McNulty has spoken

[Azza]

This made me laugh.

Gylfi Sigurdsson has been almost invisible

 

[Tubey]

There'll always be a tipping point though. There will always be a point at which you have to say enough is enough. The article suggests that they don't want to sack him, but unless you think they should stick with him even if we lose every game for the rest of the season, you must surely agree that there will come a point at which we can no longer accept poor results. By definition, that will mean that one game will be the difference between staying and going.

I don't see what a win against West Ham changes. You either have faith in a manager or you don't.

There's a tipping point, yes, but if you're a correctly run club you don't sack immediately upon reaching it - you wait and see. You could then see a situation where a manager is sacked after a win, because overall it hasn't been good enough over the long term.

One result either way should never make a difference. It's why we're in this mess now - it was crystal clear Silva should have been sacked before this season started, but the club is so badly run that a series of results at the tail end of the season with no pressure on saved his neck. The reality is those results shouldn't have mattered.

 

[Lanolin]

I don't see what a win against West Ham changes. You either have faith in a manager or you don't.

There's a tipping point, yes, but if you're a correctly run club you don't sack immediately upon reaching it - you wait and see. You could then see a situation where a manager is sacked after a win, because overall it hasn't been good enough over the long term.

One result either way should never make a difference. It's why we're in this mess now - it was crystal clear Silva should have been sacked before this season started, but the club is so badly run that a series of results at the tail end of the season with no pressure on saved his neck. The reality is those results shouldn't have mattered.

So a correctly run club let's things carry on past a point where they believe the situation is irredeemable, even if they could fix it immediately, because they want to 'wait and see'? I reckon you're in a minority of one in thinking that.

 

[Kirkles]

Mentioned Marco Rose - Get him

 

[Tubey]

So a correctly run club let's things carry on past a point where they believe the situation is irredeemable, even if they could fix it immediately, because they want to 'wait and see'? I reckon you're in a minority of one in thinking that.

We've just had a two week break. If they didn't think the situation was irredeemable before then, there's no reason the situation should be seen as irredeemable after one more bad result in the midst of a load of upcoming fixtures.

So by not sacking him, it's saying to me - if it was a competent board - that sacking him doesn't hinge on the West Ham result.

If we lose and they sack him, it confirms to me beyond doubt that they're clueless. He should at least have the Brighton game now and arguably Watford.

And I say this as someone who desperately wants the fraud gone, but in the long term I want to see that the club has the slightest bit of competency. That's more important.

 

[Lanolin]

We've just had a two week break. If they didn't think the situation was irredeemable before then, there's no reason the situation should be seen as irredeemable after one more bad result in the midst of a load of upcoming fixtures.

So by not sacking him, it's saying to me - if it was a competent board - that sacking him doesn't hinge on the West Ham result.

If we lose and they sack him, it confirms to me beyond doubt that they're clueless. He should at least have the Brighton game now and arguably Watford.

And I say this as someone who desperately wants the fraud gone, but in the long term I want to see that the club has the slightest bit of competency. That's more important.

I just go back to the original point though.

You're seemingly suggesting that losing could see them going from thinking he's doing great and is absolutely the right man for the job, to thinking he's terrible and absolutely isn't the right man for the job. That's very unlikely to be the case though. They seemingly don't want him to sack him, they retain some faith in him at least, but if we keep losing they will eventually lose that faith. I've done it myself when sacking people, you give them a chance and say no I believe you can turn it round, but eventually you just have to say sorry enough is enough, there's only so many chances you can give. You might still think deep down that they could do the job, but it's a results business and the more bad results you get the closer you get to the edge, until finally there's no more room. McNulty, rightly or wrongly, is saying we're approaching that point now.

 

[Toffeelover]

I just go back to the original point though.

You're seemingly suggesting that losing could see them going from thinking he's doing great and is absolutely the right man for the job, to thinking he's terrible and absolutely isn't the right man for the job. That's very unlikely to be the case though. They seemingly don't want him to sack him, they retain some faith in him at least, but if we keep losing they will eventually lose that faith. I've done it myself when sacking people, you give them a chance and say no I believe you can turn it round, but eventually you just have to say sorry enough is enough, there's only so many chances you can give. You might still think deep down that they could do the job, but it's a results business and the more bad results you get the closer you get to the edge, until finally there's no more room. McNulty, rightly or wrongly, is saying we're approaching that point now.

Is that the WHU game? not for me it is about putting together some thing like 6 results.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Always hate these articles - they always say:

"Everton have spent a gazzillion quid in recent years but why would any manager go there"

Well you kinda just gave a very good reason you fool.

 

[Lanolin]

Is that the WHU game? not for me it is about putting together some thing like 6 results.

Well I don't think winning tomorrow would mean he's no longer in trouble, it may just mean he hasn't quite got to the tipping point yet. It may be that the next time they show any sign of not progressing he's gone, whether that's tomorrow or 6 months down the line.

 

[DickRitchie214]

Always hate these articles - they always say:

"Everton have spent a gazzillion quid in recent years but why would any manager go there"

Well you kinda just gave a very good reason you fool.

Spending money does not = spending wisely. This “gazillion quid” was spread over multiple eras, with different strategies and vision. So in reality, it’s just another hack being disingenuous at best.

 

[Tubey]

I just go back to the original point though.

You're seemingly suggesting that losing could see them going from thinking he's doing great and is absolutely the right man for the job, to thinking he's terrible and absolutely isn't the right man for the job. That's very unlikely to be the case though. They seemingly don't want him to sack him, they retain some faith in him at least, but if we keep losing they will eventually lose that faith. I've done it myself when sacking people, you give them a chance and say no I believe you can turn it round, but eventually you just have to say sorry enough is enough, there's only so many chances you can give. You might still think deep down that they could do the job, but it's a results business and the more bad results you get the closer you get to the edge, until finally there's no more room. McNulty, rightly or wrongly, is saying we're approaching that point now.

Yes but my point is that the 'tipping point' should have been predetermined. It should have been "we've got a two week break coming up here - we'll see how results are gone, meet and reassess after the Burnley game". That would be competency - constant checkpoints, assessing overall form and patterns.

There's absolutely no logic behind having the West Ham game as that checkpoint. None. Makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Alanbileysfeathercut]

?

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Journo fodder. So he wins the west ham game. Then proceeds to lose the next three. What happens then? McNulty writing the same stuff. Sells papers etc.

If anything, it's a sign he's gone and the board want enough fan anger on side after another loss to feel justified give him the heave ho. But we all know there's more to it than Silva. We've brought badly for 4 seasons or so now by and large. Plus we've made poor executive and managerial appointments.

 

[jaycee]

I very much doubt any manager has ever been told by a board " you have x amount of games to save your job", is that win all 3 win 2 lose 1? If they win all three are they then allowed to go on a run of 6 games without a win? I think if any decision has been made it will happen around New year

 

[GrandOldTeam]

We've just had a two week break. If they didn't think the situation was irredeemable before then, there's no reason the situation should be seen as irredeemable after one more bad result in the midst of a load of upcoming fixtures.

So by not sacking him, it's saying to me - if it was a competent board - that sacking him doesn't hinge on the West Ham result.

If we lose and they sack him, it confirms to me beyond doubt that they're clueless. He should at least have the Brighton game now and arguably Watford.

And I say this as someone who desperately wants the fraud gone, but in the long term I want to see that the club has the slightest bit of competency. That's more important.

Yes but my point is that the 'tipping point' should have been predetermined. It should have been "we've got a two week break coming up here - we'll see how results are gone, meet and reassess after the Burnley game". That would be competency - constant checkpoints, assessing overall form and patterns.

There's absolutely no logic behind having the West Ham game as that checkpoint. None. Makes absolutely no sense.

I've been saying this for ages. Said the same about Burnley. Some fans just don't get it.