DOC OUT

[scarfo]

38 minutes ago, Double Blue said:

27 wins in 79 games according to Wikipedia. Goals 123 F 138 A according to Dee Archive.

 

1 hour ago, Dondeh said:

Was always going to reserve judgement until after the Saints game. A lot of games still to go. Let's see..................

But Docs league record doesn't instil confidence: P66 W17 GA128

That's utterly horrendous 

[BobbytheBlues]

14 hours ago, FanDee said:

Its a joke.

Ditto

[HK Blues]

21 hours ago, DFC1974 said:

No, this is a common misconception. If you think about it, it doesn’t really make any business sense  - the club putting themselves in a position whereby they’d always have to payoff a year’s salary instead of being able to let a contract run down when a manager is not performing. 

12 month rolling contract is basically a standard 12 month contract which after this period either party can walk away (probably why we struggle to get our first choice managers every time - not much financial security for a very precarious job). The “rolling” aspect is an agreement written within the contract that if both parties are content with the progress being made or predefined objectives have been met within the 12 months, then another 12 month contract is ‘activated’.

If we were to sack TD now, I would guess that a worst case scenario we would be due him 4 months compo (I think he joined is in June). However, it is plausible that a contract has conditions attached where it can be terminated (manager sacked) with a fixed notice period e.g. 2 weeks. For example,  “Being in bottom 2 at split” or “After 7 consecutive defeats” etc.

This has been discussed before on here - my understanding was close to yours.  The only time 12 months salary would be required to be paid as compensation would be if the contract was terminated the day it was signed - thereafter the clock is ticking down to the end of the 12 months.  So, aye, if the contract was signed in June '24 then there would be 3 or 4 months salary to be paid if he was punted now.  

[DFC1974]

1 hour ago, HK Blues said:

This has been discussed before on here - my understanding was close to yours.  The only time 12 months salary would be required to be paid as compensation would be if the contract was terminated the day it was signed - thereafter the clock is ticking down to the end of the 12 months.  So, aye, if the contract was signed in June '24 then there would be 3 or 4 months salary to be paid if he was punted now.  

This guy describes it quite well https://www.mikethornton.xyz/rolling-employment-contracts/

[Reverend Lovejoy]

I'm not in the 'DOC OUT' camp but I do have concerns like the majority of our fanbase. Reading through the threads and pages Gary Bowyer's name came up once or twice and that triggered a thought in regards to Docherty and the imbalance in our squad. I think it's fair to suggest that Bowyer wasn't any kind of 'yes' man and that he did his job without allowing and/or accepting too much interference from above, which ultimately cost him his job. Docherty on the other hand seems, to me anyway, to be more accepting of outside influence which has probably contributed to where we see ourselves today. Docherty and his team aren't stupid, they've been in the game long enough to know their stuff so why would they go into a season with only one recognised LB and one DM, sign an aging striker for cash, not provide an adequate playing partner then ask that striker to play a game that doesn't suit his style?. Why would we go into a new transfer window intent on strengthening yet release an experienced player in Curtis Main, fail to sign a replacement then sign a couple of unknowns from the America's and a back-up LB who isn't nearly ready to play?. 

My only conclusion from the above is that Docherty is protecting his own interests rather than doing as Bowyer did and saying NO. I've lost some respect for him IF that's the case. JN, from the accounts I've read, has too much influence and that's partly why we sit where we are today. 

ONE F'kn striker is bonkers and the LB situation all over again, no manager worth their salt would allow that situation to present itself unchallenged once never mind twice. He's got to be more ruthless when facing pressure from his boss otherwise his boss, who knows the square route of diddly squat about football, will have a hand in picking his squad which can't be healthy, our latest 'project' signing can't even perform, atm, against 16yr old kids in the reserves for example.

[DFC1974]

12 minutes ago, Reverend Lovejoy said:

I'm not in the 'DOC OUT' camp but I do have concerns like the majority of our fanbase. Reading through the threads and pages Gary Bowyer's name came up once or twice and that triggered a thought in regards to Docherty and the imbalance in our squad. I think it's fair to suggest that Bowyer wasn't any kind of 'yes' man and that he did his job without allowing and/or accepting too much interference from above, which ultimately cost him his job. Docherty on the other hand seems, to me anyway, to be more accepting of outside influence which has probably contributed to where we see ourselves today. Docherty and his team aren't stupid, they've been in the game long enough to know their stuff so why would they go into a season with only one recognised LB and one DM, sign an aging striker for cash, not provide an adequate playing partner then ask that striker to play a game that doesn't suit his style?. Why would we go into a new transfer window intent on strengthening yet release an experienced player in Curtis Main, fail to sign a replacement then sign a couple of unknowns from the America's and a back-up LB who isn't nearly ready to play?. 

My only conclusion from the above is that Docherty is protecting his own interests rather than doing as Bowyer did and saying NO. I've lost some respect for him IF that's the case. JN, from the accounts I've read, has too much influence and that's partly why we sit where we are today. 

ONE F'kn striker is bonkers and the LB situation all over again, no manager worth their salt would allow that situation to present itself unchallenged once never mind twice. He's got to be more ruthless when facing pressure from his boss otherwise his boss, who knows the square route of diddly squat about football, will have a hand in picking his squad which can't be healthy, our latest 'project' signing can't even perform, atm, against 16yr old kids in the reserves for example.

I agree with all of that. The influence of Nelms and any consequent limitation is probably very much a factor that perhaps isn’t being considered enough when we are criticising TD. I’ve been quick to moan that TD still can’t fix the defence. I think this was actually an issue under Bowyer too, and in fact TD inherited most of this defence (Kerr, French, Ashcroft and McGhee). I’m guessing Nelms authorised these re-signings (French excepted as he still had a year on his to run).

However, to be fair, Nelms’ influence is equally often overlooked or, in most cases, perceived to be negative. Nelms is a bit of a punchbag when things are going wrong, which I guess comes with the territory of his role. You mention that JN has too much influence and that’s partly why we are where we are today (I am assuming you mean fighting relegation).  However, there is an argument that from a financial perspective, the partnerships and other influences are a significant contributory factor to our continued operating existence and to be where we are today (top tier). While we all want to see results on the pitch, it’s Nelms job to ensure we have a club in existence to put on the pitch. The small squad, releasing a big earner like Curtis Main, and partnership loans are definitely tough limitations; however, they are perhaps a  necessity to minimise any operating losses, or for us to creep into the black. I get the cost of relegation is higher than some of those savings; however, I’m certain that TD would have been aware of or agreed to club constraints when he took the job.

[Reverend Lovejoy]

18 minutes ago, DFC1974 said:

I agree with all of that. The influence of Nelms and any consequent limitation is probably very much a factor that perhaps isn’t being considered enough when we are criticising TD. I’ve been quick to moan that TD still can’t fix the defence. I think this was actually an issue under Bowyer too, and in fact TD inherited most of this defence (Kerr, French, Ashcroft and McGhee). I’m guessing Nelms authorised these re-signings (French excepted as he still had a year on his to run).

However, to be fair, Nelms’ influence is equally often overlooked or, in most cases, perceived to be negative. Nelms is a bit of a punchbag when things are going wrong, which I guess comes with the territory of his role. You mention that JN has too much influence and that’s partly why we are where we are today (I am assuming you mean fighting relegation).  However, there is an argument that from a financial perspective, the partnerships and other influences are a significant contributory factor to our continued operating existence and to be where we are today (top tier). While we all want to see results on the pitch, it’s Nelms job to ensure we have a club in existence to put on the pitch. The small squad, releasing a big earner like Curtis Main, and partnership loans are definitely tough limitations; however, they are perhaps a  necessity to minimise any operating losses, or for us to creep into the black. I get the cost of relegation is higher than some of those savings; however, I’m certain that TD would have been aware of or agreed to club constraints when he took the job.

I get what you're saying and agree with it for the most part my concerns though lie in the undoubted fact that practically every single season someone sanctions the signing of a player, or players, who are substandard. If these players were 'extras' who were brought in at little expense with a view to potentially earning a longer, or better deal then fair enough but these guys are forming part of the makeup of our regular squad and offering less than is required. Nelms maybe wants to balance the books and run with a tighter squad but it's a false economy more often than not because we just bounce between the divisions. For me there's absolutely no point in building something with materials that are inferior and then trying to present them as something else because sooner or later your materials will collapse and you'll need to start again with costs that'll likely be greater than the one's you thought you'd saved. Swapping Main for Lopez has saved us money but at what longer term cost?. Main wasn't a regular starter but he at least made the bench and was a realistic, available, alternative option. I'm not laying the blame solely at Nelms door because the manager, for me anyway, has to be more demanding when building his tool kit, he had a sledgehammer in Main but allowed him to be swapped for a toffee hammer in Lopez.

[Gedee]

1 hour ago, Reverend Lovejoy said:

I'm not in the 'DOC OUT' camp but I do have concerns like the majority of our fanbase. Reading through the threads and pages Gary Bowyer's name came up once or twice and that triggered a thought in regards to Docherty and the imbalance in our squad. I think it's fair to suggest that Bowyer wasn't any kind of 'yes' man and that he did his job without allowing and/or accepting too much interference from above, which ultimately cost him his job. Docherty on the other hand seems, to me anyway, to be more accepting of outside influence which has probably contributed to where we see ourselves today. Docherty and his team aren't stupid, they've been in the game long enough to know their stuff so why would they go into a season with only one recognised LB and one DM, sign an aging striker for cash, not provide an adequate playing partner then ask that striker to play a game that doesn't suit his style?. Why would we go into a new transfer window intent on strengthening yet release an experienced player in Curtis Main, fail to sign a replacement then sign a couple of unknowns from the America's and a back-up LB who isn't nearly ready to play?. 

My only conclusion from the above is that Docherty is protecting his own interests rather than doing as Bowyer did and saying NO. I've lost some respect for him IF that's the case. JN, from the accounts I've read, has too much influence and that's partly why we sit where we are today. 

ONE F'kn striker is bonkers and the LB situation all over again, no manager worth their salt would allow that situation to present itself unchallenged once never mind twice. He's got to be more ruthless when facing pressure from his boss otherwise his boss, who knows the square route of diddly squat about football, will have a hand in picking his squad which can't be healthy, our latest 'project' signing can't even perform, atm, against 16yr old kids in the reserves for example.

Good Post Rev, that generally reflects my own feelings ... In my view JN will (some might say understandably) have a Big Say on many matters around who DFC, will & will not, sign. I'd be surprised also if this power/influence did not extend to other areas, that would & should, be well left to the manager (TD) who with his Supporting Team, is actively employed (on a daily basis) to monitor his players and make the numerous decisions, around selection, tactics, health, fitness...And many other matters.

It may be that this is the case & JN does leave all this to TD,. But "my feeling" is, I don't think he does. I've intentionally used the word feeling, because in fairness to him, I've no idea or proof at all, of what he sees as his role & responsibilities 

With regard to Replacement Manager, I'd prefer to see the day out, before deciding, whether, that's the road to take.

But as it stands just now, I cannot see how any New Manager, could improve our situation...If JN cannot step back.

However, Today is all about Winning 3 Points.

SO LET'S GET OUT THERE & GET THEM

[Dees]

Can anyone advise who the people in charge of our scouting and signings are? We appear to have a terrible record in this area which may be a bigger reason for our troubles than our managerial appointments. 

Looking at the January window, we signed Donelly, Samuels, Lopez and Garza. Donelly has been playing regular, although tends to hoof the ball, which you can get away with if you have a target man...which we don't!. Garza has looked hard working and half decent in midfield although he is not getting many minutes although more than Lopez and Samuels who get next to bu99er all. Some window that eh? 

And why do we continue to take players on loan when they rarely get minutes on the pitch? Vetro and Braybrooke two more who didn't quite cut it...so WTF did we ever sign them? Then there is the decent if fit signings which typically don't work to our advantage, Curtis Main and Scott Fraser. (Appreciate Scott has had problems with his recovery and I'm sure we all wish him well and look forward to him getting back into the match day squad_. 

So can some one please advise, who is responsible for this? Does Doc have much of a say, if any? Appreciate he gets to see them in training however I don't get the feeling he is involved in who he is being presented with on the training pitch. Possibly more a case of, "...here's the players we've shortlisted, take your pick". And if they aren't good enough, it's a case of picking the best from a bad bunch. 

Appreciate if anyone in the know could advise.

[Dees]

4 hours ago, DFC1974 said:

I agree with all of that. The influence of Nelms and any consequent limitation is probably very much a factor that perhaps isn’t being considered enough when we are criticising TD. I’ve been quick to moan that TD still can’t fix the defence. I think this was actually an issue under Bowyer too, and in fact TD inherited most of this defence (Kerr, French, Ashcroft and McGhee). I’m guessing Nelms authorised these re-signings (French excepted as he still had a year on his to run).

However, to be fair, Nelms’ influence is equally often overlooked or, in most cases, perceived to be negative. Nelms is a bit of a punchbag when things are going wrong, which I guess comes with the territory of his role. You mention that JN has too much influence and that’s partly why we are where we are today (I am assuming you mean fighting relegation).  However, there is an argument that from a financial perspective, the partnerships and other influences are a significant contributory factor to our continued operating existence and to be where we are today (top tier). While we all want to see results on the pitch, it’s Nelms job to ensure we have a club in existence to put on the pitch. The small squad, releasing a big earner like Curtis Main, and partnership loans are definitely tough limitations; however, they are perhaps a  necessity to minimise any operating losses, or for us to creep into the black. I get the cost of relegation is higher than some of those savings; however, I’m certain that TD would have been aware of or agreed to club constraints when he took the job.

Appreciate what you are saying however other clubs have someone in the same position as Nelm's doing the same job to do and most seem to manage, some on even tighter financial constraints than ours. After 10+ years, I'm hesitant to make any excuses for Nelm's i'm afraid.  

[Indeed]

Main scored TWICE for Ayr today. Nuff said.

[charliedee]

6 minutes ago, Indeed said:

Main scored TWICE for Ayr today. Nuff said.

Against fu*king Airdrie...nuff said