Jump to content
IGNORED

Paul Groves

GrahamC

By GrahamC
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

GrahamC

GrahamC

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Cheers.

So reading that thread Groves' appointment hasn't been mentioned before by our shambolic media team and the rumour mill from Bournemouth doesn't exactly inspire confidence in either.

The only plus appears to be both of them are Cotterill's men so should cause no issues there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperRed

SuperRed

Posted
Posted

Cheers.

So reading that thread Groves' appointment hasn't been mentioned before by our shambolic media team and the rumour mill from Bournemouth doesn't exactly inspire confidence in either.

The only plus appears to be both of them are Cotterill's men so should cause no issues there.

I would say the fact that there Cotterill's men is certainly not a plus. How about having an open and legitimate recruitment process for once. Not the same old bollocks of giving a mate a job. The first team manager should have zero influence over the recruitment of academy staff. It should be a separate entity that is unaffected by any changes to the first team manager. Remember the five pillars and how it was all going to change. Yet the people in charge are still making the same stupid mistakes that have held the club back for years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedRaw

RedRaw

Posted
Posted

Cheers.

So reading that thread Groves' appointment hasn't been mentioned before by our shambolic media team 

 

so, you chose to completely ignore the link within the thread that showed the official news article about the groves appointment back in August.......just to have an unwarranted pop at the media team

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cidered abroad

cidered abroad

Posted
Posted

I would say the fact that there Cotterill's men is certainly not a plus. How about having an open and legitimate recruitment process for once. Not the same old bollocks of giving a mate a job. The first team manager should have zero influence over the recruitment of academy staff. It should be a separate entity that is unaffected by any changes to the first team manager. Remember the five pillars and how it was all going to change. Yet the people in charge are still making the same stupid mistakes that have held the club back for years. 

Totall agree that "jobs for my mates/family" is not the way to recruit for such an important post as Academy Manager. Nepotism reigned during the Johnson era resulting in quite a few disastrous signings.

Brooks has been a number two to Groves more than one occasion.

The old pals act triumphs again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
redarmy1974

redarmy1974

Posted
Posted

I would say the fact that there Cotterill's men is certainly not a plus. How about having an open and legitimate recruitment process for once. Not the same old bollocks of giving a mate a job. The first team manager should have zero influence over the recruitment of academy staff. It should be a separate entity that is unaffected by any changes to the first team manager. Remember the five pillars and how it was all going to change. Yet the people in charge are still making the same stupid mistakes that have held the club back for years. 

Great post,Jobs for the boys again this will continue to happen because the hierarchy are lazy recruiters .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
redarmy1974

redarmy1974

Posted
Posted

Hmm, doesn't sound good. How much influence did historical connections make in this appointment do you reckon?

Historical connections certainly played a part,there are plenty of great young coaches out there who cant wait for a chance to prove themselves .

If I was looking at this from an outsiders view it looks to me like SC is surrounding himself with allies and not anybody who will go against the grain and rock the boat .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phileas Fogg

Phileas Fogg

Posted
Posted

Historical connections certainly played a part,there are plenty of great young coaches out there who cant wait for a chance to prove themselves .

If I was looking at this from an outsiders view it looks to me like SC is surrounding himself with allies and not anybody who will go against the grain and rock the boat .

That's what it looks like to me as well, especially if there has been disagreement at the club this summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spudski

spudski

Posted
Posted

Historical connections certainly played a part,there are plenty of great young coaches out there who cant wait for a chance to prove themselves .

If I was looking at this from an outsiders view it looks to me like SC is surrounding himself with allies and not anybody who will go against the grain and rock the boat .

This also crossed my mind....closing ranks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
redarmy1974

redarmy1974

Posted
Posted

The only good coach that is here at the moment is Trev challis and he is with the u16s,just does not make sense ex premiership player nowhere near the first team or 21s .

I am really surprised he has stuck it out so long, looks like Dave horseman knew what was coming that's why he buggered off to Watford .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spudski

spudski

Posted
Posted

The more of his people are at the club the more support and yes men are around him .

With Carlos and Pelling leaving, and SC getting his 'mates' in, it's starting to look like one man is running this club...owning it like a boss.

It's almost like all the 'big boys' have their head in the clouds, being distracted by their new 'Castle' being built.

Do we never learn?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedJim

RedJim

Posted
Posted

With Carlos and Pelling leaving, and SC getting his 'mates' in, it's starting to look like one man is running this club...owning it like a boss.

It's almost like all the 'big boys' have their head in the clouds, being distracted by their new 'Castle' being built.

Do we never learn?

 

Just like under Johnson then. Amateur as usual from the BCFC hierarchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phileas Fogg

Phileas Fogg

Posted
Posted

The only good coach that is here at the moment is Trev challis and he is with the u16s,just does not make sense ex premiership player nowhere near the first team or 21s .

I am really surprised he has stuck it out so long, looks like Dave horseman knew what was coming that's why he buggered off to Watford .

How's Wade Elliot getting on? Early days of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedJim

RedJim

Posted
Posted

Why is the thinking at City always so short term? Managers come and go, it makes absolutely no sense to let the manager dictate everything. What happens if we're bottom at Christmas and Cotterill gets the boot? Another load of people to pay off. It's so short-sighted it's laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Not sure if I am that concerned about SC 'giving a job to the boys' if I am honest - if that is what has taken place. He's got a great CV and worked with a number of different people so I will absolutely cede to his view of the best man for the role. And anyway, his Filofax has probably has some fantastic candidates in there given where he has worked before and how long he has been in football. If these guys received phonecalls or piqued SC's interest, or received a reference from him I'll trust SC over a few Bmouth twitter posts... - just like we ought to have done re Forests' views on SC.  There's another man in this story too, Keith Burt who is our Director of Football.

I also think it is more than a little disingenuous to suggest SC would give a job to someone he thinks is not the best candidate. Remember it was only a few months ago that he told his long-term stalwart midfielder and presumably good fried 'it's fine if you want to play football, but you'll have to do it somewhere else and that's my final decision'.... now that doesn't really sound at all like a 'job for the boys' bloke does it? Before anyone suggests ah but Wade did get a job, he was quite willing to shift him on and the appointment was roundly considered very astute.

Yes there is a danger of people becoming engrained or integral to the club but I find it a reasonable risk considering the benefits: lines of communication, clear message and focus, knowing some of their personality traits - adaptability, versatility reliability etc.

And anyway I'm not really sure how you avoid 'jobs for the boys' that easily considering what a small world (and complete closed shop) football is. Chances are someone, somewhere in the club has a link with any prospective employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Watts

Steve Watts

Posted
Posted

 

This is what old school managers do! they surround themselves with familiar faces so they have support when its going wrong and it also costs the board alot of money to get rid of a team of personnel .

All this is thought about when getting rid of Managers by the board .

I cannot think for a second that Cotts would do this. For no other reason than the fact that it would suggest that he thinks he may fail.  I don't think making it more difficult (or expensive) to sack him would enter his head because he never thinks he would ever be doing badly enought to be sacked.  It's that arrogance that causes dislike for him in the football community.  It's also an arrogance that helped inspire our record breaking season last year, so I won't criticise him for that too much just yet!

It could of course just be that he knows how these guys work, they were available and he trusts them, their judgment and their methods and he therefore thinks that they would be both a lower risk and beneficial appointments.

He's not proven himself too far wrong with many of his appointments or signings so far, so let's give them a chance to fail before we simply write it off as jobs for the boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

This is what old school managers do! they surround themselves with familiar faces so they have support when its going wrong

So is this a negative? I'd argue that it is very much so a positive. A supporting team working in one direction sounds much better than a potentially fractured one when/if the chips are down.

and it also costs the board alot of money to get rid of a team of personnel .

I'm not so sure that this must be the case. For starters coaches aren't that remarkably well paid and I'm not sure that they are generally on fixed term contracts (which get paid up) like managers.  I certainly wouldn't expect so at Academy level. In any case a board could quite easily insert a clause about changes in management team if necessary, and finally these aren't new guys on the payroll, they have filled vacancies.

All this is thought about when getting rid of Managers by the board .

Anyway are we always better off going outside of the manager's Filofax? Remember Steve Wigley? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperRed

SuperRed

Posted
Posted

 "This is what old school managers do! they surround themselves with familiar faces so they have support when its going wrong"

"So is this a negative? I'd argue that it is very much so a positive. A supporting team working in one direction sounds much better than a potentially fractured one when/if the chips are down."

 

It's more understandable that at first team level the manager will appoint someone he has worked with before as his assistant as he's working closely with that person day-to-day . But the manager is not working with the academy and it should be complete out of his influence. Otherwise there is no continuity within it and you'll end up with a "really good friend" of his being handed the post, and then that "really good friend" handing his "really good friend" a post.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spudski

spudski

Posted
Posted

Not sure if I am that concerned about SC 'giving a job to the boys' if I am honest - if that is what has taken place. He's got a great CV and worked with a number of different people so I will absolutely cede to his view of the best man for the role. And anyway, his Filofax has probably has some fantastic candidates in there given where he has worked before and how long he has been in football. If these guys received phonecalls or piqued SC's interest, or received a reference from him I'll trust SC over a few Bmouth twitter posts... - just like we ought to have done re Forests' views on SC.  There's another man in this story too, Keith Burt who is our Director of Football.

I also think it is more than a little disingenuous to suggest SC would give a job to someone he thinks is not the best candidate. Remember it was only a few months ago that he told his long-term stalwart midfielder and presumably good fried 'it's fine if you want to play football, but you'll have to do it somewhere else and that's my final decision'.... now that doesn't really sound at all like a 'job for the boys' bloke does it? Before anyone suggests ah but Wade did get a job, he was quite willing to shift him on and the appointment was roundly considered very astute.

Yes there is a danger of people becoming engrained or integral to the club but I find it a reasonable risk considering the benefits: lines of communication, clear message and focus, knowing some of their personality traits - adaptability, versatility reliability etc.

And anyway I'm not really sure how you avoid 'jobs for the boys' that easily considering what a small world (and complete closed shop) football is. Chances are someone, somewhere in the club has a link with any prospective employee.

Do you seriously think this is a good thing....having one man dictate who all the coaching staff are in the Academy?

Managers come and go....where is the long term future?

This...imho...is not a good idea. Before you know it...you have a dictatorship. One man shouldn't be controlling the whole of the Clubs playing structure.

Just goes to show we have no 'Football people' in control here...just businessman playing at being football Club owners.

As an example....you only have to look at what Moyes did when he moved into Man Utd....brought in all 'his' staff....from the moment he did that, all the coach's said he would fail...as it alienates you as them and us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Watts

Steve Watts

Posted
Posted

SOD may not have got many things right but one thing he did was the whole 'head coach' concept. Cotterill should fit the club, not the club fit Cotterill. Surrounding himself with people implementing his ideals does not fit that approach.

But by the club appointing Cotterill you would infer that he fits the club and therefore by default the decisions and appointments made would also fit the club.  The ideas that he implements would be ideas that the club agree with and therefore having others that he trusts implement them also is surely a good thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robin1988

Robin1988

Posted
Posted

But by the club appointing Cotterill you would infer that he fits the club and therefore by default the decisions and appointments made would also fit the club.  The ideas that he implements would be ideas that the club agree with and therefore having others that he trusts implement them also is surely a good thing?

It could be the case. But will Groves and the other fella be here after Cotterill is gone so someone can seamlessly slip into the role? I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...