tom33
Full Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,525
My guess is that they still feel we have a better chance of getting a result on Monday with LvG in charge than with Giggs as caretaker with less than 48hrs to prepare. I don't agree with the decision, but it's not crazy logic.But I honestly do not understand that logic. The board do not want to sack him clearly, for a whole host of reasons reported in the papers. But how can we not act now? What is the purpose of retaining someone who clearly will not be able to turn things around? How is one game (even if we get a positive result which I highly doubt) going to make a difference? Is the Board seriously implying they will keep LVG if we win against Chelski?