Totally agree with this. I reckon the reason Delia et al wanted to have a manager for 10 years was inorder to build on a strategy, to recruit to that strategy and improve as a result. That didn't seem to happen with Neil or his predacessors. For all the reasons CC states above. The buying of Pritchard being the prime example of the mixed up approach. To buy him was an error given our options in that position. Having bought him, to then not build the team around him or at least give him the chance from the start was just weird!
All of this strategy could have worked, with the right manager/tactics/luck with injuries. I still think some of the players people are writing off can be a success for the yarmy. So many players seemingly improve when they leave City, how about some improvement at City, a City side with a good HC, with Webber pulling the strings. Naismith and Wildshutt could both still come good. They have shown quality before.
Bah!
With the CEO job now split between the MD and the SD, the latter will have the role of TD and DofR effectively built into his job in a way that McNally and Moxey never did. To me, that's a big step forward and the HofRs for the UK and Europe will report directly to SW who also made it clear that the final decision still rests with the HC though, as it should. This is what has been missing in our recruitment, leading us to pay large sums of money for established players rather than recruiting hidden gems much of the time. There have been exceptions, however, like Oliveira, Pinto, and Dijks, for example. A club like ours needs to build a squad of hidden gems who then bring in a large return on the original investment when they move on. What we have been left with is expensive players who nobody else can afford to take off our hands. That's the recruitment failure, not the actual players who have come in. My one caution is that with all this emphasis on recruitment, our young players could be denied opportunities.
