This kinda sets the precedent What if we spend 2-3m on a player in august but walter doesnt really play him Does acun then start pressuring walter about it?
When people seem to be harking back to an (ironically problematic) ideal where the manager was head coach and head of recruitment then there is clearly a lack of acceptance of the new. Whatever his title is, He's DOF for all intents and purposes.
Evidently so. He'll have the freedom to do what he wants but if not playing that kind of signing doesn't bring success then it will be on the coaches head. Basically drop him by all means, but justify it with results
Hard to justify when perhaps the point is the funds should have been better used to actually assist the manager.
You've just said yourself the last manager we had was 8 years ago. The club does recruitment. Coach has an influence but ultimately times have changed. I've defended Rosenior on precisely that in the past. But the funds will be spent in the best perceived interest of the club, before any coach in the modern structure.
The coach should be having the final say on what players he's given, I don't care what model we're using. The DoF makes the signings, and the Scout goes and finds the players, but the Head Coach should be signing off on the players considering he's ultimately hired and fired based on the results he gets with those players. All that's changed is that as manager Bruce actually negotiated with the players.
Did you listen or are you reacting off second hand reaction again? Acun has reiterated, the club recruitment team identify the targets based on areas the coach wants to strengthen. Then has the final yes or no on the options. Same with outgoings. He specifically cited Oscar and Sinik as players Liam didn't want so they moved out.
So you're suggesting Rosenior signed off on and wanted Pandur at the club? That's news to me, did you listen to something different to everyone else?
I didn't suggest that at all. I'm not suggesting anything. I'd love to hear it again( but doubt it will be available unedited again). But unless you can answer that you listened to it then we cant exactly discuss nuance can we? And surprise surprise initial internet reaction isn't the whole story. Based on tonight we're definitely a continental-presidential style management structure with separate recruitment and coaching structures with the coach coming in at initial stages in terms of what he's looking for and the later stages of who he wants from the available options. Some on here think we should be run like Brian Clough, who's contribution to actual coaching was a shot of whisky before kickoff and an thunderous bollocking if you lost
I said the coach should have the final say on players and you rebuffed me. So you're either claiming that Rosenior shouldn't have the final say on players, or that he does and signed off on Pandur. Or you're just arguing/posting for the sake of it. I know which seems the most likely. Should take your own advice and log off for the night.
From what Acun says, coach identifies areas. Recruitment identify feasible targets, coach has a final say on who is preferred out of the targets to pursue. Of course in practical terms, there's going to be negotiation and trade off. But ultimately a head coach is employed to maximise the potential of the talent the club can provide. And when the coach isn't perceived by the club to be doing that... He ends up coaching someone else. And I'm not expressing opinion here.. for right or wrong that where we are. But I know you didn't listen to the event, because you're getting defensive about having an opinion you know nothing about first hand. Just reacting to what you've seen on the internet. Otherwise you'd have a specific argument. And you don't. Just objecting to what you don't want to hear and trying to personalise it. Perhaps keep Castro company in the crayon corner for the day, you arrogant prick.
Who said Ohio was fitter? He was shocking when he first arrived. He would give 5 good minutes then look totally knacked
How many good minutes did Connolly or Sharp have, out of interest? Again, the point was that Liam had the right to do that, but if it doesn't justify the decision it's on your head as far as the board is concerned. And besides, when Liam has favoured a player, he's trotted out he old line -the only way to get the match fit is to play them. That's beside the point I'm trying to relay a lot of what was said in non reactionary terms for people with a brain. If you want to argue with me, then you'd be better off writing a strong email to the club.
You were born and presumably a football fan when Doug Ellis was still an influence in the British game. You did know he wasn't city chairman, right? Maybe coates at Stoke would be a good recent example of giving coaches total control but firing them and starting again when they didn't see eye to eye repeatedly. My point isn't that it's wrong or right, I'm just saying it's been the norm for decades, hence managerial tenures average about 9 months.
I have no idea who Ellis is but after a google he was chairman at Villa until 2006, so no I wasn't a football fan then. I never said owners can't fire coaches. I don't know what your example of Coates is saying.
Re read above. Point is regardless of the structure, when a manager can't manage the board then it's curtains, regardless.
I tried to give you the last word and you kept replying. Just like you kept replying to Castro because you're obsessed with having the last word. I went off and caught up with the rest of the thread and came back to two new posts from you when I hadn't responded, complete with some aggressive swearing. Move on.
Tell me you didn't come across arrogant despite arguing about something you haven't seen. So yeah. As much as I'll support Zimo's and Drew's right to challenge Castro, I'll call you out when you're being a precious arrogant bastard arguing about something you haven't seen for the sake of it too. Cut out the belittling tone as default then you might avoid half the **** you get on here.
