McCall Sacked

[Jordanhill Jag]

3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Jim this really boils down to you think Ian McCall would produce a better league outcome than Kris Doolan.

That's fine. Plenty of people agree with you.

The Club Board disagrees, and clearly thinks McCall should have been doing better given the resources made available to him.

That's their current assessment of the situation, irrespective of whether he was in fact given sufficient resources by the previous Board to meet whatever target he was set, and irrespective of how realistic it was that that target would be met.

Sorry - read the reason given for his Sacking then read the statement on Finances - you cannot accept the Previous Boards decision on resources - then make statements on the state of our Finances 

Otherwise it simply looks like your Cherry Picking to suit your decision   

[Yellow & Redneck]

The recent change to the league structure (i.e., the ridiculous notion that a team that finishes 4th should even be considered for the Premier League), I think, has clouded peoples judgement. In seasons past, a 4th (or even 5th) placed finish would have been mediocre at best. I do not think that for a club of our size, aiming to finish 4th is a commendable target. If we think back seven or eight years, would successive fourth placed finishes not have you thinking that a change was needed in terms of management? 

I think with the current group of players (despite injuries), we should be aiming so much higher. I know that people don't rate Mullen for example. But for our 3rd choice striker to still have racked up seven goals for Dundee last season isn't bad going. It shows that there is a degree of depth in this squad. However, McCall was never going to achieve any more, and our form in the past few months shows that clearly. I feel slightly sorry for Scally - it is hard to know how much/little he contributed. For Archibald, I have no sympathy. For a man to slink back to the club after being manager just says a hell of a lot. There is clearly a reason that no other club touched him after he left Thistle the first time around. 

Nepotism and cronyism has been an utter rot that has infected this club for too long (another reason that I don't want Doolan as a long-term appointment). I sincerely hope that this can be the start of a proper blank slate, and we can build from the ground up. 

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

The Objective & the Budget set by the previous Board - which has been accepted by the New Board without Question ( Yet in the same statement they say there are Significant Financial Challenges ) & AR says we had budgeted for Second Place NOT - Promotion  

So what part of the previous Boards decisions & statements are OK ?  

The one that suits the decision to sack the Manager ? But not other parts ? 

If they had simply said - we have decided he is not the Guy-  and we are removing him - OK thats Football 

BUT THEY DIDN'T - they stated Promotion Objectives and that he had been given an "adequate budget " ( set by the previous Board ) 

It is possible for two things to be true at once, Jim.

(1) that the money allocated to the player budget is believed to be more than adequate to mount a promotion challenge

(2) that the Club's finances are "challenging" regardless of whether or not promotion is secured.

[Woodstock Jag]

4 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Sorry - read the reason given for his Sacking then read the statement on Finances - you cannot accept the Previous Boards decision on resources - then make statements on the state of our Finances 

Otherwise it simply looks like your Cherry Picking to suit your decision   

They're talking about two different things.

One is the player budget.

The other is the club's overall budget.

They are saying that the player budget was sufficient to meet the footballing objective of promotion.

They are also saying that the overall budget that was set will be challenging to be kept to, presumably because anticipated sources of revenue have not materialised and costs have been higher than budgeted for.

[Dick Dastardly]

9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The Objective & the Budget set by the previous Board - which has been accepted by the New Board without Question ( Yet in the same statement they say there are Significant Financial Challenges ) & AR says we had budgeted for Second Place NOT - Promotion  

So what part of the previous Boards decisions & statements are OK ?  

The one that suits the decision to sack the Manager ? But not other parts ? 

If they had simply said - we have decided he is not the Guy-  and we are removing him - OK thats Football 

BUT THEY DIDN'T - they stated Promotion Objectives and that he had been given an "adequate budget " ( set by the previous Board ) 

 

Budget for 2nd and Target promotion are not inconsistent. We break even if we are second, but give the manager some leeway for the vagaries of a season. 

Out of interest, when Ian McCall took over from Caldwell I believe that we were sitting in 8th place. When the season ended (forget about votes) we were bottom, with 8th pretty much out of sight. Pretty much every measurable would show that the form and performance would had gone downhill. Are you suggesting that he should have been sacked then because he hadn't met Caldwell's targets (whatever they were) ? I know the argument that he was taking over Caldwell's mess, but equally Dools mus be given some allowance for taking over McCall's mess.

[Jaggernaut]

14 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Will Doolan always remain a legend? Look what’s happened to Archie. 

Archie is still a legend, as a player and for most of his stint as manager.

Jimmy Bone is also still a legend, although with a blot on his copy book.😐

[Jordanhill Jag]

3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

They're talking about two different things.

One is the player budget.

The other is the club's overall budget.

They are saying that the player budget was sufficient to meet the footballing objective of promotion.

They are also saying that the overall budget that was set will be challenging to be kept to, presumably because anticipated sources of revenue have not materialised and costs have been higher than budgeted for.

So we are to accept that the previous Boards Player Budget & Promotion Targets were accurate ( despite the fact that AR now states they budgeted for 2nd Place ) 

But the other bits on the Finances - well thats a different story 

The vast Majority of our Costs are Footballing - so they are interlinked 

An alternative View is that they choose the bits to justify there decision 

To me its simply looking like they didnt like the Manager full stop 

    

[Woodstock Jag]

1 minute ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Out of interest, when Ian McCall took over from Caldwell I believe that we were sitting in 8th place. When the season ended (forget about votes) we were bottom, with 8th pretty much out of sight. Pretty much every measurable would show that the form and performance would had gone downhill. Are you suggesting that he should have been sacked then because he hadn't met Caldwell's targets (whatever they were) ? I know the argument that he was taking over Caldwell's mess, but equally Dools mus be given some allowance for taking over McCall's mess.

On a point of accuracy, we were 9th, but your point is otherwise valid.

[Jaggernaut]

14 hours ago, Auld Jag said:

Only time will tell.Nobody seems to expect much from him as he has not managed before, so unless it is a complete collapse imo it is a bit of a free hit for him. Do well and he will probably get  the managers job, not well back to the academy. As for Archie i know his last season and a bit was poor, but he did get us to our highest league position in nearly 40 years. I do not understand why he came back as one of McCall's assistants though.

Maybe because he loves (or loved?) the club and wanted a job.....

[Jaggernaut]

12 hours ago, Lambies Lost Doo said:

It took Alex Ferguson years to turn Man Utd around.  Our first XI is very good.  We have no right to get promoted esp as Dundee are a bigger club than us.  If we failed this season then we would have had stfong foundations to build on.  McCall should not have been sacked IMHO.

When we got promoted 10 years ago that was a special team.  It clicked with a lot of players signed by McCall.  We also benefitted from Rangers, Hearts and Hibs all having various reasons causing relegation.

We are a yoyo club with results that make you laugh one week then cry the next.  It's our level.

I fully agree that now was not the time to sack McCall.

I disagree that our first team is very good. I think it's nothing other than average, and if they make the playoffs they will already have punched above their weight. Unless Dools has Harry Potter capabilities.

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

So we are to accept that the previous Boards Player Budget & Promotion Targets were accurate ( despite the fact that AR now states they budgeted for 2nd Place ) 

What do you mean by "accurate" Jim? This is all over the place.

We know three related things:

(a) the previous Board argued, and members of it still argue, that they set a balanced budget

(b) that Alan Rough tells us this was premised on the Club finishing 2nd or better in the League

(c) that, accordingly, the manager's target set at the start of the season was to finish 2nd or better

Which of these are we supposed to take as "inaccurate"?

You can say that (a) is false - it almost certainly is, but that doesn't falsify (b) or (c).

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

But the other bits on the Finances - well thats a different story 

But it's not inconsistent to say both that:

(a) the manager was given enough money to be competitive for promotion and

(b) that the Club's budget wasn't balanced, or could only be balanced based on several unrealistic assumptions

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

The vast Majority of our Costs are Footballing - so they are interlinked 

It is possible that the player budget was set based on too-optimistic assumptions about performance and insufficient regard for risk of failure. I'm not an accountant, but I would suggest that any Club with a working assumption of finishing 2nd in the Championship is foolhardy. The baseline even for well resourced Clubs should be to break even at about 4th place and to spend accordingly, unless they have very substantial cash reserves.

This links back to what TJF said about the "margin of safety" and the decline in Net Current Assets and cash last season.

But equally, you can also set a player budget that is competitive in footballing terms for promotion, but for the overall budget not to be balanced. Indeed, that's exactly what happened last year when more than £215k was lost, mostly because of income that did not materialise (as was admitted at the AGM, and in direct contradiction of the Directors' Statement in the accounts).

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

An alternative View is that they choose the bits to justify there decision 

To me its simply looking like they didnt like the Manager full stop 

To me it looks like you're mates with McCall and you feel he's been hard done by. That's perfectly legitimate.

But the current Club Board clearly thinks that with him in charge our chances of a top 4 finish, and therefore chances of promotion, are less than they are with Kris Doolan in charge.

We'll see soon enough if, on that footballing assessment, they are right.

[Jaggernaut]

Ploughed my way through a lot of the posts here, and one thought that occurred is that if most teams in the division set out with either promotion or a play-off spot as the objective, and failure to obtain that results in dismissal of the manager and his assistants, then there should probably be many sackings of managers in this division every season. I mean at the end of the season, or once it becomes clear that neither original objective is attainable. But with one third of the season left and a team just 6 points away from 2nd place......???????

[Lenziejag]

2 hours ago, Tom Hosie said:

Out of sync certainly with regard to the position that we are in. 

We are not, at this point in time, a Fan Owned club. Moving towards that certainly, but not there yet. 

There is plenty about the current situation that is of concern but to try and a tie that to fan ownership is miles off the mark. 

Well, we are. PTFC Trust own the fans shares. But that is a past argument.

[Dick Dastardly]

7 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

Ploughed my way through a lot of the posts here, and one thought that occurred is that if most teams in the division set out with either promotion or a play-off spot as the objective, and failure to obtain that results in dismissal of the manager and his assistants, then there should probably be many sackings of managers in this division every season. I mean at the end of the season, or once it becomes clear that neither original objective is attainable. But with one third of the season left and a team just 6 points away from 2nd place......???????

6 points. Just a home win over Hamilton and Cove. 

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The assessment of the Club Board is that, with Ian McCall in charge, his objective was no longer attainable.

People might reasonably disagree with that assessment, but it's not one beyond the range of reasonable conclusions a Club Board could draw.

That’s the worrying thing. It’s seems to be a decision taken without considering all the factors, unless they aren’t telling us something. I just can’t see how they assess if their decision is the correct one at the end of the season.

[Jordanhill Jag]

21 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

What do you mean by "accurate" Jim? This is all over the place.

We know three related things:

(a) the previous Board argued, and members of it still argue, that they set a balanced budget

(b) that Alan Rough tells us this was premised on the Club finishing 2nd or better in the League

(c) that, accordingly, the manager's target set at the start of the season was to finish 2nd or better

Which of these are we supposed to take as "inaccurate"?

You can say that (a) is false - it almost certainly is, but that doesn't falsify (b) or (c).

But it's not inconsistent to say both that:

(a) the manager was given enough money to be competitive for promotion and

(b) that the Club's budget wasn't balanced, or could only be balanced based on several unrealistic assumptions

It is possible that the player budget was set based on too-optimistic assumptions about performance and insufficient regard for risk of failure. I'm not an accountant, but I would suggest that any Club with a working assumption of finishing 2nd in the Championship is foolhardy. The baseline even for well resourced Clubs should be to break even at about 4th place and to spend accordingly, unless they have very substantial cash reserves.

This links back to what TJF said about the "margin of safety" and the decline in Net Current Assets and cash last season.

But equally, you can also set a player budget that is competitive in footballing terms for promotion, but for the overall budget not to be balanced. Indeed, that's exactly what happened last year when more than £215k was lost, mostly because of income that did not materialise (as was admitted at the AGM, and in direct contradiction of the Directors' Statement in the accounts).

To me it looks like you're mates with McCall and you feel he's been hard done by. That's perfectly legitimate.

But the current Club Board clearly thinks that with him in charge our chances of a top 4 finish, and therefore chances of promotion, are less than they are with Kris Doolan in charge.

We'll see soon enough if, on that footballing assessment, they are right.

All of that is reasonable - however the problem is - we dont know which parts of the previous Boards assumptions or targets were correct ? 

Therefore to sack a Manager one point outside the Play Off Zone - based on the fact that his target was Promotion ( with full acceptance that this was a reasonable target & that the budget was adequate) with the replacement at best a Rookie - whilst other aspects of the Previous Boards Financial Decisions are being queried- is shall we say inconsistent

There seems to have been a very quick decision based on slipping out of the Play Off Zone by a point and using the previous Boards assertion that targets & budgets were adequate without Question for dismissal 

Lets just say it doesn't sit comfortably with me 

Its not hidden Im freinds with Colly - thats not the point - the Club Acts in a reasonable manner - it treats people fairly -Im far from convinced that this is the case - there seems to have been just a bit too keenness to bump him for my liking   

  

  

[dl1971]

Looks clear to me that this is a predominately football decision, rather than financial, albeit much will depend if a new managerial team is coming in? To expect doolan and Mcdonald to make a major impact is undoubtedly a gamble. I'm hoping it will work, but ultimately this is the same group of players who have a very average success rate this season. For the record the timing of the sacking was abysmal, similar ironically in the way Doolan was treated. 

[Jimmy McD]

If you add up the points dropped from the 5 defeats in a row, the 3 defeats to q.P. and then Hamilton and Cove that's 30 points in total, even drawing them we would be top of the league....

 

 

 

[Dick Dastardly]

14 minutes ago, dl1971 said:

Looks clear to me that this is a predominately football decision, rather than financial, albeit much will depend if a new managerial team is coming in? To expect doolan and Mcdonald to make a major impact is undoubtedly a gamble. I'm hoping it will work, but ultimately this is the same group of players who have a very average success rate this season. For the record the timing of the sacking was abysmal, similar ironically in the way Doolan was treated. 

Why is the timing abysmal ? It came after losing our 3rd game in a row and a run of 1 win in 6. Any manager would be under threat from that sort of record.

[dl1971]

22 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Why is the timing abysmal ? It came after losing our 3rd game in a row and a run of 1 win in 6. Any manager would be under threat from that sort of record.

I simply meant immediately after the game on Sunday. No issue with the need to replace him. 

[ChiThistle]

Hard to say the board should resign if the change doesn’t work out.  If the board kept the status quo and we didn’t get promoted, should they resign for not acting earlier?

I think the unstated bit here is that if this works out, we are potentially saving 5-6 figures next season (assuming the management team stays at 2, and that they will be on slightly less money due to experience).

What I find more interesting is that Dools, to my knowledge, has never been in charge of a transfer window.  And we have a LOT of guys out of contract this summer.

 

[bawheid]

In about 10 years of being on this forum I've made something like 5 posts, but the sacking of McCall in the context of the current ownership and financial position is worthy of comment from any jags fan.  I think the substance of the merits of sacking Ian McCall for his football performance is a separate discussion from the debate around how it was carried out and why it was done now, and it's important to make that distinction.  

My view is that the ownership and control of our club is in a state of flux. We have an interim board and are on the path to some form of fan ownership.  The level of turmoil involved in changing the board should not be underestimated, nor should the task facing the new board of getting up to speed on running the club, without mentioning the potential financial challenges.  

In this context, we should have been seeking stability in as many areas as possible - which would have meant Ian McCall remaining as manager, at least until the end of the season.  Realistically, no replacement now (whether Dools or otherwise) is going to win the league, and the likelihood is that McCall would have secured top 4.

Further, we should be seriously questioning who decided the sacking and on what authority?  The new board was stated as being "until the end of the  season", with Duncan Smilie as "interim chair" (and not majority shareholder therefore unlikely to be able to "control" the board/club).  Assuming standard procedures, the board will decide matters by majority-- and remembering also that the PTFC Trust are majority shareholder so they maintain ultimate power to do what they want.  No sacking would be possible without PTFC Trust agreement - is this a decision any inexperienced directors should be making within weeks of joining the board?  (Note - this is a general comment, not a specific dig at PTFC Trust directors).  

Many comments on this forum seem to focus on the power of the board to make all decisions (both this and previous boards).  This underestimates the role of our CEO.. in most businesses it would be the CEO who would lead such major decisions, perhaps requiring ultimate sign-off from the board for major matters, but in any event the CEO would be deeply involved.

Lastly, the timing immediately after the Rangers game was just weird.  As was the need for a follow-up statement on Monday (if you need to issue a follow-up statement your first one probably wasn't very good).

In conclusion, regardless of your footballing view on Ian McCall and the managerial team, this is an extremely strange decision in the context of the stability of the club and the questionable authority of the interim board, which should make all of us concerned. If, as has been suggested, there was some form of "termination" clause when the team dropped out of the top 4 then that might help explain things (particularly if it saves us compensation money) but the board/CEO should have made that clear in its statements.

This turned into a long essay -- will return to following the board in an observational capacity.

[scotty]

My thoughts on a couple of things here. It seems to me that the best way to deal with the dismissals would have been to arrange a meeting on Monday. Maybe the information was leaked and the announcement had to go out before it was made in the media? Were there any particular reporters who seemed to be ahead of the curve or had that extra bit of information?

Also, there's all sorts of speculation about Doolan's appointment. He's been asked to take the first team training on an interim basis. I take from that he's the most qualified member of staff to fit in the role, not that he's expected to win the league for us or even to turn around the form. Unless Kris knew what was coming when he was commentating from Ibrox on Sunday, it must have been a rushed decision he had to make so any more than "please step up for a couple of weeks" would surely be too much to place at anyone's door?

Edited February 15, 2023 by scotty
punctuation

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Just now, ChiThistle said:

Hard to say the board should resign if the change doesn’t work out.  If the board kept the status quo and we didn’t get promoted, should they resign for not acting earlier?

I think the unstated bit here is that if this works out, we are potentially saving 5-6 figures next season (assuming the management team stays at 2, and that they will be on slightly less money due to experience).

What I find more interesting is that Dools, to my knowledge, has never been in charge of a transfer window.  And we have a LOT of guys out of contract this summer.

I'd be hoping that judging the Board on the management change wouldn't be necessary. They after all an interim board. And if elections are in the offing resignations would be academic. If by that time for some nefarious reason there has been no movement on the fan ownership issue and no sign of elections, I'd suggest we'd have a more serious issue on hand than the rights, wrongs and timing of the sacking     

[Dick Dastardly]

3 minutes ago, bawheid said:

the likelihood is that McCall would have secured top 4.

Just to pick up on this one point. On exactly what basis do you make that a likely outcome ? The current trajectory is downwards, the current form is 1 win in the last 6 and the league performances have been appalling. Yes there was a chance to say that we could have been top 4 (which would still be below expectations) but it is far from likely. By any extrapolation of current form we would be looking at  6th or 7th as being the likelyhood.