[Archived] Steve Kean Thread (Poll reset after Stoke game)

[Gav]

I don't accept alternative viewpoints which IMO are potentially damaging to our club.

I think your refusal to accept you've been wrong about most things Blackburn Rovers related over the last couple of years (though at least now you've finally reached the page the rest of us have been on for a while) is sad and immature, but hey ho.

Not sure why you're bringing me into the arguement TGM but just for the record, I'M NEVER WRONG you of all people should know that

[tony gale's mic]

Kean should have got zero matches to start with, and our record in the second half of last season should have been enough for the owners to realise their mistake. Each extra match should just hammer home the point more and more. It's that simple.

By giving Kean more games, you're giving the next manager fewer games.

How much chance did Sam have to stamp his authority on the team? He had less to spend in his first January than Kean did in January. Yet for the half season after he took charge we were the 10th best side in the league. And it wasn't the same side which Hughes took to such heights, it was missing RSC and Bentley, plus back then Robbo was a bit of a liability still.

[chris]

Kean should have got zero matches to start with, and our record in the second half of last season should have been enough for the owners to realise their mistake. Each extra match should just hammer home the point more and more. It's that simple.

You can't keep using that as an excuse because it didn't happen and he got a pre-season and he got his team. lots of people even Glen Mullan said he was happy with Kean's signings or he considered them good.

The fact people would have liked him sacked in the summer is not the point anymore, zero not an option.

And Kean did have the excuse that Venkys forced his hand to change play, Sam was sacked because he had abunch of average players in a system that worked.

A lot of fans were ok or accepted Kean being manager because he promised a massive war chest.

[Amo]

How much chance did Sam have to stamp his authority on the team? He had less to spend in his first January than Kean did in January. Yet for the half season after he took charge we were the 10th best side in the league. And it wasn't the same side which Hughes took to such heights, it was missing RSC and Bentley, plus back then Robbo was a bit of a liability still.

He also solved world hunger and was just pipped by Liu Xiaobo for the Nobel Peace Prize.

[T4E]

I was relieved to avoid burnley in the cup draw because of that mentioned above, after all look at the other undesireable records he's broken. However on the plus side if there is one thing that would turn the whole crowd against him forever then defeat to dingles would be it, every cloud an that !

Just spotted this on the Relegation Thread and it got me thinking. Would you take a defeat against them if it meant Kean got the sack? I don't think I could - what a nightmare that game would be.

[_simk_]

Steve Kean has to go! We will not survive with him fronting our club. As of now im probably going to attend the last Premier League game at Ewood for some years when travelling to see Rovers - Wigan in May. I hope im proven wrong and that I instead can celebrate a new season as a top flight club! Been a norwegian rover for 19 years and have never seen such a total disaster in charge any time.

Up the Rovers!

[chaddyrovers]

Agent_ITK Agent_ITK

Blackburn looking at finding a role within the club for Martin O'Neil. #brfc

from twitter

[chris]

He also solved world hunger and was just pipped by Liu Xiaobo for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Imagine that

[Mattyblue]

Becuase I think that any manager ahould be given a certain amount of time to stamp his authority on his team. Normally it would be 12 - 14 games of season, however in Kean's case, his lack of experience at this level and how competative the premier league is then he should be given 7 games, look at it, if we are in the bottom 3 then sack...if not then give him to the next international break and look again, if in the bottom 3 then sack if not then keep till start of December. Somebody made a point the other week that if we keep Kean in charge till after the City match we would be 9 points adrift, again a sign of a supporter who is desperate to get Kean out. However his stats are awful and that is why I would not give him the usual 14 games into the season that most managers get. November time is usually when managers start getting the sack, so even sacking on Saturday would be very early indeed and against the norm.

I've read sone nonsense in my time, but this!

So, last seasons shambles should be completely ignored, even though it gives us a decent idea of his abilities.

Managers should get 14 matches, an inexperienced manager gets 7- figures completely plucked out of the air.

His stats are awful, you agree, but he gets 7 games regardless.

Managers dint normally get sacked till November? Wrong, incompetent, inexperienced ones do- Les Reed and Sammy Lee spring to mind.

We only sack him if we are bottom 3, nevermind his overall record? What if we are just outside all season and drop on the last day? Like Birmingham?

I'm glad you aren't Chairman.

[broadsword]

I'm glad you aren't Chairman.

Not any worse than the one we currently have though?

[chris]

I've read sone nonsense in my time, but this!

So, last seasons shambles should be completely ignored, even though it gives us a decent idea of his abilities.

Managers should get 14 matches, an inexperienced manager gets 7- figures completely plucked out of the air.

His stats are awful, you agree, but he gets 7 games regardless.

Managers dint normally get sacked till November? Wrong, incompetent, inexperienced ones do- Les Reed and Sammy Lee spring to mind.

We only sack him if we are bottom 3, nevermind his overall record? What if we are just outside all season and drop on the last day? Like Birmingham?

I'm glad you aren't Chairman.

You only have to look at our history to see that that has not happened:

Jack Walker gave Kidd 14 games at the start of 1999 after getting RELEGATED.

Harford got over 10 games

Ince got over 10 games

Hodgson got over 10 games.

So for Matty1875 to give him only 7 games keeping Kean's history in mind is a very short amount of games.

And keeping in mind Venkys were blowing Kean kisses 9 days ago, sadly it might be longer.

[Give 'Em the Axe]

Did you not read Glenn's post above

Eh?? Whats that supposed to mean?I did read Glen's post. Did you read mine? Let me recap: It is a concern of mine that the stock of Venkys is so low right now that they might struggle to attract the type of manager we need. Thats all!!

@Ralfinho, agreed. Warnock seems to be a stinker of an individual,but professionally,he'd be infinitely better than what we have right now.

[tomphil]

Just spotted this on the Relegation Thread and it got me thinking. Would you take a defeat against them if it meant Kean got the sack? I don't think I could - what a nightmare that game would be.

Just for the record i seriously wouldnt want that but i could see it happening and it would without doubt turn fans against him for good but hopefully it wont come to that !!

[glen9mullan]

The oracle has spoken. From all the pre-pubescent young males I observed on the youtube footage of the 'march' I'd say you are the Blackburn Rovers supporting equivalent of the Pied Piper of Hamelin.

You obviously represent the majority of the people on this messageboard Glen and I'm glad you respect mine and Matty1875's opinion but I can tell you that you don't represent mine or all of the people who I know personally who also support Rovers opinions.

Nothing more to add really.

I only represent myself, it's just coincedental that other fans share my view. Im have been going on Rovers for nearly 30 years and i'm 33 so would not consider myself young, I'm also a father of three, My brother also Marched and he is 39.

The protest age, ranged from young children to individuals in their late 50's, so to put us all in the young category is silly.

I don't claim to represent your view or anybody else's, The poll's do not lie, and as I said earlier I respect, both the fact that you want to give the Manager more-time, and also that you are willing to explain why.

We are all fans after all, and with football comes opinions. No-one has the magic wand, and no one can claim their opinion to be any better than the next persons. I like debating things rationally, without resulting to name calling or enforcing my opinion on others.

If we win on Saturday, I'm sure this thread will change again, and opinions will change, Its a results business and if Steve Kean reels off 5 or 6 back to back wins I'm sure this poll will be the opposite to which it is now

[ackroyd75]

Not sure why I even bother replying on the Steve Kean thread's. There is nothing really left to say about him, other than 'see you later'.

Is there a worse manager in the Premier League?

No.

What more is there to say?

Brian Laws!

[tony gale's mic]

You only have to look at our history to see that that has not happened:

Jack Walker gave Kidd 14 games at the start of 1999 after getting RELEGATED.

Harford got over 10 games

Ince got over 10 games

Hodgson got over 10 games.

Your post defeats your point if anything.

Not everything Jack did was correct, and the fact we did so badly under Kidd and improved so much afterwards proved that sticking around with Kidd was a mistake. Also you said Kidd got relegated as opposed to Kean, but their records were quite similar - the only difference being Kean's headstart was better.

Harford had finished 6th with the team the previous season (though that team did have Shearer). Not great considering we'd just won the league, but enough to suggest he'd be able to steer the team back to mid table at least.

Why even bring up Ince? Yes he got over 10 games but he didn't get over half a season before it did he?!

Hodgson again rightly got over 10 games, he had an excellent record as a manager and had done well with us the previous season. We've already established that having a good previous record means you ought to get more of a chance to turn it round - see Wenger at Arsenal.

The only manager comparable with Kean is Brian Kidd, and history has proven the decision to hang onto him a big mistake. So quite why you use it to support giving Kean more time I don't know.

[matty1875]

I've read sone nonsense in my time, but this!

So, last seasons shambles should be completely ignored, even though it gives us a decent idea of his abilities.

Managers should get 14 matches, an inexperienced manager gets 7- figures completely plucked out of the air.

His stats are awful, you agree, but he gets 7 games regardless.

Managers dint normally get sacked till November? Wrong, incompetent, inexperienced ones do- Les Reed and Sammy Lee spring to mind.

We only sack him if we are bottom 3, nevermind his overall record? What if we are just outside all season and drop on the last day? Like Birmingham?

I'm glad you aren't Chairman.

Brilliant, I wondered how long before you started having a go. (You were one who stated we were not unlucky against Everton as we should know how to take penalties, bad Rovers play but I bet you thought we were dead lucky to beat Arsenal as they could not finish, you can’t have it both ways sunshine)

First get your facts right, Les Reed was sacked mid-season, given 7 games from November and December, not from the start of the season. If he had started the season then he would have got more games I reckon, but December becomes a critical time and less time will be given. Sammy Lee was given 12 games at the start of the season, sacked in mid October but nearer to the November in which we will have played 12 games in the season. On average like Chris has said managers are given till November and then the cull starts, or over 10 games, it’s a fact look in the history books; do research before having a do at me. 7 games is not plucked from the air, it is in my opinion the amount of time Kean should be given due to his lack of experience, bit like Les Reed. He was poor last season, that is why I would give him less time than normal however not many people were calling for his head after the Wolves game and a run of 2 wins in 4 games. It may have been better to get rid then, however he has had a new pre season, given money to spend, and brought in his own players and those results at the end of the season gave him a chance to prove he is capable but less time than others.

Going back to previous point made by Mark1875, my % chance of him succeeding is getting very low, he has one last chance on Saturday, if he fails then I think he should go. The performance at Newcastle showed a lack of building on a great result against Arsenal and I understand on why you want Kean out based on that. I thought he would have learnt from his mistakes last season, a draw would have been an improvement. I just think some peoples judgement is clouded in how it got the job and what Kean represents. There are few Anti-Kean people however who come across really well and can they can think logically, others just scream and shout and can’t see another person’s point of view.

[bob fleming]

Agent_ITK Agent_ITK

Blackburn looking at finding a role within the club for Martin O'Neil. #brfc

from twitter

Hmmm. It's a toughie that. What could he do? Has Kean got a driver?

[Mattyblue]

Missing penalties isn't a case of 'bad luck', it's a free shot on goal from 12 yards.

No, we wernt 'lucky' against Arsenal, we won the game fair and square.

The 7 games was plucked out of the air, an arbitary number that could easily have been 6 or 8 games.

He was incompetent last season, he is incompetent now. Why on Earrh people are being 'fair' to Kean before BRFC amazes me.

[matty1875]

Missing penalties isn't a case of 'bad luck', it's a free shot on goal from 12 yards.

No, we wernt 'lucky' against Arsenal, we won the game fair and square.

The 7 games was plucked out of the air, an arbitary number that could easily have been 6 or 8 games.

He was incompetent last season, he is incompetent now. Why on Earrh people are being 'fair' to Kean before BRFC amazes me.

No I picked 7 games because he has not proved to me that given his previous managerial experience that he deserves more, your opinion it that he should of been given how many games this season?? You will pick a figure out the air, same as me. It is a matter of opinion, we differ on it. It seemed the majority of fans thought he should be given the summer after the Wolves game last season, so after that decision is made we move on from last season and give a chance to him to prove himself after a summer window. Then as soon as a bad result against Wolves fans jump on the Kean Out bandwagon and some are not sure why they are shouting but they are.

What I am saying is that he should be given less time than any usual manager gets given his poor record last season, no manager in the world is ever sacked after 1 game in the season, (Well none that I can think of) and they are given a bit of a run to see what they can do and then sacked.

[tony gale's mic]

Brilliant, I wondered how long before you started having a go. (You were one who stated we were not unlucky against Everton as we should know how to take penalties, bad Rovers play but I bet you thought we were dead lucky to beat Arsenal as they could not finish, you can’t have it both ways sunshine)

First get your facts right, Les Reed was sacked mid-season, given 7 games from November and December, not from the start of the season. If he had started the season then he would have got more games I reckon, but December becomes a critical time and less time will be given. Sammy Lee was given 12 games at the start of the season, sacked in mid October but nearer to the November in which we will have played 12 games in the season. On average like Chris has said managers are given till November and then the cull starts, or over 10 games, it’s a fact look in the history books; do research before having a do at me. 7 games is not plucked from the air, it is in my opinion the amount of time Kean should be given due to his lack of experience, bit like Les Reed. He was poor last season, that is why I would give him less time than normal however not many people were calling for his head after the Wolves game and a run of 2 wins in 4 games. It may have been better to get rid then, however he has had a new pre season, given money to spend, and brought in his own players and those results at the end of the season gave him a chance to prove he is capable but less time than others.

Going back to previous point made by Mark1875, my % chance of him succeeding is getting very low, he has one last chance on Saturday, if he fails then I think he should go. The performance at Newcastle showed a lack of building on a great result against Arsenal and I understand on why you want Kean out based on that. I thought he would have learnt from his mistakes last season, a draw would have been an improvement. I just think some peoples judgement is clouded in how it got the job and what Kean represents. There are few Anti-Kean people however who come across really well and can they can think logically, others just scream and shout and can’t see another person’s point of view.

Sorry but you're making up your own rules here. God knows why you're comparing Les Reed and Sammy Lee to Kean. Les Reed was given seven games, far fewer than Kean, he wasn't given his own summer to sign new players like you claim every manager deserves, the owners and the fans quickly realised appointing him was a mistake and reversed this almost immediately. Same with Sammy Lee, he didnt have a previous half season as failure.

For the millionth time in case you haven't got it yet, the form last season is absolutely relevant when choosing whether or not to sack him. Lee and Reed didn't have half a season of failure behind them. If they did, chances are the board would have sacked them a lot sooner, or have sacked them a lot sooner into the new season.

As I pointed out Chris' earlier post was irrelevant, Kean is almost a totally unique case, incomparable with others except maybe Kidd. Most owners would have got rid of someone like Kean a long time before, yet you and one or two other clueless folk are advocating sticking with him by trying to apply some kind of invented rules that you've made up, using situations that bear no resemblance to the one at Ewood.

The vast majority of people want Kean out based on results. Your point about people mainly wanting him out because of how he got the job is frankly bullshit, you tried to apply this to me, but like most other fans, I mainly give a toss about results.

[onlyonejackwalker]

Brilliant, I wondered how long before you started having a go. (You were one who stated we were not unlucky against Everton as we should know how to take penalties, bad Rovers play but I bet you thought we were dead lucky to beat Arsenal as they could not finish, you can’t have it both ways sunshine)

First get your facts right, Les Reed was sacked mid-season, given 7 games from November and December, not from the start of the season. If he had started the season then he would have got more games I reckon, but December becomes a critical time and less time will be given. Sammy Lee was given 12 games at the start of the season, sacked in mid October but nearer to the November in which we will have played 12 games in the season. On average like Chris has said managers are given till November and then the cull starts, or over 10 games, it’s a fact look in the history books; do research before having a do at me. 7 games is not plucked from the air, it is in my opinion the amount of time Kean should be given due to his lack of experience, bit like Les Reed. He was poor last season, that is why I would give him less time than normal however not many people were calling for his head after the Wolves game and a run of 2 wins in 4 games. It may have been better to get rid then, however he has had a new pre season, given money to spend, and brought in his own players and those results at the end of the season gave him a chance to prove he is capable but less time than others.

Going back to previous point made by Mark1875, my % chance of him succeeding is getting very low, he has one last chance on Saturday, if he fails then I think he should go. The performance at Newcastle showed a lack of building on a great result against Arsenal and I understand on why you want Kean out based on that. I thought he would have learnt from his mistakes last season, a draw would have been an improvement. I just think some peoples judgement is clouded in how it got the job and what Kean represents. There are few Anti-Kean people however who come across really well and can they can think logically, others just scream and shout and can’t see another person’s point of view.

Matty, strangely the 'give him more time' brigade completely ignore last season or excuse Kean last season due to perceived turmoil. Results remain very poor however this time round, but they still insist on him having more time.

The 'get rid of him asap' crew believe that he was manager last season and should be judged accordingly on results since he took over. Which were and remain pathetic.

I guess until someone presents adequate reasons explaining why last season should be wiped from the history books, the argument will remain. Seems convenient for someone with no history, to have whatever history he has generated wiped from record, purely to justify 'giving him more time'.

[Majiball]

No I picked 7 games because he has not proved to me that given his previous managerial experience that he deserves more, your opinion it that he should of been given how many games this season?? You will pick a figure out the air, same as me. It is a matter of opinion, we differ on it. It seemed the majority of fans thought he should be given the summer after the Wolves game last season, so after that decision is made we move on from last season and give a chance to him to prove himself after a summer window. Then as soon as a bad result against Wolves fans jump on the Kean Out bandwagon and some are not sure why they are shouting but they are.

What I am saying is that he should be given less time than any usual manager gets given his poor record last season, no manager in the world is ever sacked after 1 game in the season, (Well none that I can think of) and they are given a bit of a run to see what they can do and then sacked.

We've played 8 games this season, so can we sack him now?

[chris]

Your post defeats your point if anything.

Not everything Jack did was correct, and the fact we did so badly under Kidd and improved so much afterwards proved that sticking around with Kidd was a mistake. Also you said Kidd got relegated as opposed to Kean, but their records were quite similar - the only difference being Kean's headstart was better.

Harford had finished 6th with the team the previous season (though that team did have Shearer). Not great considering we'd just won the league, but enough to suggest he'd be able to steer the team back to mid table at least.

Why even bring up Ince? Yes he got over 10 games but he didn't get over half a season before it did he?!

Hodgson again rightly got over 10 games, he had an excellent record as a manager and had done well with us the previous season. We've already established that having a good previous record means you ought to get more of a chance to turn it round - see Wenger at Arsenal.

The only manager comparable with Kean is Brian Kidd, and history has proven the decision to hang onto him a big mistake. So quite why you use it to support giving Kean more time I don't know.

How can my post defeat its point when its saying Kean should not even be allowed the same time Kidd, Ince, Hodgson or Harford, they are examples of bad manager given more time then Matty asked for.

Matty1875 has said he is only giving Kean 7 games BECAUSE of his bad record, which I think is fair.

What was Hodgsons record starting 1997, its probably close to Kean.

Harford came 7th no europe and to take over a team from 1st place in 1995 and be bottom in 1996 is probably an achievement that will never be reproduced.

Kidd should have never been given 14 games.

I brought up Ince just to show consistency that Rovers managers have been given over 10 no matter how bad they have been and Matty1875 is only willing to offer 7 games.

[Grez]

A suggestible statement to avoid embarrassment and getting rid of him

(this is just made up guys)

"steve has done a terrific job in very trying circumstances since we have took over and managed to retain our premier league status. Steve has invested well and has been really positive step forward, HOWEVER, an opportunity has arisen to appoint an experienced international coach (fill in your own name) who also shares our vision. We would love steve to stay on in some capacity given his dedication, but would understand it if he decided to leave to manange another top club."

That way we have sacked him nicely and dodged some PR bullets...

First step... Find a new manger