Quote:
Originally Posted by 3pmsaturday
Perhaps we won’t know but perhaps Lawrence insisted on the barrow thing in line with his proposed contract? Yes to ‘back to back’ them would have been better although that does not excuse Barrows about turn or indeed Lawrence’s. Sounds like he used the club and Barrow, in a way, to feather his nest.
The board have continualy been let down over the last few months. I have great sympathy for them.
If anyone thinks making these decisions is easy look at virtually every football club in the world. A very small percentage get it right and even fewer go on to retain that talent.
|
I have great sympathy for the Board because they have been placed in awkward positions by forces often beyond their control, and then attacked unjustifiably for doing their job.
Unfortunately, some folk often misuse other folk to further their aims; Lawrence seemingly did this. However, the main learning point from this is to not assume things will automatically happen, and signatures on contracts are essential.
QR states that Barrow's initial contract extension was agreed prior to Ricketts's departure, but not signed until after Ricketts's had departed. He also states the Board claims they were legally obliged to honour the contract. I am not an expert, but that sounds a bit wooly to me; I am sure there are legal experts on here who could clarify.
As for Barrow changing his mind and wanting out, there is probably a valid reason for it. So, in conclusion, the Board has made some errors, having been hit by a host of unwanted events. That is no reason to demand either their heads or their resignations. We should move on, and if WST members are not happy with things they should follow process and bring about a vote of no confidence. Personally, I would support the Board, but they must learn from the past few months.