It was a quiet day at the office until the axe fell

I DIDN'T have any sense of foreboding when Graham Rix and I settled into our working day at Riccarton on Wednesday morning.

On the way in, I even exchanged pleasantries with Roman Romanov - and I didn't read too much into the fact that he rarely makes an appearance at the training complex.

It was all very cheery as I sat down for a coffee with Graham to discuss the day's training programme. In fact, when Valdas Ivanauskas appeared with the list of players for the session, his serious expression seemed merely an excuse for a laugh. "He looks a real happy chappie," I joked. I now know his sombre, sheepish demeanour was the result of knowing Graham and I were about to lose our jobs.

Graham then disappeared and, because I immediately headed downstairs to sort out the balls, bibs and other training gear with youth coach Stephen Frail, I wasn't conscious of how long he was away. Then the kitman said I was wanted upstairs. Then it sunk in - Roman Romanov's presence, coupled with Graham's 20-minute absence, meant only one thing.

Our meeting quickly became an attempt to clarify the reasons for dismissing Graham. At no time did I have any communication with owner Vladimir Romanov, despite it being him who decided we had to go, as he ultimately decides everything at Hearts. The reasons his son gave for the sacking seemed weak but in such situations there is no point in stamping your feet and throwing a hissy fit. When directors decide you are out of a club, all you can do is pack up your belongings and leave.

It has been said we should have seen the writing on the wall after the comments made by Roman Romanov the previous Friday about second place not being good enough. But we were entitled to be reassured by what the chairman said because he also repeated there would be no changes before an end-of-season review.

It seems that a home draw against Rangers - even one that kept Hearts a pretty encouraging six points ahead in the chase for the Champions League place - caused the goalposts to be shifted, the demands to be altered.

Those who own and run football clubs are entitled to change their minds at any time about who they want in charge of the affairs of their team and what they want from them. But the timing of our departures was surely entitled to surprise us. I tried to reason with Roman Romanov and asked that the club consider giving Graham just another ten days; let him take the team into the Scottish Cup semi-final against Hibs and then see what happened. To that I was told in no uncertain terms that the decision was made and that was that.

Graham had made enormous efforts to do right by the Tynecastle club in the face of unbelievable internal and external pressure across four months in charge. I felt he had earned a golden opportunity to take Hearts to within 90 minutes of only a second trophy in 46 years.

If he was given the chance to deliver silverware, it might have redressed the balance that had tipped away from him in the Romanovs' eyes.

I asked about my own situation and was told that, as I was part of the same team as Graham, the director of football post was no longer available. That was fine, I expected that. But while Graham received a letter outlining the reasons for the termination of his contract, I was given nothing in writing officially detailing the duties I had failed to perform to the club's satisfaction. No wonder. In five weeks in the director of football post, I had done absolutely everything asked and expected of me.

I communicated daily on all football matters with Vladimir Romanov through faxes to, and conversations with, his son. I actually thought I had an open and decent relationship with the pair and that the management structure put in place after I stepped up from a month on Hearts' coaching staff was working well for all parties.

I signed two of the club's outstanding young players on long-term contracts; had tentative talks with a number of clubs and Vladimir Romanov on summer player recruitment; had put forward a location and dates for a summer training camp and had spoken to a number of sides about providing pre-season opposition.

I am angry, absolutely furious, about what happened. It is devastating to lose your job when there is absolutely no reason. If I haven't come out spitting blood it is only because I have become philosophical about what football can throw at you and have an inbuilt resistance to showing emotion.

I cannot help, however, but feel genuine sadness over Graham's treatment. He was put through hell because of both his personal life and what brought about his appointment. To be discarded so brutally and then have his time in charge belittled was completely unnecessary. In his 19 games, Graham didn't only do a good job, he did a remarkable job.

How much strain he was placed under by, first, the media witch hunt over his past and, later, the furore over team selection even had his wife expressing concerns over his health. His face at those times frighteningly betrayed the stresses he was under.

Yet he never buckled, never once cracked and instead showed a strength of character that even I, his friend for years, didn't know he possessed. Just recently, the spring in his step and the sparkle in his eye had returned. And now this.

I have no intention of getting into a slanging match with the Romanovs over the mean-spirited things they have said about Graham's record and his approach. That might change if they carry on in this vein, though. I don't see why they couldn't simply have said that he wasn't right for the job, wished him well and left it at that.

Equally, it wouldn't be fair on the players involved to go public on the debates with the owner over the inclusion, or otherwise, of certain individuals that have been made so much of in the media. It is actually not unusual for directors to have strong opinions on the worth of players or put in their tuppenceworth on team selection.

What I couldn't stomach was the Romanovs questioning the tactics. What do they know about tactics? Do they even know what constitutes tactics?

In an interview in this newspaper, Vladimir Romanov said he couldn't be a frustrated coach because to be a coach you needed 20 years' experience in the job. Between us, Graham and I have much more than that and it is insulting to be lectured on our area of expertise by businessmen who have absolutely no knowledge of football mechanics. People bandy around the word tactics when in fact they are referring to all sorts of other aspects of the game.

Although before my time, I have heard it said that Graham got his tactics wrong in the game lost 3-2 to Celtic at New Year. Yet, after the first hour - in which Hearts produced the best performance I have seen from any team against the Old Firm in ages to go 2-0 up - the game turned because Takis Fyssas received a red card that was later rescinded. A refereeing mistake and nothing else was the reason Celtic were able to score twice at the death.

Under Graham, Hearts produced some terrific displays - not least the 4-1 against Hibs, 5-0 over Falkirk, 3-0 cup success against Aberdeen and the 4-1 in Dunfermline - and drew six times not because of tactics but because in a number of these draws injuries had forced Graham to play without his only senior strikers.

Hearts do not possess natural finishers. Compare their modest firepower to the goal threats Celtic have in at least five attacking positions and you will come up with the reason that Gordon Strachan's side are about to win the championship. It is playing personnel, not the identity or actions of any coaches, that have made the difference. Hearts wasn't the most difficult job I have ever had, but it was certainly the most demanding. It was, though, thrilling to work for such a great club, with good players and really passionate supporters. Indeed, the fans were never less than great with me, despite my former life as a Hibs manager. Pity my stay was so brief, but I don't believe Graham and I will be the last football management appointments at Tynecastle to be left bemoaning swift departures.

Second isn't good enough for Vladimir Romanov. Not winning every game isn't good enough for Vladimir Romanov. Yet, with Celtic and Rangers set to strengthen considerably squads worth - and paid - five and six times his Hearts players, even merely finishing second and winning as many games as in the current campaign might be beyond his club next season.

Although the Hearts director of football post might interest some high-profile figures, I don't see any top-class manager being interested in a head coach position that makes such impossible demands of its occupier. And I guarantee that whoever does fill the post in the summer, won't still be in it 12 months on.

Taken from the Scotsman