Confirmed: Ross Wilson joins Nottingham Forest

[Bluedell 5,342]

32 minutes ago, Bill said:

Wilson came to us with a decent reputation and got a fair bit of praise along the way for some of his achievements. We'll probably never know why some of our signings and squad management went so wrong but I doubt it's all down to Wilson alone.

Agreed. Gerrard apparently insisted that the 55 squad was left intact but yet Wilson is receiving the criticism for the fallout from that. Presumably Gio had a similar say last summer on the likes of Kent and Morelos.

 

Do many of our fans really want our manager being overruled by a DoF? It seems so. 

[Blue Moon 1,113]

9 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Agreed. Gerrard apparently insisted that the 55 squad was left intact but yet Wilson is receiving the criticism for the fallout from that. Presumably Gio had a similar say last summer on the likes of Kent and Morelos.

 

Do many of our fans really want our manager being overruled by a DoF? It seems so. 

I would say the board have a duty to ensure we don't sleepwalk into a repetition of the situation we find ourselves in this year.

[Bill 13,717]

9 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Agreed. Gerrard apparently insisted that the 55 squad was left intact but yet Wilson is receiving the criticism for the fallout from that. Presumably Gio had a similar say last summer on the likes of Kent and Morelos.

 

Do many of our fans really want our manager being overruled by a DoF? It seems so. 

I guess there are some fans who just need their fit of pique to get through the day.

[Sutton_blows_goats 4,221]

35 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Agreed. Gerrard apparently insisted that the 55 squad was left intact but yet Wilson is receiving the criticism for the fallout from that. Presumably Gio had a similar say last summer on the likes of Kent and Morelos.

 

Do many of our fans really want our manager being overruled by a DoF? It seems so. 

I think it depends, fir example if our manager wants to spend 5 million on a 33 year old who is injured all the time and wants 50k per week is that sensible for the club considering a manager can be fired if we dont win 3 games in a row and then that player isn't liked by the next manager? (or 2.5 million on an alcoholic Mexican..)

 

But I agree with the overall point, a first team manager should get a fair amount of trust and empowerment.

 

Its a balance I suppose, get in a manager that aligns with the clubs visions and model of operations. That way a DoF wouldn't/shouldn't have to overrule.

[Rousseau 9,382]

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

It's cool.  @Rousseausays we'll flip Tillman for £10m in January.  

[yuddie 1,012]

Find it a bit mental how many people are saying scrap the DoF position or asking if we even need it. Even seen people ask if Celtic have one as if that makes a blind bit of difference.

 

The manager sorting contracts, scouting players and overseeing the medical n youth departments is the kind of thing done in non-league football, a few steps down into non-league as well. Trust the process, if this didn't work then any of the teams that are serious in Europe or their country's top league wouldn't have one.

 

Case in point being Liverpool who were derided under their previous DoF Damien Comoli (butchered that probs) because they had a transfer comitee. He left and a couple of seasons down the line they're ucl champions with the same principles and structure except under Michael Edwards.

[JohnMc 2,473]

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

Agreed. Gerrard apparently insisted that the 55 squad was left intact but yet Wilson is receiving the criticism for the fallout from that. Presumably Gio had a similar say last summer on the likes of Kent and Morelos.

 

Do many of our fans really want our manager being overruled by a DoF? It seems so. 

Isn't that what's always happened in football? There's always someone who tells the manager if a player can be signed or not and if the club has accepted a bid for a player. The manager isn't always going to like that, but that's the reality of it. I suppose it used to be a director or CEO, today it's a combination of CEO and DoF. 

With managers rarely lasting more than a few seasons these days it makes sense that someone else takes responsibility for recruitment. Indeed even calling them managers is disingenuous, their job is coaching the first team, whoever is in it.  

[Bluedell 5,342]

2 hours ago, Blue Moon said:

I would say the board have a duty to ensure we don't sleepwalk into a repetition of the situation we find ourselves in this year.

So you want the board to make footballing decisions and overrule the manager?

[Bluedell 5,342]

2 hours ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

I think it depends, fir example if our manager wants to spend 5 million on a 33 year old who is injured all the time and wants 50k per week is that sensible for the club considering a manager can be fired if we dont win 3 games in a row and then that player isn't liked by the next manager? (or 2.5 million on an alcoholic Mexican..)

 

But I agree with the overall point, a first team manager should get a fair amount of trust and empowerment.

 

Its a balance I suppose, get in a manager that aligns with the clubs visions and model of operations. That way a DoF wouldn't/shouldn't have to overrule.

Agree with your example, but nothing like that was done. Looking at Alfie and kent for example, people are getting their knickers in a twist for them leaving for free. While it's not ideal, Gerrard didn't want to sell them 2 summers ago, and it's doubtful they would have agreed to leave last summer anyway...and presumably Gio wanted them to stay. I'm not sure when people think Wilson should have put his foot down and tried to sell them.

 

Nothing that was done was totally outrageous without the benefit of hindsight.

[Bluedell 5,342]

1 hour ago, JohnMc said:

Isn't that what's always happened in football? There's always someone who tells the manager if a player can be signed or not and if the club has accepted a bid for a player. The manager isn't always going to like that, but that's the reality of it. I suppose it used to be a director or CEO, today it's a combination of CEO and DoF. 

With managers rarely lasting more than a few seasons these days it makes sense that someone else takes responsibility for recruitment. Indeed even calling them managers is disingenuous, their job is coaching the first team, whoever is in it.  

I guess I'd argue that we do have a manager, rather than a first team coach, irrespective of titles.

 

I get what you're saying to an extent, but it gets thrown out the window when you bring in a new manager who uses different tactics, or different tactics are adopted with the same manager (see Tierney and Walker suffering from tactical changes at Arsenal and City). 

 

Obviously there are times when it's irrelevant what a manager says (we aren't turning down Bassey or Patterson transfers or bidding for Bellingham) but we seem to still be largely following what the manager wants, rather than him having no say and the DoF making the transfer decisions.