|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 1:47:11 GMT
Internal Wars, like Robot Wars?
|
|
|
Post by 11wilkosinateam on Sept 6, 2019 5:53:54 GMT
He will be waiting for that phone call from an 01782 number no doubt -
"Hello Tony it's Peter, Peter Coates. I've got a favour to ask you..." March is creaming his pants as we speak.
Tony Pulis chose Sir Peter as his guest at the VERY prestigious event when he was honoured by the LMA to mark his 1,000th game as a manager, which ironically came against Stoke. If anyone believes that Sir Peter and TP aren’t close or even that they haven’t already had extended discussions on the matter of him managing again at Stoke is delusional. I for one believe the OP and also his comments re the angst with Scholes after a very bitter parting of the ways. In any other scenario I would rather look back at TP as our ex Manager that achieved great things in his time with us, and leave it firmly and squarely there! However, as I personally hold Mr Scholes wholly responsible for all of the ills and incompetences that have besieged our club, that have seen us squander MILLIONS whilst we have plummeted, without identity or an awareness, to where we are now. His exit WITHOUT COMPENSATION, if he were to have theoretically offered such an ultimatum, more than makes up for the pains of TP coming back to steady the ship and build again! Given them stakes...I would welcome back TP, with open arms. Solely based upon the fact, as I see it, that whosoever we bought in as our manager with him as CEO would be unable to have the desired impact that we the fans want! He is that hopelessly inept. Why do you hold Scholes responsible From what I gather he literally gets the deals done and that is all. He has no say in identifying the players just sorts the deals out. While he may be a bit shit at it he’s not to blame for the players turning out to be poor investments.
|
|
|
Post by Onneravineet on Sept 6, 2019 8:01:16 GMT
Tony Pulis chose Sir Peter as his guest at the VERY prestigious event when he was honoured by the LMA to mark his 1,000th game as a manager, which ironically came against Stoke. If anyone believes that Sir Peter and TP aren’t close or even that they haven’t already had extended discussions on the matter of him managing again at Stoke is delusional. I for one believe the OP and also his comments re the angst with Scholes after a very bitter parting of the ways. In any other scenario I would rather look back at TP as our ex Manager that achieved great things in his time with us, and leave it firmly and squarely there! However, as I personally hold Mr Scholes wholly responsible for all of the ills and incompetences that have besieged our club, that have seen us squander MILLIONS whilst we have plummeted, without identity or an awareness, to where we are now. His exit WITHOUT COMPENSATION, if he were to have theoretically offered such an ultimatum, more than makes up for the pains of TP coming back to steady the ship and build again! Given them stakes...I would welcome back TP, with open arms. Solely based upon the fact, as I see it, that whosoever we bought in as our manager with him as CEO would be unable to have the desired impact that we the fans want! He is that hopelessly inept. Why do you hold Scholes responsible From what I gather he literally gets the deals done and that is all. He has no say in identifying the players just sorts the deals out. While he may be a bit shit at it he’s not to blame for the players turning out to be poor investments. He isn’t just the “deal maker” he is the CEO. He is responsible for everything, from recruitment to the club’s identity. Their online presence, the investments and ultimately the results. I don’t need to offer examples of how poor the clubs communication is and I certainly don’t need to point to the plethora of absolutely shocking investments that have repeatedly been made. He is responsible for everything, even the shit match day catering! However, the main damning evidence comes from our sheer, stunning and all too predictable plummet. The very fact that it took soooooo long to part company with both TP and Hughes suggests that whatever measures HE uses are inept and out of touch. It allowed an extremely lucky and inflated 3rd 9th place finish to mask what was in all honesty a collapse of structure from a manager that was winging it. This is hindsight, the majority of us were well ahead of the curve, which is why so many pin point the Liverpool Semi as the start of the fall. For a CEO, with so much experience within the football world, to be at the helm for the creation of such an utter mess leaves me to fully believe that he needs to go. He himself has hidden behind an ex goalkeeper that HE recruited for far too long, another sign of his incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 6, 2019 8:09:10 GMT
Why do you hold Scholes responsible From what I gather he literally gets the deals done and that is all. He has no say in identifying the players just sorts the deals out. While he may be a bit shit at it he’s not to blame for the players turning out to be poor investments. He isn’t just the “deal maker” he is the CEO. He is responsible for everything, from recruitment to the club’s identity. Their online presence, the investments and ultimately the results. I don’t need to offer examples of how poor the clubs communication is and I certainly don’t need to point to the plethora of absolutely shocking investments that have repeatedly been made. He is responsible for everything, even the shit match day catering! However, the main damning evidence comes from our sheer, stunning and all too predictable plummet. The very fact that it took soooooo long to part company with both TP and Hughes suggests that whatever measures HE uses are inept and out of touch. It allowed an extremely lucky and inflated 3rd 9th place finish to mask what was in all honesty a collapse of structure from a manager that was winging it. This is hindsight, the majority of us were well ahead of the curve, which is why so many pin point the Liverpool Semi as the start of the fall. For a CEO, with so much experience within the football world, to be at the helm for the creation of such an utter mess leaves me to fully believe that he needs to go. He himself has hidden behind an ex goalkeeper that HE recruited for far too long, another sign of his incompetence. Re your 3rd paragraph, the decision to sack Pulis and Hughes would have been taken at the highest level and not by the CEO, surely?
|
|
|
Post by Onneravineet on Sept 6, 2019 11:37:43 GMT
He isn’t just the “deal maker” he is the CEO. He is responsible for everything, from recruitment to the club’s identity. Their online presence, the investments and ultimately the results. I don’t need to offer examples of how poor the clubs communication is and I certainly don’t need to point to the plethora of absolutely shocking investments that have repeatedly been made. He is responsible for everything, even the shit match day catering! However, the main damning evidence comes from our sheer, stunning and all too predictable plummet. The very fact that it took soooooo long to part company with both TP and Hughes suggests that whatever measures HE uses are inept and out of touch. It allowed an extremely lucky and inflated 3rd 9th place finish to mask what was in all honesty a collapse of structure from a manager that was winging it. This is hindsight, the majority of us were well ahead of the curve, which is why so many pin point the Liverpool Semi as the start of the fall. For a CEO, with so much experience within the football world, to be at the helm for the creation of such an utter mess leaves me to fully believe that he needs to go. He himself has hidden behind an ex goalkeeper that HE recruited for far too long, another sign of his incompetence. Re your 3rd paragraph, the decision to sack Pulis and Hughes would have been taken at the highest level and not by the CEO, surely? Quite right. Actually in most companies the decision to axe or make exceptional costs is indeed the privilege and necessity of the Chairperson. The CEO however provides the data, the heartbeat and the reality of what should be done and then enacts the strategy. As such in light of the paucity of reaction in its delay it’s clear Scholes is inadequate. Next, one could posit “how do you know he hasn’t “ and in answering that I would simply say that if, as CEO, I had made such firm recommendations based on my professional opinion and ergo reputation I would have offered an ultimatum to deliver what I believed, unequivocally, to be the urgent and desperately necessary course of action. He obviously never did and as such it’s one of two things. Heads, he didn’t see the demise and therefore didn’t ever suggest the sacking until it was too late, which is piss poor and says all you need to know. Or Tails, he offered the position where they needed removing but didn’t have the conviction, balls or professional pride to tender an ultimatum. Also absolutely shambolic. There’s no good side to that coin!
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 6, 2019 11:41:32 GMT
Re your 3rd paragraph, the decision to sack Pulis and Hughes would have been taken at the highest level and not by the CEO, surely? Quite right. Actually in most companies the decision to axe or make exceptional costs is indeed the privilege and necessity of the Chairperson. The CEO however provides the data, the heartbeat and the reality of what should be done and then enacts the strategy. As such in light of the paucity of reaction in its delay it’s clear Scholes is inadequate. Next, one could posit “how do you know he hasn’t “ and in answering that I would simply say that if, as CEO, I had made such firm recommendations based on my professional opinion and ergo reputation I would have offered an ultimatum to deliver what I believed, unequivocally, to be the urgent and desperately necessary course of action. He obviously never did and as such it’s one of two things. Heads, he didn’t see the demise and therefore didn’t ever suggest the sacking until it was too late, which is piss poor and says all you need to know. Or Tails, he offered the position where they needed removing but didn’t have the conviction, balls or professional pride to tender an ultimatum. Also absolutely shambolic. There’s no good side to that coin! Does it not reflect as poorly on the owners that they haven't sacked such an individual and indeed have rewarded him with increased status over the years for his efforts?
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Sept 6, 2019 11:54:53 GMT
Quite right. Actually in most companies the decision to axe or make exceptional costs is indeed the privilege and necessity of the Chairperson. The CEO however provides the data, the heartbeat and the reality of what should be done and then enacts the strategy. As such in light of the paucity of reaction in its delay it’s clear Scholes is inadequate. Next, one could posit “how do you know he hasn’t “ and in answering that I would simply say that if, as CEO, I had made such firm recommendations based on my professional opinion and ergo reputation I would have offered an ultimatum to deliver what I believed, unequivocally, to be the urgent and desperately necessary course of action. He obviously never did and as such it’s one of two things. Heads, he didn’t see the demise and therefore didn’t ever suggest the sacking until it was too late, which is piss poor and says all you need to know. Or Tails, he offered the position where they needed removing but didn’t have the conviction, balls or professional pride to tender an ultimatum. Also absolutely shambolic. There’s no good side to that coin! Does it not reflect as poorly on the owners that they haven't sacked such an individual and indeed have rewarded him with increased status over the years for his efforts? Unfortunately you are correct. It does cast a shadow over the owners
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 6, 2019 11:59:14 GMT
According to Nixon we didn’t even approach Moyes so how can he be Jons first choice again ?
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 6, 2019 12:02:44 GMT
Re your 3rd paragraph, the decision to sack Pulis and Hughes would have been taken at the highest level and not by the CEO, surely? Quite right. Actually in most companies the decision to axe or make exceptional costs is indeed the privilege and necessity of the Chairperson. The CEO however provides the data, the heartbeat and the reality of what should be done and then enacts the strategy. As such in light of the paucity of reaction in its delay it’s clear Scholes is inadequate. Next, one could posit “how do you know he hasn’t “ and in answering that I would simply say that if, as CEO, I had made such firm recommendations based on my professional opinion and ergo reputation I would have offered an ultimatum to deliver what I believed, unequivocally, to be the urgent and desperately necessary course of action. He obviously never did and as such it’s one of two things. Heads, he didn’t see the demise and therefore didn’t ever suggest the sacking until it was too late, which is piss poor and says all you need to know. Or Tails, he offered the position where they needed removing but didn’t have the conviction, balls or professional pride to tender an ultimatum. Also absolutely shambolic. There’s no good side to that coin! I've no idea how the CEO has performed in a general sense, but on here the suggestion is that our performances on the pitch and and eventual relegation are in many ways his fault.
Unless he has directly obstructed the managers with their targets in the transfer market then I'm not clear how the decline in the team's results can be directly attributed to him.
I'm open minded though, if someone can produce the evidence then that could alter my opinion.
By the way I do not think Tony Scholes appoints managers or sacks them, although clearly he will have some involvement in the process.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Sept 6, 2019 13:20:34 GMT
He isn’t just the “deal maker” he is the CEO. He is responsible for everything, from recruitment to the club’s identity. Their online presence, the investments and ultimately the results. I don’t need to offer examples of how poor the clubs communication is and I certainly don’t need to point to the plethora of absolutely shocking investments that have repeatedly been made. He is responsible for everything, even the shit match day catering! However, the main damning evidence comes from our sheer, stunning and all too predictable plummet. The very fact that it took soooooo long to part company with both TP and Hughes suggests that whatever measures HE uses are inept and out of touch. It allowed an extremely lucky and inflated 3rd 9th place finish to mask what was in all honesty a collapse of structure from a manager that was winging it. This is hindsight, the majority of us were well ahead of the curve, which is why so many pin point the Liverpool Semi as the start of the fall. For a CEO, with so much experience within the football world, to be at the helm for the creation of such an utter mess leaves me to fully believe that he needs to go. He himself has hidden behind an ex goalkeeper that HE recruited for far too long, another sign of his incompetence. Re your 3rd paragraph, the decision to sack Pulis and Hughes would have been taken at the highest level and not by the CEO, surely? He’s on the board so he is, de facto, at the highest level. The CEO would collect the facts and make a recommendation to the board. Obviously, the owners can accept or reject his recommendation. However, if they constantly over rule the CEO, he can’t do his job and he should resign. If they accept his recommendations and they don’t work, he should be fired. Either way he lives or dies by his recommendations to the board and the buck stops with CEO. It’s a results based business and it’s time for him to go.
|
|
|
Post by Onneravineet on Sept 6, 2019 13:27:22 GMT
Quite right. Actually in most companies the decision to axe or make exceptional costs is indeed the privilege and necessity of the Chairperson. The CEO however provides the data, the heartbeat and the reality of what should be done and then enacts the strategy. As such in light of the paucity of reaction in its delay it’s clear Scholes is inadequate. Next, one could posit “how do you know he hasn’t “ and in answering that I would simply say that if, as CEO, I had made such firm recommendations based on my professional opinion and ergo reputation I would have offered an ultimatum to deliver what I believed, unequivocally, to be the urgent and desperately necessary course of action. He obviously never did and as such it’s one of two things. Heads, he didn’t see the demise and therefore didn’t ever suggest the sacking until it was too late, which is piss poor and says all you need to know. Or Tails, he offered the position where they needed removing but didn’t have the conviction, balls or professional pride to tender an ultimatum. Also absolutely shambolic. There’s no good side to that coin! Does it not reflect as poorly on the owners that they haven't sacked such an individual and indeed have rewarded him with increased status over the years for his efforts? Conner argue with that but maybe you cut them some slack, in a certain perspective, if there has been a bumbled transfer of the reigns. I do however have to agree that he should have gone after his failure to do the deal to land QSF when by all accounts it was done. John Coates’ first choice, for the very start of his revolution and tenure was ineptly fumbled.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 6, 2019 13:30:32 GMT
Does it not reflect as poorly on the owners that they haven't sacked such an individual and indeed have rewarded him with increased status over the years for his efforts? Conner argue with that but maybe you cut them some slack, in a certain perspective, if there has been a bumbled transfer of the reigns. I do however have to agree that he should have gone after his failure to do the deal to land QSF when by all accounts it was done. John Coates’ first choice, for the very start of his revolution and tenure was ineptly fumbled. He’s been there long enough though Onner, for them to know what he’s about. 2004 did he arrive?
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 6, 2019 14:35:30 GMT
Re your 3rd paragraph, the decision to sack Pulis and Hughes would have been taken at the highest level and not by the CEO, surely? He’s on the board so he is, de facto, at the highest level. The CEO would collect the facts and make a recommendation to the board. Obviously, the owners can accept or reject his recommendation. However, if they constantly over rule the CEO, he can’t do his job and he should resign. If they accept his recommendations and they don’t work, he should be fired. Either way he lives or dies by his recommendations to the board and the buck stops with CEO. It’s a results based business and it’s time for him to go. I think up to quite recently the man making the decisions on manager appointments was Peter Coates, and possibly now his son with advice from PC.
Of course I have no inside information and it's just my opinion.
|
|