Towards the board... Has anything actually come out yet saying who's decision it was for Daniel to leave? All I've seen is people ranting and flouncing about over it all but we aren't in possession of the full facts yet are we? I get peoples worries over the squad and the way it was put together over the summer but Daniel must of been aware of it and decided to start the season with the team he had. If he has now decided its untenable and the board haven't backed him then that is a worry but we don't actually know what's happened so calling to boycott and not go to games and back the lads is a bit premature!
Whether he was sacked or resigned is a moot point . The owners lack of support in terms of listening to the coaching staff made his position untenable
Im not sure that's correct... We all know including the manager how the board wanted to work! If Daniel no longer feels he can then that's his choice and he's correct to move on!
Full facts or not, the guy deserved far more than a two line club statement. At the very least thank the guy for his work over the last 15 months and for getting us back into the championship.
But the board selected Daniel because of the style he plays. If they refused him the people to play that style then who is at fault?
I disagree with the first part fundamentally. There have been numerous comments down the years of our recruiting and how we tend to get players with experience but at a young age. So age may not be old, but relative experience means they've played plenty of games. If you look at many of our summer signings, of the 12, 10 were 22 and under. That's younger than we've historically signed. 22-24 have been much more normal. The issue with this is that there are 2 years of life experiences, growing, developing their game and fitness that we haven't benefitted from. Not only this, but the statistical data gathered for a 20 year old will be based on less raw data than a 24 year old. Physical human movements and game decision making may not mature and become more consistent and habitual at a young age. But what is sure, is that buying decisions are being made on lesser evidence that the player is the right player for a given role, compared to a player with more games acquired over time, therefore his age, with more raw data available. "The plan" isn't what Cryne was using. We have younger signings with less gametime, and in greater number, without any loans at all. Now if Stendel was told this at his interview 16-17 months ago, fair dos. But I don't think many of us would have expected the age to drop so markedly from what was already a very young League 1 squad and for replacements to have so little experience or game time, just generally, not even the Championship or equivalent level. The plan has become more extreme, and sadly, much of the summer, the owners were lauded for doing away with loans and bringing in such volume. The coach hasn't been backed in the way he requested. He asked for experience multiple times and has been denied. He's either been sacked for asking for the tools he needs or he's walked because his position is untenable and he can't do his job, essentially a constructive dismissal.
The Chronicle say Stendel wanted to sign some free agents, something we have all been wanting the club to do. They refused and it doesn't really matter whose decision it then was for Stendel for leave.
