They worryingly had faith too in Roeder, Doncaster, Munby, Gunn, Hamilton and Grant.
Summer 2014 Transfers Mega-thread
- Thread starter DHCanary
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
They worryingly had faith too in Roeder, Doncaster, Munby, Gunn, Hamilton and Grant.
Part of me also wonders how long they have had this structure in mind.
I can't help feeling that McNally has envisaged something like this for a while, given how smoothly (I know it's taken a few weeks, but defining these roles is not a "few weeks" job) the transition has gone from an all-powerful manager to this. It's difficult to make wholesale changes when things are going steadily (and it would have been very dangerous when we were rocked by Lambert leaving), so relegation is definitely the ideal time to massively rejig the club responsibility and decision making structure.
I can't help feeling that McNally has envisaged something like this for a while, given how smoothly (I know it's taken a few weeks, but defining these roles is not a "few weeks" job) the transition has gone from an all-powerful manager to this. It's difficult to make wholesale changes when things are going steadily (and it would have been very dangerous when we were rocked by Lambert leaving), so relegation is definitely the ideal time to massively rejig the club responsibility and decision making structure.
what i meant rob, was that it looks to me as though the whole setup has been formed to help and support adams. i'm not so sure we'd have made these sort of radical changes had someone like mackay or lennon been brought in. maybe a couple but not this drastic. could be wrong...
and as a side note, i'd like to make it clear that i'm being in no way critical of the board for trying something different - i like the way we are setting up off the pitch (assuming i'm happy with the technical director and head of recruitment). i'm just not convinced the manager has what it takes...
Maybe that is why we have gone this route so that Neyal gets some on-field training to turn him into a better manager!
They do seem to be setting up lots of safety nets for Adams to allow him to grow and learn whilst he is doing the job. If we do bring in Mark Wotte too that would be four men with previous Managerial experience (Wotte, Royal, Holt and Robson) who are working at the club.
Yeah, so in itself that implies they do not have enormous faith in Adams. I agree the whol thing has been formed to help him. Part of me suspects that the reason we have Adams is because Mackay/Lennon would not have accepted this, but the board had made their mind up it was what they wanted.
The real problem is therefore not so much the enormous faith in Adams, but the idea that someone will be prepared to replace Adams in the same role should the worst come to the worst and Adams gets fired
and Dave has already covered this, but I also get the impression that the board don't feel Adam has what it takes (yet). And I wonder whether we could have this off the pitch set up and hire a manager who clearly does have what it takes...I'm not sure that the system has been built to support Adams and I'm certain they have faith in him because no system would make it anything other than a dreadful decision if they did not. Is it possible that the system itself may be the priority here? Certainly many managers would have been put off by it and Adam's willingness to fit into the project will have been a big factor in his choice.
i'm not explaining myself very well - apologies!
what i mean is that for the club to totally reshape the whole football club from a staffing point of view and spend a lot of money hiring these people, the board must have faith in adams that he will be here for a long time.
effectively the whole club is changing massively just to accommodate a novice manager in my opinion.
of course, i may be totally wrong and it may be that the club always planned to do these things and adams was the only one to buy into the scheme. i'm sure that's what they'd say.
what i mean is that for the club to totally reshape the whole football club from a staffing point of view and spend a lot of money hiring these people, the board must have faith in adams that he will be here for a long time.
effectively the whole club is changing massively just to accommodate a novice manager in my opinion.
of course, i may be totally wrong and it may be that the club always planned to do these things and adams was the only one to buy into the scheme. i'm sure that's what they'd say.
We'll have to agree to disagree there. My opinion is that he's a very good player. He knows what he has to do and he does it excellently. As has already been proven very, very, very well, he will tear Championship defences apart.
Yeah, I think that's where I disagree, but agree that it could be either one.
I think the club had planned to do wholesale changes to the structure (certainly seems a much more modern approach than the omnipotent Fergie-style manager). To my mind, it has all the hallmarks of a McNally plan that's been brewing for some time - certainly at least six months, if not longer.
The other thing I disagree with is how long the club see Adams staying - I think part of the problem with having a manager with a lot of responsibility is the club stops functioning when they are sacked. Reducing the manager's responsibilities makes it easier for the manager to be fired, and quicker to identify replacements (though you are of course limiting your options to managers prepared to work in your system). Basically, far from these wholesale changes being to accommodate a novice manager, I wonder whether it's simply that a novice manager, in our current circumstances, was the best fit (and the only one prepared) for a modernised club structure. It's the technical director, etc., who are much more likely to last longer, IMO.
I'm not sure what they'd have us believe. I accept it could be either way. I just see these changes as being so significant and carefully planned that they can't have been done since deciding to appoint Adams (which the board assure us was in the last few weeks). Just my opinion though
. I can see Adams being easily jettisoned within a few weeks if it doesn't look like working
He most certainly would score loads of goals, but only if ten other players set them up for him, he brings nothing to the team other than to put chances away that others have created!
12 months ago then yes would've had Rhodes and paid his bus fare to get here.
Assuming we hold onto the players we want I just don't see that we need him.
I'd rather they concentrated on some creative, fast midfielders, maybe an RB and Def a CB
We know Bechio can bang them in for fun at this level, hooper definitely can and RvW could easily IF we create them chances none of them are **** players.
Assuming we hold onto the players we want I just don't see that we need him.
I'd rather they concentrated on some creative, fast midfielders, maybe an RB and Def a CB
We know Bechio can bang them in for fun at this level, hooper definitely can and RvW could easily IF we create them chances none of them are **** players.
Yeah, I think that's where I disagree, but agree that it could be either one.
I think the club had planned to do wholesale changes to the structure (certainly seems a much more modern approach than the omnipotent Fergie-style manager). To my mind, it has all the hallmarks of a McNally plan that's been brewing for some time - certainly at least six months, if not longer.
The other thing I disagree with is how long the club see Adams staying - I think part of the problem with having a manager with a lot of responsibility is the club stops functioning when they are sacked. Reducing the manager's responsibilities makes it easier for the manager to be fired, and quicker to identify replacements (though you are of course limiting your options to managers prepared to work in your system). Basically, far from these wholesale changes being to accommodate a novice manager, I wonder whether it's simply that a novice manager, in our current circumstances, was the best fit (and the only one prepared) for a modernised club structure. It's the technical director, etc., who are much more likely to last longer, IMO.
I'm not sure what they'd have us believe. I accept it could be either way. I just see these changes as being so significant and carefully planned that they can't have been done since deciding to appoint Adams (which the board assure us was in the last few weeks). Just my opinion though
If it all goes "breasts north" in the first couple of months of the season it won't be the group collective who sit behind Adams who gets the chop will it ?
I think you may be right Rob. It doesn't make sense to hire a cheap manager and make a ton of expensive changes restructuring a club around him. People are concerned that the system ties us to inexperienced managers that will fit within it, but maybe that is exactly the aim.
Managerial appointment are an expensive gamble. You don't just lose a manager every 18 months. An entire playing staff gets changed. It's expensive, chaotic and the club essentially starts again and may lose any sense of a playing identity along the way. I'll risk being laughed off the forum by wondering if the board have looked at Barcelona and decided that a structure that produces not just academy players but also future managers is the way to go.
Managerial appointment are an expensive gamble. You don't just lose a manager every 18 months. An entire playing staff gets changed. It's expensive, chaotic and the club essentially starts again and may lose any sense of a playing identity along the way. I'll risk being laughed off the forum by wondering if the board have looked at Barcelona and decided that a structure that produces not just academy players but also future managers is the way to go.
Yeah, I think that's where I disagree, but agree that it could be either one.
I think the club had planned to do wholesale changes to the structure (certainly seems a much more modern approach than the omnipotent Fergie-style manager). To my mind, it has all the hallmarks of a McNally plan that's been brewing for some time - certainly at least six months, if not longer.
The other thing I disagree with is how long the club see Adams staying - I think part of the problem with having a manager with a lot of responsibility is the club stops functioning when they are sacked. Reducing the manager's responsibilities makes it easier for the manager to be fired, and quicker to identify replacements (though you are of course limiting your options to managers prepared to work in your system). Basically, far from these wholesale changes being to accommodate a novice manager, I wonder whether it's simply that a novice manager, in our current circumstances, was the best fit (and the only one prepared) for a modernised club structure. It's the technical director, etc., who are much more likely to last longer, IMO.
I'm not sure what they'd have us believe. I accept it could be either way. I just see these changes as being so significant and carefully planned that they can't have been done since deciding to appoint Adams (which the board assure us was in the last few weeks). Just my opinion though
I tend to side more with this side of the argument. I think it was pretty obvious they were planning to get rid of Hughton at the end of the season irrespective of the league we would be playing in, so it makes sense he would have made plans in terms of a new framework that the new manager would work within. From what Bowkett said, they won't shy away from sacking NA if things don't go well so it makes sense they would prepare for that by having a structure in place which would make a transition run more smoothly with as little disruption as possible to the first team squad.
You're well entitled to tear straight into them, they've done some good things but I've lost count of how many ridiculous things they've done in the past, this latest appointment could be another in a long line of calamities, what I find even more insulting and disrespectful to everyone one of us who supports this club is we're on a relatively better financial footing so why go cheap and gamble it on someone without the experience? Especially since we have decent resources? If we don't have a successful season then next summer I can see a lot more players clearing off and let's not forget those parachute payments won't keep us going for long.
Just been on a few Bournemouth forums and they seem to be willing Grabban away. They are saying things like "he isnt a natural finisher" and "we can get someone much better for £3m" etc. Makes you wonder :-/
I cant help but think what we really need is an attacking mid? I watched the Playoff Final and Derby's Ward and Russell were fantastic! Dribbled well, scared the defense and always looked dangerous.
perhaps that game was a bad example because they failed to unlock the defence but they looked very good and are highly rated. Players like them are what we need. Players who can feed strikers who have good movement in the box.
I cant help but think what we really need is an attacking mid? I watched the Playoff Final and Derby's Ward and Russell were fantastic! Dribbled well, scared the defense and always looked dangerous.
perhaps that game was a bad example because they failed to unlock the defence but they looked very good and are highly rated. Players like them are what we need. Players who can feed strikers who have good movement in the box.
Well said. Our midfield was too indecisive and couldn't move the ball quick enough, poor passing and lacking a genuine playmaker in the team was number one problem last season, no-one had the brains or movement to get through defences. With the exception of the old Hoolahan I don't think any of our midfielders genuinely have that ability.
Several issues going on here. On the new management team I go with the view that the Board wanted this type of structure long before Adams was appointed with long term development in mind. I don't think it's a system that would suit someone as headstrong as MacKay, who showed the kind of problems such a headstrong attitude can cause in his time at Cardiff. IMO, the only adaptation for Adams is Royle, brought in for his experience. I also think that this is the modern approach seen in many of the larger clubs and I hope it brings the stability and long-term development the Board is looking for.
As for the striker needed, it's hard to know until we see who's leaving and who's staying. Without doubt, though, we need a creative midfielder pulling the strings to allow the striker(s) the chances to score. This was the biggest problem for me last season, and IMO the principal reason we were relegated.
As for the striker needed, it's hard to know until we see who's leaving and who's staying. Without doubt, though, we need a creative midfielder pulling the strings to allow the striker(s) the chances to score. This was the biggest problem for me last season, and IMO the principal reason we were relegated.