I would like a coach who questions things transfers etc. not somebody who nods like churchill the dog
this guy fell out with his previous owners because he questioned things like transfers. you're chatting ****e.
I would love for him to bring more than the one assistant. A team. Dodds and Proctor back to AOL. No front bench. Let's see though.
Honestly this fanbase amazes me constantly. What the **** are you talking about? Do a tiny bit of research then come back.
Yes - especially with the change in culture and language. Feels more important that he has two people with him rather than just one, to me at least.
“Whinge whinge about no manager” “120 days” “they’ll give it to Dodds” “skint” Manager close to being appointed “NO NOT HIM” Whinge whinge whinge” “Yes man” etc etc
Now you mention it, maybe we should appoint someone who disagrees with everyone else at the club and argues with them. Everyone pulling in the same direction, working to the same vision would be awful. Who'd want that?
...it's because some on here, RTG and Twitter are football experts despite not having achieved a single thing in the professional game. Everyone slagging this appointment knows best and they know that RLB is a) cheap, b) a yes man and c) will be a failure. Most of it will be Speakman's fault but Dodds will get some blame too.
Sunderland fans when a fellow Championship team appoints a random foreigner: "Why don't WE ever take a gamble. This bloke could be the next Klopp! ****ing Speakman and KLD man. No ambition" Sunderland fans when we appoint a random foreigner: "****s sake man, I've never even heard of him. He's ****e. Why do we always take the unambitious, cheap option. ****ing Speakman and KLD man. No ambition"
He has to have at least one. I have no issue with the existing setup, but he needs his own man next to him.
I don't mind Dodds and Proctor staying involved, not at all. I just think another two of his own guys would be good. Even if ones an assistant and the other a fitness coach. Just feels even more important to me considering any potential language barrier.
The idea of a yes man makes no sense. The head coach is there to implement the vision of those above him. To anyone who thinks a 'yes man' is a bad thing, imagine you are interviewing someone for a position with a lot of responsibility and that person came into the interview and started saying they wanted to do things completely differently and disagreed with company strategy, even if they may be correct in what they say, are you appointing them? Absolutely not. Now on the other hand, if a potential employee came in and their ideas and views aligned with what the company is trying to do they'd be a stand out candidate. Yes a bit of professional debate which leads to tweaks of strategy is important, but you absolutely do not appoint someone who wants to rip everything up and do their own thing. The lack of logical thinking astounds me.
