Withdean Wanderer
Banned
Can't believe this thread is on the 4th page and nobody has mentioned the Blooms, who were NOT Mr Wilkins biggest fans....
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Wilkins - What really went on...
- Thread starter y2dave
- Start date
must admit this is the only bit that has me puzzled, given that man management/motivation appears not to have been a particular strength and siding with players against the wishes of the board MAY have been significant factors in deciding to let Wilkins go; and given that a decision in principal may have been made fairly early on.
I can see to some extent, "saving" the new incumbent from getting rid of players might have been a reason; I can also imagine that some players (Hart/Mayo but clearly NOT Reid or Butters) may have been "tipped the wink" to hang around for a trial under Adams but it's a wee bit Machievellian................or then again maybe not
Why would you wish to 'save' the new incumbent from getting rid of players.
Surely thats as important as allowing him to retain players he wishes ?
That is of course the critical point.
I am not too sure whether they weren't Wilkins supporters, however it would of been the Bloom's who needed to be onboard with Knight before sacking Wilkins.
I would argue that the Blooms were probably Wilkins supporters whilst the results were so positive and it was them that wouldnt allow Knight to have his way some months earlier.
The Large One
Who's Next?
True. It was a united board that made its decision.
How much sway they ultimately put upon Dick is anyone's guess though.
Kylies Stunt Arse
What?
Why? If the decisions he made had to go to the board before being announced, and could therefore be discussed internally, and possibly with Adams.
Maybe, although I think it may have been more of a case of when rather than if to release.
I have been told that it was NOT a unanimous board.
Now before you go off on one, I am not going to tell you who told me.
But I accept that the power brokers within the board must of supported the change, but it would of been natural for some to be uneasy at the change.
You must accept that the club was always goin to come out in the media with a united front.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
With Dick swaying about in the board, it was only ever going to end in tears.
227 BHA
Well-known member
"Wilkins - What really went on... "
At the end of the day, who cares??!
We got Micky back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At the end of the day, who cares??!
We got Micky back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
*opens the doritos*
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
I would suggest that someone needs to be fired, if they are leaking sensitive and/or confidential material to BigGully.
Undoubtedly with Knight that was the case, I just feel maybe there was some within the board that didnt share Knight's desire. It would explain the timing.
Fine......but you wouldnt be surprised would you that it wasnt unanimous .... ?
Just as it was unlikely it was unanimous when they appointed Wilkins in the first place.
So I hope I havent shocked you !!!
Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,286
Nor McGhees. Makes you wonder how long Adams will last if things don't start well.
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Not at all. I suspect most boards are not unanimous on appointments, unless it is a top manager. I am more inclined to feel that the decision to sack Wilkins was unanimous as we had just missed out on a play off spot; a loss of £2.8m for the previous financial year; crowds were relatively poor; supposed unrest with contractual talks; and a crowd pleaser was ready to takeover. Of course, that is merely speculation.
Last edited:
The Large One
Who's Next?
Assuming Micky was coming on board, when would you have done it?
So why give him a three year contract at the start of last season?
The same reason why Knight couldnt stop the club appointing him in the first place and why he couldn't sack him in January ..... maybe he doesnt hold the power within the Boardroom.
Mr Banana
Tedious chump
What I always find amazing about threads to do with Uncle Dick is people perpetually criticising him for being forthright, ego-driven, arrogant, intent on getting his own way etc…as if he’s a pale imitation of the gentle lover he once was (“ooh, you’ve changed Dicky! You’re not the man I married, you’ve chaaanged!”) And I know it’s patronising to suggest these people weren’t around/paying attention between 1995 and 1998, but if he didn’t have that kind of personality there’s no way he’d have stuck through all the guff with one-eyed Bill and the FA and ultimately saved the club. It was Herculean self-absorption and determination which allowed him to do that.
Wilkins didn’t have the bravado and gritty charisma to be a manager. He couldn’t flutter his lashes at businessmen or callously squash egotistical mediocrities. He was a dodgem juddering across the glitter and grease of a Formula One racing track. Micky is our Marilyn Monroe in Adidas half-shells and hair gel. This time next year etc etc…
Wilkins didn’t have the bravado and gritty charisma to be a manager. He couldn’t flutter his lashes at businessmen or callously squash egotistical mediocrities. He was a dodgem juddering across the glitter and grease of a Formula One racing track. Micky is our Marilyn Monroe in Adidas half-shells and hair gel. This time next year etc etc…
If Wilkins was always goin to be sacked, you put in his successor as soon as you can.
What advantage was there leaving Wilkins in charge planning next years playing staff and indeed releasing and retaining players without any input from a new manager ?
There is also the fairness to Wilkins himself.
Given that the Blooms were not Wendy fans in the first place, and from what you are inferring neither was DK, then it makes the 3 year contract offer even more bizarre, as between them they do have a majority stake.