The Board, Brew, Malkey, Wee Chick, Traynor etc, have all had there attacks after Saturday but it would appear that there is something strange about footballers!

The staff did not work well this morning, lunch time ballocking, superb production this afternoon!

This proves to me that they have no personal pride, ability to think for themselves or self motivation.

Why therefore on Saturday are the players absolved from blame(ish) and The Board, Brew, Malkey, Wee Chick,Traynor etc all get attacked?

Strachan can not take credit for Moloney's superb goal yesterday and if this is the case, managers can not therefore be always blamed for all of the players poor performances on the park.

Why can't the players be more self motivated on the park, why can't the players boss on the park, the captain, be more exposed to criticism, as he can surely boot butt as the game is unfolding.

As with any job they should always be aware of the pressure they are under, the manager is under, the club is under and indeed the fans are under and for them to require a half time talking to, to up their game, as opposed to change their game, should be so unnecessary.

Where does the Buck Stop??

Well the manager has to have something to do with results, look at Harry Redknapp. No on eeven seems motivated now......whats happened to putting the sword to the opposition in the final 15 minutes of every game?

Very good point....we don't actually need a manager because, really, he's not expected to do anything and the players should be doing it all themselves.

Even more reason for us to get rid....and if nothing else we'll save ourselves a 6 finger sum on an annual basis.

The Board, Brew, Malkey, Wee Chick, Traynor etc, have all had there attacks after Saturday but it would appear that there is something strange about footballers!

The staff did not work well this morning, lunch time ballocking, superb production this afternoon!

This proves to me that they have no personal pride, ability to think for themselves or self motivation.

Why therefore on Saturday are the players absolved from blame(ish) and The Board, Brew, Malkey, Wee Chick,Traynor etc all get attacked?

Strachan can not take credit for Moloney's superb goal yesterday and if this is the case, managers can not therefore be always blamed for all of the players poor performances on the park.

Why can't the players be more self motivated on the park, why can't the players boss on the park, the captain, be more exposed to criticism, as he can surely boot butt as the game is unfolding.

As with any job they should always be aware of the pressure they are under, the manager is under, the club is under and indeed the fans are under and for them to require a half time talking to, to up their game, as opposed to change their game, should be so unnecessary.

Where does the Buck Stop??

Do you work well under a manager you don't like? I know I don't.

The first manager I had made my life a misery. I know I didn't work as well as I could have done at that time, as my confidence was at rock bottom. I can't imagine that it's any different for footballers. If a decent squad is consistently underperforming, it must say something about the man in charge.

I have worked for a few different managers in my life and can honestly say that when I worked for a manager I didnt like, who was not very good, or who was overly officious, there were times when i did "just enough" or "went through the motions" .... When I had good managers I was (and am) far more productive.

The Board, Brew, Malkey, Wee Chick, Traynor etc, have all had there attacks after Saturday but it would appear that there is something strange about footballers!

The staff did not work well this morning, lunch time ballocking, superb production this afternoon!

This proves to me that they have no personal pride, ability to think for themselves or self motivation.

Why therefore on Saturday are the players absolved from blame(ish) and The Board, Brew, Malkey, Wee Chick,Traynor etc all get attacked?

Strachan can not take credit for Moloney's superb goal yesterday and if this is the case, managers can not therefore be always blamed for all of the players poor performances on the park.

Why can't the players be more self motivated on the park, why can't the players boss on the park, the captain, be more exposed to criticism, as he can surely boot butt as the game is unfolding.

As with any job they should always be aware of the pressure they are under, the manager is under, the club is under and indeed the fans are under and for them to require a half time talking to, to up their game, as opposed to change their game, should be so unnecessary.

Where does the Buck Stop??

I've got a small team at work and if they don't perform well it is my fault for not allowing them to do so. Motivation, training and practice all contribute to a teams performance. The players themselves while we'd all like to think they are motivated are seen daily by their manager and it is his job to ensure they are at the top of their game.

Do you work well under a manager you don't like? I know I don't.

If I wasn't perfoming well at work I don't see how I could blame it on my manager.

But then football is like no other business in the world. I think the players do have to have some degree of responsibility for their performances but they are obviously very demotivated and need a leader, someone strong & experienced to pull them through the slump.

I happen to have 2 footballing licenses, the early touches and the next one. In fact did them along with Spider, Golly, Mike Teasdale and Paul Sheerin.

Any chance of a job Grassa?

I've wondered if the pleb of a goalkeeping job actually does anything to deserve a salary. idnt he come from County? To be the goalkeeping coach for an spl club?

If I wasn't perfoming well at work I don't see how I could blame it on my manager.

You have completely misunderstood the point.

If you have a poor manager or just plain don't like your manager, then it is highly likely that you are not going to perform well for them. As far as whoever your manager answers to is concerned, it is the managers job to do whatever it takes (within reason obviously) to get you performing well. Therefore the blame lays directly with the manager.

If I wasn't perfoming well at work I don't see how I could blame it on my manager.

You have completely misunderstood the point.

If you have a poor manager or just plain don't like your manager, then it is highly likely that you are not going to perform well for them. As far as whoever your manager answers to is concerned, it is the managers job to do whatever it takes (within reason obviously) to get you performing well. Therefore the blame lays directly with the manager.

however its can also be the case that some perform better for a manager they dont like.many a likeable manager are too nice and dont get the best out of people. it boils down to respect more than anything

however its can also be the case that some perform better for a manager they dont like.many a likeable manager are too nice and dont get the best out of people. it boils down to respect more than anything

The players obviously like Brewster too much, let's get him out.

Ask yourselves this question. If your manager is puting you and your career second to his ego will you perform for him? 75% of our squad dont even know if they'll have a job in Inverness after this season. Others who are desperate to play dont get a chance. If anyone speaks out they are punished. If the bosses in any other business treated their staff with such contempt they'd be out of business. Is that where we're heading.

Ask yourselves this question. If your manager is puting you and your career second to his ego will you perform for him? 75% of our squad dont even know if they'll have a job in Inverness after this season. Others who are desperate to play dont get a chance. If anyone speaks out they are punished. If the bosses in any other business treated their staff with such contempt they'd be out of business. Is that where we're heading.

Not out of business but out of the SPL and there's no way we'll bounce back up. Look at Livi, Pars, St Johnstone, Partick, Dee, etc., etc.....

Ask yourselves this question. If your manager is puting you and your career second to his ego will you perform for him? 75% of our squad dont even know if they'll have a job in Inverness after this season. Others who are desperate to play dont get a chance. If anyone speaks out they are punished. If the bosses in any other business treated their staff with such contempt they'd be out of business. Is that where we're heading.

How are players being put second to Brewster's ego.

Brewster has a large number of faults, but there seems to be this idea that he is an arrogant man. Don't think he comes across as that at all, and on the occasions where I have met him, he genuinely goes out of his way to speak to you and make time for you.

In my view the buck stops with manager. Yes, we can blame the players for not performing but they are playing to the instructions of their manager are they not? They are told to play a certain system and they will not be able to use their initative on the field to change it, that's the managers job. The manager is also the person that picks the team. He is also the person that drops players who are perfoming and plays those that arn't. If players are demotivated them the manager should be able to recognise that and correct it.

If it was only a case of one match, I'd agree. When it's the norm, it's the manager. Unless he's in the team, Brew just doesn't have it as a manager, as results show.

Top 5 roles of a manager (imo)

1. Motivate, Inspire, Drive

2. Guide, Advise, Set example

3. Help players achieve through experience/knowledge

4. Make changes to help the team. whenever,wherever

5. Be a father figure, not a chum

Brewster:

1. Dour, condascending, egotistical, unreasonable

2. No loyalty, did rubbish at DUFC

3. On paper, maybe, in games, nope.

4. Nope

5. Chum to some, not good idea.

Well the manager has to have something to do with results, look at Harry Redknapp. No on eeven seems motivated now......whats happened to putting the sword to the opposition in the final 15 minutes of every game?

Sums up my point - Rednapp's players come onto TV after their last win and admit they they are now playing with more effort!! Where is their PRIDE when they can admit that they accepted their wages but did not bother to play despite their manager being under the sword and the fans having paid good money to support them!!

From your above contributions I can only accept that they are excused, as the manager did not motivate to a level they considered to be correct. Not in my book - they are paid to perform to the best of their ability, as a team and requiring the manager to pat their back before, during and after their performance, if they are going to give 100%, is a sad reflection on their maturity!

The manager must, obviously, provide the training, tactics and man management to get a team on the park BUT once it is on there, he has little control other than his management from the sidelines. As stated earlier, his captain should have as much input on the park,IMO, but the buck stops with the players on the park if they are not giving 100%!!

I am a manager and if I dont perform and the guys under me dont perform, my manager sacks me, simple! I can go a while sacking some of the people me that are right, or find a reason to get rid if I dont like them, like Brewster did with Rankin and Wyness. However whilst this is going on the people upstairs would be looking at it and saying hold on a second results are rubbish and the excuses he used are all gone so it must be him. Sack him. To be 100% honest the buck stops with the board for taking him back but now that it is evient to all that it aint working, sack him and start looking upstairs for the next one to go.

Direclty with Brew, he chose the team that went 7 on the bouce last season and did very little to change the side. He was the one who left Bayne on against M/Well with a booking when it was clear to all he was going to be sent off. He is the one who got rid of Rankin. He is the one this season who played players out of position in a cup Q/F and failed to change it when it wasnt working. He is the one who fails to give Esson a game in the league. He is the one who played Proctor on Saturday. He is the one in charge of a team that has won hardly any football matches in the whole of 2008. These are just a few of the mistakes he should be sacked for.

Brewster can't be blamed for taking the job in the first place , he was coming very close to the end of his football career and clubs were not exactly clamouring to employ him as a coach or manager after his abysmal stint at Tannadice. Nor can he be blamed for clinging on to his job now as he's unlikely to get another in football after compounding his disaster in Dundee with an almost equally poor spell back in Inverness.

It's not even his fault that he's a poor manager and tactician. I'm sure he does his utmost to be successful but that it just far from good enough.

Responsibility lies with the board, they were the ones who opted to re-employ him as a manager after his dire failure at United and they are the ones who see fit to continue to keep him in a job now when his lack of ability is being exposed week in week out and is in danger now of dragging us towards relegation and financial disaster.

If the board do not act quickly and decisively then any ill that befalls the club as a result will be their fault and nobody else's.

Edited November 4, 200817 yr by Kingsmills

Since Pele left, we have gone down the route of choosing inexperienced managers looking to get their first taste of management because we cannot afford to pay the big bucks for a "name". Thats fine, I accept that route, and the reasoning, and to be honest, was quite happy with all of them, including Brewster the first time around.

In business life, I have been a "rookie" manager who came through the ranks, I have also attained the title of "experienced" manager after doing the job for several years. Its not easy to be an inexperienced manager, the learning curve is steep and you will make mistakes. The key factor for me is that you must learn from those mistakes and try not to repeat them if you want to progress.

At the same time, while making and learning from your mistakes, you cannot allow yourself to become the big "I am" just because you are the manager. You are no longer "one of the lads" as you have different responsibilities, but that should not stop you from treating them with respect. One of the big pitfalls of an inexperienced manager is to go too far the other way and become a complete **** because you think you know more than everyone else, or because things have to be done "your way", or because you somehow feel the need to prove your authority. I have been there, worn the T-Shirt and paid the price. I learned from my mistakes, and became a better manager because of it. I dont believe Brew is learning from his.

At the end of the day, the manager, as Kirishima stated, has several functions and each of those is designed to get the best out of your staff and produce acceptable results to your bosses. I cannot imagine that CB's bosses can honestly say they are happy with his results and therefore a "performance review" is in order.