|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 14, 2020 13:01:26 GMT
That's a very pertinent question. Ultimately all the bucks stop with the Board i.e the owners. The CEO cannot keep himself in a job if the owners, who are not exactly inexperienced in such matters, decided that he isn't performing at the required level. We wouldn't want a CEO who is not qualified to do so taking football decisions i.e which players to sign and how much they are worth, and I don't think there is evidence that he has done so. He wouldn't continue to be employed by any other club in world football, Malcolm. We are an organisation that has been in chronic decline for years. Its frankly staggering that there hasn't been any executive level accountability for it. Personally I think both those statements are hyperbole, but, as I said, even if they are true, it's down to the Board to sack the CEO if they think that his performance is not up to scratch. There has been executive accountability in that football managers and recruitment staff have departed, a steady succession in fact.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 14, 2020 13:08:27 GMT
800,000 a year for a glorified accountant/ book keeper he is either a glorified accountant On 50k a year or a chief executive responsible for all Areas of the business on 800k It’s not me that says he’s useless it’s the business performance £100s of millions of lost revenue , £150m of wasted investment. Substantial trading losses , relegation , food standards questions. , ticketing. Fiasco , failed management recruitment , toxic environment . As for the family view no one supports them or is life grateful than yours truly but they doesn’t mean their loyalty is 100% infallible there can be loot or doubt we’ve suffered form too close an environment and not enough football gravitas or challenge in the boardroom. . What an interesting perspective. I’ve never read you posting about this matter before 😴. Who was the CEO when we got promoted to the top tier after an absence of 23 years? When we stayed in the Premier League (despite your annual relegation predictions) for a decade, getting to FA Cup finals and playing in Europe? Who was the CEO who got the club into the position to waste “£150m of investment” in the first place? You hammer the bloke on here all the time. HE WILL NEVER READ WHAT YOU POST, and even if he does, will never respond. You are wasting your time peddling this boring monotonous crap constantly on this message board. If you are so incensed by Tony Scholes, instead of anonymously posting on a fans forum , why don’t you write him a strongly worded email, or arrange a one to one meeting expressing your concerns? That's a football analysis. A fair and objective analysis should also take into account other matters which affect supporters, such as the extraordinarily long season ticket price freeze and the free coach travel to away games, both of which are the envy of the supporters of many other clubs.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 14, 2020 13:10:13 GMT
He wouldn't continue to be employed by any other club in world football, Malcolm. We are an organisation that has been in chronic decline for years. Its frankly staggering that there hasn't been any executive level accountability for it. Personally I think both those statements are hyperbole, but, as I said, even if they are true, it's down to the Board to sack the CEO if they think that his performance is not up to scratch. There has been executive accountability in that football managers and recruitment staff have departed, a steady succession in fact. I'm not sure a statistically verified annual decline for 5 consecutive years can in any way be described as hyperbolic, Malcolm. As for the other statement, I'd go even further. There isn't a business of any type that would retain its chief executive officer in the face of the terminal decline of the business he is charged with running, other than Scholes and Stoke. We are a club with zero accountability and we have paid an extremely heavy price for it.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 14, 2020 16:05:03 GMT
Personally I think both those statements are hyperbole, but, as I said, even if they are true, it's down to the Board to sack the CEO if they think that his performance is not up to scratch. There has been executive accountability in that football managers and recruitment staff have departed, a steady succession in fact. I'm not sure a statistically verified annual decline for 5 consecutive years can in any way be described as hyperbolic, Malcolm. As for the other statement, I'd go even further. There isn't a business of any type that would retain its chief executive officer in the face of the terminal decline of the business he is charged with running, other than Scholes and Stoke. We are a club with zero accountability and we have paid an extremely heavy price for it. The problem with that kind of analysis is that it appears to overlook the nature of the football industry in which relegation plays an integral part. If the 20 PL clubs had the 20 best CEOs and 20 richest and most competent owners in the world, 3 of them would still be relegated with all that entails. The Championship is full of clubs of similar size to us who were in the PL who in that sense have “failed”. You have been on this theme for as long as I can remember, long before we were relegated. I am not a mouthpiece for Tony Scholes - he has a perfectly good mouthpiece of his own - but I don’t think it is helpful to characterise and personalise the issues in the way that you and Benjamin do.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 14, 2020 16:22:17 GMT
I'm not sure a statistically verified annual decline for 5 consecutive years can in any way be described as hyperbolic, Malcolm. As for the other statement, I'd go even further. There isn't a business of any type that would retain its chief executive officer in the face of the terminal decline of the business he is charged with running, other than Scholes and Stoke. We are a club with zero accountability and we have paid an extremely heavy price for it. The problem with that kind of analysis is that it appears to overlook the nature of the football industry in which relegation plays an integral part. If the 20 PL clubs had the 20 best CEOs and 20 richest and most competent owners in the world, 3 of them would still be relegated with all that entails. The Championship is full of clubs of similar size to us who were in the PL who in that sense have “failed”. You have been on this theme for as long as I can remember, long before we were relegated. I am not a mouthpiece for Tony Scholes - he has a perfectly good mouthpiece of his own - but I don’t think it is helpful to characterise and personalise the issues in the way that you and Benjamin do. Where have I been personal? He has been massively failing for years now. Its actually comedic how he's still in a job. Its not opinion to suggest he wouldn't be in a job anywhere else, just check out other clubs that have been on our trajectory, not one has ducked an executive reshuffle in the cowardly way we have. Sorry Malcolm, you sound exactly like a mouthpiece for Tony Scholes. Defending failure like a certain Iraqi information Minister in 2003!
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Nov 14, 2020 16:34:57 GMT
It appears that some people think it's OK for TS to do a shocking job because other clubs have failed. Very odd.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2020 16:51:13 GMT
It appears that some people think it's OK for TS to do a shocking job because other clubs have failed. Very odd. What is more odd is people who know nothing about the inner workings of the club trying to pin our demise on Scholes. The owners clearly don't agree and blame the managers they appointed. It would have been much easier, cheaper and less disruptive to sack one CEO than four managers and all their staff.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Nov 14, 2020 16:59:46 GMT
800,000 a year for a glorified accountant/ book keeper he is either a glorified accountant On 50k a year or a chief executive responsible for all Areas of the business on 800k It’s not me that says he’s useless it’s the business performance £100s of millions of lost revenue , £150m of wasted investment. Substantial trading losses , relegation , food standards questions. , ticketing. Fiasco , failed management recruitment , toxic environment . As for the family view no one supports them or is life grateful than yours truly but they doesn’t mean their loyalty is 100% infallible there can be loot or doubt we’ve suffered form too close an environment and not enough football gravitas or challenge in the boardroom. . What an interesting perspective. I’ve never read you posting about this matter before 😴. Who was the CEO when we got promoted to the top tier after an absence of 23 years? When we stayed in the Premier League (despite your annual relegation predictions) for a decade, getting to FA Cup finals and playing in Europe? Who was the CEO who got the club into the position to waste “£150m of investment” in the first place? You hammer the bloke on here all the time. HE WILL NEVER READ WHAT YOU POST, and even if he does, will never respond. You are wasting your time peddling this boring monotonous crap constantly on this message board. If you are so incensed by Tony Scholes, instead of anonymously posting on a fans forum , why don’t you write him a strongly worded email, or arrange a one to one meeting expressing your concerns? I’ll let you into a Little secret he does read it , why would you judge response as a success criteria ? does O’Neil respond to team selection criticism ? as for the one to one meeting I’m more than happy to oblige abc hear the other side and amend my view , I’d certainly respect the effort , but I doubt its going to happen so there is no need for the email you suggest . As regards to your point on previous success , why were hughes and Pulis sacked then they too were far more instrumental in the glory days but someone was happy to hold them to account for post glory performance , , see Aston villla for the impact holding a failing ceo to account can have , Scholes has overseen four years of sustained failure , been handsomely rewarded for it and transferred accountability to several others, and some saw it coming with the complacency and laziness even when the sun was shining .
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Nov 14, 2020 17:03:26 GMT
What an interesting perspective. I’ve never read you posting about this matter before 😴. Who was the CEO when we got promoted to the top tier after an absence of 23 years? When we stayed in the Premier League (despite your annual relegation predictions) for a decade, getting to FA Cup finals and playing in Europe? Who was the CEO who got the club into the position to waste “£150m of investment” in the first place? You hammer the bloke on here all the time. HE WILL NEVER READ WHAT YOU POST, and even if he does, will never respond. You are wasting your time peddling this boring monotonous crap constantly on this message board. If you are so incensed by Tony Scholes, instead of anonymously posting on a fans forum , why don’t you write him a strongly worded email, or arrange a one to one meeting expressing your concerns? I’ll let you into a Little secret he does read it , why would you judge response as a success criteria ? does O’Neil respond to team selection criticism ? as for the one to one meeting I’m more than happy to oblige abc hear the other side and amend my view , I’d certainly respect the effort , but I doubt its going to happen so there is no need for the email you suggest . As regards to your point on previous success , why were hughes and Pulis sacked then they too were far more instrumental in the glory days but someone was happy to hold them to account for post glory performance , , see Aston villla for the impact holding a failing ceo to account can have , Scholes has overseen four years of sustained failure , been handsomely rewarded for it and transferred accountability to several others, and some saw it coming with the complacency and laziness even when the sun was shining . I see, so Hughes and Pulis were instrumental in the success but the CEO was instrumental in the decline? What a very strange thing to say. You can’t blame him for failure and fail to praise the success that went before it. That just leads people to believe that you have a strange vendetta against someone you don’t even know.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Nov 14, 2020 17:09:11 GMT
I’ll let you into a Little secret he does read it , why would you judge response as a success criteria ? does O’Neil respond to team selection criticism ? as for the one to one meeting I’m more than happy to oblige abc hear the other side and amend my view , I’d certainly respect the effort , but I doubt its going to happen so there is no need for the email you suggest . As regards to your point on previous success , why were hughes and Pulis sacked then they too were far more instrumental in the glory days but someone was happy to hold them to account for post glory performance , , see Aston villla for the impact holding a failing ceo to account can have , Scholes has overseen four years of sustained failure , been handsomely rewarded for it and transferred accountability to several others, and some saw it coming with the complacency and laziness even when the sun was shining . I see, so Hughes and Pulis were instrumental in the success but the CEO was instrumental in the decline? What a very strange thing to say. You can’t blame him for failure and fail to praise the success that went before it. That just leads people to believe that you have a strange vendetta against someone you don’t even know. You miss the point if hughes ahd Pulis were held accountable for failure why wasn’t their boss ? regardless of what had gone before , and how do you claim to verify your last point as a matter of interest .
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Nov 14, 2020 17:11:40 GMT
He wouldn't continue to be employed by any other club in world football, Malcolm. We are an organisation that has been in chronic decline for years. Its frankly staggering that there hasn't been any executive level accountability for it. Personally I think both those statements are hyperbole, but, as I said, even if they are true, it's down to the Board to sack the CEO if they think that his performance is not up to scratch. There has been executive accountability in that football managers and recruitment staff have departed, a steady succession in fact. So it’s all the employees fault but not the person who selects turn and is paid handsomely to manage them .
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Nov 14, 2020 17:13:52 GMT
I see, so Hughes and Pulis were instrumental in the success but the CEO was instrumental in the decline? What a very strange thing to say. You can’t blame him for failure and fail to praise the success that went before it. That just leads people to believe that you have a strange vendetta against someone you don’t even know. You miss the point if hughes ahd Pulis were held accountable for failure why wasn’t their boss ? regardless of what had gone before , and how do you claim to verify your last point as a matter of interest . So every time a manager gets the sack a CEO should follow? I see Derby have just sacked Cocu. By your reasoning, we can expect their CEO to walk aswell shall we. Don’t be so ridiculous. Yes, you seem obsessed with the guy. There is no topic on this board that you cannot hijack and twist into some kind of dig against Scholes. Take your beef up with him through the club if he offends you so much.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Nov 14, 2020 17:23:49 GMT
You miss the point if hughes ahd Pulis were held accountable for failure why wasn’t their boss ? regardless of what had gone before , and how do you claim to verify your last point as a matter of interest . So every time a manager gets the sack a CEO should follow? I see Derby have just sacked Cocu. By your reasoning, we can expect their CEO to walk aswell shall we. Don’t be so ridiculous. Yes, you seem obsessed with the guy. There is no topic on this board that you cannot hijack and twist into some kind of dig against Scholes. Take your beef up with him through the club if he offends you so much. When did I argue every time a manager is sacked the ceo should go , Ive said when 4 or 5 managers fail , when £150m is wasted , when colossal losses are accumulated , when the revenue line is destroyed , when respected sources talk of a toxic culture , the role of the most senior executive should be questioned when every other senior executive has been held accountable with their job .
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Nov 14, 2020 17:24:58 GMT
It appears that some people think it's OK for TS to do a shocking job because other clubs have failed. Very odd. What is more odd is people who know nothing about the inner workings of the club trying to pin our demise on Scholes. The owners clearly don't agree and blame the managers they appointed. It would have been much easier, cheaper and less disruptive to sack one CEO than four managers and all their staff. His failings are a contributory factor, it can't be argued otherwise. Also off the pitch we're an absolute shambles.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 14, 2020 17:25:49 GMT
The problem with that kind of analysis is that it appears to overlook the nature of the football industry in which relegation plays an integral part. If the 20 PL clubs had the 20 best CEOs and 20 richest and most competent owners in the world, 3 of them would still be relegated with all that entails. The Championship is full of clubs of similar size to us who were in the PL who in that sense have “failed”. You have been on this theme for as long as I can remember, long before we were relegated. I am not a mouthpiece for Tony Scholes - he has a perfectly good mouthpiece of his own - but I don’t think it is helpful to characterise and personalise the issues in the way that you and Benjamin do. Where have I been personal? He has been massively failing for years now. Its actually comedic how he's still in a job. Its not opinion to suggest he wouldn't be in a job anywhere else, just check out other clubs that have been on our trajectory, not one has ducked an executive reshuffle in the cowardly way we have. Sorry Malcolm, you sound exactly like a mouthpiece for Tony Scholes. Defending failure like a certain Iraqi information Minister in 2003! I said "personalise" not "personal" by which I mean that you put all the focus for our football failures - on field performance and player recruitment - on to one person, the CEO and not on to either the football management and player recruitment personnel. In fact your reference to "ducking out" of a reshuffle supports the point I made that it is not logical to blame the CEO without blaming the owners, who are the only people who could effect such a reshuffle. They presumably take a different view about who is responsible for the failures in the business they own. With respect, although it's not an analogy I would ever use, if either of us sounds like the Iraqi Minister, it is you rather than me, as you have promoting this line for years and years, long before we were relegated.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 14, 2020 17:32:33 GMT
It appears that some people think it's OK for TS to do a shocking job because other clubs have failed. Very odd. That is to either misunderstand or misrepresent the point I made. I don't think it's "OK" for anyone at our club to do a shocking job, and I certainly didn't say that. At the risk of repeating myself, failure in the sense of relegation, with all the financial consequences that entails, is integral to the competitive structure of football, regardless of the quality of the non-football executive leadership. The owners put the failures down to the football management and player recruitment.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 14, 2020 17:43:38 GMT
Personally I think both those statements are hyperbole, but, as I said, even if they are true, it's down to the Board to sack the CEO if they think that his performance is not up to scratch. There has been executive accountability in that football managers and recruitment staff have departed, a steady succession in fact. So it’s all the employees fault but not the person who selects turn and is paid handsomely to manage them . As I'm sure you well know, the CEO does not manage the football side of the business in the way that CEOs of other businesses are ultimately responsible for managing everything, and neither should he. I expect he had a role in recruiting the managers, but that decision is taken by the owners, as Jon Coates made clear at the Q & A he di with the CEO. Here's a question. Suppose that instead of sacking Nathan Jones and keeping Tony Scholes, the owners had done it the other way round, in line with view that the CEO manages the team manager. Would we have avoided relegation last season ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2020 17:48:03 GMT
So it’s all the employees fault but not the person who selects turn and is paid handsomely to manage them . As I'm sure you well know, the CEO does not manage the football side of the business in the way that CEOs of other businesses are ultimately responsible for managing everything, and neither should he. I expect he had a role in recruiting the managers, but that decision is taken by the owners, as Jon Coates made clear at the Q & A he di with the CEO. Here's a question. Suppose that instead of sacking Nathan Jones and keeping Tony Scholes, the owners had done it the other way round, in line with view that the CEO manages the team manager. Would we have avoided relegation last season ? Checkmate 🙂
|
|
|
Post by liathroid on Nov 14, 2020 17:54:20 GMT
So it’s all the employees fault but not the person who selects turn and is paid handsomely to manage them . As I'm sure you well know, the CEO does not manage the football side of the business in the way that CEOs of other businesses are ultimately responsible for managing everything, and neither should he. I expect he had a role in recruiting the managers, but that decision is taken by the owners, as Jon Coates made clear at the Q & A he di with the CEO. Here's a question. Suppose that instead of sacking Nathan Jones and keeping Tony Scholes, the owners had done it the other way round, in line with view that the CEO manages the team manager. Would we have avoided relegation last season ? what a fantastic question Malcolm
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 14, 2020 17:55:23 GMT
What is more odd is people who know nothing about the inner workings of the club trying to pin our demise on Scholes. The owners clearly don't agree and blame the managers they appointed. It would have been much easier, cheaper and less disruptive to sack one CEO than four managers and all their staff. His failings are a contributory factor, it can't be argued otherwise. Also off the pitch we're an absolute shambles. I am as vociferous as anyone in campaigning for football clubs to improve their treatment of fans at both local and national level, but I don't think we are an "absolute shambles" off the pitch, and I don't think it helps fans to say that we are. Of course there are many things which could be improved, there always are. But I mentioned above the very long ticket price freeze and the free travel to away games which are hugely important, and set an example to other clubs which they mostly don't follow. I thought the recent proposal for red and white half season tickets if fans had been allowed back in grounds was the best I'd seen. The ticket office handled season ticket refunds for supporters in the current crisis as well as any club and much better than many. We have one of the Supporter Liaison Officers in the business IMHO. The Community work of the Club is excellent. That's just a few quick current examples off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 14, 2020 18:08:45 GMT
It appears that some people think it's OK for TS to do a shocking job because other clubs have failed. Very odd. What is more odd is people who know nothing about the inner workings of the club trying to pin our demise on Scholes. The owners clearly don't agree and blame the managers they appointed. It would have been much easier, cheaper and less disruptive to sack one CEO than four managers and all their staff. You have an opinion on it, one that seems to be he's blameless because he's operating with the parameters the club has set for him. It seems odd to me that a chief exec only acts upon a business plan and had no direct say in agreeing it. But I don't know how football clubs work and operate.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 14, 2020 18:10:43 GMT
So it’s all the employees fault but not the person who selects turn and is paid handsomely to manage them . As I'm sure you well know, the CEO does not manage the football side of the business in the way that CEOs of other businesses are ultimately responsible for managing everything, and neither should he. I expect he had a role in recruiting the managers, but that decision is taken by the owners, as Jon Coates made clear at the Q & A he di with the CEO. Here's a question. Suppose that instead of sacking Nathan Jones and keeping Tony Scholes, the owners had done it the other way round, in line with view that the CEO manages the team manager. Would we have avoided relegation last season ? What if we'd kept Gary Rowett and got rid of Scholes - would we even have to talk about the disaster that was jones?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2020 18:41:26 GMT
What is more odd is people who know nothing about the inner workings of the club trying to pin our demise on Scholes. The owners clearly don't agree and blame the managers they appointed. It would have been much easier, cheaper and less disruptive to sack one CEO than four managers and all their staff. You have an opinion on it, one that seems to be he's blameless because he's operating with the parameters the club has set for him. It seems odd to me that a chief exec only acts upon a business plan and had no direct say in agreeing it. But I don't know how football clubs work and operate. When did I say he was blameless? I just don't think he is the biggest factor in our demise and more importantly neither do the Coates family. Scholes was our CEO through the premiership years and I don't recall him getting much credit for that.
|
|
|
Post by colnepotter on Nov 14, 2020 18:45:52 GMT
One question. If he is as useless as you repeatedly say, why does Coates not sack him? I think the reason is Scholes did not agree with a lot of the ridiculous deals done under Hughes and Rowett but was tasked to make them happen. He is not a director of football, he is a glorified accountant and Coates' mouthpiece. 800,000 a year for a glorified accountant/ book keeper he is either a glorified accountant On 50k a year or a chief executive responsible for all Areas of the business on 800k It’s not me that says he’s useless it’s the business performance £100s of millions of lost revenue , £150m of wasted investment. Substantial trading losses , relegation , food standards questions. , ticketing. Fiasco , failed management recruitment , toxic environmen As for the family view no one supports them or is life grateful than yours truly but they doesn’t mean their loyalty is 100% infallible there can be loot or doubt we’ve suffered form too close an environment and not enough football gravitas or challenge in the boardroom. . Award winning shit as usual. I salute you sir. As a matter of interest, do you have to practice this nonsense or is it a gift you were born with?
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 14, 2020 18:47:47 GMT
You have an opinion on it, one that seems to be he's blameless because he's operating with the parameters the club has set for him. It seems odd to me that a chief exec only acts upon a business plan and had no direct say in agreeing it. But I don't know how football clubs work and operate. When did I say he was blameless? I just don't think he is the biggest factor in our demise and more importantly neither do the Coates family. Scholes was our CEO through the premiership years and I don't recall him getting much credit for that. Football is a fast moving ruthless business - once a player is of no use they're disposed of quite often - why shouldn't it be the same for those at the top? Fuller was fantastic for us in the prem, I don't think he'd be as good now. Scholes was with us on the rise and he's also presided over the demise. As CEO some of the decisions must have crossed his path. Covid is a convenient excuse for him. I'd be more forgiving if he could accept some responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Nov 14, 2020 20:08:20 GMT
So it’s all the employees fault but not the person who selects turn and is paid handsomely to manage them . As I'm sure you well know, the CEO does not manage the football side of the business in the way that CEOs of other businesses are ultimately responsible for managing everything, and neither should he. I expect he had a role in recruiting the managers, but that decision is taken by the owners, as Jon Coates made clear at the Q & A he di with the CEO. Here's a question. Suppose that instead of sacking Nathan Jones and keeping Tony Scholes, the owners had done it the other way round, in line with view that the CEO manages the team manager. Would we have avoided relegation last season ? Malcolm the board just said The chief executive is the executive responsible for all football related matters presumably that includes manager performance .
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Nov 14, 2020 20:21:16 GMT
As I'm sure you well know, the CEO does not manage the football side of the business in the way that CEOs of other businesses are ultimately responsible for managing everything, and neither should he. I expect he had a role in recruiting the managers, but that decision is taken by the owners, as Jon Coates made clear at the Q & A he di with the CEO. Here's a question. Suppose that instead of sacking Nathan Jones and keeping Tony Scholes, the owners had done it the other way round, in line with view that the CEO manages the team manager. Would we have avoided relegation last season ? Checkmate 🙂 If the owners had sacked the chief executive instead of Mark Hughes do you think we would have been relegated
|
|
|
Post by liathroid on Nov 14, 2020 20:31:56 GMT
so he had 11 great seasons and the last 4 poor ,not bad in 15 seasons
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 14, 2020 20:38:25 GMT
When did I say he was blameless? I just don't think he is the biggest factor in our demise and more importantly neither do the Coates family. Scholes was our CEO through the premiership years and I don't recall him getting much credit for that. Football is a fast moving ruthless business - once a player is of no use they're disposed of quite often - why shouldn't it be the same for those at the top? Fuller was fantastic for us in the prem, I don't think he'd be as good now. Scholes was with us on the rise and he's also presided over the demise. As CEO some of the decisions must have crossed his path. Covid is a convenient excuse for him. I'd be more forgiving if he could accept some responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in. How do you know what he accepts responsibility for and what he doesn't ? The owners are presumably happy about his performance in running the business they own. Without being a member of the Board, it's very difficult for the rest of us to judge. There have clearly been very significant mistakes in player recruitment and player contracts, and also in manager recruitment, but none of us on here knows who decided what (although Jon Coates clearly took the 'credit' for hiring Nathan Jones), but the working assumption must be that the player recruitment decisions were taken by the managers taking advice from the recruitment team. In the Macari/Moxey time fans got angry about what they perceived to be CEO "interference" in the football side. What evidence is there that TS has done what Moxey was accused of doing, given that both the owners and the CEO have said that we are a manager-led club ? And if he has, why have the owners allowed it ? You can't have your cake and eat it, by giving the CEO no credit for getting into the PL and the good years there, but blaming him for the relegation and our poor showing in the Championship last season. I don't think the Fuller analogy works because an athlete's ability inevitably declines in their 30s, which obviously doesn't apply to executives. Without repeating what I said above, I think there have been a lot of off-field things in which the Club's performance has been very good.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Nov 14, 2020 20:45:58 GMT
If the owners had sacked the chief executive instead of Mark Hughes do you think we would have been relegated Yes we would. The disaster signings of Imbula, Berahino, and Wimmer are all the fault of Hughes in my opinion. The owners and CEO were at fault for putting too much faith in his ability to spot and develop players. There will be a time when you get your wish and Scholes will leave his position. From behind the anonymity if your keyboard, tell me who would you like to step in and take his position, and more specifically, what would you like to see him/her do in the role.
|
|