As in the string-pulling mystery men who have agreed to bankroll this long-term ‘project’.
Wonder what they feel about the current situation (or how much they really care ) ?
They invested and agreed to a sizeable long-term financial outlay because they had faith in Jimenez’s football knowledge and contact book, and because they trusted Slater to run a football business in a controlled way.
The first two decisions their fledgling board have made currently appear to be two disastrous ones; to instantly sack a manager as a panic reaction to a poor defeat without properly analysing the situation, and to install a rookie football management team with no experience or knowledge of the lower leagues.
As much as Powell and his football staff are under severe pressure to get results, i wonder just how much pressure Jimenez and Slater are to get the next decision right, either to back their man, or add further to the financial burden and change again ?
0
Comments
They(The mystery men) are clearly not in it for their egos otherwise we'd know who they were.
If they have been promised a return over five or 10 years then why would they be worried over events three months in. If they have been promised a return over 2 or 3 years then we have a big problem.
The questions still remain.
1. Who owns the Club?
2. What is the business plan?
3. What is the level of investment and over what timescale?
4. What are the plans for the Valley?
5. What are the plans for the Academy?
6. What is the exit strategy?
Most of us want to be able to at least look forward to a brighter future if not tomorrow then soon but there has not been much in terms of public communication from the Board. Airman Brown hinted that we'd hear soon but when and what level of detail?
Yes, I know some aspects of the answers could be commercially sensitive but if you want people to buy into what you are doing (literally as well as emotionally) then you need to sell that vision a bit better.
If we lose the next 3 games I reckon Powell will be gone I really do.
If the board agreed with my view that we were sh*t and not going up under Parky, then I don't think it was a rash decision. Maybe a wrong one looking at where we are now, but say we had kept Parky in, struggled towards defeat in the play-offs doing the same as we had done until new year under PP, then we wouldn't necessarily be any better off than we will be in the summer (other than 1 or 2k less STs) with a new manager who they (presumably) believe in, and having finished 15th...
Apparently they had seen two games before officially taking over, Colchester away and one other. I'm convinced the decision was purely based on the poor Swindon performance. I think they were strongly suprised by the crowd reaction, and either panicked or thought a change was likely to be made at some stage, why not now.
I honestly think now with hindsight we would have continued to tail away like we have (though probably not as extreme, i reckon we would not have won 4 games in a row and certainly would not have got 1pt in 24) and Parky would have been facing the heave ho at some stage.
But it was a huge call to make at that time with the emphasis of putting a stamp on things and making a very public statement that we are not going to stand for mediocrity.
That to me has backfired tremendously and the goalposts have naturally been moved as a result of it.
Therefore although Slater/Jiminez only confessed to seeing two games before sacking Parky, they must have examined a lot of feed back from Dennis Wise before then. Possibly they were not impressed and the Swindon game was the deciding factor in sealing Parky's fate.