Ok, the title was a little misleading, sorry! I’ll keep this short and sweet.
Of course he should have gone and you won’t find many more advocates of that sentiment than here at C&B.
The reason I asked the question is because I have been wondering if Mr Allardyce would have in fact been let go if it wasn’t for Twitter, Facebook and the various other social network sites?
I mean I didn’t really see much protest at the games other than the odd “Sam Out” banner here and there and the occasional idiot thug harassing David Sullivan in a car park. If David Gold and Jack Sullivan didn’t have such a prolific presence on Twitter maybe there might have been more banners and more of a protest at the games because what I did see was a massive uprising which called for his sacking or resignation on pretty much a daily basis for the past year or so.
It begs the question, did G&S let Allardyce walk because of fan pressure or did they genuinely think it was the right time to let him go based on other factors?
Anyway, what do you all think? Do you think Sam Allardyce would still be in charge of West Ham United if there was no such thing as Twitter and Facebook? I kinda think he might be.