In about 10 years of being on this forum I've made something like 5 posts, but the sacking of McCall in the context of the current ownership and financial position is worthy of comment from any jags fan. I think the substance of the merits of sacking Ian McCall for his football performance is a separate discussion from the debate around how it was carried out and why it was done now, and it's important to make that distinction.
My view is that the ownership and control of our club is in a state of flux. We have an interim board and are on the path to some form of fan ownership. The level of turmoil involved in changing the board should not be underestimated, nor should the task facing the new board of getting up to speed on running the club, without mentioning the potential financial challenges.
In this context, we should have been seeking stability in as many areas as possible - which would have meant Ian McCall remaining as manager, at least until the end of the season. Realistically, no replacement now (whether Dools or otherwise) is going to win the league, and the likelihood is that McCall would have secured top 4.
Further, we should be seriously questioning who decided the sacking and on what authority? The new board was stated as being "until the end of the season", with Duncan Smilie as "interim chair" (and not majority shareholder therefore unlikely to be able to "control" the board/club). Assuming standard procedures, the board will decide matters by majority-- and remembering also that the PTFC Trust are majority shareholder so they maintain ultimate power to do what they want. No sacking would be possible without PTFC Trust agreement - is this a decision any inexperienced directors should be making within weeks of joining the board? (Note - this is a general comment, not a specific dig at PTFC Trust directors).
Many comments on this forum seem to focus on the power of the board to make all decisions (both this and previous boards). This underestimates the role of our CEO.. in most businesses it would be the CEO who would lead such major decisions, perhaps requiring ultimate sign-off from the board for major matters, but in any event the CEO would be deeply involved.
Lastly, the timing immediately after the Rangers game was just weird. As was the need for a follow-up statement on Monday (if you need to issue a follow-up statement your first one probably wasn't very good).
In conclusion, regardless of your footballing view on Ian McCall and the managerial team, this is an extremely strange decision in the context of the stability of the club and the questionable authority of the interim board, which should make all of us concerned. If, as has been suggested, there was some form of "termination" clause when the team dropped out of the top 4 then that might help explain things (particularly if it saves us compensation money) but the board/CEO should have made that clear in its statements.
This turned into a long essay -- will return to following the board in an observational capacity.