Manager for the Championship rebuild - who do you want?

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, LestaLad said:

Transfer window opens tomorrow.. Can’t imagine we get any players in without a manager.

prepare to imagine then 

We will get players to come here without a manager in place - players sign for clubs and managers get sacked a month later - it’s a job - we won’t be trying to convince mbappe to come ….

[Verumex]

4 minutes ago, LestaLad said:

Transfer window opens tomorrow.. Can’t imagine we get any players in without a manager.

The manager doesn't sign players, the recruitment team do. 

 

When you get a manager that interferes with that process, that's when your team signs Vestergaard and Bertrand. 

[Chelmofox]

Just now, Verumex said:

The manager doesn't sign players, the recruitment team do. 

 

When you get a manager that interferes with that process, that's when your team signs Vestergaard and Bertrand. 

Thanks. You can say this as many times as you like, but there are still people that are convinced that a manager makes all the signings!

[Scotch]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

prepare to imagine then 

We will get players to come here without a manager in place - players sign for clubs and managers get sacked a month later - it’s a job - we won’t be trying to convince mbappe to come ….

No-one is talking about world class players here. It SHOULD be a legitimate concern for any player. 

 

For example, if you were a winger would you sign for a club who have no manager and have almost exclusively been liked to managers that don't play wingers? 

[STUHILL]

1 minute ago, Verumex said:

The manager doesn't sign players, the recruitment team do. 

 

When you get a manager that interferes with that process, that's when your team signs Vestergaard and Bertrand. 

Rodgers was given way too much respect and control. Hopefully, we have learned that lesson now. 

I expect players will be leaving before any INs though 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Chelmofox said:

Thanks. You can say this as many times as you like, but there are still people that are convinced that a manager makes all the signings!

If I was a manger then I’d like to think I would be included in discussions but I wouldn’t expect to have the final say 

 

 

[bmt]

1 minute ago, Scotch said:

No-one is talking about world class players here. It SHOULD be a legitimate concern for any player. 

 

For example, if you were a winger would you sign for a club who have no manager and have almost exclusively been liked to managers that don't play wingers? 

Yeah don't get how people don't understand this. Why would you sign for someone if you didn't know who you'd be working for? I agree that targets should be sourced by head of recruitment but in actually getting them over the line it's important to have a manager.

[Thebluefox85]

The fact that we are now 70 odd days without a manager and 2weeks since the season has finished shows how badly this club is being run! They literally have no clue who they want or which direction to go! We are going to be in the championship for some time! I’m so angry how top has let this club fester when we got to have such a strong squad arrrggghhhh

Edited 13 June 2023 by Thebluefox85

[lcfcbluearmy]

Just now, Verumex said:

The manager doesn't sign players, the recruitment team do. 

 

When you get a manager that interferes with that process, that's when your team signs Vestergaard and Bertrand. 

I manager isn't in complete control of recruitment correct. However buying players without having a link between the manager and recruitment team is a disaster waiting to happen. This is how you end up with a manager having lots of expensive players that they don't want and don't play and don't fit with their tactics. 

 

Having a manager that dosent have a big say in recruitment is stupid. 

 

And think inking that you can recruit players without the approval of the manager is niaeve and leads to failure

[whoareyaaa]

Hutter the bloke from Brugge not Parker and RVN we should be looking at

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Scotch said:

No-one is talking about world class players here. It SHOULD be a legitimate concern for any player. 

 

For example, if you were a winger would you sign for a club who have no manager and have almost exclusively been liked to managers that don't play wingers? 

The level of player we are likely to sign and our standing means that any player we approach should be comfortable to sign for us 

 

how many coaches are there nowadays who are wedded to a system that excludes a position entirely ?  coaches have to be adaptable because the game has become so tactical 

 

i take your point loosely but I would also say that the club would tell any prospective purchase that they wouldnt be buying them and then employing a coach who wouldn’t be using them for the reasons you stated 

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, bmt said:

Yeah don't get how people don't understand this. Why would you sign for someone if you didn't know who you'd be working for? I agree that targets should be sourced by head of recruitment but in actually getting them over the line it's important to have a manager.

A) money 

b) opportunity at a club likely to be in the PL within the next two seasons 

 

as I said earlier, players are used to managers coming and going. You’d be nuts to select a move based on e manager unless it’s a pep or klopp who you know won’t be sacked 

[Tommy Fresh]

7 minutes ago, lcfcbluearmy said:

I manager isn't in complete control of recruitment correct. However buying players without having a link between the manager and recruitment team is a disaster waiting to happen. This is how you end up with a manager having lots of expensive players that they don't want and don't play and don't fit with their tactics. 

 

Having a manager that dosent have a big say in recruitment is stupid. 

 

And think inking that you can recruit players without the approval of the manager is niaeve and leads to failure

There's numerous clubs that would disagree with your statement about it being a disaster, Red Bull Salzburg for instance and AZ Alkmaar, you just appoint a manager who buys in to what you're trying to do, if you're going down that route. Regardless of if we do give a manager any input or not the choices he gets to have an opinion on would still be dictated to him by the recruitment team.

Edited 13 June 2023 by Tommy Fresh

[sacreblueits442]

4 hours ago, Scotch said:

They both play with two no.10's. After Maddison goes, we don't have any, in the senior squad anyway. 

...we still have Nacho, and this would be the ideal time to bring in Piroe from Swansea!!!

  That will be 2 #10, all we then need is Akpom upfront.

[Lillehamring]

9 minutes ago, Scotch said:

No-one is talking about world class players here. It SHOULD be a legitimate concern for any player. 

 

For example, if you were a winger would you sign for a club who have no manager and have almost exclusively been liked to managers that don't play wingers? 

I'm sure it can make a difference, but most of the players we'll be looking to sign will see leicester - regardless of who is in charge - as a step up.  Players sign a 3 year deal knowing that the manager probably will be different at some point, but the facilities, the salary etc will stay the same.

[bmt]

Just now, st albans fox said:

A) money 

b) opportunity at a club likely to be in the PL within the next two seasons 

 

as I said earlier, players are used to managers coming and going. You’d be nuts to select a move based on e manager unless it’s a pep or klopp who you know won’t be sacked 

Personally if I was a player I wouldn't. Maybe some would but its always going to be a factor for a player who wants to be playing under a good coach etc.

 

Think you'd be mad to not consider all things which are going to have an impact on your future career.

[Chelmofox]

10 minutes ago, lcfcbluearmy said:

I manager isn't in complete control of recruitment correct. However buying players without having a link between the manager and recruitment team is a disaster waiting to happen. This is how you end up with a manager having lots of expensive players that they don't want and don't play and don't fit with their tactics. 

 

Having a manager that dosent have a big say in recruitment is stupid. 

 

And think inking that you can recruit players without the approval of the manager is niaeve and leads to failure

It really isn't, and its the opposite thats true. Managers will undoubtedly have involvement, but managers will come and go and every club will need to be prepared for the situation if you sack the manager. If we recruit a manager in the next few weeks, the expectation should be a massive amount of the recruitment work behind the scenes has been done and anything a manager can add to this is a bonus. recruitment doesnt start once you appoint a manager,  If manager under-performs, then we need to be in a position where we can fire them and this doesn't impact recruitment.  Brighton's excellent recruitment record wasn't the result of Potter being some hot shot data analyst - it was the team that led to him having excellent resources to work with that De Zerbi could also come in and utilise. 

 

We got ourselves massively caught out with Rodgers, bringing his own recruitment model and team in.  You can't make the manager too powerful in our position.

Edited 13 June 2023 by Chelmofox

[Verumex]

1 minute ago, bmt said:

Personally if I was a player I wouldn't. Maybe some would but its always going to be a factor for a player who wants to be playing under a good coach etc.

 

Think you'd be mad to not consider all things which are going to have an impact on your future career.

Can you play on the right wing? 

Edited 13 June 2023 by Verumex

[lcfcbluearmy]

3 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

There's numerous clubs that would disagree with your statement about it being a disaster, Red Bull Salzburg for instance and AZ Alkmaar, you just appoint a manager who buys in to what you're trying to do, if you're going down that route.

That only works in a league and situation where you have time to develop players and there isn't huge money being pushed about. There is a reason that this model hasn't been successful in england/ big 5 European leagues that have huge money

[TJQuik]

29 minutes ago, Ginger_Filbert said:

How were favourites to win the league I’ll never know. 

The same reason we were always considered favourites for the Europa League.

[Lillehamring]

10 minutes ago, Thebluefox85 said:

The fact that we are now 70 odd days without a manager and 2weeks since the season has finished shows how badly this club is being run! They literally have no clue who they want or which direction to go! We are going to be in the championship for some time! I’m so angry how top has let this club fester when we got to have such a strong squad arrrggghhhh

That's not really fair - our MO has changed since the start of that time.  And would you really want us to pick a manager quickly or sensibly - if we get the right person then the timing is moot.  Had we gone for someone 70 days ago we'd be stuck with someone available then which would rule out mckenna, maresca et al.  Just because nothing has happened, doesn't mean they aren't doing anything.

[inckley fox]

51 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Always makes me laugh how fans will leave no stone unturned in dismissing the concerns voiced by fans who have been subjected to a manager or player previously. Even multiple fans from multiple clubs, still can be reverse swept for 6.

 

Then fast forward to a point in time when the same fans are busting hernias and ear drums abusing the said player or manager to high heaven.

 

Parker will be hated here if he's as boring as Fulham and Bournemouth fans have suggested. 

You may well be right. I have plenty of doubts about him, and would find it laughable if nobody at the club has rethought their fixation with possession-based football, and the notion that it's the only sustainable way forward. I would have thought that the failure to sustain even our EPL status doing just that would be enough (let alone the fact that we've had far greater success not playing that way, the fans aren't sold on it either, and every time they've gone too far down this road it's ended in tears).

 

But, you know, I've gone from forum to article to local rag with all of the potential candidates and, with the exception of those who have only been in management for a very brief time or not at all (Maresca, McKenna) you can find the same gripes and warnings everywhere. I've found plenty of moaning here and there from those who presumably know more about Hutter, who is a bit of a favourite among many City fans, than we do. There are Scunthorpe and Barnsley fans who hate Robins. Norwich fans who can't be doing with Smith.

 

You'd also find plenty of warnings coming from our fans should Rodgers - whom we know could probably do a fine job for a club for a couple of years if he's inheriting quality and not let loose with the transfer kitty and the backroom set-up - return to the EPL. In fact, I remember some of the less positive messages on the Bristol City forum when the manager who effectively crafted our modern club went there.

 

Regardless of the manager's style of play, it seems that you can find this sort of criticism about anyone who's been around for long enough to be a sensible candidate. That's not to say that, say, McKenna doesn't interest me more than Parker, just that we have a habit of preferring the unknown to people who have been on the scene, shown the sort of pedigree we need, but also picked up the usual criticism along the way.

[Foxdiamond]

12 minutes ago, bmt said:

Yeah don't get how people don't understand this. Why would you sign for someone if you didn't know who you'd be working for? I agree that targets should be sourced by head of recruitment but in actually getting them over the line it's important to have a manager.

Christian Fuchs was signed very shortly before NP left and he turned out OK.

[Chelmofox]

4 minutes ago, lcfcbluearmy said:

That only works in a league and situation where you have time to develop players and there isn't huge money being pushed about. There is a reason that this model hasn't been successful in england/ big 5 European leagues that have huge money

err - Brighton?

[lcfcbluearmy]

2 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

It really isn't, and its the opposite thats true. Managers will undoubtedly have involvement, but managers will come and go and every club will need to be prepared for the situation if you sack the manager. If we recruit a manager in the next few weeks, the expectation should be a massive amount of the recruitment work behind the scenes has been done and anything a manager can add to this is a bonus. recruitment doesnt start once you appoint a manager,  If manager under-performs, then we need to be in a position where we can fire them and this doesn't impact recruitment.  Brighton's excellent recruitment record wasn't the result of Potter being some hot shot data analyst - it was the team that led to him having excellent resources to work with that De Zerbi could also come in and utilise. 

 

We got ourselves massively caught out with Rodgers, bringing his own recruitment model and team in.  You can't make the manager too powerful in our position.

I don't think we are disagreeing here the recruitment team will be working behinfld the scenes and finding players that they think will fit agreed. However if you think Brighton signed off on buying a player without Potter or de zerbi or whoever is there manager saying that they agree that the player fits with there team and will be a useful addition then I would suggest you are wrong. If the manager dosent want a player there is no point buying them. 

 

What I'm not suggesting os That The manager is the one going and finding the players but the recruitment team will come with a shortlist and the manager will have the final say on which off that shortlist they want