[retired_tanuja]

Originally posted by Herman Bloom:
Not sure what he was asking for when he hasn't spoken to the board for three weeks.

But the chairman basically called Billy a liar on Sunday by saying he can't understand Billy's post match comments as they've been in constant contact.

Billy was then promptly ordered to attend a meeting at 9AM this morning - cue sacking.

[trotamundos]

Well when there are two people, one claiming they speak and one claiming they don't. I'd question what relationship they've had from the start, in which case why does he get offered and sign a new contract?

Awful decision either way.

[retired_Pinkie83]

But it's the new chairman that sacked him, the new contract he signed in the summer was with the board after the takeover.

[retired_txanya]

Obviously it's easy to assume that it's about results, but I don't think that's the case. Everything seems to be indicating that it's a breakdown in the relationship between Davies and the board and none of us are in a position to know just how bad it became.

[trotamundos]

Originally posted by sean_oc16:
But it's the new chairman that sacked him, the new contract he signed in the summer was with the board after the takeover.

Ah OK. In that case the new Chairman is a bit of an idiot, in my humble opinion.

[retired_knitter82]

Watford played better last season than Derby are doing now. Yes, Derby were always favourites to finish last, but it doesn't mean that just any result is acceptable.

[retired_Pinkie83]

Originally posted by Herman Bloom:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by sean_oc16:
But it's the new chairman that sacked him, the new contract he signed in the summer was with the board after the takeover.

Ah OK. In that case the new Chairman is a bit of an idiot, in my humble opinion. </BLOCKQUOTE>

And I agree with your humble opinion

[trotamundos]

Originally posted by Qolumbo:
Watford played better last season than Derby are doing now. Yes, Derby were always favourites to finish last, but it doesn't mean that just any result is acceptable.

Fully agree. Would look at the resources available though. A team that went up along with Derby, invested heavily, and are in the bottom three and just lost 7-1. Perspective.

[retired_Pinkie83]

Actually, when saying what manager would want the job, it's the same for players. What players of the quality needed would want to come to us now, especially if they didn't at the beginning of the season, so it's going to be hard for any new managers to sign players if they are given funds or not.

[retired_kris10nicole]

Originally posted by msteuk:

I'm in no way saying it's the right choice. Just that you can kind of see their reason if they assume they're being relegated anyway.

That isn't reason though? If they assume they're being relegated anyway, whay have they got to gain by sacking him? They're losing a man who's built the current squad, and has acheived promotion ahead of schedule, i.e proving he's got what it takes to bring them back up. A new man will want to rebuild the squad, which will cost them more money and time.

If they feel they can stay up, and the poor results are down to Davies more than the lack of talent in the playing staff, then you could say there was some reasoning behind it. Almost certainly wrong, in that i don't see anyone keeping up a team that scraped promotion through the playoffs and then only spent £6m on an already weak squad. But logical based on the initial premise of it being down to the manager at least. I don't see the logic in your argument at all.