Two ways to judge that and I’ll only comment on permanent signings In terms of financials it’s been very good, Philogene alone could be £15 million profit, and then there’s players like Tetteh, Oscar, Allahyar, that made nice little fees. In terms of players performing I’d say it’s been decent overall, Seri, Philogene, Tufan, and Omur are all starters and improved us massively. We’ve had duds like Sinik and Lokilo but that’s completely normal, not every transfer works out.
That is what I said and I stand by it. I think you've misunderstood. If Acun wants to ONLY be head scout I.e not also the owner.. Said owner also brought us ally as a favour to a Turkish club, sinik, tetteh, Woods, etc.
Here's the list of players we've signed, I've omitted kids/u21s players. There are 35 players signed and I got to around 13 that I think could be considered a success. That means nearly 65% of decisions have been wrong. That's the biggest reason why we aren't a playoff side. Allahyar Forss Walsh Slater Longman Sinik Tufan Darlow Seri Traore Oscar Tetteh Fig Christie Woods Connolly Pelkas Ebiowei Vale Baxter Salah Philogene Omur Pandur Sharp Allsop Lokilo Carvalho Zaroury Morton Delap Giles Vinagre Twine Ohio
Was Philogene someone Acun personally wanted or just someone he ratified on a permanent rather than loan? It seems the players Acun has personally pushed for other than Tufan and Seri have been pretty big flops.
End of the day it's easy to play the "The good players weren't Acun/Rosenior only the bad ones were" depending on what agenda you want to push but as a general rule having an owner involved in football operations almost always ends badly. A good owner appoints savy and smart experts to the relevant positions and provides them the funds to do their job well. I thought we had that with tan and Rosenior. Maybe not.
It’s hard to say obviously but I would assume Tufan, Seri, Omur, Sinik are all specifically Acun’s signings by the way he talked about them, convincing them, etc. And again hard to say about Philogene but it’s Acun that gave the green light to make it a permanent.
Which is the perfect element of his role. People bring him players and make a case for them and he tells them if we have the funds to make it happen.
Honestly look at any other side and it’s the exact same, Brighton made over 50 signings from 2015-2017 and as you can imagine the majority were average, some were ****, and some were great. That’s how it works in football. Also a few of those players are before Acun even bought the club.
I think that’s most likely what happens but he probably also has an opinion because he’s worked in the industry and been around it for so long, has loads of connections.
That's such a garbage excuse, do you know what all our promotion years have in common? Recruitment was very good and the success % was very high. L1 year it was about 75%, 1st Bruce was just short of 80% and 2nd Bruce one was about 65%
Its okay to criticise something acun has done while also appreciating the great things he has done Did you know? He does seem too involved with the football side of things in my opinion Maybe itll be a masterstroke Maybe itll be a disaster
Im pretty sure in an interview earlier today Acun said we have a scouting team of 11? that do the work, and that the manager does not identify players but does have the final say on any transfers. Which makes sense to me, your signing players on 3, 4, 5 year contracts that are an asset to the club and align with a philosophy, where as managers come and go. Whether you agree with it or not, I think thats fairly common now in todays football... Saying that, its clear Liam asked for a few specific players like Sharp, Connolly & Allsop.. I think id leave it with the scouting team personally
It’s not an excuse, it’s just how football recruitment works. You sign 10 players, some will perform, some won’t. As long as you can move them on it’s not an issue. L1 year we signed 17 players Just a quick glance I can see over 50% of them were ****ing ****e - Mayer, Clark, Flores, Arthur, Crowley, Whyte, Adelakun, Dicko, Milinkovic.
That came from Baz on the 1904 live as an anecdotal example of potential friction between the manager and the board since Jan. Acun's since pretty much said on Humberside since that the issues with Rosenior were stemming from the Jan recruitment, and there was no 'misalignment' before then, hence the new contract. Maybe that security of the new deal emboldened Rosey to dig his heels in a little more since, maybe not? I think on balance it's probably simply an issue between board and manager that's been seen up and down the land as long as football has been an organised sport, that if the board backs a manager significantly (as in Jan) and there's no improvement in the table as a result (6th before Jan, 7th place finish) then questions inevitably will be asked and they'll question backing that same manager again. Obviously the answers Liam offered weren't convincing enough to stay the current course. And the tigers+ interview after he signed where Acun reiterated playoffs aren't necessarily prerequisite, he did say he expected 'progress, progress, progress from now on'. I'm not buying style of play as being a primary reason for dismissal. Results justify the style of play and he simply didn't get enough of them in front of hard earned home sell-outs in the end, which are again crucial to the financial stability of the club. So I think purely and simply it came down to relatively poor home form - a critical desire to keep the MKM full and engaged, and a perception that Liam hadn't realised the full potential of the squad he was given following the January recruitment. I'm not saying I'd have made the same decision, but i'm certain that's the thinking, and I wouldn't be looking too much further beyond that frankly.
Whilst that is absolutely the case, significantly overpaying to a point you can't recoup the fee or move them on without still contributing wages can still leave a club significantly out of pocket. Whether they work out or not in your first team, you still have to get value for them. In a nutshell.
If home form is the issue then I'm not sure that's changing with a new manager as it's been an issue since 15/16 just about.
That's true, but how else do you address it? Because there's no question it needs addressing if we want to challenge for the promised land, and I can't see what more the club can do to make games a better fan experience than they already have, without actually upgrading the entertainment out on the grass on a more consistent basis. But then that's only one of the reasons I listed above. 3 in 13 wasn't a good run in. There were some good performances in there, but we spent quite big and went backwards ultimately.
