Shrimpsvoices

Just a thought.
Would having a new manager make the club more attractive for potential buyers?

would be more attractive for our fans,never mind a new owner

After tonight's selection it's got too happen soon

Where is the money coming from for an experienced new manager if you are all determined to kick Jim out .there is no money to strengthen the team in any way ,get a new owner ,give Jim the money and first 2 months of next season then make a decision

Nothing will happen until any takeover is completed....or not

If you had lots of cash but were not a Morecambe fan would you buy the club? I would have thought there were better prospects on which to spend your cash.....unless you really support Morecambe anyway (and are there any multi millionaires amongst our supporters?). We can't even get sponsorship of the ground.

Assuming that the present management team 'walk' or are pushed by any new owners who would we like to step into the hot seat...

Personally I'd like us to go for a 'name' who has connections at the highest level of football....and for me Lytham based former Man City and England star Trevor Sinclair fits the bill, despite his short term as Assistant Manager at the Dolly blues.

At least he talks a good attacking game which would be a refreshing change from what we hear now...

Christies Child wrote:Personally I'd like us to go for a 'name' who has connections at the highest level of football....and for me Lytham based former Man City and England star Trevor Sinclair fits the bill, despite his short term as Assistant Manager at the Dolly blues.

At least he talks a good attacking game which would be a refreshing change from what we hear now...

Lancaster City's relative improvement results wise since the departure of Sinclair and Peacock is quite telling.

The elephant in the room is John Coleman, just look at his results with Accrington (albeit with a reputed bigger budget on slightly lower crowds for now - not sure how that works). Coley has in the past been quoted as saying that he would love to be the Morecambe manager one day. Not so sure he would come now, such is the uncertainty with the club up for sale and Stanley promotion chances but if Jim were to leave he is the first person the club should be talking to.

Christies Child wrote:Assuming that the present management team 'walk' or are pushed by any new owners who would we like to step into the hot seat...

Personally I'd like us to go for a 'name' who has connections at the highest level of football....and for me Lytham based former Man City and England star Trevor Sinclair fits the bill, despite his short term as Assistant Manager at the Dolly blues.

At least he talks a good attacking game which would be a refreshing change from what we hear now...

Sinclair spends too much time on TV and the media , a bit like Sammy at the end of his tenure.

I don't anticipate any change soon , (a) as Jim is contracted to Summer 2018 and (b) I think new owners will give him a chance especially if the new owners are former directors of the club.

In the event of a change my preferred choice would be to make Coleman and Bell an offer they can't refuse.

I just couldn't see Coleman and Co jumping ship to join us especially if they gain promotion.

Ground development and new training base being reasons to stay at Accy.

I don't think there will be a managerial change so all academic really.

In the event of a change my preferred choice would be to make Coleman and Bell an offer they can't refuse

With what money.

Christies Child wrote:At least he talks a good attacking game which would be a refreshing change from what we hear now...

WE HAVE SCORED 62 (SIXTY-TWO) BLOODY GOALS NEIL, HOW ATTACKING WOULD YOU LIKE US TO BE.

SupermarketShrimp wrote:

Christies Child wrote:At least he talks a good attacking game which would be a refreshing change from what we hear now...

WE HAVE SCORED 62 (SIXTY-TWO) BLOODY GOALS NEIL, HOW ATTACKING WOULD YOU LIKE US TO BE.

Better still, we're 5th in the Goals Scored at home and have a home record that has as many only slightly lower than the league average.

But, we've had a shit run so lets chuck the baby and all the fittings of the bath alongside the bathwater.

At somepoint, people will sit down in a big room and sort this out as the negativity is akin to reading Portchat at its finest.

SupermarketShrimp wrote:

Christies Child wrote:At least he talks a good attacking game which would be a refreshing change from what we hear now...

WE HAVE SCORED 62 (SIXTY-TWO) BLOODY GOALS NEIL, HOW ATTACKING WOULD YOU LIKE US TO BE.

...and remind me how many against.... .All we hear from our management team is excuse after excuse...it's getting tedious and boring.

SupermarketShrimp wrote:

Christies Child wrote:At least he talks a good attacking game which would be a refreshing change from what we hear now...

WE HAVE SCORED 62 (SIXTY-TWO) BLOODY GOALS NEIL, HOW ATTACKING WOULD YOU LIKE US TO BE.

Supermarket Shrimp, loathe as I am to defend Neil , please STOP SHOUTING, and refer back to my post on the "Now we can express ourselves" thread, as you clearly do not understand the reasons why so many of us on here are asking for a more attacking game instead of the negative, and more importantly persistently unsuccessful, dross we are being served up week-in, week-out. If you genuinely aren't Jim Bentley in disguise trying to defend the tactics, and are instead, as I suspect, someone who is unable to attend many games, then stop attacking those who do go and know what they are talking about, instead of relying on statistics which tell not one iota of the true story. As for your follow up post, at one point, early in the season, we were top of the goals scored across all the leagues, then Jim decided to try to keep it tight and nick a winner - that's when it all went downhill, and the 'sh!t run' as you call it has lasted for effin' months, ever since. We can't defend to save our lives, but we can score, so let's score - you don't win games by sitting back and inviting pressure onto your defence, which we have been doing for months now.

I'm going to about 50% of games since the turn of the year, so I've seen it.

We cannot defend, and that is the sole problem, it really is.

Jim is responsible for the fact we can't defend. Not that we can't attack - that's patently not the case.

If we sort the back door out we will have the confidence to play.

But I'm sure that a bloke we would have sacked anyway due to poor performance on a large budget, a lad that failed at Lancaster, or indeed managers that wouldn't look at us twice are the solution.

We have so many positives at the club, and a few negatives. For some bizarre stupid reason, we are attempting to turn the positives into negatives, and not even looking at the negatives. It's madness.

SupermarketShrimp wrote:I'm going to about 50% of games since the turn of the year, so I've seen it.

We cannot defend, and that is the sole problem, it really is.

Jim is responsible for the fact we can't defend. Not that we can't attack - that's patently not the case.

If we sort the back door out we will have the confidence to play.

But I'm sure that a bloke we would have sacked anyway due to poor performance on a large budget, a lad that failed at Lancaster, or indeed managers that wouldn't look at us twice are the solution.

We have so many positives at the club, and a few negatives. For some bizarre stupid reason, we are attempting to turn the positives into negatives, and not even looking at the negatives. It's madness.

If by that you mean the management, then in a way, yes, although they are looking at the negatives, just not sorting them out. If by that you mean us on here, whom you seem so keen to attack, then we know the defence needs work, and I for one can't understand why Doyle's disappeared after a couple of creditable appearances, unless he's injured, but we're not trying to turn any positives into negatives, we're trying to get the management to play to our strengths (i.e. positives) instead of our weaknesses (i.e. negatives).

Also I would disagree that the only problem is we can't defend. This is being exacerbated by the management's insistence on playing defensively, to the weakness in our game, rather than playing an attacking game, as last week's very rare game against Barnet, which we won by 2 goals, and entertained the fans.

Phil Anderer wrote:

SupermarketShrimp wrote:I'm going to about 50% of games since the turn of the year, so I've seen it.

We cannot defend, and that is the sole problem, it really is.

Jim is responsible for the fact we can't defend. Not that we can't attack - that's patently not the case.

If we sort the back door out we will have the confidence to play.

But I'm sure that a bloke we would have sacked anyway due to poor performance on a large budget, a lad that failed at Lancaster, or indeed managers that wouldn't look at us twice are the solution.

We have so many positives at the club, and a few negatives. For some bizarre stupid reason, we are attempting to turn the positives into negatives, and not even looking at the negatives. It's madness.

If by that you mean the management, then in a way, yes, although they are looking at the negatives, just not sorting them out. If by that you mean us on here, whom you seem so keen to attack, then we know the defence needs work, and I for one can't understand why Doyle's disappeared after a couple of creditable appearances, unless he's injured, but we're not trying to turn any positives into negatives, we're trying to get the management to play to our strengths (i.e. positives) instead of our weaknesses (i.e. negatives).

Also I would disagree that the only problem is we can't defend. This is being exacerbated by the management's insistence on playing defensively, to the weakness in our game, rather than playing an attacking game, as last week's very rare game against Barnet, which we won by 2 goals, and entertained the fans.

Doyles injured

We've won 8 at home including Walsall.

Goals conceded in those games - 6 - 2 of which against Barnet.

You're patently wrong, we are scoring more than most and shipping more at will at the back.

2-4 Oxford
2-4 Cambridge
2-4 Dagenham
3-4 Stevenage
2-4 Northampton
1-3 Luton

And that's not including being 3 up at Pompey and others.

I'd kill for some 2-0's and 2-1s, that's what would have seen us in the playoffs.

Well I agree its not the lack of goals scored we should be in the playoffs with the amount we have put away this season, so yes the defence is the main problem but its not the only one.

The closing down is very poor in most games when we do get it right we usually end up winning, Rochdale away in the JPT was probably the best I have seen us do this season from start to finish we did it as a team. Then there's Jims constant tinkering with the team changing a winning side, his negative comments and excuses this in my opinion sends out the wrong message to the team.

The fact that we always start the season well then go backwards is it because when we lose a couple of games Jim is unable to pick the team up, dose he have the man management skills to lift a player when he has a dip in form or do they listen to his excuses after a game and think oh well the gaffer doesn't think we played bad its just bad luck.

So I would argue that there are more negatives than positives.

SupermarketShrimp wrote:

Phil Anderer wrote:

SupermarketShrimp wrote:I'm going to about 50% of games since the turn of the year, so I've seen it.

We cannot defend, and that is the sole problem, it really is.

Jim is responsible for the fact we can't defend. Not that we can't attack - that's patently not the case.

If we sort the back door out we will have the confidence to play.

But I'm sure that a bloke we would have sacked anyway due to poor performance on a large budget, a lad that failed at Lancaster, or indeed managers that wouldn't look at us twice are the solution.

We have so many positives at the club, and a few negatives. For some bizarre stupid reason, we are attempting to turn the positives into negatives, and not even looking at the negatives. It's madness.

If by that you mean the management, then in a way, yes, although they are looking at the negatives, just not sorting them out. If by that you mean us on here, whom you seem so keen to attack, then we know the defence needs work, and I for one can't understand why Doyle's disappeared after a couple of creditable appearances, unless he's injured, but we're not trying to turn any positives into negatives, we're trying to get the management to play to our strengths (i.e. positives) instead of our weaknesses (i.e. negatives).

Also I would disagree that the only problem is we can't defend. This is being exacerbated by the management's insistence on playing defensively, to the weakness in our game, rather than playing an attacking game, as last week's very rare game against Barnet, which we won by 2 goals, and entertained the fans.

Doyles injured

We've won 8 at home including Walsall.

Goals conceded in those games - 6 - 2 of which against Barnet.

You're patently wrong, we are scoring more than most and shipping more at will at the back.

2-4 Oxford.
2-4 Cambridge
2-4 Dagenham
3-4 Stevenage
2-4 Northampton
1-3 Luton

And that's not including being 3 up at Pompey and others.

I'd kill for some 2-0's and 2-1s, that's what would have seen us in the playoffs.

I assume you mean Bristol, not Stevenage, and half those games were before Jim went defensive. Daggers I missed, as I was already losing the will to live and not prepared to fork out extra over and above the season ticket for some of the crap being dished up. As it stands, ignoring the first three, before the change in tactics, you've picked three games from fifteen, after the change. Of the remaining eighty per cent we lost half, which leads to a sixty per cent loss ratio at home over that period, playing predominantly defensively, only winning or drawing games like Barnet and Portsmouth, when we didn't sit back.

I assume you mean Bristol, not Stevenage, and half those games were before Jim went defensive. Daggers I missed, as I was already losing the will to live and not prepared to fork out extra over and above the season ticket for some of the crap being dished up. As it stands, ignoring the first three, before the change in tactics, you've picked three games from fifteen, after the change. Of the remaining eighty per cent we lost half, which leads to a sixty per cent loss ratio at home over that period, playing predominantly defensively, only winning or drawing games like Barnet and Portsmouth, when we didn't sit back.

"Before Jim went defensive"

So the clean sheets and only conceding one leading the victories. What went right then? I'm pretty sure we were tight defensively but hit everyone on the break.

What I'm willing to bet is that we then got found out, and people attacked our weaknesses and found out that basically if you can get it around Paz/Edwards feet and turn them they're in business, not the fact that "we went defensive".

I've not been to enough games to really analyse it too much but the fact that Kenyon or Goodall started getting game time left right and centre it was to protect the back two from this or go to 3 centre halves to make it more congested.

We've never been this attacking fluid beast, we were a slick counter attacking side. Once sides defended a bit deeper and realised the centre of defence was bog average it became very easy to play against us and the playing staff haven't got anyone suitable in it's ranks to change it. Well they do actually, he's just got a sore knee and played about 30 minutes for us.

RedRedWine wrote:The elephant in the room is John Coleman, just look at his results with Accrington

No chance sadly of getting Coleman unless they stay down and we suddenly get significant investment. Difficult who else MFC could also attract without a new owner in place and promise of extra funds.

Think the board will stick with Jim at least until the end of the season. Could it be the uncertainty of his own job might even be effecting Jim's performance also? I can't see him staying under any new ownership unless we turn our fortunes around very quickly.

First 17 games of the season we scored 34 goals
Then Jim said we were conceding too many.
The next 17 games we scored 19 goals.

First 17 games we conceded 26
Defensive next 17 we conceded 28

I agree, the defence is the problem generally. However, Jim's plan to 'cure' that is to playing defensively. All that happened is we end up deep, inviting pressure on to us. The defines, being under pressure, resort to hoofing it, bypassing midfield. The lone striker is isolated out of the game and we lose possession, so it comes straight back at us.

Time, after time, after time.

Eventually the defence make mistakes and we concede.

Yet Jim stubbornly keeps playing to our weaknesses not our strengths. After Crawley game, when Jim said about conceding, my heart sank and I genuinely thought 'here we go again'. The next 17 games took us up to the Mansfield defeat. If anything, since then we've been even worse.

Carlisle away, we were superb. Great to watch, three points. We could have had more, they just couldn't live with us. Basically the same players here now but relegation fodder. If it hadn't been for the good start, when we were scoring & conceding, we'd be bottom by now.