TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

I have no problem taking on board everyones opinion, just can not understand how some can even begin to suggest Martin Ling was some how treated badly, ripped off. He asked for the sack, deserved the sack and got the sack.

We may well have been a few points of the play-offs when he went sick, however that was only masking a deep lieing problem, results, form and team confidence had already nose dived well before Lingy went sick.

Heard it said many times by a few, style of play under Lingy was not great but he was getting results, Martin Ling was getting results, oh really, well actually, truthfully, in matter of fact he was not getting results not one bit, did some comparisons, a few have looked at AK'S record over the last 14 games of the season and his 18 games overall, so it's only right to compare his record to lingy's.

AK over the last 14 games won 4 drew 4 lost 6 , Martin Lings record for his last 14 games as TUFC manager was won 4 drew 4 lost 6 strange they appear to be equally as bad, and it's fair to point out things were getting worse by the week as Lingy only managed 1 win in his last 7 games.

Over 18 games Lingy won 5 drew 5 lost 8 .Ak, won 4 drew 6, lost 8 looks pretty equal to me, Martin Lings chance to turn things around came in the last 20 games of the season, however the pressure was building, and when the going got tough, Martin Ling did a runner and left his side kick turnip to clean the mess he had left behind.

Thank god our board had the guts to act, Martin Ling was not ripped off, treated badly, Alan Knill will not subjected to the same treatment.

Just to add , already stated, as a fan I will not judge Alan Knill on the last 14 games of the season, not his team, and he took over under the most difficult of circumstances. New season started this is Alan Knill's team, when all the new players have a chance to settle and the team bed in, we will all see just how good, or not good as the case may be, this team really is.

Well said!

Or............. to play Devils Advocate, AK inherited Lings team and was afforded the luxury that Ling was denied (bringing in 2 very good players in Chappel and Labadie as well as getting Benyon back) and STILL couldn't better Lings record

I sure Benyon was brought in by tayler,although I could be wrong(sure tayler didn't bring him on at aldershot when we were losing),anyway for me ling had become lazy and didn't seem to me to be putting in the hours looking at teams/other players and was quiet happy just to stick with the squad he had even though it was evident to most that the team needed freshening up.

forevertufc wrote:I have no problem taking on board everyones opinion, just can not understand how some can even begin to suggest Martin Ling was some how treated badly, ripped off. He asked for the sack, deserved the sack and got the sack.

We may well have been a few points of the play-offs when he went sick, however that was only masking a deep lieing problem, results, form and team confidence had already nose dived well before Lingy went sick.

Heard it said many times by a few, style of play under Lingy was not great but he was getting results, Martin Ling was getting results, oh really, well actually, truthfully, in matter of fact he was not getting results not one bit, did some comparisons, a few have looked at AK'S record over the last 14 games of the season and his 18 games overall, so it's only right to compare his record to lingy's.

AK over the last 14 games won 4 drew 4 lost 6 , Martin Lings record for his last 14 games as TUFC manager was won 4 drew 4 lost 6 strange they appear to be equally as bad, and it's fair to point out things were getting worse by the week as Lingy only managed 1 win in his last 7 games.

Over 18 games Lingy won 5 drew 5 lost 8 .Ak, won 4 drew 6, lost 8 looks pretty equal to me, Martin Lings chance to turn things around came in the last 20 games of the season, however the pressure was building, and when the going got tough, Martin Ling did a runner and left his side kick turnip to clean the mess he had left behind.

Thank god our board had the guts to act, Martin Ling was not ripped off, treated badly, Alan Knill will not subjected to the same treatment.

F me we had better sack Knill then for footballing reasons going by this equal record.

northyorkshiregull wrote:I sure Benyon was brought in by tayler,although I could be wrong(sure tayler didn't bring him on at aldershot when we were losing),anyway for me ling had become lazy and didn't seem to me to be putting in the hours looking at teams/other players and was quiet happy just to stick with the squad he had even though it was evident to most that the team needed freshening up.

That's why I added Benyon after saying we got Chappel and Labadie, Ling never got a chance to utilise Benyon so I think my point is valid.

Not sure where you get the idea that Ling was happy to stick with the squad, he was definitely refused the funds to sign the players he felt he needed.

Anyway, it's all done now and I was just adding a different point of view to the debate.

rooster wrote:Well id just like to thank everyone for their participation, hopefully no lasting disputes to settle !!!!!! that was never my intention but purely to raise a discussion into the likely support AK will get based purely on the treatment that ML received last season, hopefully for the sake of the club he gets long term support and is not dispensed with in a similar fashion.

Thanks

Why would we even be contemplating the 'treatment' Knill will get? Ling got fired because results were poor, performances worse, moral low and attendances destined to get lower. It was a sensible decision from a football and business perspective. Knill is a new manager with a new team, that has so far proven to be neither good, bad nor indifferent. Let's just trust he'll be treated fairly (as the previous incumbent was), i.e if he does well, he'll be maintained, and if he doesn't, he'll be dispensed with.

usagullmichigan wrote: F me we had better sack Knill then for footballing reasons going by this equal record.

I take issue with him doing a runner, that is simply not true

Just to add my twopenneth, if Martin ling was still our manager we would most probably be playing Conference football this season. Alan Knill needs to be given the time to bed in the new players and once we get our first win we'll be ok.

If Martin Ling didn’t have his sickness period then I think he would still be manager and we would still be in the league. However he did and as a consequence I also believe if Alan Knill had not joined us towards the end of last season (during Martin's absence) then we would be playing conference football right now.

Why would we even be contemplating the 'treatment' Knill will get? Ling got fired because results were poor, performances worse, moral low and attendances destined to get lower. It was a sensible decision from a football and business perspective. Knill is a new manager with a new team, that has so far proven to be neither good, bad nor indifferent. Let's just trust he'll be treated fairly (as the previous incumbent was), i.e if he does well, he'll be maintained, and if he doesn't, he'll be dispensed with.

[/quote]

My contemplating is because so far AK's performance isn't better considering the opportunities to get new players that have been afforded to him but I accept it is early days so i am realistic. Lets be realistic had ML not been ill he would still be in post and whilst that may not please everyone you can only work with the tools to hand at the time. At the time granted results were not brilliant but thats the ups and downs of football at this level particularly when you don't have money to spend, thankfully because of the shrewd signings and sell ons by ML this has brought much needed funds to the club which ML was not permitted to capitalise on which was probably frustrating, luckily AK has, and hopefully this will prove useful to him and his future.......hopefully. Everyones interpretation of fairness is clearly different.

I really think this argument of Ling not being given extra funds is a totally flawed one. Knill was given some extra cash to save us from relegation, in a year where Ling blew his budget and left nothing for loanees. That's Ling's fault, not Knill, nor the board's. By the seems of it, we were paying good money to have some very average players in the squad and due to him leaving nothing in the pot, we couldn't bring in any other bodies.

At the time of Ling's request for more funds, the board thought we would be mid table and decided not to give him extra money. It then got worse with Ling obviously being affected by it and a few trips to the Dog & Duck too many and we're in a relegation scrap with no manager, an assistant who obviously had no knowledge of tactics and had to rush sign an unfit ex-player. This is not the board's fault, they saw a run of form which although not great, was not that bad and SHOULD have been turned around. It didn't happen because of Ling's failure in motivating a team, failure in managing his budget correctly and his failure to solve his own problems without blowing his wages on beer (I don't have much time for people who drink to hide from their problems, I consider it as cowardly as suicide. If anything, more cowardly, at least it takes some kahunas to kill yourself).

Knill is now on a run of form similar to Ling's, with a new team and not the gelled one from last season. He has money left in the budget to bring in a loanee or two (and possibly Mozika) and the players he has brought in, I think, are excellent signings. Remembering Ling had a slow start, I think we'll be just fine with Knill.

cambgull wrote:in a year where Ling blew his budget and left nothing for loanees. That's Ling's fault, not Knill, nor the board's. By the seems of it, we were paying good money to have some very average players in the squad and due to him leaving nothing in the pot, we couldn't bring in any other bodies.

That's about as wide of the mark as I've ever seen you.

Southampton Gull wrote: That's about as wide of the mark as I've ever seen you.

So you're telling me that the board saw that he had money left in his budget and decided that he couldn't use it? Otherwise, I'm not seeing how he didn't spend all of his budget...