Why would he want to do that? Do you think it was idea to have no money to spend and having to sell players without reinvesting? Or more likely, its the owners as has been widely reported and was heightened due to the issues they caused buying Nevilles house leading to a court case.

I think I call him incompetent, a symptom of our problems and repeatedly call for his head, if that is standing up for him then what would I say if I didn't stand up for him? You are suggesting that Venkys paying Waggott to "micromanage" us as if they deserve credit for it. Like theyve done their bit. Not that anyone is given any power to fully micromanage when big decisions need approval and are often declined and/or take ages to get a response. Hes clearly carrying out what they want him to do without complaining. Hes ambitionless and happy to stay in a role he wouldnt match elsewhere, so he happily goes along with their desires to slash budgets.

Clearly very desperate as they are the only ones powerful enough to force the sale.

You implied months ago that he was on gardening leave (when he clearly wasn't) and refused to answer multiple times to clarify your assertion that he was on gardening leave back then. Not sure you can go down the ITK angle.

It would. And I am not underplaying how incompetent he is. We would still have the same owners, slashing the budget, causing huge delays in approving things/communicating for something to then that isnt a priority yet intervening at damaging times, and just going through incompetent staff even when we happily get rid of one. Weve had the likes of Shaw and Agnew too in his role. Waggott's worst "quality" is that he will align his actions around the owners wants, he is in a position that he couldnt better, hes comfortable and he wont challenge for better, as long as hes getting paid. He like Suhail is just a terrible symptom.

The owners to go isnt something that is an afterthought in brackets. Until they do, moving any of the incompetent staff even if it is Waggott is fairly immaterial.

Gestede as a token director of football would be a pathetic attempt at trying to appease the fans, and it wont work.

I am not bothered that Broughton is leaving in isolation, he hasnt impressed even allowing for the restrictions in his time here. I would think we would be better off without a director of football as it just seems to cause an extra layer of confusion and conflict at this dysfuctional club. The rumours about there being disagreements wouldnt surprise me though, I expect another summer of frugality. Waggott is much more content like silent Suhail to be complicit in following the owners want to strip the club down, but he isnt the main problem yet I think that will be lost. He needs to go, but the problem is always Venkys and if further budget cuts are causing issues then its all on them.

Theres a big question over whether he is well enough to do any job. But if he is, he is the manager of Birmingham and if he wanted to go higher, he could easily get a Championship job based on the work he has done in recent years. Why would he want to come here back to owners that didnt inform him that they were letting him go, amidst the current shit show, into a job he has never performed? I know you have an unhealthy dislike of him but come on. Why would the club not want to announce that due to our position in the league, especially if it happened when we were comfortably away from the drop zone, and as if it would have been responded to negatively? No way is Wahlstedt on Kaminski level wages. The latter signed a new deal during his time here before the restrictions, the former signed when we were cutting back and intended to be number 2 behind Pears who had just been given the number 1 shirt and a new deal himself.

Ive no idea how youve come to this conclusion from my post.

Sounds good...at a functional club.

I get that he is a leader and I do think thats one big plus. I noticed for example when Pears made that mistake v Sheffield Wednesday, at full time he looked like he ws about to go and hide in the dressing room. McFadzean gave him a hug and then ushered him towards the Blackburn End. Our supposed captain Hyam wasnt the one doing it. But he is so slow and old that playing him means that you cant even consider playing a back 4 and you have to play really defensive tactics to accomodate him. I get that there are occasions when we will be holding onto a lead where that may be somewhat useful, but I want us to move away from those tactics in general. Id like to think that we will play those tactics very rarely and then it becomes a luxury signing even without any fee just to have a player on a senior wage when we have no money just to play occasionally.

Probably, has seemed out of his depth really since he joined, but then again, he isnt the main problem, so it would probably make little difference either way. I always said that a director of football can be a real asset at a functional club. But it comes with risks if that isnt the case. At this dysfunctional mess of a club, I think it probably just adds an extra layer that causes further delays and disagreements, weve seen that here so we would probably be better off without one.

Im not sure on renewing McFadzean's deal. I think hes very much helped in doing the job this season, amidst a very defensive set up trying to scrape over the line. That being said, I was hoping that wed move away from the back 5, backs to the walls, incapable of attacking style that weve seen as a short term stop gap. If McFadzean plays thats the only way we can play.

Of course he deserved sacking if he made such a big error, I doubt anyone disagrees. But it also does feel like a futile gesture considering he is/was surrounded by much bigger issues, only the most naive will see this as drawing a line under the sorry situation. Weve still got owners with no interest in the club, slashing the budget, causing huge delays wanting to approve deals, and blocking spending any of the Wharton money. Weve still got a buffoon of a CEO working in tandem with an anonymous snake in passing on the owners orders. And weve still got a director of football with a shit record who insisted that after messing up 2 prior signings, such idiocy wouldnt happen again.

He might well have made a costly error in isolation and deserves to be sacked. But I don't think anyone will be fooled into thinking this cleans up the problem. We have fucked up transfers 3 times within 12 months, not all down to him. The McGuire deal also was only resurrected as a loan once the owners refused to approve the initial permanent transfer, causing late chaos. This wont happen again were the words after the O'Brien fiasco. Still the same owners which is the main issue. Still most of the remaining incompetent staff. Weird how he never ever made a similar mistake in how many years of working in the role?

Last summer we didnt sign a left back under the rhetoric of not blocking pathways with Batty as back up, when in reality we had no money. Batty played one game against Walsall, was awful, and hasnt come close to playing since even when Pickering has been injured, with us having to play someone out of position to cover him for half a season before we could loan in cheap back up in Chrisene. At least with Gent, he has proven at senior level that he is up to it, or so it seems. There are still question marks, he is playing in the Scottish League which isnt the greatest, his team have struggled and I havent seen him play but if hes more of a wing back say and we want to play a back 4, he might not fit in. But at least there is more potential for him to provide some cover, with more confidence as opposed to spending a year playing in the under 21s. We should never assume that players can step up purely on kids football, Gilsenan seems to be doing really well for example but he himself could have done with a loan, as it is we dont know if he can make the step up or be like Vale etc who couldnt. With presumably a small budget and an onus to slash the wage budget, I fear that problem positions will continue to remain weak. Are Venkys really going to authorise us signing a keeper when we have 2, one who got a pay rise and a long deal last summer and one who was our only paid for signing. Venkys wont care that the pair cost us loads of goals and I doubt any club is stupid enough to take either from us. Equally, our team is slow, dull and lacks goals. We badly need a couple of quick wide men who can offer a goal threat. We have Hedges who is our best wide man but doesnt score many and is injury prone and might miss pre season, Dolan who flatters to deceive, Sigurdsson who has been poor and Markanday who is nowhere near up to it. But unless we can shift one, will they allow us to strengthen and add to the wage bill? Possibly not.

It wont be £10m. I think we can safely say that.

We should spend money but there is not even a 1% chance that £17m goes back into the club.

But Pears has made loads of mistakes. So many especially considering he hasnt played every game.

Clearly defensive set pieces have improved but I feel like such a small sample sized based on xg is a bit misleading on our attacking set pieces. I havent seen an improvement, our corners in particular are just as off the cuff and ineffective. I remember a Hyam header v Norwich early in Eustace's reign, cant quite remember the second one. But mirroring in open play, I have seen clear improvements in solidity, very little idea in attack.

The conclusion is that its an absolute mess with people out of their depths pulling in different directions and sadly the owners cutting budgets all the while and doing nothing to put people in line/getting rid of them.

More Nixon made up shite debunked.

All keepers do make mistakes. The issue comes when you make too many and Pears had made loads.

Theres no way that we took on Fleck's full Premier League contract, whatever we gave him as a wage it was too much but regardless of who signed him, especially considering what Venkys have been like in the last year and how little money we have, I suspect Sheff Utd will either have paid him a lump sum or a chunk of his weekly wage since his departure. I mentioned when we brought a director of football in that there are risks to it, for example differences in opinion, the manager not getting what he wants, people pulling in different directions and a lack of responsibility, when things go wrong you have various people speculating on who signed who but no one truly knows. At a club headed by dysfunctional owners it did seem a potential recipe for disaster and so it has proved.