Should Nigel have accepted this?

[Alph]

I know the talk of Nigel needs to go away now. It's done with. But I can't resist asking.

Should Nigel have accepted a less dominant role? Do you think he would have benefited from a DoF and perhaps allowing some influence on his coaching staff.

Somebody posted a rumour on here yesterday about a fall out between Rush and Nigel over a trio of loanees taken from DerbyMad

Nigel appears to have successfully fought off plans to introduce a DoF when Tom Glick was here.

I also think with the speed Derby have taken this 'in depth review of the structure of the club' could lead us to believe that the higher ups have been plotting changes while Nigel was still in charge.

I'm not trying to dramatise things but what other phrase can you use apart from power struggle?

Rush came here to make things happen. One way or another that's what he's here for.

Could Nigel have benefited from relinquishing some power?

Should he have? Or was he right to run the show considering he was the manager?

Like I said what's done is done and welcome Steve McClaren, good luck Nigel etc etc.

But I can't help but wonder if maybe, when under intense pressure Nigel could/should have allowed these changes to happen around him and not have to be removed for them to happen.

(It's a slightly pointless topic now I know. So are 5 "Clough Out" threads per fortnight.

Can't help but ask the question though. Might have been worth a shot.

[LeedsCityRam]

I don't think it was ever a realistic option. After over 4.5 years in charge, you either earn the right to manage the way you want or you don't.

 

Slightly different but I remember Terry Venables being brought in to "help" Bryan Robson at Middlesbrough because of a perceived lack of managerial nous. It worked in so far as Boro staying up but Robson left soon after - fatally undermined in the dressing room. I think a similarly proud man like Nigel would have walked whatever the limitation placed on him.

[G STAR RAM]

Rush mentioned 3 things in regards to the sacking, the one that stood out for me was coaching.

I'm guessing Nigel would have walked rather than accept his coaching staff were not up to the job.

[ronnieronalde]

I know the talk of Nigel needs to go away now. It's done with. But I can't resist asking.

Should Nigel have accepted a less dominant role? Do you think he would have benefited from a DoF and perhaps allowing some influence on his coaching staff.

Somebody posted a rumour on here yesterday about a fall out between Rush and Nigel over a trio of loanees taken from DerbyMad

Nigel appears to have successfully fought off plans to introduce a DoF when Tom Glick was here.

I also think with the speed Derby have taken this 'in depth review of the structure of the club' could lead us to believe that the higher ups have been plotting changes while Nigel was still in charge.

I'm not trying to dramatise things but what other phrase can you use apart from power struggle?

Rush came here to make things happen. One way or another that's what he's here for.

Could Nigel have benefited from relinquishing some power?

Should he have? Or was he right to run the show considering he was the manager?

Like I said what's done is done and welcome Steve McClaren, good luck Nigel etc etc.

But I can't help but wonder if maybe, when under intense pressure Nigel could/should have allowed these changes to happen around him and not have to be removed for them to happen.

(It's a slightly pointless topic now I know. So are 5 "Clough Out" threads per fortnight.

Can't help but ask the question though. Might have been worth a shot.

I'll stop debating it soon but for me the whole thing stinks.

 

It was interesting hearing Nigel talk about not wanting to bring in loans in with permanents attached to them. Only wanting to bring in loan players under "our conditions".

 

I think Nigel is within his rights to blow his top if SAm Rush is pushing him to bring in a player he might not want and then to have to guarantee that player games, it would be criminal, it's actually on the way to picking the managers team for him.

 

Nige spent 4 years buidling up this squad, building a team spirit, just because we've hit a sticky patch it doesn't give the CEO the right to force players on anyone. Sam Rush didn't fix Derby County yet he's ready to risk breaking it to force his will.

 

NC is right to tell him to stick it where the sun dont shine.

 

Wonder what would have happened if we'd nicked a resullt on Saturday and actually feeling pretty sick knowing that our CEO must have praying for a loss.

 

Sickening

[Mostyn6]

Nigel had nearly five years to create a more effective coaching setup and never once revisited this in spite of it being obvious there was something lacking.

I'm a bit disappointed in this regard as Nigel might have been a revelation had he built the right coaching team.

It always got rubbished when mentioned, but many people have spoken to players at various times and although Clough was mainly regarded positively, certain coaches were not rated or respected by the players. This is Clough's downfall.

It'd be interesting to see Clough's next coaching setup should he ever get another job in league football.

[G STAR RAM]

Ronnie look at it from SR or the boards point of view.

Even Stevie Wonder could see we needed a centre half yet the manager is in the newspaper saying we need a right mid.

That then becomes 'Nigel only has money for a midfielder or defender' and the board comes in for more stick.

No win situation and, for my money, going out and getting a young defender from Man United is better than sitting there pretending our defence did not need strengthening.

[RIMBAUD]

i'm not sure had any choice in this matter - he was sacked.

[ronnieronalde]

Ronnie look at it from SR or the boards point of view.

Even Stevie Wonder could see we needed a centre half yet the manager is in the newspaper saying we need a right mid.

That then becomes 'Nigel only has money for a midfielder or defender' and the board comes in for more stick.

No win situation and, for my money, going out and getting a young defender from Man United is better than sitting there pretending our defence did not need strengthening.

 

 

I thought the Keane signing was lined up by NIgel GStar?

 

In other wordsm even though he had been incredibly stubborn about it, he had acted on it.

 

Or did Rush line that one up as well?

 

I'm not usually a board basher but I cannot see how they've forced this through now,

 

Seriously, would he have gone if we'd won at Forest and took us to within a point of them?

[rynny]

I know the talk of Nigel needs to go away now. It's done with. But I can't resist asking.

Should Nigel have accepted a less dominant role? Do you think he would have benefited from a DoF and perhaps allowing some influence on his coaching staff.

Somebody posted a rumour on here yesterday about a fall out between Rush and Nigel over a trio of loanees taken from DerbyMad

Nigel appears to have successfully fought off plans to introduce a DoF when Tom Glick was here.

I also think with the speed Derby have taken this 'in depth review of the structure of the club' could lead us to believe that the higher ups have been plotting changes while Nigel was still in charge.

I'm not trying to dramatise things but what other phrase can you use apart from power struggle?

Rush came here to make things happen. One way or another that's what he's here for.

Could Nigel have benefited from relinquishing some power?

Should he have? Or was he right to run the show considering he was the manager?

Like I said what's done is done and welcome Steve McClaren, good luck Nigel etc etc.

But I can't help but wonder if maybe, when under intense pressure Nigel could/should have allowed these changes to happen around him and not have to be removed for them to happen.

(It's a slightly pointless topic now I know. So are 5 "Clough Out" threads per fortnight.

Can't help but ask the question though. Might have been worth a shot.

It is a perfectly acceptable question at the right time.

Clough should have been employed with a DoF or it be left well alone whilst he was manager.

If there is a chance to improve your staff, whether that be coaching or playing, you should take it, or at least consider it, and I get the impression that Clough would have seen a suggestion as interference and dug his heels in more on the situation (not always a bad thing)

The answer to should he have accepted any help, if it was indeed offered, is difficult to say yes or no to. I can see it from both parties perspective. Rush wants to "improve" and Clough thought he had everything under control and was running smoothly.

[Gritstone Ram]

Looking back at the coaching staff. Andy Garner couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo when he played. How's he suppose to develope the team.

[eddie]

Looking back at the coaching staff. Andy Garner couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo when he played. How's he suppose to develope the team.

 

I can remember him bagging 4 in a game.

 

OK, it WAS against Lincoln.

[Alph]

Seriously, would he have gone if we'd won at Forest and took us to within a point of them?

You do wonder how disappointed they were with the Forest defeat. I'm not saying they wanted us to lose. But it must have made Nigel as vulnerable as he's likely to be for a while.

I just wish he perhaps wasn't so stubborn and if he knew he was close to the sack that he'd opened up to the restructuring a bit more.

But I respect he chose to stick by his staff and by his own judgement.

He talked about leaving the club in a good position for the next person. I thought folks on here were reading too much into that comment. Maybe not.

[notts_ram]

Problem with Clough is that he was unwilling or unable to differentiate between sticking to your principles and being downright stubborn which has probably cost him his job ultimately

[WilkoRam]

McClaren made a point when asked about the DoF. He said something along the lines of - It doesn't matter what the roles are but who you have in and that you have the right people off the pitch to help those on the pitch. Maybe the club didn't feel that Nigel had the right people off the pitch and made the change as he wouldn't.

[ladyram]

I know he's a private man but it'd be very interesting to know his side of things. I guess we'll never know the half of it unless he writes about it all one day.

[Alph]

It is a perfectly acceptable question at the right time.

Clough should have been employed with a DoF or it be left well alone whilst he was manager.

If there is a chance to improve your staff, whether that be coaching or playing, you should take it, or at least consider it, and I get the impression that Clough would have seen a suggestion as interference and dug his heels in more on the situation (not always a bad thing)

The answer to should he have accepted any help, if it was indeed offered, is difficult to say yes or no to. I can see it from both parties perspective. Rush wants to "improve" and Clough thought he had everything under control and was running smoothly.

Can't believe they couldn't find a middle ground.

Like an additional member to the the staff. An experienced assistant maybe.

He really did run the whole show. I hope he's got no regrets.

[Gritstone Ram]

I can remember him bagging 4 in a game.

OK, it WAS against Lincoln.

welcome back.

[chrisbenno111]

I know the talk of Nigel needs to go away now. It's done with. But I can't resist asking.

Should Nigel have accepted a less dominant role? Do you think he would have benefited from a DoF and perhaps allowing some influence on his coaching staff.

Somebody posted a rumour on here yesterday about a fall out between Rush and Nigel over a trio of loanees taken from DerbyMad

Nigel appears to have successfully fought off plans to introduce a DoF when Tom Glick was here.

I also think with the speed Derby have taken this 'in depth review of the structure of the club' could lead us to believe that the higher ups have been plotting changes while Nigel was still in charge.

I'm not trying to dramatise things but what other phrase can you use apart from power struggle?

Rush came here to make things happen. One way or another that's what he's here for.

Could Nigel have benefited from relinquishing some power?

Should he have? Or was he right to run the show considering he was the manager?

Like I said what's done is done and welcome Steve McClaren, good luck Nigel etc etc.

But I can't help but wonder if maybe, when under intense pressure Nigel could/should have allowed these changes to happen around him and not have to be removed for them to happen.

(It's a slightly pointless topic now I know. So are 5 "Clough Out" threads per fortnight.

Can't help but ask the question though. Might have been worth a shot.

I think if your the manager,you should have the power to do what you want,nigel did a great job ,when he came to derby  they had money problems etc ,he managed to get a decent team from no where,and its always the same with allowing yanks to take over they don't like spending ,and maclaren come ,and he knows others will make the decitions so whats the point,he has been sacked more times than I can remember,again 2 stupid moves on derbys part,and im afraid derby will suffer now,

[eddie]

welcome back.

 

Thanks. Some may not share your well wishes, but I've done me bird - and like all old lags, I was innocent -  totally stitched up by the mods my lawyer.

[notts_ram]

I missed you, somone with more warped views than my own