carl_spackler wrote:
I would be more inclined to say that it had underformed in several ways that all relate to the playing aspect, but it's a matter of opinion. Yes, the main positive is the profitability, but there is also our strong franchise position as well as hearing our community work receiving a lot of praise.
The bottom line is that contrary to what many fans seem to think, Rule's job is not to run the club as the fans would like, it's to run it in the way the shareholders want. I therefore see an inconsistency in saying that the old board wanted only to make as much money as they could, and to then say that Rule is poor at his job. If the former is true, then Rule has done his job very well. His new employer would seem to want different things, and Rule may well be just as capable of delivering them.
I'm not saying that Rule is fantastic, or even definitely the right man long term. I'm just saying that I think it's strange to call for his head when we don't know what he has and hasn't been responsible for and the room he's had to work with to do it. He's being tarred with the same brush as the outgoing board when he wasn't a true part of them or one of their peers. Pearson is the man in the right position to make the call, not us.
Nicely put. I fail to see how anyone could argue with any of that.
Half Time
