Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
MyGodWeArePoorToWatch

They seem to be making this up as they stumble along.

Recommended Posts

There is no way any of this was planed.

After reading the artcle on pinkun front page, its clear they are groping around in the dark with no plan.

Yes we wanted Neil sacking. But you would think as profesionals, that they would have had some kind of plan B in mind.

It seems not.

They have truly made themselves look totaly incompetent this time.

Announcements about announcements, the only " candidate " in this grand scheme of things that is apointed, is one that has already been here ages, and apparently doing that job.

Honestly.

You couldn''t make this shambles up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything is about saving money with these owners, itbwouldnt suprise me if they were delaying all of this to save a few weeks wages because they keep renewing dead woods contracts and have no cash themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sudden acknowledgment that we may still yet reach the play offs, which is going to through the whole restructure wide open as it seems as it was not planned for when all of this was announced.

Balls almost makes it sound like the club would rather not get into the playoffs this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reading of the "Announcement this week" thing was that they had a DoF they were hoping to unveil and it didn''t work out, hence we were left with the rather lame announcement of the MD and the DoF/coach structure, which you''d hope had been decided at the start of the process.  If so, and obviously it''s all speculation, the DoF would have been someone with high level experience enough to impress and Hodgson is the obvious candidate as his name was in the frame and he then apparently ruled himself out mid-week.

 

Ultimately I''d rather get these decisions right and not rush them.  If, as reported, they decided against Rowett and Warburton then I''ve no problem at all with letting them go to our competitors.  But it is a bit painful to have the announcement about how they want to structure things, which will require us to get the right people to fit it, with no sign they''ve identified who they are going to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cannot argue 100% of victories since announcement but as 9 contracts for largely useless players up at end of season will leave rather large hole in the squad. Not saying those 9 need to stay but new manager needs to consider whether they ought to be retained. By June all can sign for other clubs however unlikely that will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We heard all this before, taking time to find the right people and we won''t be rushed.

Scouring Europe and all options etc., blah, blah, blah.

Same old song sheet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

My reading of the "Announcement this week" thing was that they had a DoF they were hoping to unveil and it didn''t work out, hence we were left with the rather lame announcement of the MD and the DoF/coach structure, which you''d hope had been decided at the start of the process.  If so, and obviously it''s all speculation, the DoF would have been someone with high level experience enough to impress and Hodgson is the obvious candidate as his name was in the frame and he then apparently ruled himself out mid-week.

 

Ultimately I''d rather get these decisions right and not rush them.  If, as reported, they decided against Rowett and Warburton then I''ve no problem at all with letting them go to our competitors.  But it is a bit painful to have the announcement about how they want to structure things, which will require us to get the right people to fit it, with no sign they''ve identified who they are going to be.

[/quote]I may be wrong but I never thought Hodgson would be in the running for/want the DoF/sporting director job. I only imagined he might join the board as a kind of wise old owl, doing more formally what he has been doing, which is advising Smith and Jones.As to today''s statement from Balls, it is ambiguous. A strict reading is that he is only saying both jobs will not be filled over the international break, rather than saying neither will be. And it is obvious the SD job (where Balls says they are well down the road to finding someone) has to be filled before that of head coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We know this board is clueless and lacks any direction. Through law of averages they occasionally get it right maybe that will be the case this time but don''t hold your breath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Its Character Forming"]

My reading of the "Announcement this week" thing was that they had a DoF they were hoping to unveil and it didn''t work out, hence we were left with the rather lame announcement of the MD and the DoF/coach structure, which you''d hope had been decided at the start of the process.  If so, and obviously it''s all speculation, the DoF would have been someone with high level experience enough to impress and Hodgson is the obvious candidate as his name was in the frame and he then apparently ruled himself out mid-week.

Ultimately I''d rather get these decisions right and not rush them.  If, as reported, they decided against Rowett and Warburton then I''ve no problem at all with letting them go to our competitors.  But it is a bit painful to have the announcement about how they want to structure things, which will require us to get the right people to fit it, with no sign they''ve identified who they are going to be.

[/quote]

I may be wrong but I never thought Hodgson would be in the running for/want the DoF/sporting director job. I only imagined he might join the board as a kind of wise old owl, doing more formally what he has been doing, which is advising Smith and Jones.

As to today''s statement from Balls, it is ambiguous. A strict reading is that he is only saying both jobs will not be filled over the international break, rather than saying neither will be. And it is obvious the SD job (where Balls says they are well down the road to finding someone) has to be filled before that of head coach.

[/quote]

Fair enough, and I was only mentioning Hodgson because he would have been a high profile DoF/SD signing (however you feel about his suitability).  It just feels to me like they had someone in mind and ended up having to make the rather limp announcement about the plan to have an SD/coach and an MD (who won''t be a board director) because they''d said there would be an announcement last week, so I can''t help feeling they''ve failed to get someone they hoped to have.

 

Ed Balls'' interview says they''re not yet at final interview stage for the SD role, so they will need some time to draw up that final interview shortlist and hold the interviews, following which they''d need to agree terms with the preferred candidate and make the announcement.  So that could be within a couple of weeks, or it could be longer..  Presumably the plan is to be working on the head coach recruitment over the same period, but to have the SD on board for that to be finalised.  He''s given plenty of wiggle room by saying the important thing is to have them both in place for the summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="MyGodWeArePoorToWatch"]So are they beyond critisism happy clapper ?

Should we all stay stumm regardless of how they act ?

Get a grip.[/quote]The interview was extremely informative. There is some great ideas re the new structure and a sensible approach to appointments going forward. You should go back and read it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem here is that a large number of supporters have little or no faith in the board due to recent experience , and to be quite honest , although I agree if it takes time to find the right candidates , then time must be taken , it''s pretty par for the course with our club to create a shambles . I also agree that this is no a part of any plan that existed before the sacking of the Scottish clown .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Barclay seats 48/49 the 3rd
"The problem here is that a large number of supporters have little or no faith in the board due to recent experience , and to be quite honest , although I agree if it takes time to find the right candidates , then time must be taken , it''s pretty par for the course with our club to create a shambles .  I also agree that this is no a part of any plan that existed before the sacking of the Scottish clown."
What concrete evidence do you have for this latter claim? Any at all? This kind of structural change has been in the air for at least three years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="westcoastcanary"]What concrete evidence do you have for this latter claim? Any at all? This kind of structural change has been in the air for at least three years. [/quote]
If this was planned for 3 years, why was no action even remotely considered to be started to be taken prior to AN''s sacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Action was taken, in the summer of 2014, when the original Football Board was introduced. McNally explained the thinking behind it at the time, referring in particular to the need to relieve the manager of some of the burden of dealing with medium to longer term development. If you ask why they didn''t then go the whole hog but settled for just moving some distance in the required direction, I think there''s a one word answer: McNally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×