|
Post by liathroid on Nov 15, 2020 21:42:26 GMT
Understood Thing is we have got lucky. Suspect he feels the same way about Stoke too. But we need to make sure unlike with TP and Hughes we futureproof. Appointing MON’s man for recruitment was a poor start. you want TS to keep picking the players we sign
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 15, 2020 21:51:27 GMT
But we need to make sure unlike with TP and Hughes we futureproof. Appointing MON’s man for recruitment was a poor start. you want TS to keep picking the players we sign How the hell did you get that from what I posted? 😂 I’ve wanted Scholes sacked since about 2005. Ideally we would get a technical director in who dictates how we play. They appoint the manager to do that and dictate transfers. Scholes’ role as it is shouldn’t be a thing. We need a managing director. And a head of football activities who the manager and academy director report to. Chairman Technical Director - a footballing person First team coach Academy Director Ground staff Managing director - commercial/managing background Head of marketing and comms Head of ticketing Head of security Head of corporate events/catering Etc
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 22:06:23 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. The owners have a lot to answer for too. They have been a massive part of the decline with their dismal decisions. And again now instead of club structure we seem to be relying on getting lucky with a manager. It’s an awful way to run a club in this day and age. I agree with you re the owners. I think their backing of Hughes for way too long and subsequent poor managerial appointments were the cause of our demise. That is why I don't get all the blame being put on Scholes. I understand he is on the board but he doesn't have the casting vote. For all any of us know he may have disagreed with player signings and managerial appointments. Despite their faults the Coates family are honourable people and the reason Scholes is still in a job is probably because they don't believe much of blame lies with him.
|
|
|
Post by liathroid on Nov 15, 2020 22:08:16 GMT
you want TS to keep picking the players we sign How the hell did you get that from what I posted? 😂 I’ve wanted Scholes sacked since about 2005. Ideally we would get a technical director in who dictates how we play. They appoint the manager to do that and dictate transfers. Scholes’ role as it is shouldn’t be a thing. We need a managing director. And a head of football activities who the manager and academy director report to. Chairman Technical Director - a footballing person First team coach Academy Director Ground staff Managing director - commercial/managing background Head of marketing and comms Head of ticketing Head of security Head of corporate events/catering Etc your creating the NHS with all those people managing fuck all and I have seen it
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 15, 2020 22:11:14 GMT
The owners have a lot to answer for too. They have been a massive part of the decline with their dismal decisions. And again now instead of club structure we seem to be relying on getting lucky with a manager. It’s an awful way to run a club in this day and age. I agree with you re the owners. I think their backing of Hughes for way too long and subsequent poor managerial appointments were the cause of our demise. That is why I don't get all the blame being put on Scholes. I understand he is on the board but he doesn't have the casting vote. For all any of us know he may have disagreed with player signings and managerial appointments. Despite their faults the Coates family are honourable people and the reason Scholes is still in a job is probably because they don't believe much of blame lies with him. Because Scholes is in charge of the day to day stuff. And for how long have we been Conference off the pitch? And it’s all under his watch. He was handing out new contracts when we didn’t have a manager. He’s to blame to some extent. It just depends to what extent you want to think. And they have shown they haven’t got very clear judgement when it comes to decisions with people they are close too. It’s as bad a thing as it is good. Scholes would have gone years ago for any other business that wanted to improve.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 15, 2020 22:12:31 GMT
How the hell did you get that from what I posted? 😂 I’ve wanted Scholes sacked since about 2005. Ideally we would get a technical director in who dictates how we play. They appoint the manager to do that and dictate transfers. Scholes’ role as it is shouldn’t be a thing. We need a managing director. And a head of football activities who the manager and academy director report to. Chairman Technical Director - a footballing person First team coach Academy Director Ground staff Managing director - commercial/managing background Head of marketing and comms Head of ticketing Head of security Head of corporate events/catering Etc your creating the NHS with all those people managing fuck all and I have seen it Literally the only new role would be a technical director. The rest already exist 😂 And why the hell would you think we wouldn’t need them?
|
|
|
Post by liathroid on Nov 15, 2020 22:17:44 GMT
your creating the NHS with all those people managing fuck all and I have seen it Literally the only new role would be a technical director. The rest already exist 😂 And why the hell would you think we wouldn’t need them? each head will want people under him and them the same because they will want buck as far a way as possible
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 15, 2020 22:19:08 GMT
Literally the only new role would be a technical director. The rest already exist 😂 And why the hell would you think we wouldn’t need them? each head will want people under him and them the same because they will want buck as far a way as possible Eh? Isn’t that how things work? You have someone who manages and then people work for them. You’re not making any sense.
|
|
|
Post by hardcastle on Nov 16, 2020 18:21:43 GMT
Genuine question. Why / when do companies invite their CEO - a mere employee - onto the board? Surely if the board needed advice in a specific matter, it'd simply invite them to sit in on a meeting?
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Nov 16, 2020 18:28:40 GMT
Genuine question. Why / when do companies invite their CEO - a mere employee - onto the board? Surely if the board needed advice in a specific matter, it'd simply invite them to sit in on a meeting? Chief executive would normally sit in the board meetings as they are responsible for implementing the board strategy , companies though vary greatly on whether they are a statutory director , normally are , what level of shareholding , voting rights they may or might not have , the board is chaired by the chair, whose role may be a executive or non executive role. .
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 17, 2020 20:59:27 GMT
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. And the counsel for Mr Scholes rests! Well you are certainly counsel for the prosecution and have been for years. I can actually remember discussing your posts on the subject with fans members of old fans forum which pre-dated the Supporters Council so it will be a decade or more ago. I don't think you gave him any credit for the good years, so it's not consistent to hold him responsible for the bad. If I were either a senior member of staff or on the Board I would be in a better position to judge how good a CEO I think he is. As it is, I don't think the evidence is there to reach the conclusions which some posters are reaching. As we all know there have clearly been very significant mistakes in player recruitment and player contracts, and also of course in manager recruitment. A detailed explanation of how the decision-making on player recruitment works was given to the Supporters Council in April '18, and repeated in less detail at the Q & A with Jon Coates and Tony Scholes last year, which confirmed the central and all-powerful role of the Manager, although Tony Scholes did accept that "we all share responsibility". And Jon Coates clearly took the credit for Nathan Jones recruitment. I am not a counsel for Tony Scholes, but I think the narrative that as CEO he's responsible for everything which has gone wrong is not supported by the evidence on the way the club structure works or the role of the owners.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 17, 2020 21:04:00 GMT
And the counsel for Mr Scholes rests! Well you are certainly counsel for the prosecution and have been for years. I can actually remember discussing your posts on the subject with fans members of old fans forum which pre-dated the Supporters Council so it will be a decade or more ago. I don't think you gave him any credit for the good years, so it's not consistent to hold him responsible for the bad. If I were either a senior member of staff or on the Board I would be in a better position to judge how good a CEO I think he is. As it is, I don't think the evidence is there to reach the conclusions which some posters are reaching. As we all know there have clearly been very significant mistakes in player recruitment and player contracts, and also of course in manager recruitment. A detailed explanation of how the decision-making on player recruitment works was given to the Supporters Council in April '18, and repeated in less detail at the Q & A with Jon Coates and Tony Scholes last year, which confirmed the central and all-powerful role of the Manager, although Tony Scholes did accept that "we all share responsibility". And Jon Coates clearly took the credit for Nathan Jones recruitment. I am not a counsel for Tony Scholes, but I think the narrative that as CEO he's responsible for everything which has gone wrong is not supported by the evidence on the way the club structure works or the role of the owners. But he’s on the board!?!?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 17, 2020 21:08:50 GMT
And the counsel for Mr Scholes rests! Well you are certainly counsel for the prosecution and have been for years. I can actually remember discussing your posts on the subject with fans members of old fans forum which pre-dated the Supporters Council so it will be a decade or more ago. I don't think you gave him any credit for the good years, so it's not consistent to hold him responsible for the bad. If I were either a senior member of staff or on the Board I would be in a better position to judge how good a CEO I think he is. As it is, I don't think the evidence is there to reach the conclusions which some posters are reaching. As we all know there have clearly been very significant mistakes in player recruitment and player contracts, and also of course in manager recruitment. A detailed explanation of how the decision-making on player recruitment works was given to the Supporters Council in April '18, and repeated in less detail at the Q & A with Jon Coates and Tony Scholes last year, which confirmed the central and all-powerful role of the Manager, although Tony Scholes did accept that "we all share responsibility". And Jon Coates clearly took the credit for Nathan Jones recruitment. I am not a counsel for Tony Scholes, but I think the narrative that as CEO he's responsible for everything which has gone wrong is not supported by the evidence on the way the club structure works or the role of the owners. I didn't know you were involved during the cosy 'tea and biscuits with Tone' period Malcolm! A period where we were an utter shambles off the pitch and all the minutes of the meetings showed were a series of back slapping congratulatory statements of people telling each other how great they were. In fact, as I recall, one of the most common fearures from the minutes in those days was to be found in the opening few words 'apologies - T Scholes'. It seemed like the most senior club rep at a lot of those meetings was Beryl from the typing pool. Still I bet the Hob Nobs were nice 😄
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 17, 2020 21:10:01 GMT
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. He's passed comments on before, remember "what left back problem?" If he's happy to comment on it then he must be aware of the situation. People seem happy to comment on his part in our promotion - why the double standards then when we talked about where we are today. You asked a question earlier, which I quoted you on - do you have an opinion on that? He answered a question on it. But his answer to a question like that would be far more significant if he was responsible for identifying weaknesses in the team, and which players are suitable to rectify them,but all the evidence is that he's not ( which is as it should be IMHO). I think the double standards on his role in the promotion have been the other way round. All that anyone has said about that is that it's inconsistent to blame him for the relegation without giving him any credit for the good years. Personally I give credit for the promotion to Tony Pulis and to the owners for appointing him. You asked if Scholes had been sacked instead of Rowett, would we ever have had the disaster which was Jones. Well obviously not, at least in the short term, but if the implication of your question is that Scholes was responsible for some of Rowett's failures, I've not seen any evidence to support that.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 17, 2020 21:12:47 GMT
Well you are certainly counsel for the prosecution and have been for years. I can actually remember discussing your posts on the subject with fans members of old fans forum which pre-dated the Supporters Council so it will be a decade or more ago. I don't think you gave him any credit for the good years, so it's not consistent to hold him responsible for the bad. If I were either a senior member of staff or on the Board I would be in a better position to judge how good a CEO I think he is. As it is, I don't think the evidence is there to reach the conclusions which some posters are reaching. As we all know there have clearly been very significant mistakes in player recruitment and player contracts, and also of course in manager recruitment. A detailed explanation of how the decision-making on player recruitment works was given to the Supporters Council in April '18, and repeated in less detail at the Q & A with Jon Coates and Tony Scholes last year, which confirmed the central and all-powerful role of the Manager, although Tony Scholes did accept that "we all share responsibility". And Jon Coates clearly took the credit for Nathan Jones recruitment. I am not a counsel for Tony Scholes, but I think the narrative that as CEO he's responsible for everything which has gone wrong is not supported by the evidence on the way the club structure works or the role of the owners. But he’s on the board!?!? Yes he is but the power, including whether to dismiss the CEO lies, as it always does with the owners.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 17, 2020 21:17:24 GMT
Well you are certainly counsel for the prosecution and have been for years. I can actually remember discussing your posts on the subject with fans members of old fans forum which pre-dated the Supporters Council so it will be a decade or more ago. I don't think you gave him any credit for the good years, so it's not consistent to hold him responsible for the bad. If I were either a senior member of staff or on the Board I would be in a better position to judge how good a CEO I think he is. As it is, I don't think the evidence is there to reach the conclusions which some posters are reaching. As we all know there have clearly been very significant mistakes in player recruitment and player contracts, and also of course in manager recruitment. A detailed explanation of how the decision-making on player recruitment works was given to the Supporters Council in April '18, and repeated in less detail at the Q & A with Jon Coates and Tony Scholes last year, which confirmed the central and all-powerful role of the Manager, although Tony Scholes did accept that "we all share responsibility". And Jon Coates clearly took the credit for Nathan Jones recruitment. I am not a counsel for Tony Scholes, but I think the narrative that as CEO he's responsible for everything which has gone wrong is not supported by the evidence on the way the club structure works or the role of the owners. I didn't know you were involved during the cosy 'tea and biscuits with Tone' period Malcolm! A period where we were an utter shambles off the pitch and all the minutes of the meetings showed were a series of back slapping congratulatory statements of people telling each other how great they were. In fact, as I recall, one of the most common fearures from the minutes in those days was to be found in the opening few words 'apologies - T Scholes'. It seemed like the most senior club rep at a lot of those meetings was Beryl from the typing pool. Still I bet the Hob Nobs were nice 😄 You are right that the club sent relatively junior people, which was one reason why it was ineffective, and why some of us were involved in setting up a new arrangement - the Supporters Council, which the CEO agreed to attend personally along with appropriate senior staff, which is a promise he has kept to in the 8 years since it was founded. I don't recall the buscuits being as nice even as Hob Nobs.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 17, 2020 22:09:42 GMT
He's passed comments on before, remember "what left back problem?" If he's happy to comment on it then he must be aware of the situation. People seem happy to comment on his part in our promotion - why the double standards then when we talked about where we are today. You asked a question earlier, which I quoted you on - do you have an opinion on that? He answered a question on it. But his answer to a question like that would be far more significant if he was responsible for identifying weaknesses in the team, and which players are suitable to rectify them,but all the evidence is that he's not ( which is as it should be IMHO). I think the double standards on his role in the promotion have been the other way round. All that anyone has said about that is that it's inconsistent to blame him for the relegation without giving him any credit for the good years. Personally I give credit for the promotion to Tony Pulis and to the owners for appointing him. You asked if Scholes had been sacked instead of Rowett, would we ever have had the disaster which was Jones. Well obviously not, at least in the short term, but if the implication of your question is that Scholes was responsible for some of Rowett's failures, I've not seen any evidence to support that. The implication of my question was aligned to a hypothetical situation - much in the same as yours was about keeping Jones. You don't know definitively that Jones would have got us relegated and you don't know where we'd be today if Scholes had gone at a year ago. Maybe the things that you and I are not aware of in the club and the role Scholes plays impacted Jones and how he did his job. But all that said - we probably would've gone down with Jones and we probably would've been mid table with boring football with Rowett for another year.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2020 0:08:40 GMT
The real question here is what has TS ever done as CEO.
Alas we will never know
|
|
|
Post by Sfance on Nov 18, 2020 1:35:49 GMT
There's some bizarre arguments on this thread. Yes, so what if Tony Scholes deserves credit for what happened in the dim and distant past. He's the CEO for goodness sakes. From what I understand of the corporate world, that stands for CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. That usually means, and by usually, I mean anywhere else in the world, other than apparently down at the Brit, that he's responsible for what happens in and to the organization. Get it? RESPONSIBLE!!! We're just coming out of three years of close to catastrophic performance. I would wager that in any other organization with the dismal performance that Stoke City has suffered, the CEO would be long gone. How can there be an argument about that - except from his most sycophantic apologists?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 18, 2020 11:09:55 GMT
He answered a question on it. But his answer to a question like that would be far more significant if he was responsible for identifying weaknesses in the team, and which players are suitable to rectify them,but all the evidence is that he's not ( which is as it should be IMHO). I think the double standards on his role in the promotion have been the other way round. All that anyone has said about that is that it's inconsistent to blame him for the relegation without giving him any credit for the good years. Personally I give credit for the promotion to Tony Pulis and to the owners for appointing him. You asked if Scholes had been sacked instead of Rowett, would we ever have had the disaster which was Jones. Well obviously not, at least in the short term, but if the implication of your question is that Scholes was responsible for some of Rowett's failures, I've not seen any evidence to support that. The implication of my question was aligned to a hypothetical situation - much in the same as yours was about keeping Jones. You don't know definitively that Jones would have got us relegated and you don't know where we'd be today if Scholes had gone at a year ago. Maybe the things that you and I are not aware of in the club and the role Scholes plays impacted Jones and how he did his job. But all that said - we probably would've gone down with Jones and we probably would've been mid table with boring football with Rowett for another year. I think that's fair comment. As I said, without being either a senior employee or on the Board, it's difficult for any of us to really know what goes on. I suppose that's really my point. The explanation about how things work on player recruitment given to the Supporters council in 2018 and repeated at the Q & A said that the "Strongest and final voice" is the mangers, and of course the Board i.e the owners have ultimate responsibility for everything, and clearly exercise direct and personal control over manager recruitment.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 18, 2020 11:21:38 GMT
He answered a question on it. But his answer to a question like that would be far more significant if he was responsible for identifying weaknesses in the team, and which players are suitable to rectify them,but all the evidence is that he's not ( which is as it should be IMHO). I think the double standards on his role in the promotion have been the other way round. All that anyone has said about that is that it's inconsistent to blame him for the relegation without giving him any credit for the good years. Personally I give credit for the promotion to Tony Pulis and to the owners for appointing him. You asked if Scholes had been sacked instead of Rowett, would we ever have had the disaster which was Jones. Well obviously not, at least in the short term, but if the implication of your question is that Scholes was responsible for some of Rowett's failures, I've not seen any evidence to support that. But all that said - we probably would've gone down with Jones and we probably would've been mid table with boring football with Rowett for another year. Which only goes to show 1) What dreadful appointments both were 2) Sacking both were among the few decision we got right
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 18, 2020 13:18:54 GMT
But all that said - we probably would've gone down with Jones and we probably would've been mid table with boring football with Rowett for another year. Which only goes to show 1) What dreadful appointments both were 2) Sacking both were among the few decision we got right But if Scholes goes is it a different story - are either of them appointed on the first place? You don't know the answer to that, and neither do I.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 18, 2020 13:20:09 GMT
The implication of my question was aligned to a hypothetical situation - much in the same as yours was about keeping Jones. You don't know definitively that Jones would have got us relegated and you don't know where we'd be today if Scholes had gone at a year ago. Maybe the things that you and I are not aware of in the club and the role Scholes plays impacted Jones and how he did his job. But all that said - we probably would've gone down with Jones and we probably would've been mid table with boring football with Rowett for another year. I think that's fair comment. As I said, without being either a senior employee or on the Board, it's difficult for any of us to really know what goes on. I suppose that's really my point. The explanation about how things work on player recruitment given to the Supporters council in 2018 and repeated at the Q & A said that the "Strongest and final voice" is the mangers, and of course the Board i.e the owners have ultimate responsibility for everything, and clearly exercise direct and personal control over manager recruitment. The board isn't just the owners though is it.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 18, 2020 14:35:48 GMT
There's some bizarre arguments on this thread. Yes, so what if Tony Scholes deserves credit for what happened in the dim and distant past. He's the CEO for goodness sakes. From what I understand of the corporate world, that stands for CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. That usually means, and by usually, I mean anywhere else in the world, other than apparently down at the Brit, that he's responsible for what happens in and to the organization. Get it? RESPONSIBLE!!! We're just coming out of three years of close to catastrophic performance. I would wager that in any other organization with the dismal performance that Stoke City has suffered, the CEO would be long gone. How can there be an argument about that - except from his most sycophantic apologists? I am certainly not a "sycophantic apologist" for Tony Scholes, or anyone else who runs football at either local or national level, but I don't agree with your analysis for two main reasons. First, football clubs generally, and Stoke City in particular don't operate like many other businesses in that by far the main determinant of success and income streams, performance on the field, is not under the control of the CEO (and neither do most fans think it should be). Performance on the field is determined by the quality of the team manager appointments; player recruitment and player coaching. Whilst I am sure that Tony Scholes will have an input into Manager appointments, Jon Coates made it quite clear that he was responsible for the appointment of Nathan Jones who he had on his radar for some time, just as his father was responsible for previous appointments. As I stated above, on the player side, the evidence given to the Supporters Council and subsequently confirmed by the owners is that we are a very manager focussed club, and that the 'strongest and final word' on player recruitment lies with the manager. Hopefully in MON the owners have now appointed a manager who can use that responsibility along with his coaching skills to put us in a position to challenge for a return to the top flight. Second, promotion and relegation are integral to the football pyramid and what gives it its attraction. Relegation from the PL has particularly strong consequences for the club's revenue stream. If the 20 PL clubs had the 20 best CEOs in the world, 3 of them will still get relegated. That's just the reality of a competitive football pyramid. You certainly cannot infer from relegation that the performance of the CEO is poor. That would be true even if he was responsible for player recruitment and on-field performance, which he isn't. On the off-field side, I know it's often part of the narrative that we are "conference" or a "shambles" but I don't see it myself. Of course there are and have been some issues, but there's also been much which has been excellent. The ticket prize freeze for an extraordinary 12 years ( or however long it is); free coach travel to away games; the excellent work of the Community Unit; although it wasn't able to be implemented, I thought the 'red and white' half season tickets for the return to grounds was the best I'd seen; the Club (unlike some) have refunded the season ticket money; I think the service offered by the ticket office is good; we have a very good Supporters Liaison Officer .I spend a lot of time in the FSA hearing from fans at clubs who have far, far worse problems and issues than anything we have had to face, from both owners and senior executives. Finally, if you think that Tony Scholes should be sacked, what is your view of our owners, local people who could do that at any time, but clearly take the view that they are happy with his performance as CEO of the Club they own ? Bayern thinks they are incompetent. I don't agree but at least he recognises that it is illogical to castigate the CEO without also putting them in the frame.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 18, 2020 14:37:52 GMT
I think that's fair comment. As I said, without being either a senior employee or on the Board, it's difficult for any of us to really know what goes on. I suppose that's really my point. The explanation about how things work on player recruitment given to the Supporters council in 2018 and repeated at the Q & A said that the "Strongest and final voice" is the mangers, and of course the Board i.e the owners have ultimate responsibility for everything, and clearly exercise direct and personal control over manager recruitment. The board isn't just the owners though is it. No, it isn't, but ultimate power lies with the owners, as it always does.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 18, 2020 14:40:35 GMT
Which only goes to show 1) What dreadful appointments both were 2) Sacking both were among the few decision we got right But if Scholes goes is it a different story - are either of them appointed on the first place? You don't know the answer to that, and neither do I. They were both Coates JR shouts weren't they? Jones certainly was. I have no problem believing Scholes is useless and we'd be better off without him, I just think the issues run a little bit deeper than removing him like an appendix and problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 18, 2020 14:43:23 GMT
The board isn't just the owners though is it. No, it isn't, but ultimate power lies with the owners, as it always does. He's got a great job by the picture you're painting - he sits on the board but doesn't have to make decisions, his responsibilities as CEO of a football club do not have any relevance to running the football club and he doesn't get involved in decisions for hiring people (although he might be responsible when it comes to getting rid of them when they've failed). The only responsibility he seems to definitely have is attending the meetings with the Supporters Council. Fair play Tony, fair play.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 18, 2020 14:49:58 GMT
No, it isn't, but ultimate power lies with the owners, as it always does. He's got a great job by the picture you're painting - he sits on the board but doesn't have to make decisions, his responsibilities as CEO of a football club do not have any relevance to running the football club and he doesn't get involved in decisions for hiring people (although he might be responsible when it comes to getting rid of them when they've failed). The only responsibility he seems to definitely have is attending the meetings with the Supporters Council. Fair play Tony, fair play. Come on, that is an absurd characterisation of what I am saying. There is no point in having the discussion on this basis. This is not Parliament
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 18, 2020 14:51:32 GMT
But if Scholes goes is it a different story - are either of them appointed on the first place? You don't know the answer to that, and neither do I. They were both Coates JR shouts weren't they? Jones certainly was. I have no problem believing Scholes is useless and we'd be better off without him, I just think the issues run a little bit deeper than removing him like an appendix and problem solved. Youre picking on a hypothetical question, posed in response to another hypothetical question and while your point might be valid it's only a best guess. Much in the same way the original question was derived where guesses were made about just what it is Scholes does because it would appear no one knows.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 18, 2020 14:55:59 GMT
They were both Coates JR shouts weren't they? Jones certainly was. I have no problem believing Scholes is useless and we'd be better off without him, I just think the issues run a little bit deeper than removing him like an appendix and problem solved. Youre picking on a hypothetical question, posed in response to another hypothetical question and while your point might be valid it's only a best guess. Much in the same way the original question was derived where guesses were made about just what it is Scholes does because it would appear no one knows. Jones isn't a best guess, it's confirmed that he was John Coates' choice. Whatever he does or doesn't do, and clearly a fair bit of this mess is on his hands, the on-pitch/transfer stuff has largely been left to the manager and we've relied too heavily on them if anything. It's an outdated model but one we seem completely wedded to and will be, sadly, for as long as the family is in charge.
|
|