Other Manager Options (Merged)

[Murraysrightplum]

I think the plan would have been to do it at the end of the season but I think they sacked LJ early while there was a slim chance of making the playoffs (ok we’d have had to win all games and had results go our way, but worth a shot from SL’s point of view).

In terms of bringing in the new manager the end of season ins and outs obviously affect that - what if a stellar PL manager became available after you appoint someone before the end of the season? The board would get slated on here if that happened!

Relax everyone

[BigTone]

5 minutes ago, Murraysrightplum said:

I think the plan would have been to do it at the end of the season but I think they sacked LJ early while there was a slim chance of making the playoffs (ok we’d have had to win all games and had results go our way, but worth a shot from SL’s point of view).

In terms of bringing in the new manager the end of season ins and outs obviously affect that - what if a stellar PL manager became available after you appoint someone before the end of the season? The board would get slated on here if that happened!

Relax everyone

Well said Frankie

[Murraysrightplum]

8 hours ago, Red Skin said:

Sorry to be a pedant, but what we are talking about here is succession planning rather than due diligence.

Yes, they should have been lining up someone before sacking LJ.  

Why? Who have we missed out on doing it this way? Why would you appoint someone before the end of the season?

[RedorDead BCFC]

7 hours ago, Superjack said:

The worrying thing for me is that it has just been intimated that the whole of next season may be played with reduced crowds. 

So season ticket sales will likely be taken out of the equation with this appointment. The renewals are in the bag and they in all probability won't be able to accommodate even them, let alone sell any more.

I’ve seen many comments regarding x or y manager will generate more ST sales. But from what I’ve read we have sold more ST than we may be able to hold in the ground at reduced capacity. 

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Refunds might still be linked though

As above, if it is true we’ve sold 12k ST but likely to only be allowed 9k there will be refunds to issue already. I suppose you will have people not feeling safe to return, but they may change during the season so won’t want to lose their seat. So can’t see 3k saying they don’t feel safe and asking for a refund, leaving the club having to decide who to refund. 
I can’t see many asking for a refund based on poor manager choice. 

[Guest]

On 26/07/2020 at 15:12, southvillekiddy said:

I know the source of the "8 interviewees, snippet" is questionable but If there really were/are 8 people to be fully interviewed then it would mean that the people at our Club are either living in the past or do not know how to draw up a list of those truly qualified for the post and are operating in an antiquated world akin to the 1950s, when most people didn't have telephones let alone computers and manager briefings on the Internet. Uncertainty and disagreement must surely arise from having too many choices

If we are truly intent on Premiership football then we should do what the top Clubs do. Decide who is already doing what we want to happen at BCFC and head-hunt that person. Sell the idea of coming to our Club. If they do not want to, move on to the next best, seen individually

I am therefore baffled if it is true that our Club actually uses the full interview system in the modern age of football. We live in the Internet Age not the pre-television age. It's different of course if one is considering a foreign manager working abroad but we see managers ad nauseum in pre-match and post-match briefings on TV here. Having worked out who is truly qualified, on their record, to take us to the Premiership it should not be difficult for SL to decide on the basis of those TV briefings who he could probably work with. Also soundings would be taken with those in the game about that person.

Then the first choice would be invited in for discussions

Most people on here and those who know him from Brighton say Hughton is a fair dignified serious individual as well as the best qualified for what we are aiming for. He is also immediately available. We should be selling the job to him

(If we are doing this) Why are we mucking about with interviews?

 

You mention 'top clubs' and 'head hunting'.

No doubt that approach works when you are a 'top club' and the club has something to sell to the person being head hunted i.e. the tangibles of success such as silverware, cup success, league position etc.

What does City have?
Other than a record of not sacking managers at the drop of a hat, we have nothing to sell to any 'head hunted' manager.
In other words, all of your points fall to pieces if you scratch the surface.
It's a pipe dream.

As a consequence, City have to use the tried and tested methods of interviewing candidates.

When City do become more successful, then they can go down the head hunting route.

[southvillekiddy]

4 hours ago, WayOutWest said:

Sure I can. You need to understand the complexities of hiring a new man. It's probably more a team of 3 or 4. People will lose their jobs. Wheels within wheels. It takes time to do things right. 

Put it this way. I don't give a shit if they sacked LJ with a plan. I don't give a shit if they sacked LJ without a plan. They got rid of him. It was necessary. Before the restart would have been ultra bold and not a possibility. In fairness to the man you disrespect, he pulled the trigger once his target was missed. That is commendable. 

Not sure why that is either a good or bad thing having a plan. We are in a good position. We don't need saving. We need pushing on. That means a whole different type of manager is available. 

You seem to think the club is a rudderless ship. You bad mouth  our owner, without knowing a single fact of the process. It's just not necessary. But you go one further and start your own thread. 

Something on my mind is this. Perhaps CH gave a poor interview. Maybe his passion for the game ain't what it was. Not saying that is the case. But what would you do if your man ... Just wasn't into it enough, and this forum is melting down which your a partly responsible for because you don't get what you want.... When it might not be actually what we need. 

What will happen will happen. Perhaps next time  City are in the need of a new manager 

A) Be part of the process

B) Go off grid where you don't have internet access. 

Imagine being the best club in the world (apparently) and you hire Moyes, Van Gaal, Mourinho... And ex player Ole. Not that I care about Man U.... Just a reality check that this is not easy.

Rambling

[SecretSam]

14 hours ago, Nibor said:

Have you ever heard an accountant give an opinion without qualifying it? They like wiggle room.

Well, they don't like being sued, actually. Plus surprisingly enough, it's not an exact science.

Source: former accountant

[QuedgeRed]

If we are ‘taking the next step’ then obviously things will have to be done differently.

Up to now, whatever the plan is, it hasn’t worked.

[SecretSam]

4 hours ago, WayOutWest said:

Sure I can. You need to understand the complexities of hiring a new man. It's probably more a team of 3 or 4. People will lose their jobs. Wheels within wheels. It takes time to do things right. 

This.

There's a belief on here by some that appointing someone like Hughton is just a matter of inviting him in for a chat and doing a bit of haggling over the deal. Exec level recruitment is more complex than that. Is he the right fit? What are his expectations? What budget would he need? Who else is out there? Is a new approach needed? What about existing staff?

Also: does he even want the job? He's 61, he may be fed up with it. Who knows.

Here's an example: Capello and England. On paper, fantastic appointment, he'd won the lot with multiple clubs. In reality, hopeless: disjointed performances, unimaginative selections, and a pathetic performance at the World Cup.

A few years later, they appoint Southgate, unfancied and unwanted, and England play lovely stuff and reach the semis. 

11 minutes ago, southvillekiddy said:

Rambling

I'd suggest it was a full and considered response. Perhaps you need to focus a bit more, gain a little attention span.

Maybe read a proper book instead of comics.

[southvillekiddy]

56 minutes ago, bcfcfinker said:

You mention 'top clubs' and 'head hunting'.

No doubt that approach works when you are a 'top club' and the club has something to sell to the person being head hunted i.e. the tangibles of success such as silverware, cup success, league position etc.

What does City have?
Other than a record of not sacking managers at the drop of a hat, we have nothing to sell to any 'head hunted' manager.
In other words, all of your points fall to pieces if you scratch the surface.
It's a pipe dream.

As a consequence, City have to use the tried and tested methods of interviewing candidates.

When City do become more successful, then they can go down the head hunting route.

On the contrary. We have a great deal to offer. massive potential and a huge catchment area of fans for Premiership football. It just had to be sold in that way by you know who.

So it's a matter of how serious our Club is about success. If the people in charge are serious they should surely follow the best practice used by the top Clubs.

You think these practices are inappropriate for BCFC. Are you content with settling for mid-Championship mediocrity?

[SecretSam]

1 hour ago, bcfcfinker said:

You mention 'top clubs' and 'head hunting'.

No doubt that approach works when you are a 'top club' and the club has something to sell to the person being head hunted i.e. the tangibles of success such as silverware, cup success, league position etc.

What does City have?
Other than a record of not sacking managers at the drop of a hat, we have nothing to sell to any 'head hunted' manager.
In other words, all of your points fall to pieces if you scratch the surface.
It's a pipe dream.

As a consequence, City have to use the tried and tested methods of interviewing candidates.

When City do become more successful, then they can go down the head hunting route.

Head hunting isn't reserved for the top employers, it can be used by anyone looking to recruit the right person to take them forward. It's like targeted scouting.

[southvillekiddy]

21 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

I'd suggest it was a full and considered response. Perhaps you need to focus a bit more, gain a little attention span.

Maybe read a proper book instead of comics.

What I've noticed on here is that people who cannot respond to a line of argument, ie. don't know how to debate, start with trying to make fun and then resort to being nasty.

[cityal]

10 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

Head hunting isn't reserved for the top employers, it can be used by anyone looking to recruit the right person to take them forward. It's like targeted scouting.

I have recruited management level people using both head-hunting and a traditional invite applicants approach

Head hunting can be great when it works, but if you have to move through a list of targets it can be incredibly time consuming

 

It seems like a lot of people on here feel it is a case of a quick phone call - even with Head hunting I would expect the candidate would have to attend an interview, in the football world with a multitude of agents etc I would expect that even arranging an interview could be a time consuming process (possibly even involving legal agreements such as non-disclosure)

[Monkeh]

1 minute ago, cityal said:

I have recruited management level people using both head-hunting and a traditional invite applicants approach

Head hunting can be great when it works, but if you have to move through a list of targets it can be incredibly time consuming

 

It seems like a lot of people on here feel it is a case of a quick phone call - even with Head hunting I would expect the candidate would have to attend an interview, in the football world with a multitude of agents etc I would expect that even arranging an interview could be a time consuming process (possibly even involving legal agreements such as non-disclosure)

The other thing people aren't taking into account is covid-19 that could effect the speed of the process, 

[Phileas Fogg]

46 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

This.

There's a belief on here by some that appointing someone like Hughton is just a matter of inviting him in for a chat and doing a bit of haggling over the deal. Exec level recruitment is more complex than that. Is he the right fit? What are his expectations? What budget would he need? Who else is out there? Is a new approach needed? What about existing staff?

Also: does he even want the job? He's 61, he may be fed up with it. Who knows.

Here's an example: Capello and England. On paper, fantastic appointment, he'd won the lot with multiple clubs. In reality, hopeless: disjointed performances, unimaginative selections, and a pathetic performance at the World Cup.

A few years later, they appoint Southgate, unfancied and unwanted, and England play lovely stuff and reach the semis. 

I'd suggest it was a full and considered response. Perhaps you need to focus a bit more, gain a little attention span.

Maybe read a proper book instead of comics.

Some decent points but RE: England. In 2018 we flattered to deceive in hindsight and benefited from a very favourable draw. You can only beat what's in front of you of course but I don't think we were particularly amazing that World Cup really. 

We got exposed against a good side in Croatia and would've been annihilated by France. I think Southgate has done a good job though and we have some excellent young players coming through. I know we've seen it many times before but I think we'll be a force over the next few years.

[Red Skin]

4 hours ago, Murraysrightplum said:

Why? Who have we missed out on doing it this way? Why would you appoint someone before the end of the season?

I'm not saying 'appoint' but as other have said they should have been planning for succession from LJ in the same way they do with players.  Compiling some sort of dossier on his achievements on and off pitch, speaking to others in the game who have worked with them etc.  This could be done for those still in post too.  That way we can act quickly when we need to, and focus on the coaches we sussed out.  Maybe all this has been done and we'll find out soon?

My biggest concern in all this is I think there is something missing from our model.   LJ seems to have been the one defining our identity, when it should be someone other than the current coach i.e. a DoF.  Otherwise the new manager will have his own view on the model.

The suggestion was scoffed at but someone like Glen Hoddle would be a great director of football.  This role should be away from the pressure of days to day results so even someone like him (and I'm not saying it should be him) with his health issues should not be under any pressure.  

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, southvillekiddy said:

On the contrary. We have a great deal to offer. massive potential and a huge catchment area of fans for Premiership football. It just had to be sold in that way by you know who.

So it's a matter of how serious our Club is about success. If the people in charge are serious they should surely follow the best practice used by the top Clubs.

You think these practices are inappropriate for BCFC. Are you content with settling for mid-Championship mediocrity?

Are you biased because I'll admit I am when it comes to BCFC? I'd like to think we are an attractive club and managers should be jumping at the chance to manager us. My head then takes over my heart.

When it comes to being in the market for 'successful managers' (those who will be head hunted), we are not alone. Your POV, in contrast to my own, seems to ignore this and you're asking: 'Why aren't we head hunting?' and 'Why are we doing things this way?'. You appear to be ignoring the complexity of getting a manager, considering the crowded 'market' we are in and think that 'head hunting' is the magic bullet for fixing our managerial predicament. I'm simply pointing out, get realistic and let the club do it's due diligence of ensuring we have the right person. What I would say is, we need to have a short list of people who do have a record of success (as long as it isn't Colin, and that's just a personal dislike based on what I've seen of his teams) and then validate through interview.

I'd like the board to just realise their 'validation' approach in the past has been pretty poor, so I hope that Mark Ashton is driving recruiting this time.

 

31 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

Head hunting isn't reserved for the top employers, it can be used by anyone looking to recruit the right person to take them forward. It's like targeted scouting.

With headhunting, the tables are turned and the business is selling itself to a potential candidate rather than a candidate selling themselves to a company. Football tends to be a results based business (ultimately, LJ got sacked because he didn't come up with the results) and therefore this comes down to the league position record, silverware etc. A successful manager has to maintain reputation so not many will not risk that reputation based on 'potential' of a club.

SK's points are valid when a reputation exists to sell, but in my view, at the moment, we don't have that. We have 'intangible' selling points, there is no doubt, but no real tangible selling points.

So I suspect the club is using tried and tested methods for recruitment.

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, RedorDead BCFC said:

I’ve seen many comments regarding x or y manager will generate more ST sales. But from what I’ve read we have sold more ST than we may be able to hold in the ground at reduced capacity. 

As above, if it is true we’ve sold 12k ST but likely to only be allowed 9k there will be refunds to issue already. I suppose you will have people not feeling safe to return, but they may change during the season so won’t want to lose their seat. So can’t see 3k saying they don’t feel safe and asking for a refund, leaving the club having to decide who to refund. 
I can’t see many asking for a refund based on poor manager choice. 

Agree, some will, because they are fickle....but not in significant volumes.

[Superjack]

5 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Apart from Bentley and a keeper who had 3 great seasons out on loan and never let us down, oleary,

Oh and our goalkeeping coach rene gilmartin,

And jojo Wollacote

Experienced AND reliable.

None of those are both, except perhaps Gilmartin who I'm still not sure even exists.

[Monkeh]

Just now, Superjack said:

Experienced AND reliable.

None of those are both, except perhaps Gilmartin who I'm still not sure even exists.

Oleary is reliable and has gained experience so much so he was called up by the Republic of Ireland he has played 99 first team games,

Bentley has more championship appearances then nikki

Nikki was a number two at his last club and was number 2 here once bentley came in,

 

[Superjack]

4 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Oleary is reliable and has gained experience so much so he was called up by the Republic of Ireland he has played 99 first team games,

Bentley has more championship appearances then nikki

Nikki was a number two at his last club and was number 2 here once bentley came in,

 

O'Leary is largely untried at this level.

David James has more appearances than Bentley at a higher level. He wasn't reliable either.

[southvillekiddy]

48 minutes ago, bcfcfinker said:

Are you biased because I'll admit I am when it comes to BCFC? I'd like to think we are an attractive club and managers should be jumping at the chance to manager us. My head then takes over my heart.

When it comes to being in the market for 'successful managers' (those who will be head hunted), we are not alone. Your POV, in contrast to my own, seems to ignore this and you're asking: 'Why aren't we head hunting?' and 'Why are we doing things this way?'. You appear to be ignoring the complexity of getting a manager, considering the crowded 'market' we are in and think that 'head hunting' is the magic bullet for fixing our managerial predicament. I'm simply pointing out, get realistic and let the club do it's due diligence of ensuring we have the right person. What I would say is, we need to have a short list of people who do have a record of success (as long as it isn't Colin, and that's just a personal dislike based on what I've seen of his teams) and then validate through interview.

I'd like the board to just realise their 'validation' approach in the past has been pretty poor, so I hope that Mark Ashton is driving recruiting this time.

 

 

Biased isn't quite the right word for me mate. I'm annoyed that we aren't where we should be with all that we have going for us. Huge potential and catchment area of a million fans ready to follow Premiership football. A famous city with, as we have been reminded recently, wealth built on a dodgy history but still a marvellous place to live. BUT, I would argue, with a limited sense of public good. Private wealth and influence over public good. This was shown in the Ashton Vale Village Green fiasco. 23 selfish and probably influential people with a compliant Inspector convincing our council that what we all knew was a putrifying rubbish tip was in fact a leafy nature haven where cows had safely grazed for centuries. Our pathetic Council fell in with this and Steve must have been well pissed off. In a northern city those objectors would have been given short shrift. That man was attempting to build a World Cup venue, bringing sporting prestige to Bristol.

So yes a great city but limited. A top ten city without Premiership football. Our Club the greatest underachievers in the Football League.

Steve has developed the stadium to near Premiership standard (stupendous in comparison to Bournemouth) so we don't need to cowtow to the pathetic Council. It's in our hands. But the pivotal factor is Steve Lansdown. I don't hate him but I would like him to set himself free. Promote the Club nationally and internationally, attract a top (foreign) coach and leave the football to the football people

[Matthew me]

As the process to find our new manager quickly approaches one month, I think we need to be frank and pragmatic about the way it's been conducted. 

We had the chance to appoint a new manager and give him time to review the squad, manage players contracts, settle in the area and plan a complete pre-season.  By delaying the process, the players are now on sunbeds in Greece, whilst others are left without any direction regarding contract renewals / extensions next year. Surely that's not a good way to end a season, especially when the new one starts in seven weeks.

I can totally understand the club wanting to conduct a full and comprehensive interview process. But how long does it take to interview three or four people? - If we have really interviewed EIGHT people, that shows how disconnected we are to the game. Any club should know the basics about managers available, their DNA, performance, pedigree etc. Are we saying that eight managers are all potentially suitable?? - I find that concerning.

My best guess is as follows. We fired LJ on a whim, not planned for weeks. A knee jerk reaction once the dream of finishing sixth eventually went out the window. If it was planned for weeks, we should of prepared a candidate list ready to contact. It would of been great for the new manager to finish the season with the current squad and see them play in the flesh. Learn about them personally. Sorry to say, video clips aren't quite the same....

It feels like we've had one name at the top of the list ( Gerrard ) who's teased us and played along for a few weeks, and now we have to accept it's not happening and it's been a rush to look at list of candidates. Having to meet EIGHT suggests our due diligence is exceptionally poor!.... We should know far more about what's available in the market before we fire the current manager!

Sadly, I fear CH will end up at Watford, Gerrard stays and Rangers and we end up with Cowleys.... Let's see. But regardless of the above, I seriously have questions about how we've gone about this process. I bet I'm not alone, imagine the conversation between players as they're sat on the beach.... No clue who's coming next and what the future holds.  

[Monkeh]

4 minutes ago, Superjack said:

O'Leary is largely untried at this level.

David James has more appearances than Bentley at a higher level. He wasn't reliable either.

So we should close down the academy then as there is no point in letting the younger players compete for places

We also should never sign unknown players who have never been tried at a higher level? We should only spend millions on proven players at this level like tomlin and never take a chance on a lower league player like vardy or Watkins were......

Bentley was reliable and won us point on his own with his performances, yes he made the odd mistake but he was far more reliable then most our previous keepers,

 

[Monkeh]

Because we needed another post on this. .....

[TonyTonyTony]

 Not another one !

[BrizzleRed]

11 minutes ago, Superjack said:

O'Leary is largely untried at this level.

David James has more appearances than Bentley at a higher level. He wasn't reliable either.

To be fair, when O’Leary was ‘tried’, he put in some pretty solid performances and certainly looked more dependable than Frankie.  

He seems to be just another of those players who’s face didn’t fit with LJ.

[StefanDimz]

[Matthew me]

6 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Because we needed another post on this. .....

So we're not allowed to discuss topics that are ongoing? We have to now sit and wait with no other comment?

6 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

 Not another one !

Id like the chance to add my opinion and not just rely on others 

[Lrrr]

So add it in a thread that is already based on the same topic, last day or two there was a topic started titled due diligence