1,152 votes cast and the margin is now very tight.
54.8% Poch to stay
45.2% Poch to go
That’s a margin of only 9.6%
I’ll look to do some form of graphic showing the changes over time when I get a spare moment.
My answer to your two questions, SPD is:
I honestly can't see who we could realistically get who could replace Poch and first replicate and then build on what he's done
He would succeed at another club, I have little doubt.
The problem, or rather, what has turned this into a huge problem...
So, the morning after the draw to Sheffield United, with 1,089 votes cast, Poxit stands at 44.5% and Pochain at 55.5%, a margin of 11%, down from the high of around 24% (without going back and double-checking).
Sorry, ollie, meant to reply earlier:
I don't disagree that he should be given time, only that 'loyalty' isn't a valid reason for doing so.
A manager could be given time because it's recognised that he has the ability to fix things, or that there are other issues going on, or that it would be...
And nowhere have I advocated for his removal. The only point I'm seeking to make is that loyalty is not a reason for sticking with him. There are other reasons for sticking with him, but loyalty simply isn't one of them.
My point still stands. One fact being incorrect does not invalidate the point. So, he did turn down Real Madrid. Big deal. That still doesn't compel the club to give him more time than a manager who didn't turn down Real.
I know your view is very much that Poch has to be backed due to some...
I’m sorry, Ollie, I’m going to have to disagree slightly.
I’ll preface what I say by stating that I also want to give him time to get it right again. That would be wish number 1.
However, in today’s football environment the need to perform is at a very high threshold. And that means that...
Went for Lo Celso - he was hugely influential. Made us tick and contributed everywhere.
Must say I'm really happy for Sonny - getting a couple of CL goals will be a nice boost for him after the last couple of days.
Here's the main take-away from that article for me:
That, to me, speaks of an organisation that will not brook any questioning of whether they are competent to officiate matches. They are slamming the door on any possibility of questioning their actions. There is no space to wedge...