McCall Sacked

[sandy]

34 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

With Kenny Arthur served notice ( but working out his time ) how do they think there is going to be a bounce ? 

I must have missed this @Jordanhill Jag - was it announced?

[eljaggo]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Bluntly, this isn’t a plain situation. It’s a complicated and technical one. If things are oversimplified they will (a) mislead (b) lose nuance and (c) expose relevant parties to financial and legal risks.

So it is a delicate balancing act.

I'm not asking for oversimplification, I'm asking for a well written description. Difficult, but achievable.

[jlsarmy]

16 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

I was thinking along the same line. I wonder how many Thistle fans would have wanted McCall sacked who has 901 games in management and replaced by the legend who is Kris Doolan, but not managed at all. If we were completely out of the race for the play offs i would agree with him being sacked. But, and i accept we have been very poor recently, we are still in with a chance of 4th. 

AJ , think you go to nearly all the games, truth be told it’s not been great , we’ve got the second highest budget in the League after Dundee surely our ambitions must be higher than 4th in a 10 team League .

We can’t win away from home, there had to be a change , ideal scenario is to get Dools shadowing a slightly more experienced manager.

Our Club needs new ideas , without a doubt things have gone stale at Firhill 

 

[lady-isobel-barnett]

58 minutes ago, dibble said:

I worry that a few of the players including the captain who were close to McCall down tools- one of the risks in sacking mccall

A fair point. I think most of those players are contracted only till May this year. Hopefully they'll want to play well to attract attention of other clubs. That's always assuming they're not already pre-contracted elsewhere.

[Winter of '63]

I can't say I have much confidence that the Board is taking the Club in the right direction. 

Their first communication in 2 months was to announce the management team was being relieved of their duties, mentioning in passing financial restraints. The Chair was on the previous Board - didn't he know what was going on? And why is it taking so long to progress the ownership structure? Do they have a plan and are they going to tell the fans about it?

Kris Doolan was a great player and ambassador for the Club and is in the "Good Guy" camp...but he has no managerial experience and I haven't heard any particular tactical insight when he's been reporting on games. Unless he is just in for a game or two, I fear he is being thrown under the bus as a shield for the Board...the new manager's mission is promotion this year otherwise there was no point in getting rid of McCall...maybe the Board has already given up on this.

Dundee have the biggest budget and Queens Park have a bit of momentum but Ayr & Morton haven't looked very good...I have been more concerned that Inverness might hit a run of form once their injuries cleared up, though we have scored 9 against them at Firhill. With a full strength squad, I was confident of at least a play-off spot.

I'm not sure we will achieve that now and wouldn't be surprised if some of our better players are already contacting their agents to look for another club next season. I haven't seen many opposition players I thought would improve our team but even more concerning is the potential managers...most of the names touted give me the fear. 

Edited February 14, 2023 by Winter of '63

[javeajag]

So Alan rough on plz tonight ….

1 the club had a planned deficit 

2. we budgeted on finishing second 

3. we budgeted on higher gates in the run in

4 the rangers game would have cleared the deficit 

this financial illiterate was on the board 

[MarciaBlaine]

32 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

I'm not asking for oversimplification, I'm asking for a well written description. Difficult, but achievable.

I think @jafwas right to mention clarity earlier as the key takeaway. I know there are bigger things going on in the world but for our club, this is important stuff. I want to be left in no doubt what the various parties are saying here, even if it’s a qualified or careful statement.

Over-simplification absolutely misleads, I agree @Woodstock Jag. Complicated language does exactly the same thing, just to different people.

TBH I think we’re all fundamentally in agreement! There’s a delicate balance to be struck here and we want to find that happy medium.

[Jordanhill Jag]

59 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Any change of manager is always an unknown quantity, especially when an untested manager is then brought in.

I am assuming that the Club Board has concluded that Ian McCall is unable, or very unlikely, to meet the objective he was set at the start of the season given recent performances.

They obviously think a change improves those prospects, and have acted accordingly.

If they are wrong, and (say) Ian McCall would have secured us a 2nd place finish, the Club would be £240k or so better off in prize money if they hadn’t put him on gardening leave.

If it makes performances on the pitch worse, and we finish, say, 8th, this makes very little difference to the financial picture versus a 5th placed finish (about £50k).

I am assuming (based on the phrase “relieved of duties”) that we are simply paying off the outgoing managing team in the manner we did with Archie: not all up-front. So it’s no “new” cost there.

Putting Doolan in charge limits any increase to the wage bill, especially if the promotion is on an interim basis and they reassess if things go hellishly wrong. The financial “risk” doing it this way is therefore much lower than bringing someone in from externally before the summer (reasonable guess that would be a large 5 or low 6 figure commitment, needing basically a 2nd place finish for it to be pulled off).

If Doolan makes a hash of it? No significant impact on the financial or footballing wellbeing of the Club unless it really is relegation playoff territory.

If he gets a bit of a bump in results? Potentially anything between £80k and £240k better off than where things stand now.

Against the backdrop of the Club describing the position as “challenging” to meet the budgeted expectations set at the start of the season, that is a potentially very significant payoff for relatively little risk.

Unless you think Ian McCall was on the cusp of overtaking either or both Queen’s Park and Dundee with 13 games left.

Purely personal opinion? We would miss out on the playoffs or finish 4th at best on current form. But that’s just finger in the air and vibes territory on the football side. On the financial side, unless you think McCall was going to get us up to 2nd or 3rd, this is a decision that’s perfectly rational even if it turns out to be wrong.

No Disrespect

But this is nonesense - the Management Team were sacked because they failed the target of Promotion - this target was actually set by the previous Board - along with a supposed Budget to achieve it ( whilst you have questioned the previous Boards accuracy on Statements of Accounts) but we are ti accept that the previous Board provided adequate funds without Question ie double standards ? 

If the previous management team were fired for not meeting Promotion Objectives - then that means the Board believe Dools can improve on this ( otherwise sacking becomes a Churlish exercise ) The Major risk is that Play Offs are missed - that means we have zero chance of promotion - and the changes have been a complete failure 

You have stated the difference between finishing 5th & 8th - whilst pointedly ignoring finishing fourth earns more cash-  and puts us in a potential promotion spot 

If we do not finish fourth - we have sacked the Management Team for nothing 

You cannot set a standard for one Manager and a different one for his replacement      

I think its generally accepted that there is No Cash for a replacement Management Team - so the Board have bet our Season and Promotion Hopes on Dools - Brave Move - if it fails then they are responsible - and can step down     

  

[Jordanhill Jag]

56 minutes ago, sandy said:

I must have missed this @Jordanhill Jag - was it announced?

No Idea Sandy - but my info is correct 

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Exactly 

Dools may be a Legend to the Fans -but the Squad dont know him from Adam 

With Kenny Arthur served notice ( but working out his time ) how do they think there is going to be a bounce ? 

He’s going too ? When was that announced?

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Any change of manager is always an unknown quantity, especially when an untested manager is then brought in.

I am assuming that the Club Board has concluded that Ian McCall is unable, or very unlikely, to meet the objective he was set at the start of the season given recent performances.

They obviously think a change improves those prospects, and have acted accordingly.

If they are wrong, and (say) Ian McCall would have secured us a 2nd place finish, the Club would be £240k or so better off in prize money if they hadn’t put him on gardening leave.

If it makes performances on the pitch worse, and we finish, say, 8th, this makes very little difference to the financial picture versus a 5th placed finish (about £50k).

I am assuming (based on the phrase “relieved of duties”) that we are simply paying off the outgoing managing team in the manner we did with Archie: not all up-front. So it’s no “new” cost there.

Putting Doolan in charge limits any increase to the wage bill, especially if the promotion is on an interim basis and they reassess if things go hellishly wrong. The financial “risk” doing it this way is therefore much lower than bringing someone in from externally before the summer (reasonable guess that would be a large 5 or low 6 figure commitment, needing basically a 2nd place finish for it to be pulled off).

If Doolan makes a hash of it? No significant impact on the financial or footballing wellbeing of the Club unless it really is relegation playoff territory.

If he gets a bit of a bump in results? Potentially anything between £80k and £240k better off than where things stand now.

Against the backdrop of the Club describing the position as “challenging” to meet the budgeted expectations set at the start of the season, that is a potentially very significant payoff for relatively little risk.

Unless you think Ian McCall was on the cusp of overtaking either or both Queen’s Park and Dundee with 13 games left.

Purely personal opinion? We would miss out on the playoffs or finish 4th at best on current form. But that’s just finger in the air and vibes territory on the football side. On the financial side, unless you think McCall was going to get us up to 2nd or 3rd, this is a decision that’s perfectly rational even if it turns out to be wrong.

I am surprised that you are writing off the financial impact of dropping places as minimal, as it roughly equated to the amount that TJF could have had available , which has previously been described as substantial. 

[Big Col]

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

You can predict McCall would fail to get us up…..what do u predict about dools ?

We’ve not seen how the team will perform under Doolan so it’s impossible to tell. But crucially we did see how they performed under McCall and it was clear that it was not working and performances were not up to the required standard. 

[Big Col]

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Fair Enough - but if the downward trajectory is more rapid than the previous Management Team - what then - the Rangers Game showed we can play - so its incorrect to say there was No Sign of Changing   

The Rangers game was a one off cup game and everyone knows that players lift themselves against the old firm. The performances since the new year have been poor, and that’s what has cost the management team their jobs. There were no signs of it getting better. Quite the opposite.

[javeajag]

3 minutes ago, Big Col said:

We’ve not seen how the team will perform under Doolan so it’s impossible to tell. But crucially we did see how they performed under McCall and it was clear that it was not working and performances were not up to the required standard. 

Except on Sunday….

[Big Col]

Just now, javeajag said:

Except on Sunday….

You know as well as I do that players lift themselves against the Old Firm. What does it say that they can play well against Rangers but are atrocious against Hamilton? 

But being blunt, it’s another game in the “lost” column. 


 

[Woodstock Jag]

48 minutes ago, Winter of '63 said:

I can't say I have much confidence that the Board is taking the Club in the right direction. 

Their first communication in 2 months was to announce the management team was being relieved of their duties, mentioning in passing financial restraints.

This isn’t correct. The new board gave a substantive update in early January. It was here: https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/board-update-5th-january-2023/

48 minutes ago, Winter of '63 said:

And why is it taking so long to progress the ownership structure? Do they have a plan and are they going to tell the fans about it?

The fans have been kept updated about this. The Working Group was set up and met in late December. TJF, The PTFC Trust and the Jags Trust provided a joint update on 19th January, less than a month ago, advising that the next big decision point was mid-February. See: https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/joint-update-on-future-of-fan-ownership/

A further substantive update on this can therefore be expected very soon.

 

[Lenziejag]

52 minutes ago, javeajag said:

So Alan rough on plz tonight ….

1 the club had a planned deficit 

2. we budgeted on finishing second 

3. we budgeted on higher gates in the run in

4 the rangers game would have cleared the deficit 

this financial illiterate was on the board 

Didn’t listen to it - but on the face of it none of the above are contradictory.

[Woodstock Jag]

34 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

No Disrespect

But this is nonesense - the Management Team were sacked because they failed the target of Promotion - this target was actually set by the previous Board - along with a supposed Budget to achieve it ( whilst you have questioned the previous Boards accuracy on Statements of Accounts) but we are ti accept that the previous Board provided adequate funds without Question ie double standards ? 

Jim, at no point did I say that the funds given to McCall to achieve promotion were adequate to achieve that objective. Neither you nor I know if that was the case. But as Alan Rough has now helpfully confirmed on PLZ, the budgeting assumption at the Club was that we would finish 2nd. If the manager doesn’t feel that he’s been given enough money in the summer transfer window to meet the objective imposed on him by his employers that’s really a matter for him.

34 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

If the previous management team were fired for not meeting Promotion Objectives - then that means the Board believe Dools can improve on this ( otherwise sacking becomes a Churlish exercise ) The Major risk is that Play Offs are missed - that means we have zero chance of promotion - and the changes have been a complete failure 

I’ve literally just said that the logic of their position is that they believe Dools can improve on this. Whether or not they are right is ultimately a footballing assessment. That’s what a football club board is there to do.

You think their assessment of the footballing potential here is wrong. That’s fine. Entirely your prerogative.

34 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

You have stated the difference between finishing 5th & 8th - whilst pointedly ignoring finishing fourth earns more cash-  and puts us in a potential promotion spot 

No I haven’t “ignored” this. It’s the entire premise behind the original post. They think there is a better chance of us finishing 2nd (£240k better off), 3rd (£160k better off) or 4th (£80k better off) with Doolan as manager than with McCall. That is their footballing assessment.

34 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

If we do not finish fourth - we have sacked the Management Team for nothing 

But equally if we don’t finish lower than 8th, and would have finished 5th anyway, there is no significant financial detriment. It’s a risk, but one that they’ve decided is worth taking.

34 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

You cannot set a standard for one Manager and a different one for his replacement

Of course you can. There’s been several material changes of circumstance since the original objective was set, and part of that is that McCall’s team has underperformed expected league position so far. It is ultimately a footballing assessment whether he would have improved the position between now and the end of the season. On this opinions can reasonably differ.

34 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I think its generally accepted that there is No Cash for a replacement Management Team - so the Board have bet our Season and Promotion Hopes on Dools - Brave Move - if it fails then they are responsible - and can step down

It’s just as well it’s an interim board then, isn’t it?

[Emsca]

2 hours ago, Fawlty Towers said:

If one was being harsh it was unfair of the previous Board to give McCall an objective of promotion from the Championship as that is something he has never achieved. Clearly he would accept this as people tend to think "I will get it this time" hence why when I tee off on the first hole I am thinking 10 under par but it does not happen as I am not that good.

I started a thread several months ago about his position and for the record I wanted him gone then so I am not going to be saying anything different now. Would have announcing it on Monday been better - possibly but I am firmly of the opinion that a change needed to made.

Are you ever under par ?

10 under is awful ambitious !

[Woodstock Jag]

3 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Didn’t listen to it - but on the face of it none of the above are contradictory.

It directly contradicts what we are all told by Three Black Cats, which was that the Club was being run on a sustainable break-even basis, assumed first round exits in all cup competitions, and that the Club did not require fans to fundraise in order to help with running a balanced budget.

It’s also fantasy economics. The current Club board has literally just said, even taking into account the Rangers money, that it will be “challenging” to achieve budgeted results and that this will require both spending cuts and new investment.

[Woodstock Jag]

35 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I am surprised that you are writing off the financial impact of dropping places as minimal, as it roughly equated to the amount that TJF could have had available , which has previously been described as substantial. 

The financial impact of dropping place compared to our current position is not substantial. The prize money difference between 5th and 8th is less than £50k. That figure, in the context of the gap between 5th and 4th, 5th and 3rd or even 5th and 2nd, is not substantial.

[Auld Jag]

1 hour ago, jlsarmy said:

AJ , think you go to nearly all the games, truth be told it’s not been great , we’ve got the second highest budget in the League after Dundee surely our ambitions must be higher than 4th in a 10 team League .

We can’t win away from home, there had to be a change , ideal scenario is to get Dools shadowing a slightly more experienced manager.

Our Club needs new ideas , without a doubt things have gone stale at Firhill 

 

Hi jls, i go to all the home games (season ticket holder for many years) only these days, so i would not comment on our away games. I agree that it has not been great and change was required. I suppose the point i was trying to make was that if our only option to replace McCall was to make Doolan interim manager how many of us would have thought that was preferable.

Of course i hope Dools manages to get us into the playoffs. But no matter what happens Dools will remain a legend at Firhill. It would be great if he did turn into a legend as a manager as well as a player.

[Lenziejag]

28 minutes ago, Big Col said:

We’ve not seen how the team will perform under Doolan so it’s impossible to tell. But crucially we did see how they performed under McCall and it was clear that it was not working and performances were not up to the required standard. 

We saw how the team performed at full strength - we were top. It looks like we are again at full strength. I can’t see any way that the board gets any credit for the decision, even if results improve, unless Doolan has us playing a different way.

[Lenziejag]

35 minutes ago, Big Col said:

The Rangers game was a one off cup game and everyone knows that players lift themselves against the old firm. The performances since the new year have been poor, and that’s what has cost the management team their jobs. There were no signs of it getting better. Quite the opposite.

Everybody ? Morton lost 5-1 or something to Celtic previous round. St Mirren the same this round.

[Lenziejag]

14 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It directly contradicts what we are all told by Three Black Cats, which was that the Club was being run on a sustainable break-even basis, assumed first round exits in all cup competitions, and that the Club did not require fans to fundraise in order to help with running a balanced budget.

It’s also fantasy economics. The current Club board has literally just said, even taking into account the Rangers money, that it will be “challenging” to achieve budgeted results and that this will require both spending cuts and new investment.

I did say on the face of it. Everything you have mentioned is detail, which I am not disagreeing with.