|
Post by stiggerstackle on Sept 28, 2019 8:18:15 GMT
1st question, the he's got a whole hour to talk about it. We don’t actually know if he knows anything to be fair do we? Is there any reason to believe he’s close to the inner sanctum? Fairly sure he’s closer to it than I am. Not referring to you mate, but why is there so much negativity when Lenny opens his mouth? He clearly cares and all his previous rants have been pretty much on the money.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2019 8:25:47 GMT
Because he's just repeating what he's been told without thinking it through fully? If they had a system that was working brilliantly but Hughes wanted more power and so the system changed accordingly, to accommodate his wishes but it ultimately failed spectacularly, leading to him getting the sack, then they wouldn't continue with the new (same) failed system would they? But we made it so obvious we wanted Rowett he technically held the cards. If he said ‘I’ll get you out this league but I need my own players’ especially as we were expecting the squad to be decimated, why would the board go ‘nah, you’re alright’ at the time pretty much everyone was happy with Rowett That's exactly my point. The system didn't change because it hadn't had to change to accommodate Hughes any further in the first place. Hughes was just as much responsible for signing Arnautovic and Shaqiri as he was Wimmer and Berahino.
|
|
|
Post by DC1863 on Sept 28, 2019 8:28:20 GMT
Doesn't the appointment of Chapple in essentially a Chief Scout role lean towards this being the process going forward too? The manager being heavily involved in the recruitment process and identifying targets rather than there being a direct philosophy being implemented by a recruitment team?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2019 8:28:41 GMT
That’s making a lot of assumptions about how the whole thing could have gone down, especially in terms of the board’s clarity of thinking about it. What Liam said could have been true, in terms of Les convincing the board to give the manager more sway. Multiple people are involved, things change and it becomes the new “process”. Just because things go wrong doesn’t mean the people involved have the insight to realise why, or the strength/vision/humility to admit a mistake and change things back when a new manager comes in.. it could just be the opinion of the person Liam spoke to about what went wrong, distilled into 45 seconds on live radio. Just being charitable about it, could it fit in with how Cartwright’s role seemed to change from “chief scout” when he arrived to “I’m not really involved” in that puff piece Spinks did in the Sentnul? Hughes was clearly heavily involved from the get-go. Yup.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2019 8:30:43 GMT
Our transfer policy has been non too subtle and is fairly easy to follow. Following the success of Arnie and glimpses of genius from Bojan and Shaq Hughes got carried away with the idea he could spot and turnaround under performing overseas talent - turns out he couldn’t. Rowett went for top end Championship performers like Ince and Afobe - turns out they aren’t. Jones thought he had an insight into character and work rate - turns out they were just mediocre / poor players. It’s a catalogue of managerial mistakes funded to their cost by an ownership that didn’t have effective checks in place. A strong and informed Director of Football type individual has been sadly missing. Bob on.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 28, 2019 8:31:29 GMT
We don’t actually know if he knows anything to be fair do we? Is there any reason to believe he’s close to the inner sanctum? Fairly sure he’s closer to it than I am. Not referring to you mate, but why is there so much negativity when Lenny opens his mouth? He clearly cares and all his previous rants have been pretty much on the money. For me personally, I don’t think he ever has much insight and doesn’t sound like the brightest button. But from Pejic to Clive Clarke to whoever, I don’t get the idea that all these ex players who left the club donkeys years ago have some kind of hotline to the gospel truth of what’s going on at the club.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Sept 28, 2019 8:33:06 GMT
1st question, the he's got a whole hour to talk about it. We don’t actually know if he knows anything to be fair do we? Is there any reason to believe he’s close to the inner sanctum? No, but he said he didn't have enough time to go into it. Maybe if he gets more time and expands then we can find even more holes in what he's saying or maybe he backs it up with some credible evidence. He clearly has something he wants to say.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2019 8:36:06 GMT
Because he's just repeating what he's been told without thinking it through fully? If they had a system that was working brilliantly but Hughes wanted more power and so the system changed accordingly, to accommodate his wishes but it ultimately failed spectacularly, leading to him getting the sack, then they wouldn't continue with the new (same) failed system would they? That’s making a lot of assumptions about how the whole thing could have gone down, especially in terms of the board’s clarity of thinking about it. What Liam said could have been true, in terms of Les convincing the board to give the manager more sway. Multiple people are involved, things change and it becomes the new “process”. Just because things go wrong doesn’t mean the people involved have the insight to realise why, or the strength/vision/humility to admit a mistake and change things back when a new manager comes in.. it could just be the opinion of the person Liam spoke to about what went wrong, distilled into 45 seconds on live radio. Just being charitable about it, could it fit in with how Cartwright’s role seemed to change from “chief scout” when he arrived to “I’m not really involved” in that puff piece Spinks did in the Sentnul? Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by stiggerstackle on Sept 28, 2019 8:37:50 GMT
Fairly sure he’s closer to it than I am. Not referring to you mate, but why is there so much negativity when Lenny opens his mouth? He clearly cares and all his previous rants have been pretty much on the money. For me personally, I don’t think he ever has much insight and doesn’t sound like the brightest button. But from Pejic to Clive Clarke to whoever, I don’t get the idea that all these ex players who left the club donkeys years ago have some kind of hotline to the gospel truth of what’s going on at the club. He’s definitely never had steven Hawkins on speed-dial I agree, but I imagine he’s still good mates with Rory and a few others around the place. In any workplace you always still haves mates after you’ve moved on, and you keep tabs on what’s going on via the gossip. And that’s what it becomes, conversations become less nuts and bolts because there’s no point, you just exchange office gossip by way of keeping up the friendship.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 28, 2019 8:39:49 GMT
For me personally, I don’t think he ever has much insight and doesn’t sound like the brightest button. But from Pejic to Clive Clarke to whoever, I don’t get the idea that all these ex players who left the club donkeys years ago have some kind of hotline to the gospel truth of what’s going on at the club. He’s definitely never had steven Hawkins on speed-dial I agree, but I imagine he’s still good mates with Rory and a few others around the place. In any workplace you always still haves mates after you’ve moved on, and you keep tabs on what’s going on via the gossip. And that’s what it becomes, conversations become less nuts and bolts because there’s no point, you just exchange office gossip by way of keeping up the friendship. Even Rory’s experience is going to be somewhat limited isn’t it? Would he know what control Hughes did or didn’t have?
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Sept 28, 2019 9:33:10 GMT
Looking at recruitment from Hughes to Rowett to Jones doesnt it appear like 3 distinctly different strategies? Yep which is why everything is so disjointed. No plan for continuity at all. Then when it all goes tits up we move to a totally different style. The lack of direction from the higher echelons is what the Coates should be taken to task on, not their intentions. I genuinely think they mean well but are stumped and not quick enough to adopt modern ideas like the fact the manager isn’t solely responsible for how a club should play or plan.
|
|
|
Post by clarkeda on Sept 28, 2019 11:11:25 GMT
I said it when Rowett went, I’d hire everyone involved in Brentford’s player recruitment and replace ours.
Then identify a manager who works within that philosophy/style, if that’s Jones (not convinced but his style is the right idea even if it hasn’t materialised) then only recruit managers who play in that particular style instead of having about 30 players all from different managers with different styles who look like they’ve never met each other when they step onto the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by shipshape on Sept 28, 2019 11:18:25 GMT
Whatever Scholes precise responsibilities are, he is the chief executive of a club that over four years has lost massive revenue and status. He'd have been "pursuing new opportunities" long ago in any other business. On and off the field is a disaster and he has overseen it all. I'd like to say I'm surprised he's still here but I'm not.
|
|
|
Post by canadianmoose on Sept 28, 2019 11:50:42 GMT
Well, one thing was very clear last night. Liam Lawrence cares deeply about what happens to stoke city. His comments were frank, honest and from the heart even if he was shooting from the hip at times.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 28, 2019 12:20:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Sept 28, 2019 14:18:01 GMT
Go on, explain that acronym to me please. Fooked Up Beyond All Repair....... So, SNAFU then.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Sept 28, 2019 14:21:14 GMT
That’s making a lot of assumptions about how the whole thing could have gone down, especially in terms of the board’s clarity of thinking about it. What Liam said could have been true, in terms of Les convincing the board to give the manager more sway. Multiple people are involved, things change and it becomes the new “process”. Just because things go wrong doesn’t mean the people involved have the insight to realise why, or the strength/vision/humility to admit a mistake and change things back when a new manager comes in.. it could just be the opinion of the person Liam spoke to about what went wrong, distilled into 45 seconds on live radio. Just being charitable about it, could it fit in with how Cartwright’s role seemed to change from “chief scout” when he arrived to “I’m not really involved” in that puff piece Spinks did in the Sentnul? Exactly. So it could be that what Liam said is true then? They made a change to the process on Hughes’ recommendation and have never reverted back because nobody sees that as the problem? I doubt it’s the case but there’s no reason it necessarily doesn’t add up.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2019 14:25:23 GMT
Exactly. So it could be that what Liam said is true then? They made a change to the process on Hughes’ recommendation and have never reverted back because nobody sees that as the problem? I doubt it’s the case but there’s no reason it necessarily doesn’t add up. I think it doesn't add up for the reason that you doubt that it is the case. I think mine and Toxic's explanation makes far more sense.
|
|
|
Post by supacoopa101 on Sept 28, 2019 14:27:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2019 14:29:48 GMT
Ordinarily it would be 5-6pm wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by supacoopa101 on Sept 28, 2019 14:31:51 GMT
Ordinarily it would be 5-6pm wouldn't it? Think I will give that a listen because I really want to know what he was eluding to last night regarding recruitment.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 28, 2019 16:15:26 GMT
On in a few minutes when the boring Artell has finished
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2019 16:30:26 GMT
It still doesn't make sense.
He's essentially saying that Hughes wasn't identifying and choosing his own signings during the three seasons when we were having success under him.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 28, 2019 16:33:24 GMT
It still doesn't make sense. He's essentially saying that Hughes wasn't identifying and choosing his own signings during the three seasons when we were having success under him. Paul is he saying then that Pulis had players imposed on him🤔
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2019 16:36:45 GMT
It still doesn't make sense. He's essentially saying that Hughes wasn't identifying and choosing his own signings during the three seasons when we were having success under him. Paul is he saying then that Pulis had players imposed on him🤔 Well to be fair he didn't mention Pulis. I do refuse though to believe though that Hughes wasn't involved in the process of signing players when we had the three 9th place finishes. Surely the Barcelona link came through Hughes for sure.
|
|
|
Post by milky on Sept 28, 2019 16:37:14 GMT
It still doesn't make sense. He's essentially saying that Hughes wasn't identifying and choosing his own signings during the three seasons when we were having success under him. Its clearly bollocks isnt it ? Arnautovic , Ireland , Shaqiri , The Barcelona contingent, all had Hughes written all over them.
|
|
|
Post by theoptimist on Sept 28, 2019 16:38:14 GMT
It still doesn't make sense. He's essentially saying that Hughes wasn't identifying and choosing his own signings during the three seasons when we were having success under him. Paul is he saying then that Pulis had players imposed on him🤔 The 'process' was introduced at the end of the Pulis reign. One of the things that contributed to his departure and breakdown with Scholes I think.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 28, 2019 16:38:51 GMT
Paul is he saying then that Pulis had players imposed on him🤔 Well to be fair he didn't mention Pulis. I do refuse though to believe though that Hughes wasn't involved in the process of signing players when we had the three 9th place finishes. Surely the Barcelona link came through Hughes for sure. I know he didn’t Paul but he said because Hughes proved himself things changed.So one can only assume that in the Pulis era it was different🤔
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 28, 2019 16:39:34 GMT
It still doesn't make sense. He's essentially saying that Hughes wasn't identifying and choosing his own signings during the three seasons when we were having success under him. I dont think he is. I think hes saying it was a much more collaborative process before Hughes demanded more power of the back of a few successful seasons. The big thing for me is that under both pulis and Hughes we missed out on loads of players because Mr Scholes kept the purse strings tight. If the deal wasnt right for the club financially, the manager was forced to walk away. When or what changed that then saw us spunk ridiculous sums of money up the wall on transfer fees and wages seemingly on a whim?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2019 16:45:18 GMT
It still doesn't make sense. He's essentially saying that Hughes wasn't identifying and choosing his own signings during the three seasons when we were having success under him. I dont think he is. I think hes saying it was a much more collaborative process before Hughes demanded more power of the back of a few successful seasons. The big thing for me is that under both pulis and Hughes we missed out on loads of players because Mr Scholes kept the purse strings tight. If the deal wasnt right for the club financially, the manager was forced to walk away. When or what changed that then saw us spunk ridiculous sums of money up the wall on transfer fees and wages seemingly on a whim? So having been burned under Hughes, which resulted in relegation, they then went and did exactly the same thing with Rowett and then AGAIN with Jones. Come on Dave, it's just not plausible. It's far too convenient to say that the successful signings were down to Scholes and Cartwright and that the bad ones were all down to three separate managers.
|
|