Yes Men

[Fatalist]

There is much talk of having a Yes man as a manager, and this is seen by some as a bit of a crime.  I have difficulty seeing the problem as clearly.

Firstly, in any job, if someone is paying you to do a job, it seems reasonable that they will tell you what they want you to do. When employer and employee see eye-to-eye, and have a harmonious relationship is usually more productive. I have been in places where employer and employee were at loggerheads, and it didn't end well. Don't watch too many "maverick cop" movies.

Secondly, what harmful issues to do people think a Yes Man is going to unquestioningly agree to? Who is in the team? What formation to play? How many long throws a game? Who takes penalties?  What to have for lunch? I am genuinely puzzled as to what sort of interference people think is likely to need standing up against. General policies, like bringing through Academy players and selling assets when large bids come in will surely be agreed at interview stage.

Can those who use the term "Yes Man" as an insult, as if such a person is not a real man, please enlighten me? What is wrong with everyone "singing from the same hymn sheet"?

[Natchfever]

1 minute ago, Fatalist said:

There is much talk of having a Yes man as a manager, and this is seen by some as a bit of a crime.  I have difficulty seeing the problem as clearly.

Firstly, in any job, if someone is paying you to do a job, it seems reasonable that they will tell you what they want you to do. When employer and employee see eye-to-eye, and have a harmonious relationship is usually more productive. I have been in places where employer and employee were at loggerheads, and it didn't end well. Don't watch too many "maverick cop" movies.

Secondly, what harmful issues to do people think a Yes Man is going to unquestioningly agree to? Who is in the team? What formation to play? How many long throws a game? Who takes penalties?  What to have for lunch? I am genuinely puzzled as to what sort of interference people think is likely to need standing up against. General policies, like bringing through Academy players and selling assets when large bids come in will surely be agreed at interview stage.

Can those who use the term "Yes Man" as an insult, as if such a person is not a real man, please enlighten me? What is wrong with everyone "singing from the same hymn sheet"?

When the person telling you what to do knows nothing about the subject compared to yourself, being a yes man is deserving of insults.

Its simply taking a pay cheque.

[Fatalist]

Just now, Natchfever said:

When the person telling you what to do knows nothing about the subject compared to yourself, being a yes man is deserving of insults.

Its simply taking a pay cheque.

But what, specifically, is he be telling you to do, apart from get in the play-offs etc.? That's what I have trouble seeing.

[Numero Uno]

9 minutes ago, Fatalist said:

There is much talk of having a Yes man as a manager, and this is seen by some as a bit of a crime.  I have difficulty seeing the problem as clearly.

Firstly, in any job, if someone is paying you to do a job, it seems reasonable that they will tell you what they want you to do. When employer and employee see eye-to-eye, and have a harmonious relationship is usually more productive. I have been in places where employer and employee were at loggerheads, and it didn't end well. Don't watch too many "maverick cop" movies.

Secondly, what harmful issues to do people think a Yes Man is going to unquestioningly agree to? Who is in the team? What formation to play? How many long throws a game? Who takes penalties?  What to have for lunch? I am genuinely puzzled as to what sort of interference people think is likely to need standing up against. General policies, like bringing through Academy players and selling assets when large bids come in will surely be agreed at interview stage.

Can those who use the term "Yes Man" as an insult, as if such a person is not a real man, please enlighten me? What is wrong with everyone "singing from the same hymn sheet"?

Think you have the wrong definition of a yes man. A yes man will accept losing his best players when on the verge of something big, will agree to players being signed they wouldn’t have signed, will carry on in the job when they are refused resources to get to the next level etc. It is most definitely not about singing from the same hymn sheet.

[Natchfever]

Just now, Fatalist said:

But what, specifically, is he be telling you to do, apart from get in the play-offs etc.? That's what I have trouble seeing.

Which "he" are you talking about, Lansdown or Ashton ? 

Johnson had a squad of players good enough to do better than how they are but it seems clear that Ashton brought players in who Johnson didn't want.

With regards to Lansdown, how do you know he isn't part of the recruitment process like he was with David James and allegedly MaGuire and Gray under Cotts reign ? 

[marcofisher]

A good post. 

Our strategy has worked well the last few years and as a result we are a much more attractive proposition to a manager. Why rip that up for a completely different approach?

[Fatalist]

2 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Think you have the wrong definition of a yes man. A yes man will accept losing his best players when on the verge of something big, will agree to players being signed they wouldn’t have signed, will carry on in the job when they are refused resources to get to the next level etc. It is most definitely not about singing from the same hymn sheet.

OK, so what would a No Man do in those situations? Shout and scream? Resign? How is that better?

[Natchfever]

2 minutes ago, Fatalist said:

OK, so what would a No Man do in those situations? Shout and scream? Resign? How is that better?

Very simplistic approach tbh mate.

A good manager/coach takes the broader view and accepts he will have to say "yes" on occasion for the greater good like balancing the books but establishes ground rules before he comes to a club and certainly isn't told how to do his job.

[marcofisher]

The idea of not having "yes men" is a thing of the past. How involved do you think the top managers such as Pep are in transfers and finances etc.? They will have an impact yes, but ultimately it is the DOF who will be in charge of that. And rightly so as well, things such as FFP have made the playing field very different to what it was a decade ago.

Gone are the days of Redknapp and co. bankrupting clubs as they weren't "yes men".

Do you really think these top managers are going after players like Fergie would?

[Fatalist]

3 minutes ago, Natchfever said:

Which "he" are you talking about, Lansdown or Ashton ? 

Johnson had a squad of players good enough to do better than how they are but it seems clear that Ashton brought players in who Johnson didn't want.

With regards to Lansdown, how do you know he isn't part of the recruitment process like he was with David James and allegedly MaGuire and Gray under Cotts reign ? 

Ultimately is has to be Steve Lansdown.

Your other points are speculation. I don't think is "clear" that Ashton signed players against Johnson's wishes. Lansdown MAY have been involved in the James ? McGuire / Gray scenarios, but that was some time ago. If he was, he may have learned a lesson. 

[Fatalist]

3 minutes ago, Natchfever said:

Very simplistic approach tbh mate.

A good manager/coach takes the broader view and accepts he will have to say "yes" on occasion for the greater good like balancing the books but establishes ground rules before he comes to a club and certainly isn't told how to do his job.

That is kind of what I am saying it should be like.

I'm still puzzled as to how a manager would be told how to do his job?

[And Its Smith]

Coppell wasn’t a yes man. Bring him back to repeat his 4 week stint or whatever it was. 

[Red Exile]

When I hire someone to do a job I hire people with skills I don't have - otherwise I may as well do it myself. I hire people who I respect and trust to do a job I know I can't do as well as they can. Usually people with a reputation for achieving what I want to achieve, or unquestioned credentials for having the potential to achieve it. In the City case that would mean SL having a clear goal, hiring someone to deliver and trusting them to get on with the job. If they fail get rid of them. That person is unlikely to agree with everything Steve says, unless the only reason they retain the job is by doing so. It's dangerous, I think, to appoint people who owe everything to your patronage - in part that's why I'd want to see us appoint a proven manager at this level rather than take a chance on someone unproven...the former can say 'step back, trust me I know what I'm doing' the latter know they only have a job at this level because Steve Lansdown rates them.

[Major Isewater]

36 minutes ago, Fatalist said:

There is much talk of having a Yes man as a manager, and this is seen by some as a bit of a crime.  I have difficulty seeing the problem as clearly.

Firstly, in any job, if someone is paying you to do a job, it seems reasonable that they will tell you what they want you to do. When employer and employee see eye-to-eye, and have a harmonious relationship is usually more productive. I have been in places where employer and employee were at loggerheads, and it didn't end well. Don't watch too many "maverick cop" movies.

Secondly, what harmful issues to do people think a Yes Man is going to unquestioningly agree to? Who is in the team? What formation to play? How many long throws a game? Who takes penalties?  What to have for lunch? I am genuinely puzzled as to what sort of interference people think is likely to need standing up against. General policies, like bringing through Academy players and selling assets when large bids come in will surely be agreed at interview stage.

Can those who use the term "Yes Man" as an insult, as if such a person is not a real man, please enlighten me? What is wrong with everyone "singing from the same hymn sheet"?

For what it’s worth I never saw LJ as a doormat. He was too motivated to succeed to accept lightly anything which would derail the project and intelligent enough to negotiate the best outcomes in the event. 

[Major Isewater]

6 minutes ago, Red Exile said:

When I hire someone to do a job I hire people with skills I don't have - otherwise I may as well do it myself. I hire people who I respect and trust to do a job I know I can't do as well as they can. Usually people with a reputation for achieving what I want to achieve, or unquestioned credentials for having the potential to achieve it. In the City case that would mean SL having a clear goal, hiring someone to deliver and trusting them to get on with the job. If they fail get rid of them. That person is unlikely to agree with everything Steve says, unless the only reason they retain the job is by doing so. It's dangerous, I think, to appoint people who owe everything to your patronage - in part that's why I'd want to see us appoint a proven manager at this level rather than take a chance on someone unproven...the former can say 'step back, trust me I know what I'm doing' the latter know they only have a job at this level because Steve Lansdown rates them.

Or ‘ hold my beer ‘ .

[Berkshire Red]

Anyone else click on this topic, assuming this was an obscure foreign manager we are now being linked with by the Bristol Post.

Been a long morning

[Selred]

It's weird the same people saying we want a yes man are the same people who say MA takes no responsibility for transfer targets. 

[CheddarReds]

20 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

The idea of not having "yes men" is a thing of the past. How involved do you think the top managers such as Pep are in transfers and finances etc.? They will have an impact yes, but ultimately it is the DOF who will be in charge of that. And rightly so as well, things such as FFP have made the playing field very different to what it was a decade ago.

Gone are the days of Redknapp and co. bankrupting clubs as they weren't "yes men".

Do you really think these top managers are going after players like Fergie would?

Good example, I'm sure on the Man City Amazon Prime documentary Aymeric Laporte was highlighted by Txiki Begiristain and the recruitment team to Pep. 

That's where having a proper structure in place is so important. Begiristain has worked with Pep previously, knows his style and what he wants. They can work to find the correct players for the club. 

Johnson's lack of a clear style of play probably made recruitment more difficult. Equally, I don't think Ashton is free of blame either. 

More and more clubs are looking to settle on a strategy for on the pitch performance and off the pitch recruitment and in many ways it would be much more sensible to get in a new manager who wants to agree to this than, as you say, a Redknapp type who might want free reign to rip up the strategy and do as he pleases. 

I think most of us can see a rough strategy with regards to buying u24s with resale value. Hopefully we can settle on a style of football we want to play and take this into account when dipping our toes into the market. This is where hopefully a new face can help develop the strategy to benefit us.

 

 

[Abraham Romanovich]

11 minutes ago, Fatalist said:

That is kind of what I am saying it should be like.

I'm still puzzled as to how a manager would be told how to do his job?

The manager/coach is not told how to do his job only the financial constraints he is to operate under.

He will be told that the transfer budget is X and the wage bill is Y not whether to to play 433 or whatever.

 

 

[Philly The Kid]

Didn't I read in the evil post that LJ had the ultimate veto on transfers?
If that's true, then it makes it doubtful he had signings thrust upon him by MA. Given the nature of their relationship which, if you believe what they each said about each other was a bit of a love in it wouldn't make LJ a complete yes man. Working within a framework, accepting a philosophy, policy and constraints are all part of any job, so to that end we're all yes men.

[The Bard]

The whole premise of this is ridiculous. It's about the individual's skill set. Can they manage upwards as well as the football side?  That's the key skill we need given our chairman and CEO. 

[Son of Fred]

7 hours ago, Fatalist said:

There is much talk of having a Yes man as a manager, and this is seen by some as a bit of a crime.  I have difficulty seeing the problem as clearly.

Firstly, in any job, if someone is paying you to do a job, it seems reasonable that they will tell you what they want you to do. When employer and employee see eye-to-eye, and have a harmonious relationship is usually more productive. I have been in places where employer and employee were at loggerheads, and it didn't end well. Don't watch too many "maverick cop" movies.

Secondly, what harmful issues to do people think a Yes Man is going to unquestioningly agree to? Who is in the team? What formation to play? How many long throws a game? Who takes penalties?  What to have for lunch? I am genuinely puzzled as to what sort of interference people think is likely to need standing up against. General policies, like bringing through Academy players and selling assets when large bids come in will surely be agreed at interview stage.

Can those who use the term "Yes Man" as an insult, as if such a person is not a real man, please enlighten me? What is wrong with everyone "singing from the same hymn sheet"?

It's never healthy for anyone to have someone constantly agreeing with your opinions,,,always....

Ask Mrs Bruce....

[Nibor]

7 hours ago, Fatalist said:

There is much talk of having a Yes man as a manager, and this is seen by some as a bit of a crime.  I have difficulty seeing the problem as clearly.

Firstly, in any job, if someone is paying you to do a job, it seems reasonable that they will tell you what they want you to do. When employer and employee see eye-to-eye, and have a harmonious relationship is usually more productive. I have been in places where employer and employee were at loggerheads, and it didn't end well. Don't watch too many "maverick cop" movies.

Secondly, what harmful issues to do people think a Yes Man is going to unquestioningly agree to? Who is in the team? What formation to play? How many long throws a game? Who takes penalties?  What to have for lunch? I am genuinely puzzled as to what sort of interference people think is likely to need standing up against. General policies, like bringing through Academy players and selling assets when large bids come in will surely be agreed at interview stage.

Can those who use the term "Yes Man" as an insult, as if such a person is not a real man, please enlighten me? What is wrong with everyone "singing from the same hymn sheet"?

I can see the points but I look at it the other way.  I'd like a manager with enough experience, judgment and justified self confidence to be able to say No to Ashton, Lansdown and his idiot boy whenever they are wrong because he knows better.  If we can't find a manager who knows football at a first team level better than that trio we're in trouble right?

[downendcity]

9 minutes ago, Robert the bruce said:

It's never healthy for anyone to have someone constantly agreeing with your opinions,,,always....

Ask Mrs Bruce....

2 rules in our house.

Rule 1 : Mrs Downend is always right.

Rule 2: When Mrs Downend is wrong then rule 1 applies.

[Davefevs]

6 hours ago, CheddarReds said:

Good example, I'm sure on the Man City Amazon Prime documentary Aymeric Laporte was highlighted by Txiki Begiristain and the recruitment team to Pep. 

That's where having a proper structure in place is so important. Begiristain has worked with Pep previously, knows his style and what he wants. They can work to find the correct players for the club. 

Johnson's lack of a clear style of play probably made recruitment more difficult. Equally, I don't think Ashton is free of blame either. 

More and more clubs are looking to settle on a strategy for on the pitch performance and off the pitch recruitment and in many ways it would be much more sensible to get in a new manager who wants to agree to this than, as you say, a Redknapp type who might want free reign to rip up the strategy and do as he pleases. 

I think most of us can see a rough strategy with regards to buying u24s with resale value. Hopefully we can settle on a style of football we want to play and take this into account when dipping our toes into the market. This is where hopefully a new face can help develop the strategy to benefit us.

 

 

Anyone interested in recruitment led by data, go and have a look at Mrkt Insights.

https://mrktinsights.com/

These are guys who been in and around the game, but a good presence on twitter, who set up their own company, pitched it to Swansea and hit the gig,

I’ve been following some of the individuals for a while, but only just found their podcasts.

Well worth a listen.

 

[ZiderEyed]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Anyone interested in recruitment led by data, go and have a look at Mrkt Insights.

https://mrktinsights.com/

These are guys who been in and around the game, but a good presence on twitter, who set up their own company, pitched it to Swansea and hit the gig,

I’ve been following some of the individuals for a while, but only just found their podcasts.

Well worth a listen.

 

Every single one of them who's involved really know their shit. Can't recommend them enough.

[Red Skin]

13 hours ago, Numero Uno said:

Think you have the wrong definition of a yes man. A yes man will accept losing his best players when on the verge of something big, will agree to players being signed they wouldn’t have signed, will carry on in the job when they are refused resources to get to the next level etc. It is most definitely not about singing from the same hymn sheet.

LJ is gone now so can we lay off?

Personally I do not want any manager solely in charge of recruitment like in yesteryear.

All that results in is a manager that buys players that suits him rather than players that suit the philosophy of the club.  

When that manager leaves or is sacked, the next manager brings in his players and before you know it you have bloated squad with fringe players on long contracts with no motivation to perform.

What we need is a club philosophy (do we have one?) that someone like a Director Of Football defines and is responsible for and for the club to recruit and develop players to fit that.  Then hire a coach sympathetic to that philosophy to get the best from them. 

LJ has lost some quality players.  I'm sure he objected to some of those - Webster for example was key to how we planned to play.   Ultimately what could he do other than resign?

To try and portray LJ as a Yes man is well wide of the mark.  Totally irrelevant.  LJ was head coach and that is what he should be judged on.  It's enough to say that he wasn't up to that task without some tosh about being a Yes man.  

The role we are missing is a Director of Football and a clearly articulated philosophy/identity.  It should never have been LJ's role as coach to define that.

I am more than concerned about MAs influence on transfers and to what he is driven by.  Success on the pitch or on the balance sheet?  

Seems at present as far as recruitment goes we need agreement between head coach, CEO, and owner.  All with different and competing criteria of what successful player recruitment/sales looks like.

The DoF should should write the hymn sheet that everyone at the club should be singing from.  The philosophy of the club should govern/arbitrate between coach/CEO/owner of all matters of player recruitment and development.

[Davefevs]

Just now, RedSkin said:

LJ is gone now so can we lay off?

Personally I do not want any manager solely in charge of recruitment like in yesteryear.

All that results in is a manager that buys players that suits him rather than players that suit the philosophy of the club.

both should be aligned!

When that manager leaves or is sacked, the next manager brings in his players and before you know it you have bloated squad with fringe players on long contracts with no motivation to perform.

What we need is a club philosophy (do we have one?) that a someone like a Director Of Football is responsible for and recruit and develop players to fit that.  Then hire a coach sympathetic to that philosophy to get the best from them.

I think the role of a DoF (whether they have that name or not is irrelevant) is important if the head-coach doesn’t have the time to “own recruitment”.  Mark Ashton is not a DoF, he is not a football person, he is an administrator/negotiator who happens to work in football.  I’m sure he could work in many industries.  He is no mug, but he doesn’t know a footballer.

LJ has lost some quality players.  I'm sure he objected to some of those - Webster for example was key to how we planned to play.   Ultimately what could he do other than resign?
and if he felt he was being sold down the river and his chances of success against the objectives were being unfairly scuppered then he should’ve stood up for himself...and backed himself.  He didn’t.

To try and portray LJ as a Yes man is well wide of the mark.  LJ was head coach and that is what he should be judged on.  It's enough to say that he wasn't up to that task without some tosh about being a Yes man.  

The role we are missing is a Director of Football and a clearly articulated philosophy/identity.  It should never have been LJ's role as coach to define that.

yep, but head-coach, DoF and board need to be aligned.

I am more than concerned about MAs influence on transfers and to what he I'd driven by success or profitability?  

Seems at present as far as recruitment goes we need agreement between head coach, CEO, and owner.  All with different and competing criteria of what successful player recruitment/sales means.

this is where clear financials are laid down and stuck to.  The head-coach needs to appreciate the balance sheet and profit and loss and ffp against the strategic aims.  “You can have Kasey Palmer now, because we’ve just sold Webster, but you’ve just bought Szmodics....both of those players are now locked in for 3/4 years, wages too.  It wIll mean you have less / nothing in January.  Do you understand that?” 

The DoF should should writes the hymn sheet that everyone at the club should be singing from.  The philosophy of the club should govern/arbitrate between coach/CEO/owner.

 

[WayOutWest]

On transfers it's far to simplistic to say a manager or coach wants player A. We then go and buy player A. 

We need a player B C D E etc. 

Some players have not worked out. Some have. Looking from the outside in the business of transfers looks to be an absolute nightmare. No way in this day an age that falls on one man to orchestrate. 

You need a team. We have a team which by in large works. 

"Incoming" needs to understand the way it works at this club. Managers will come and go but I don't see recruitment changing anytime soon. 

[Oh Louie louie]

When Tinnion, was struglling, Sl asked graham taylor to help out in a dof role i recall.

I would have given joe jordan that role years ago.

He wouldnt have wasted millions on rubbish.