Vital Football

Latest Wolverhampton Wanderers News

O'Driscoll rumours

O'Driscoll rumours

You know your position must be bad when rumours are linking other people with your job before you've even departed.

But it seems a common theme for Wolves gaffer Ståle Solbakken, back in November Gordon Strachan all of a sudden was being whispered as a possible replacement.

Now over a month on and Sean O'Driscoll has been linked by internet rumours with a move to Molineux.

Not bad for someone who has only been in the role for eight months. But it would seem that Solbakken could be on the brink, he appears to have lost a good percentage of the fans and the board will have to make a decision soon.

Will they stand by their man like they did with Mick McCarthy for so long? Or will they make a change before things get worse?

O'Driscoll has had a bizarre year and a bit in football. He was sacked as manager of Doncaster Rovers in September 2011 after leading them into the second tier of English football for the first time in their history.

He then joined the coaching staff at Nottingham Forest, before taking the managerial job at Crawley Town who had just been promoted to League One. But after two months and not being in charge of a single game he quit to return to Nottingham Forest as manager.

He wasn't doing too badly, win percentage just under 40% and on the brink of the play-off places he was sacked after a 4-2 victory over Leeds United.

Could he be the man to inspire Wolves to some form of recovery this season? The 55-year-old according to wikipedia anyway was born in Wolverhampton and is a Wanderers fan so at least would understand the connection between the club and its fans?

Click here to join in the debate on the club forum.

Date:Friday January 4 2013
Time: 12:16PM


Stearman and Henry are Wolves fans? but it doesn't stop our esteemed "fans" having a go at them, you reap what you sow, and boy are we reaping it - thanks to the boo boys.
04/01/2013 14:20:00
plus he is a doddle - he walks out on teams!
04/01/2013 14:21:00
I agree, whether he's a Wolves fan or not is totally irrelevant. He's virtually no experience and is hardly a name to command instant respect from our PL wanabees. Don't even start me on Strachan.
04/01/2013 15:32:00
Johnwolf: I would never boo a player because it is counter-productive for the reasons your imply. However, the malaise at the club is not solely due to the reaction of some fans to the poor performances on the pitch because the shambles we see out there is merely a symptom of a more profound problem. In my opinion, there is ongoing and deepening tension between the coaching staff and certain members of the squad, unhappy with the manager's tactics ... and perhaps his man-management skills (or lack of them). Clearly, the team is capable of playing far better than they doing so at the moment- they have proved it - so there has to be a reason. Having watched most of the games over the past few months I have noticed a marked falling off of commitment by certain players and a corresponding increase in the sloppiness of their play. Now, it's infected the whole team and it will not be resolved without drastic acton. To repeat what I and many others have been saying, we either have to back SS to the hilt, providing him with enough money to replace the dissident and/or inadequate elements in the squad with suitable recruits ... or sack him. I fear a wishy-washy compromise by the board, one that leaves the manager in place but with a largely unchanged squad because I am concerned that he will be given insufficient money effectively to upgrade the team. As a fall-back position I would bring in the youngsters, who would be more responsive to new ideas and who would be hungry for first team action.
04/01/2013 17:45:00
Southbank 60 i agree we have to back SS but as Moxey has said we need to ship players out which nobody else seems to want.You only have to look at our defence Berra out of contract but were trying to get him to sign a new one what for i can only think so we dont have to buy some one else which is confusing. So if were not trying to get rid of him exactly which players are we supposed to get rid off as i could name at least six or seven that should not be there.Everybody else seems to be strengthening there squad yet we are as normal dilly dallying a long as if we had the best squad going it is so confusing as i have said.
04/01/2013 19:52:00
The call for Stale to be sacked, due to a perceived 'lack of progress'(as far as I can tell), does leave a few obvious questions to be asked.If Stale was sacked today, how many games does his replacement get? He's had 26 league games. Would that be a precedent set? If not, why not? How much 'progress'( in less than 30 games), would the new bloke have to make to be safe from the chop? Also, the list of potential replacements for Stale looks a bit different to the list of names that was being bandied about when Mick was canned. The same 'experts' now calling for Stale's head are the same that were lobbying for the likes of Lee Clark to take over from MM. Curbishley? Now into his fifth year since managing last. He still hasn't been snapped-up, I take it. In my opinion, this whole mess was created when Morgan decided to let the 'fans' choose, by saying they most definitely didn't want Steve Bruce. Apparently he wasn't good enough for us.The message boards were almost unanimous:A.B.B. Which is precisely what we ended up with... someone that wasn't SB, and that's what mattered most. The 'experts' were calmed. I disagree with JW's assessment of the circumstances leading to SM's decision regarding Mick. It wasn't the boo-boys that got him sacked, it was his record. It was the boo-boys (amongst others) that had a say in his replacement, though, and that's where Morgan royally effed-up. Instead of going for the (unpopular) candidate with the proven track-record, he thought he was being cute by hiring a complete stranger. Can't complain about someone you've never heard of, right? Letting the mob (or 'committee' if you prefer) be involved was wrong- no matter how SS does or doesn't get on. Our owner had a decision to make and decided to make popular choices for his own vanity and personal popularity amongst the 'fans'. He tried to spin the appontment of Stale as 'brave', whilst knowing full well the 'brave' decision would have been to ignore the mob and hire Bruce. Anyway, as JW says, that's all in the past, nothing can be done about it now... but history does serve a purpose, and I only hope Morgan has learned from it. Still, it's Cup day today and for those of us who still value a cup-run let's wipe that smirk of Nick Owen's face today... if that's possible, that is.
05/01/2013 09:19:00
WS84: I agree with a lot of what you say and I was clearly wrong about Bruce, though, to be fair, Sunderland were struggling under his management when he was sacked. However, his success at Hull makes my point in relation to the sacking of SS. There comes a point when, for whatever reason, the relationship between manager and players breaks down and when that happens the only solution is a fresh start (sack the manager or the whole squad!). I think that is the situation at WW at the moment. Ironically, for that reason, Bruce would probably have improved our prospects had he been appointed in the summer, but we didn't want him then. But, did we influence SM's decision to the extent you suggest or was a left-field appointment always on the cards: a cheaper option in terms of salary and the signing up of foreign players ... and also a new, more sophisticated PL approach?
05/01/2013 10:00:00
SB60- I absolutely believe the decision on Bruce was made based on 'feedback' on message boards- or more specifically the E&S ones.The awful truth there, of course, is that most of those that post on there hate Wolves. I don't mean they're Albion (or any other) fans posing as Wolves supporters. I mean they claim to be Wolves fans but quite apparently and openly revel in bad news. We know how it works on there:When we win there may be 50 or so messages along the lines of 'well done lads' or 'we weren't up to much but a win's a win'. Conversely, when we lose there's hundreds of 'fans' only to eager to stick the boot in to the club they claim to love. And it's the opinion of these people that I believe Morgan was swayed by. Remembering what the mood was like at the time, I think Morgan chickened out from giving it Bruce, fearing he'd be even more unpopular than he already was... with people that hate the club and often brag about how the club never sees a penny of their money and how they hope Wolves lose, unless Morgan runs the club to their specific instructions.So,the mess we are now in is consistent with a decision made for all the wrong reasons. I don't think it was a matter of cost. Although it's believable enough that Stale costs less than the likes of Bruce, I view that as coincidental. Back to present day and what to do now? From what i've read on here and elsewhere, those of us that see the matches are agreed that there's a 'go slow' been called by A.N Other(s) on the playing staff.For Morgan to sack SS now (which i'm convinced he's loath to do) would pretty much undermine the new bloke before we've even got one. The messages it sends out about us as a club should prevent anyone that would be worth having from coming within a mile of us:You're the manager... but if it turns out that the players don't like you, we'll sack you!So, I think that leaves option B. Depending on how many names Stale has on his wish list, i'd actively pusue a policy of removing the known fifth-columnists (for that's how I see them) from the first team and taking the hit on paying non-active staff until they can be shifted. I'd much prefer to deal with them in the same way Don Corleone did during the baptism scene, but there's laws against that sort of thing... more's the pity. I can forgive a manager that turns out to be not very good. What is totally unacceptable is that so-called professionals are wearing my club's colours and not only not trying, but trying to lose. Should we have a purge and THEN decide that actually, Stale, thanks but no, thanks;fair enough. To give in to player power when the players involved have not only let everyone down but have taken it a step further and are throwing matches to get their way, would be very distasteful. I'm with kiawolves. Keep the manager and replace the ringleaders... seeing as how we can't just shoot 'em.
05/01/2013 13:22:00
WS84: ideally, I would do as you suggest because, as I have already stated, one shouldn't give in to player power. And, if SS knows who the dissident players are, he should refuse to select them and put them up for sale. But, for that solution to be effective, we do need to spend money to bring in new recruits to cover even more holes. On the other hand, we have some good youngsters and they could keep us in the division. Nice to see that McAlinden has signed up again (I almost wrote resigned!). As I write we are 0-1 down against a non-league team and, if it stays like that, SS will be sacked or given the money!
05/01/2013 16:25:00
so we lost, I presume stale is finished then...
05/01/2013 17:58:00
Page 1/3
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3

Login to post a comment

Recent Wolves Articles

Stats: Wolverhampton Wanderers v Birmingham City

All the stats from Wolverhampton Wanderers (1) vs (2) Birmingham City, Molineux, 24/2/17 Att: 27,541

Wolves v Birmingham - Team Sheets

Wolves are at Molineux with Birmingham the visitors for the latest Championship game.

Wolves v Birmingham - Follow Live On Twitter

Wolves are at Molineux with Birmingham the visitors today, this will be a 7:45pm kick-off.

Lambert's After The Points

More of Paul Lambert's pre game press conference ahead of the clash against Birmingham City tonight is now doing the rounds, and here he talks of the importance...

Archived Vital Wolves Articles

Vital Wolves articles from

Site Journalists

Write for Vital Wolves
Write For Vital Wolves
Apply Here

Current Poll (see more polls)

Birmingham MotM
Suggested By: Site Staff
Sub - Dicko0%
ScoopDragon Publishing Entire League Network of Sites

League Table

# Team P W D L Pts. GD
1 Newcastle 32 22 3 7 69 37
2 Brighton 32 20 8 4 68 28
3 Huddersfield 32 20 4 8 64 8
4 Reading 33 18 6 9 60 5
5 Leeds Utd 33 18 4 11 58 11
6 Sheff Wed 33 17 7 9 58 10
7 Fulham 32 14 10 8 52 17
8 Norwich 33 15 6 12 51 11
9 Barnsley 33 14 7 12 49 4
10 Preston 33 13 10 10 49 4
11 Derby County 32 13 9 10 48 7
12 Cardiff 33 13 6 14 45 -2
13 Birmingham 34 11 10 13 43 -13
14 Ipswich 33 10 11 12 41 -7
15 Brentford 32 11 7 14 40 0
16 Q.P.R. 33 11 7 15 40 -10
17 Aston Villa 32 8 12 12 36 -8
18 Forest 33 10 6 17 36 -12
19 Burton 34 9 9 16 36 -13
20 Wolves 32 9 8 15 35 -5
21 Bristol City 32 9 5 18 32 -6
22 Wigan 33 7 9 17 30 -10
23 Blackburn 32 7 9 16 30 -13
24 Rotherham 33 4 5 24 17 -43
The Vital Football Members League
Latest F1 News
Latest Vital Boxing News
Vital Football Comment

Recent Wolves Results (view all)

Wolves Fixtures (view all)

Feb 28 2017 7:45PM : Huddersfield Town (H)
Sky Bet Championship
Mar 4 2017 3:00PM : Reading (a)
Sky Bet Championship
Mar 7 2017 7:45PM : Ipswich Town (a)
Sky Bet Championship
Mar 11 2017 3:00PM : Rotherham United (H)
Sky Bet Championship
Mar 14 2017 7:45PM : Brentford (a)
Sky Bet Championship
Mar 18 2017 3:00PM : Fulham (a)
Sky Bet Championship

Vital Members League Table

2.Telford Wolf1
Write for Vital Football