I've been plain about my disgust at FdB's sacking and initially blamed it on a cowardly and premature abandonment of the very footballing principles De Boer was supposed to be here for. Some here may completely disagree with that viewpoint and fair play to them for this is not the point of this thread.
Yet the more I read about it, the more it looks as if certain players, in particular some deemed surplus to requirement, have banded together to oust the manager.
Whether people here are glad at the resultant firing of FdB or not, it leads to a question that I don't recall being an issue at our club too often in our past; is it ever right that players have a form of veto power over their boss? Should a chairman back his appointee to the hilt when it is morally justified but against a tide of player discontent? Should a club force players to accept their boss, like most of us mere mortals must Mon-Fri, week-in, week-out?
Discuss.
Yet the more I read about it, the more it looks as if certain players, in particular some deemed surplus to requirement, have banded together to oust the manager.
Whether people here are glad at the resultant firing of FdB or not, it leads to a question that I don't recall being an issue at our club too often in our past; is it ever right that players have a form of veto power over their boss? Should a chairman back his appointee to the hilt when it is morally justified but against a tide of player discontent? Should a club force players to accept their boss, like most of us mere mortals must Mon-Fri, week-in, week-out?
Discuss.
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire