Understandable Appointment. Wrong Appointment.

[robc]

Interesting thread this. I know it’s all academic now but here’s my take on things. Steve Cotterill was allowed to pay lip service to the Board’s beloved ‘5 Pillars’ because of the success he enjoyed but that indulgence gradually ebbed away over the Summer and as the season unfolded with us involved in a relegation battle. Clearly playing a leading role in all efforts to recruit new staff, Steve was very anxious not to upset the current tightly knit group by recruiting new players on top dollar. All the failed bids did not go down well, and the Board was not best pleased when he announced the club could not afford Zach Clough’s wage demands for example, after Steve Lansdown was earlier quoted as saying that the club had been prepared to fund the wages of their two £9m targets - Grey and Gayle.

Either to curb Steve’s transfer dealings or to to provoke his departure they appointed Mark Ashton as Chief Operating Officer. Ultimatums may have followed and Steve was toast but it would appear that the Board had not even discussed a successor - no one was waiting in the wings to take over (which suggests that the speed of it took some by surprise.) Taking stock, the Board then concluded that the problem was that Steve had too much power and we would look for a ‘Head Coach’ and re-instate the ‘5 Pillars.’ 

The unfortunate consequence of this is that the ‘Head Coach’ becomes just another member of the ‘top team’ at the club and vastly reduces the influence of the role. The Board particularly like it because it means all the other members of the top management team (e.g. Ashton, Pemberton, Elliott, Tinnion etc) don’t have to be cleared out when the ‘Head Coach’ leaves or is dismissed (saves money and provides ‘continuity’). However and crucially what it also means is that the ‘Head Coach’ role is much less attractive to any other experienced manager - the notion that people like Pearson, Moyes and probably even Warnock would come and take this job on in these circumstances are, in my view, ludicrous. I suspect that Mark Ashton spoke to many of the 30 applicants but once they realised the real nature of the role they quickly lost interest. (It would not surprise me that only Lee's application got to the 'interview stage.)  Moreover, while we retain this ‘Head Coach’ model, I suspect that we will always end up having to hire an up and coming Coach like Lee Johnson - an experienced man will not want to touch it with a bargepole.

Like many I was a bit underwhelmed by Lee’s appointment because I had expected an experienced head to deliver the Board’s restated desire to get us to the Premier League (and the folly of talking up the ‘surprising’ applications received for the job really did not help!) 

Despite everything, I hope that Lee grows into the job and that he can carry the players with him. He’ll certainly have my support.      

[SJC]

10 hours ago, BCFC_Dan said:

I agree with the style criticisms: I felt it seemed a bit incoherent and all over the place, but that could be easily remedied. Whenever I read back my posts on here I'm usually appalled by what I must have thought at the time to be a good turn of phrase or an apt metaphor.

Two substantive things that I had issues with, though:

1. You describe Pearson as "a seemingly negotiable opportunity". What are you basing this on? We know he was available and I don't think anyone here knows for a fact what his demands were but the figure mentioned on here was that he was demanding £1.2m a year, hence his not being offered posts at Fulham and/or Reading. Maybe that could be negotiable but it would take a lot of negotiating to make that reasonable for City I think. We have a turnover of around £9m a year and there's just no way we would spend 15% of that just on a manager before we've even begun to fund the kind of playing staff he'd want.

2. You seem to suggest that Johnson only got the job because of his name and that it's an appointment akin to Millen or Tinnion. It's nothing of the sort. Johnson has managed over 150 games with a reasonable win ratio considering the situations. He's managed two different clubs, endured tough spells at both and come out safely on the other side. You seem to think that Garry Monk would represent a better and safer appointment but he has half as much experiences as Johnson at half as many clubs. Yes his experience is at a higher level but there's still substantially less of it.

Fair do's. I think the external link can sometimes give people a false impression. If you're writing to a word limit or for reasons other than simply expressing and representing yourself then you put consideration into structure. I clearly didn't do a great deal of that here because I was doing neither and thus didn't feel it necessary, it wasn't my expectation that id be hauled to the front of class to have the piece dissected..

To respond to your points;

1. When comparing Pearson's apparent demands to {current} turnover I think it's fair to suggest it would have compromised good financial practice. With that said projections for next season will see a relative increase given the new stand opening and we already know Lansdown is willing to personally back the club. A counter argument i'd offer you is that it isn't hugely sensible to spend an entire years turnover on a transfer fee but we were willing to do that last summer. It is surely also true that Keith Dawe is approaching delusional when talking Premier League with a League One turnover and a wage budget only besting MK Dons, Brentford, Preston and Rotherham. I don't disagree with what you are saying and certainly don't want to see the club paying beyond their means as a rule but, for a proven track record like Pearson, in my personal opinion it was worth (if he had any level of interest) making an exception.

2. Apologies, I certainly was not trying to imply that Johnson only got the job because of his name. Amongst the {rather pathetic} pack mentality that has broken out on this thread, it appears to have been missed from the original piece that I praise him. To my eyes he hasn't pulled up any trees but has, however,  done good things during both of his appointments under seemingly testing circumstances. I do believe that there are 'in house' similarities for the three but as you quite rightly point out Johnson is significantly more proven. As a personal preference I would have liked Monk over Johnson. In fact if it were not to be Pearson, overlooking the silliness of Moyes/Rodgers etc, Monk would have been my next choice.

 

Thanks for the reply, appreciate you provoking conversation.