When we sacked Brian Laws we were 9th in the table

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Fri May 12, 2017 11:17 am

Laws got a great welcome from the stands even though 99% of the fans were underwhelmed. He should of gone at the end of the season though as it was a weird atmosphere. The only manager I have ever chanted for to leave.

When the news come through he had been sacked everyone was made up, the fans had really turned against him by then. But any manager of a relegated premier league club in 9th place would be sacked now.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri May 12, 2017 11:27 am

Give it another 10 years and he'll be reinvented on here as the man who had the impossible job, and without him, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Can't be arsed with this to be honest, he was a **** poor manager for us, and the board (who never act rashly remember) potted him as soon as they realised that the job he was doing was not the one that needed to be done.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:06 pm

ClaretTony wrote:The only other candidate was O'Driscoll. Even a lot of out of work managers didn't want it because nine games without a win told them where we were heading.

If you read his book, Flood pushed hard to get Laws when Cotterill left. He was persuaded not to by the other directors. You can only assume he got his way second time round.

Barry Kilby openly admitted on the radio a few years back that a proven Premier League manager had been interviewed but they dismissed his application as he wanted £1m welcome bonus and a further £1m if he kept us up, at which point he would be leaving. I'm pretty sure it was Coppell who, at the time, had just missed out in the playoffs with Reading.

So we either took a guaranteed £1m loss if we were relegated or a net profit of £28m as we would have earned a further £30m PL money if we stayed up. That and the chance to start a fresh with a new manager either way in less rushed circumstances.

Instead we took on Laws who had no PL experience, no history of success and was off the back of basically getting Wednesday relegated. Not only that but we allowed him to spunk our greatest budget at the time on Iwelumo and Cort.

Just let that settle in. The board chose Brian Laws, his wasted transfers and his final payout over a guaranteed £1m outlay because he was the better option.

That said, we do need to remember the same board took us into a transfer embargo and god knows what had we failed to win the playoff final. Maybe finance and risk wasn't their strong suit?

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:13 pm

Lord Beamish wrote:Dixon played 4 games for us. Laws played 125.

Partnership? I don't even know if they played together.

I'm sure I saw them play together both where given away by Bond I think,and had fantastic playing careers away from the Turf
BOND!

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:18 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Hardly, they both played right back and never played together. Dixon came in for the injured Laws.

Sorry my bad,it's an age thing.

Silkyskills1 · Post by **Silkyskills1** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:20 pm

Laws and Wharton were a good full back partnership. Scored a number of important goals between them in 81-82 when Dobo was used as a sweeper.

Diesel · Post by **Diesel** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:20 pm

I've just produced the biggest yawn I've ever done and I'm not even tired.

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:24 pm

Remember a story about Wharton being sent out to the shops to buy Bond's cigar's,I hated what Bond did to our club.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:32 pm

I too recall there being a manager who wanted a £1 million pound bonus. May well have been Coppell and at the time that would have been the better option IMO.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:36 pm

I actually think the board were paranoid about being done over financially after the Judas and staff exit. They felt wounded by it and took what they thought was the low risk cautious option.

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:40 pm

Darthlaw wrote:Just let that settle in. The board chose Brian Laws, his wasted transfers and his final payout over a guaranteed £1m outlay because he was the better option.

That said, we do need to remember the same board took us into a transfer embargo and god knows what had we failed to win the playoff final. Maybe finance and risk wasn't their strong suit?

The entire Flood period was awful. I had an opportunity to fly over for the Scunthorpe game, and did. Good grief, it reminded me of the old 4th division days.

The Board got it wrong all round, and to an extent won the lottery when Dyche applied, who had done a great job at Watford. They're still profiting from that lottery win, how Dyche has been able to make it happen in all areas of the playing side of the club.

I didn't like Flood, I didn't like the Board's decision to appoint Laws, they got lucky with Dyche, and I still think there are levels of dubiousness about them that the competency of Dyche is shielding

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:41 pm

Frankly someone coming in with demands like that are only after one thing - money. I wouldn't like the idea of employing someone like that.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:47 pm

Darthlaw wrote:So we either took a guaranteed £1m loss if we were relegated or a net profit of £28m as we would have earned a further £30m PL money if we stayed up. That and the chance to start a fresh with a new manager either way in less rushed circumstances.

Instead we took on Laws who had no PL experience, no history of success and was off the back of basically getting Wednesday relegated. Not only that but we allowed him to spunk our greatest budget at the time on Iwelumo and Cort.

Balancing the signings of Cort & Iwelumo he did sign Marney which more than made up for that. I don't think anyone can name a better value signing in recent times.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:50 pm

NRC wrote:The entire Flood period was awful. I had an opportunity to fly over for the Scunthorpe game, and did. Good grief, it reminded me of the old 4th division days.

The Board got it wrong all round, and to an extent won the lottery when Dyche applied, who had done a great job at Watford. They're still profiting from that lottery win, how Dyche has been able to make it happen in all areas of the playing side of the club.

I didn't like Flood, I didn't like the Board's decision to appoint Laws, they got lucky with Dyche, and I still think there are levels of dubiousness about them that the competency of Dyche is shielding

Name a club that has a board that are doing better than ours? I bet you can't.

We are now held up as one of the best, if not the best, model to follow in football. We are a perfectly run football club - if there is one.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:50 pm

Hipper wrote:Frankly someone coming in with demands like that are only after one thing - money. I wouldn't like the idea of employing someone like that.

So you went for the 'safe' option, eh Brendan? The one with 'one of our own' in charge.

£1m loss, an experienced PL manager albeit a mercenary and a chance to take stock and go again in the summer.

or

£ millions wasted, a manager experienced at mediocrity who's just been fired for poor performance and trusting him with guiding the ship for the next few seasons.

Take the names out and you see just how mental the decision to employ him was.

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:04 pm

Spijed wrote:Name a club that has a board that are doing better than ours? I bet you can't.

We are now held up as one of the best, if not the best, model to follow in football. We are a perfectly run football club - if there is one.

Spijed, re-read my post. Dyche is making their job easy, it's HIS skills at play not theirs. The model works because of Dyche.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:07 pm

NRC wrote:Spijed, re-read my post. Dyche is making their job easy, it's HIS skills at play not theirs. The model works because of Dyche.

But they employed him, like they did Howe & Coyle. That's three managers who've been in the Premier League. They must be doing something right. Using your argument it could be said that any club is only successful because of the manager and not the board. What about Man U & Fergie for example? Like wise any other big club?

Name a board of directors & Chairman at any other club that you could say are better than ours?

arise_sir_charge · Post by **arise_sir_charge** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:08 pm

Some revisionist nonsense on this thread.

Brian Laws was a truly woeful appointment. It lacked thought, conviction, ambition.......you name it, it lacked it. He was even highlighted as a cheap option at his own welcome press conference with the stupid references to Delloite Touche reports etc.

He could inspire neither player nor fan. It was a car crash from day one.

As for nobody else wanted it, it's widely been reported that Andre Villas Boas wanted it and was interviewed. Also I believe the £1m up front and £1m bonus man was Mark Hughes as opposed to Steve Coppell.

We made an horrendous appointment the day we appointed Laws. I'm just happy we have got it right since!

TsarBomba · Post by **TsarBomba** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:09 pm

NRC wrote:The entire Flood period was awful. I had an opportunity to fly over for the Scunthorpe game, and did. Good grief, it reminded me of the old 4th division days.

The Board got it wrong all round, and to an extent won the lottery when Dyche applied, who had done a great job at Watford. They're still profiting from that lottery win, how Dyche has been able to make it happen in all areas of the playing side of the club.

I didn't like Flood, I didn't like the Board's decision to appoint Laws, they got lucky with Dyche, and I still think there are levels of dubiousness about them that the competency of Dyche is shielding

Any appointment that turns out to be a good one, will probably entail a bit of luck on the way. What we have always done, and which we should always look to do, is give our managers that bit of time to get their ideas across. Let's not forget that after 6 months of being in charge, Dyche was far from universally popular. A significant minority would've been quite happy to pot him after the Cardiff game which we won, to keep us up.

Regarding Laws, let's not kid ourselves and say we gave him our full backing. It was a terrible appointment, one which the club and board paid for, and although it was understandable why we never took to Laws, the writing was always on the wall once we had been relegated, if not before. The football was crap, and his appointment was a white flag.

I remember sitting in the JML for the home defeat against Wolves. There was a large section of 'fans' behind me chanting 'LAWS OUT', and there were a number of others standing up to confront them. The club was in turmoil, and the fans were hurting from the betrayal of Coyle. It was probably expected that Laws would get the brunt of our anger, because it was the only way we could really vent, but to suggest he got a fair crack of the whip from even the majority of fans is laughable.

Tinribs · Post by **Tinribs** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:10 pm

joey13 wrote:He got a fantastic reception at Old Trafford in his first game , usual suspects blaming the fans .

Laws blamed the Burnley fans in his book and said he was disappointed in how the fans treated him,he was booed off after winning at Barnsley

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:15 pm

Spijed wrote:But they employed him, like they did Howe & Coyle. That's three managers who've been in the Premier League. They must be doing something right. Using your argument it could be said that any club is only successful because of the manager and not the board. What about Man U & Fergie for example? Like wise any other big club?

Name a board of directors & Chairman at any other club that you could say are better than ours?

That's highly subjective, spijed. On what criteria would you like me to judge that? Take Dyche out of the equation and it's probably a deep list
-

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:26 pm

NRC wrote:The entire Flood period was awful. I had an opportunity to fly over for the Scunthorpe game, and did. Good grief, it reminded me of the old 4th division days.

The Board got it wrong all round, and to an extent won the lottery when Dyche applied, who had done a great job at Watford. They're still profiting from that lottery win, how Dyche has been able to make it happen in all areas of the playing side of the club.

I didn't like Flood, I didn't like the Board's decision to appoint Laws, they got lucky with Dyche, and I still think there are levels of dubiousness about them that the competency of Dyche is shielding

Flood gets a lot of stick for his risky approach and his business eventually having to call the loans in but the whole premier league wouldn't of happened without him.
You may argue we were close to going the other way but without overstretching for the like of Eagles and Pato we would have stayed in the bottom reach of the championship until we eventually dropped.

Transpennine · Post by **Transpennine** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:31 pm

Laws' appointment turned out about as expected. However does anyone remember the starting 11 v citeh at home (1-5 was it? ) truly terrifying i recall...

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:32 pm

NRC wrote:That's highly subjective, spijed. On what criteria would you like me to judge that? Take Dyche out of the equation and it's probably a deep list
-

I'd want a set of directors that know how to live within their means and not throw about unlimited funds, trying to buy success.

That rules out virtually every other club in the Premier league for a start!

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:33 pm

Transpennine wrote:Laws' appointment turned out about as expected. However does anyone remember the starting 11 v citeh at home (1-5 was it? ) truly terrifying i recall...

6 I think

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:35 pm

Is this the one where McDonald buggered off for a pint with his dad at half time?

Transpennine · Post by **Transpennine** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:36 pm

Just found the team. A front 5 of McDonald, Blake, Eagles, Fletcher & Nugent.
Heaven help us...

Transpennine · Post by **Transpennine** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:37 pm

Not much of a defensive framework there..

Steve- yes that's the match. Cork replaced McDonald at HT...

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:41 pm

Darthlaw wrote:So you went for the 'safe' option, eh Brendan? The one with 'one of our own' in charge.

£1m loss, an experienced PL manager albeit a mercenary and a chance to take stock and go again in the summer.

or

£ millions wasted, a manager experienced at mediocrity who's just been fired for poor performance and trusting him with guiding the ship for the next few seasons.

Take the names out and you see just how mental the decision to employ him was.

And Steve Coppell went to Bristol City instead, where he lasted two games before resigning saying that he was no longer interested in management. Laws was a better option than that.

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:44 pm

Transpennine wrote:Not much of a defensive framework there..

Steve- yes that's the match. Cork replaced McDonald at HT...

Trans, it poured down all the game as well,absolutely miserable day wet through to the skin in the James Hargreaves lower,really is a poor roof on that stand !

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:46 pm

Do you think Laws kept his job for the following season on the back of the 4-2 win against Spurs in the last game of that season? .....Probably

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:50 pm

Assuming that the board did not have a Delorean hanging around in January 2010 to see what Coppell would do in the future at a different club under different circumstances, my point remains. Take the names out, stupid decision.

Putting Timmy Mallet in charge for a guaranteed £1m loss would have been a better option than Laws, although the players might have been inspired more.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:52 pm

Laws was a bad appointment when the club needed a real lift and he came into a toxic atmosphere with almost no chance to arrest a seemingly inevitable slide to relegation, particularly once the players made clear that they weren't going to play for him. His following season was fairly steady but it needed to be a lot better than that to win fans or players around and it was the right decision to sack him when we did. Whether there were better, realistic options at the time can be debated forever more but the truth is that none of us really know - what is certain is that the board weren't remotely prepared for Coyle's possible departure and I'm sure they've learned lessons from that.

His much maligned record in the transfer market actually wasn't bad. Marney has been promoted twice with us, Wallace once, Grant was player of the year when he left, Fox was sold for a profit, Iwelumo was banging them in until his legs went, Cork was arguably the best midfielder we'd had play for us in many a year. Yeah, I know, Leon Cort - but criticising that without considering the context in which he was signed is just daft.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:52 pm

Darthlaw wrote: Putting Timmy Mallet in charge for a guaranteed £1m loss would have been a better option than Laws, although the players might have been inspired more.

Bit of wacaday at the training ground to get them going and his song blaring out pre-match.....

Itsy bitsy
teeny weeny yellow
polka dot bikini

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri May 12, 2017 3:16 pm

Darthlaw wrote:Assuming that the board did not have a Delorean hanging around in January 2010 to see what Coppell would do in the future at a different club under different circumstances, my point remains. Take the names out, stupid decision.

Putting Timmy Mallet in charge for a guaranteed £1m loss would have been a better option than Laws, although the players might have been inspired more.

There was already good reason to doubt Coppell's enthusiasm. Quite apart from how he may have come across at the interviews, do you remember the play-offs the year before? He was hardly an inspiring figure then, and immediately resigned in spite of having had a pretty successful season.

Slate the board of directors for what they did, fair enough. But to say that what they did wrong was stupidity and what they did right was pure luck, that's unfair. the board decided for whatever reason that Coppell wouldn't be a good choice, and events proved them (as conclusively as possible) right. Give them credit for that.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Fri May 12, 2017 3:56 pm

dsr wrote:Slate the board of directors for what they did, fair enough. But to say that what they did wrong was stupidity and what they did right was pure luck, that's unfair. the board decided for whatever reason that Coppell wouldn't be a good choice, and events proved them (as conclusively as possible) right. Give them credit for that.

1. I've said nothing about their right decisions being pure luck - I'm sure you're confusing me with someone else. The decision to appoint Dyche was down to his work ethos and Howe's down to his achievements in the game. Certainly in Howe's case it was a no brainer and in Dyche they spotted a talent which could take us further. All credit is due there.

2. I would say that seen as Laws caught a bullet within 12 months, events proved, as conclusively as possible, that the decision to appoint him was quite wrong. For that I'll lay the blame squarely at their door.

Wile E Coyote · Post by **Wile E Coyote** » Fri May 12, 2017 4:21 pm

god, hindsight eh ?
what a load of cobblers. tons of examples of seemingly "dud " managers turning things round.
Most famously Fergie, he had the advantage of chucking a few million quid at his problems though.
Our targets for manager were not popular, we had seen a huge improvement in our fortunes, then it was all going **** up.
Even well established managers can struggle if things are disjointed enough at boardroom and playing level.
Laws was on a hiding to nothing at the time. It wasn't a case of abject failure as many want to suggest.
It is thankfully irrelevant now, but we are reading now our board are not the virtuous beacons of level headedness, instead, there is , or was, a darker side, only kept in the shadows due to the throw of a dice on dyche, and his comptent style coming to the rescue.
Its all nuts.

Conroy92 · Post by **Conroy92** » Fri May 12, 2017 4:23 pm

Perhaps a mistake to appoint him or perhaps very limited options, either way, he was average. The atmosphere was poisonous most games and he needed to go to bring the fans back together.
That being said, while it was a mistake to hire him by the board, the desicion to get rid of him and not give him the time we gave other managers deserves recognition. You might say it was too late and he should have gone at the end of the prem but like others have said, he brought in some important players in Marney, Wallace, Cork, Grant and left us in the top 10 of the championship. People are very quick to dig the board, yes they made a mistake but I like to think they put it right before we had suffered any incremental damage and the appointments since have been excellent.
At the time, like most, I was annoyed. I too thought it was p*** poor. Looking back...it was a tiny blip on a great journey, one that taught us a few lessons.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Fri May 12, 2017 4:36 pm

Darthlaw wrote:I would say that seen as Laws caught a bullet within 12 months, events proved, as conclusively as possible, that the decision to appoint him was quite wrong. For that I'll lay the blame squarely at their door.

Going back to my original point, he was doing no worse than many so-called better managers in the Championship have or are currently doing.

boyyanno · Post by **boyyanno** » Fri May 12, 2017 5:07 pm

He was a bad appointment, but if you look at the rest of them that were linked at the time it's not like they've gone on to amazing things either.

I've no idea what Laws could have achieved with us had he stayed, we certainly languished back in the championship until Dyche arrived. The main difference for me is that the rest of our recent appointments have all offered somthing to take us forwards.

Cotterill had no money and no players when he started and left us with a squad capable of staying up and he also made a lot of extra money.

Coyle took us up and left us in a decent position in the Prem. Admittedly results had started turning and he shafted us, but all well that ends well there.

Howe got a rake of young quality through the door, and left our future (even if results didn't reflect it) a hell of a lot brighter. I like to think the likes of Ings, Austin, Mee, Tripps, Stanislas etc show he made a big improvement on the playing staff.

Dyche is Dyche.

Laws never offered anything to take the club forwards, preformances and results were poor, expensive signings were bad and the fans were against him. All in all shouldn't have been here, but I'm not convinced that after Coyle's departure anyone would have kept us up.

Wile E Coyote · Post by **Wile E Coyote** » Fri May 12, 2017 5:17 pm

not sure how exactly Laws was supposed to cast his eye over the pool of talent out there and spend as he saw fit. He was fairly restricted in that quarter.

boyyanno · Post by **boyyanno** » Fri May 12, 2017 5:37 pm

Cort was absolutley dire and cost a large chunk of the budget.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Fri May 12, 2017 5:51 pm

I was one of the very few people who were defending him at the time he was here. Always felt he was on a hiding to nothing and I also at the time suspected some of the players may have been against him from the start; which in the end proved to be true with players like Carlisle, Blake, Patterson Caldwell and McDonald. Leaders an senior players who should have been doing their utmost to make his job easier, not harder. Add to that the unbelievable fan hostility and sheer magnitude of the task at hand already, and you have one steaming pile of crap to deal with.

Neil6271 · Post by **Neil6271** » Fri May 12, 2017 6:15 pm

Isn't it the reason Robbie Blake left us to go to Boltlon as they didn't see eye to eye.

Cleveleys_claret · Post by **Cleveleys_claret** » Fri May 12, 2017 10:55 pm

[quote="Darthlaw"]Barry Kilby openly admitted on the radio a few years back that a proven Premier League manager had been interviewed but they dismissed his application as he wanted £1m welcome bonus and a further £1m if he kept us up, at which point he would be leaving. I'm pretty sure it was Coppell who, at the time, had just missed out in the playoffs with Reading.

I always thought that it was Ian Dowie. If memory serves me correct Jeff Stelling threw it into a conversation with Dowie on Soccer Saturday a week or two after Laws' appointment but Dowie saìd it wouldn't be right to discuss such things

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri May 12, 2017 11:12 pm

Neil6271 wrote:Isn't it the reason Robbie Blake left us to go to Boltlon as they didn't see eye to eye.

That and Blake was offered what we'd consider daft money to go sit on the bench at Bolton.
9 appearances in 2 seasons....

Flatline · Post by **Flatline** » Fri May 12, 2017 11:34 pm

I remember some meathead with a "Laws Out" sign on one of the last games,I took it of him and ripped it up into pieces.Even though he was never going to keep us up,the way some people abused him was scandalous,Judas was the reason for our downfall in that season.

THEWELLERNUT70 · Post by **THEWELLERNUT70** » Fri May 12, 2017 11:52 pm

I'm fed up of this shoit (op)

Under Laws tenure Burnley struggled to win away. This continued in the season where he was eventually sacked. At the time of his dismissal Burnley were about to embark on a run of 6 away games in 7 matches. I'd like to have seen if our league position was so favourable after that. It was the right thing to do by the board