Tynecastle goalposts shift again

TAKIS FYSSAS is trying to be diplomatic. He is dodging questions, carefully negotiating others. The departure of a manager won't be allowed to unsettle the team, he says. That was back in October, days after George Burley had been sacked. This week, the Hearts defender was again sent out to face the media. Similar questions, similar answers. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Like a recurring nightmare. Hearts have again awoken with a start, beads of sweat building. Chairman Roman Romanov has described the latest decision to dispense with another manager as a risk. In the midst of a tight league run-in which will determine whether Hearts will be playing Champions League football next season and less than two weeks ahead of a Scottish Cup semi-final against their biggest rivals, he says the proof will be in the outcome of this colourful and controversial season.

But that's not strictly true. Not really. Finishing second and winning the Scottish Cup will not necessarily provide vindication. Days before jettisoning Graham Rix, Romanov had told journalists that there was no guarantee that George Burley would have delivered the title or maintained his unbeaten streak. He said anyone who said otherwise would simply be guessing. The flipside of that is the fact that, regardless how this term now pans out, no-one can do anything other than surmise how it may have differed had Rix still been at the helm. If they now fail to achieve the dual target so-publicly set by the Romanovs, this week's decision will backfire. If they manage it, then who's to say Rix would not have done likewise?

The fans say they don't doubt the sincerity of the ambitions of the Lithuanian owner Vladimir Romanov, but the troubling aspect is that people more closely embroiled within the club are beginning to worry about hidden agendas. They say his actions, which destabilise, don't tally with the talk. It is a fear with no real foundation but the fact it is even entering the heads of those who until recently refused to question his actions and his aims is telling. There is a difference, they say, between ruthless and reckless.

This is man who considers attack the best form of defence, in life and, it seems, in football. But business principles do not always translate to a playing field.

"Tactically, I'm not sure he gets it," said one insider. "He thinks if you have more attack-minded players on the pitch you will win. He doesn't understand the need for a balance in the team."

"He doesn't understand or appreciate the importance of a player like Brellier," added a player. "By playing the way he does, he allows Paul Hartley, Rudi Skacel and David Cesnauskas to get forward and he protects the defence. The players appreciate what he does because we play the game and understand football.

"The fans can see what he does which is why he's a favourite, but Mr Romanov still isn't convinced. He didn't want him playing against Rangers and he was annoyed when he was given a start anyway. If we had won it might not have been such a problem but we drew and he seemed to think that was because we didn't have a more attacking player on instead of Julien."

Regardless what was outlined in the official statement, the final straw was the team's inability to take all three points in the games against Inverness Caledonian Thistle and Rangers. Unbeaten by both wasn't good enough, despite the fact that weather conditions in the Highlands made that match a lottery and the fact that last week's draw keeps them six points (and a healthy goal differential) ahead of their second-place challengers. Ignoring Vladimir Romanov's 'opinion' on team personnel didn't help.

Other reasons given in a statement that was fairly damning and, according to those in the know, based only loosely on fact, were the January signings, which, Roman Romanov said "were not appropriate for Hearts".

"In addition, the events which occurred in February when Hearts played Dundee United, including the way in which some information reached the public domain, were disappointing to us."

It is times like this when the idea that players would not be unsettled by this week's events borders on the laughable. Guys like Fyssas may have been through this kind of nonsense and upheaval too often before to be flummoxed, but imagine how Brellier feels, or others such as Robbie Neilson and Andy Webster, who Rix had been told to drop for that United game. Imagine the morale of the 11 January signings - of which only four were at Rix's behest. People will argue that as it was his money facilitating the moves, Romanov has every right to a say in such matters. Few would consider it classy to subsequently heap all the blame on another when the signings don't immediately fit in.

Players are also angry that the pressure previously soaked up by Rix has now been shifted on to them. They claim it is easy to say they have the outcome in their own hands, but if the balance or the morale of the team is affected then no amount of desire can compensate. And there will be some disenchanted players if this Romanov gamble does not reap dividends.

Those same players were willing to make their feelings known last month. Graham Rix wasn't the man responsible for leaking information to the media - understandably, the guy didn't like, or trust, most outlets - others did that. For the Romanovs, for whom truth seems to be a variable, his only crime was being honest with his players. A matter of weeks into the job, he told this newspaper that they would always be his priority. "Mr Romanov might not like me saying it but he's not my priority," he said. "My responsibility is the players and I need them to know that I am on their side and will do anything I can to protect them and make them better." He kept to his word.

They respected that and when the flak started flying over that United match, they requested a meeting with Romanov. Footballers simply wouldn't do that, if they didn't like the guy or consider it necessary. Speaking to Scotland on Sunday in the wake of that meeting, captain Steven Pressley said: "The one thing I think is so important at any football club is stability and trust. We need to be able to trust our manager and play in a stable environment where we feel relaxed. That's all we were seeking and Mr Romanov was very approachable. He wants what is best for this football club and he wants success. He is very single-minded and, like I said, it was a difficult situation but it has been addressed." Privately, other players said they knew it was only a question of buying the gaffer time. They knew that Romanov wouldn't be able to help himself. He's too single-minded. It was a matter of when not if. So where is the trust there? And where is it now that Valdas Ivanauskas is in charge?

He has spent the week stressing that he is not a puppet manager. If anyone in the dressing room believes that, they are in a minority. Again, publicly, the diplomatic answer is that they respect him. Privately, they know he is the main conduit from dressing room to Romanov. But they will try their best. Not necessarily for him, or for Burley or Rix but for themselves and the fans. They have invested too much in this season to throw it away in a fit of pique.

In that same interview three weeks ago, Pressley said: "I would never use it as an excuse, but I do think instability has an effect on any football club, let's just say it didn't do us any favours. We might not have won the league if [George Burley] had stayed, but we believed we could." They also believe they would have secured second place and the Scottish Cup if Rix had stayed. The Romanovs don't and some fans aren't convinced.

It's all about opinions. But whoever comes in this summer should be well warned. The only opinion that matters is that of an owner with a penchant for moving the goalposts. A man who can't help but meddle in things his detractors maintain he doesn't fully understand.

Taken from the Scotsman