk away. he didn't he stuck with it, always fiercely determined, and he's now delivering that stadium. Superb.

But no-ones perfect, no matter how heroic, and no-one lasts forever. Having seen the memory of Adams tainted with his return, I wouldn't want the same to happen with Knight staying on too long. In my view he is definitely the right man to lead the Falmer project alongside MP, but there will come a time when he is no longer the best man to run all aspects of the club. When that day arrives (and maybe it has arrived) we shouldn't allow past glories to cloud whether he's still the best man for the job.

The Adams return has surely taught us that.

 

[Don Quixote]

well if you meet me im sure you would not call me a keyboard warrior pal....

I'd call you a nob.

 

[Gritt23]

From a purely football (ie on the pitch) perspective this looks a reasonable point of view to hold.
However, some of DW's actions/activities when team manager were outside of his business remit and rendered his position as a member of the Club's senior management untenable; that is what lead to the Board concluding that he should be removed from that position.

Examples / quotes / sources?

Or is that just your opinion (and not yours alone, I do realise) on what led to the sacking?

You could well be right, but there are two sides to every situation, and I'm not sure we've ever heard either of them, so everything beyond what we've seen with our own eyes on the pitch cannot be relied upon too heavily IMHO.

 

[vulture]

I'd call you a nob.

big words from a little boy

 

[Don Quixote]

big words from a little boy

None of those words are big... I don't really understand the little boy bit either.

 

[London Pompous]

The FACT is that since making that particular decision the team has gone backwards at an alarming rate of knotts.

Of course it could just be purely coincidental that it happened when we changed manager, but I think you're kidding yourself LP ..... and deep down, I think you know it.

Deep down, I haven't got a clue.

Has the team gone backwards? I'm not sure, performances have though.

In 1991 we reached the play off finals, didn't change manager, and in 1992 we were relegated under the same manager.

No one knows what would have happened. On a RESULTS (not necessarily performances) basis, I think DW should not have been sacked as manager.

If the stories about his man management issues, in particular with Murray, fall out with the board over Hammond, and other rumours are true, then this could explain why he is no longer the team manager, and why perhaps all parties should agree to a dignified silence over the issue.

 

[pork pie]

What right do you have to ask that question?

Why shouldn't he? Who lead us into this mess? Knight! He laps up the glory when things go well - he cannot have it both ways.

 

[London Pompous]

Why shouldn't he? Who lead us into this mess? Knight! He laps up the glory when things go well - he cannot have it both ways.

We all lap up the glory when things go well.

 

[Gritt23]

In 1991 we reached the play off finals, didn't change manager, and in 1992 we were relegated under the same manager.

We were talking about that after the Orient game, as we trudged away. Has this season been the biggest disappointment based on our expectations, and it was only the season after the Play-off Final with County that came close.

BUT the big difference there was the losses we had to the squad in that summer. So yes, I like many, left Wembley that day convinced we wouldn't even need the Play-offs the following season, we'd go straight up (as we should have done that year really). So my expectations in may 1991 were high, but by time the following season came round we'd sold Byrne and Small, along with a couple of other key players, and y expectations were significantly lower by the time the 1991/92 season kicked off.

That didn't happen this summer, as we released the weaker players and seemed to replace them with better ones. THAT is what is very different this time.

 

[WATFORD zero]

The simple answer is that he shouldn't step down until we have someone who is backed by the board and willing to take over. Given that you have been unable to name this successor, i would say the answer is no.

Until you can give the name of the prospective successor, I think the poll is meaningless as not even the greatest idiots on here would want us to be chairmanless ?



.....................

 

[SirDouglasLoft]

well if you meet me im sure you would not call me a keyboard warrior pal....

You big ourself up way toooo much, pal.

 

[London Pompous]

We were talking about that after the Orient game, as we trudged away. Has this season been the biggest disappointment based on our expectations, and it was only the season after the Play-off Final with County that came close.

BUT the big difference there was the losses we had to the squad in that summer. So yes, I like many, left Wembley that day convinced we wouldn't even need the Play-offs the following season, we'd go straight up (as we should have done that year really). So my expectations in may 1991 were high, but by time the following season came round we'd sold Byrne and Small, along with a couple of other key players, and y expectations were significantly lower by the time the 1991/92 season kicked off.

That didn't happen this summer, as we released the weaker players and seemed to replace them with better ones. THAT is what is very different this time.

I think most people thought that the squad this season is better than the one from last season.

I even thought in August that McLeod and Hawkins looked like canny buys, and Virgo was scoring for fun.

Was it MA's training and tactics? Injuries, loss of form, memory loss, injuries, complacency, who knows, we can only speculate.

To blame it all on DK is very harsh though, he has backed both Wilkins and Adams with a decent budget, and ultimately the players have let both managers, fans and board down IMO, but I may be wrong, Micky Adams might be a clueless buffoon, I genuinely don't know.

 

[sir albion]

Wow.

Just so you know, I prefer "Keyboard Warrier".

Dick Knight has saved this club and kept it running every year and has invested heavily, with his own money. He made a mistake changing manager in the summer, but it was his mistake to make. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but mine is very strongly in favour of Dick Knight.

You still blabbing on about 11 years ago ?
Christ you show me proof of dick knight keeping this club afloat,the money that keeps this club afloat is us fans and loans from an internal company i,e the blooms etc.

People on here are so brainwashed by dick knight its unreal

 

[The Large One]

You still blabbing on about 11 years ago ?
Christ you show me proof of dick knight keeping this club afloat,the money that keeps this club afloat is us fans and loans from an internal company i,e the blooms etc.

People on here are so brainwashed by dick knight its unreal

So who do you want as chairman?