So what is Dean Wilkins thinking?

[London Pompous]

fed up of sitting at home watching Ron Jeremy in porn movies and eating cheesey Wotsits.

I hope he is using different hands.

 

[NMH]

Some people are wandering off about gross misconduct rumours or inefficiency - perhaps forgetting that Dean WAS offered a demoted position, but a position still with the club nonetheless.

If that offer had been a mere flippant distraction just to make Knight look like a nice-guy, I hazard that DW might have actually accepted it if he was feeling bloody-minded.

No, that job offer, derisory as it may have been, tells me he was still on reasonable terms with the board. Whatever his perceived crime, it was not a heinous one - so you can strike any of such rumours off.

 

[Brovion]

..., I firmly believe to this day that Wilkins would probably have stayed but for the comments from Paul Reid re when he was told he was no longer wanted and Wilkins referred him to the chairman if he wasn't happey

An interesting theory and of course you might be right. But that 'retained' list fiasco came about just before he was sacked. Given that his sacking and Adams appointment were announced simultaneously I think it's reasonable to assume that Adams was approached before Wilkins was sacked - so is it possible that he'd got wind of his impending departure, hence his comments to Reid? After all according to Ian Hart he was going to be sacked in February!

I think DKM got it right when he said that it's probably something trivial - and if or when it does finally get out, because it's been built up to be this big thing that's generated so much debate, it'll probably bring another wave of criticism crashing down on Knight's beleagured shoulders.

 

[ROSM]

Some people are wandering off about gross misconduct rumours or inefficiency - perhaps forgetting that Dean WAS offered a demoted position, but a position still with the club nonetheless.

If that offer had been a mere flippant distraction just to make Knight look like a nice-guy, I hazard that DW might have actually accepted it if he was feeling bloody-minded.

No, that job offer, derisory as it may have been, tells me he was still on reasonable terms with the board. Whatever his perceived crime, it was not a heinous one - so you can strike any of such rumours off.

I'll leave the wandering and meandering to you.

You may wish to check it out but in many cases although inefficiency is a disciplinary offence, it is rarely resolved by dismissal. Individuals are usually offered alternative positions which do not put them in positions where the actions that caused the concern are needed. This will usually follow a period of coaching and close performance management to see if the correct levels can be achieved in the other role.

Not that I'm saying this was the case here of course, but it could explain why he was offered another role. So rather than forgetting, my post was more then cogniscent of the point you made (and have been making fairly regularly)

 

[ROSM]

An interesting theory and of course you might be right. But that 'retained' list fiasco came about just before he was sacked. Given that his sacking and Adams appointment were announced simultaneously I think it's reasonable to assume that Adams was approached before Wilkins was sacked - so is it possible that he'd got wind of his impending departure, hence his comments to Reid? After all according to Ian Hart he was going to be sacked in February!

I think DKM got it right when he said that it's probably something trivial - and if or when it does finally get out, because it's been built up to be this big thing that's generated so much debate, it'll probably bring another wave of criticism crashing down on Knight's beleagured shoulders.

I see your point and couldn't disagree. However NMH has said that it is a fact that Wilkins was surprised by the sacking

 

[NMH]

So rather than forgetting, my post was more then cogniscent of the point you made (and have been making fairly regularly)

And why wouldn't I, based on the evidence where it was supposed to count - on the pitch? I'd conjecture (regularly) that things were not showing gross inefficiency there.
M. Adams, on the other hand......


And my underlining of these points, is done mostly to keep people from wild suppositions of how "gross" a misconduct might have taken place to necessitate his surprising firing. He and the players shouldn't have been surprised either, if he HAD done something that terrible!

 

[Seagull73]

a life that includes digging around the club trying to make a story out of rumours?

You clearly have no idea who or what you are referring to, so do us all a favour and pipe down.

 

[Pavilionaire]

If the reason for the sacking involved driving a wedge between the players and the board then how would this problem 'disappear' by making him coach?

I can't for the life of me understand why Knight would have seriously offered him the coach's role, because he would have been coaching pretty much his old side who, because they'd come from 17th to 7th, would have had a bit of loyalty for him. What new manager would have wanted to work alongside an outgoing manager who just fallen out with the board?

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

You clearly have no idea who or what you are referring to, so do us all a favour and pipe down.

tell me, why have I 'no idea' who or what I am referring to ? Are you also in the know then (but wont post your info on here!?)

Who are 'us all' ? Just you and TLO ? or does everyone on the board want me to pipe down ?

I honestly am very, very curious as to why you think that you know more than I do ?