Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Ged Roddy MBE appointed as Technical Director - resigned (p26)
Comments
-
To Sandgaard, his employer, yes. To fans - no, he doesn't. And we don't know what the nature of any conversations he had with TS actually were.Phil said:Don’t underestimate the part Roddy played in Bowyer’s departure. Neither ignore the part he played in Adkins arrival as I suspect he wasn’t on Thomas’s (or anyone else’s) radar.
He has remained silent throughout our slide down the league in which we saw some of the worst football any Charlton side has ever produced.
Surely as director of football he has a view and a responsibility to say something?
He COULD have been trying to get something to change for ages, similarly he COULD have been trying to convince Sandgaard that the results were just a blip that would miraculously reverse themselves. But no one knows because that's not how a club is run nor should it be.6 -
Roddy has twice sat in front of the fans for forums and things. If people honestly feel these are credible allegations, has anyone put a single one of these to him?4
-
Communication between the club and it's supporters should encompass the bad as well as the good. And surely the 'director' of football should be contributing to this?thenewbie said:
To Sandgaard, his employer, yes. To fans - no, he doesn't. And we don't know what the nature of any conversations he had with TS actually were.Phil said:Don’t underestimate the part Roddy played in Bowyer’s departure. Neither ignore the part he played in Adkins arrival as I suspect he wasn’t on Thomas’s (or anyone else’s) radar.
He has remained silent throughout our slide down the league in which we saw some of the worst football any Charlton side has ever produced.
Surely as director of football he has a view and a responsibility to say something?
He COULD have been trying to get something to change for ages, similarly he COULD have been trying to convince Sandgaard that the results were just a blip that would miraculously reverse themselves. But no one knows because that's not how a club is run nor should it be.
Silence when times are bad will only generate meltdowns on this and other social media sites. Which benefits no one!
Bad vibes won't generate additional supporters TS wants and needs to fill the terraces.1 -
He sat in front of the fans alongside Gallen during our bad run for CAST.RickAddick said:
Communication between the club and it's supporters should encompass the bad as well as the good. And surely the 'director' of football should be contributing to this?thenewbie said:
To Sandgaard, his employer, yes. To fans - no, he doesn't. And we don't know what the nature of any conversations he had with TS actually were.Phil said:Don’t underestimate the part Roddy played in Bowyer’s departure. Neither ignore the part he played in Adkins arrival as I suspect he wasn’t on Thomas’s (or anyone else’s) radar.
He has remained silent throughout our slide down the league in which we saw some of the worst football any Charlton side has ever produced.
Surely as director of football he has a view and a responsibility to say something?
He COULD have been trying to get something to change for ages, similarly he COULD have been trying to convince Sandgaard that the results were just a blip that would miraculously reverse themselves. But no one knows because that's not how a club is run nor should it be.
Silence when times are bad will only generate meltdowns on this and other social media sites. Which benefits no one!
Bad vibes won't generate additional supporters TS wants and needs to fill the terraces.5 -
He has and he has confirmed his remit covers recruitment, coaching pathways and the "Charlton style" amongst other things. I would say with any criticism of any of those it is valid to at least question to what degree Roddy is accountable or responsible.Chunes said:Roddy has twice sat in front of the fans for forums and things. If people honestly feel these are credible allegations, has anyone put a single one of these to him?
Of course its not ALL his fault, I don't think anyone is reasonably suggesting it is. The fact is in his first year we have gone from 2nd to 18th. Hardly a glorious success. If he doesn't have any influence on the first teams performance why has it been said he does?
3 -
His job is to implement charltons football structure from youth to first team, including heading up the recruitment team, we've heard from him, Adkins, Avory, Sandgaard, probably even Sandgaard's missus that that's what he's here to do.
There's no conspiracy around the fact we're trying to build some one club, start to finish policy, tactics, coaches, players, formations probably even what size bananas the players eat and when.
Given the sudden change in on pitch results and quality from end of last season to this, you can see how some sort of breakdown happening over the summer is thought to have happened.
A manager losing his way, maybe, a change in focus since Adkins' sacking, maybe, we'll never know for sure so will get the players awkwardly answering "yeah, the old gaffer was alright, but this new one is even more alright!", I doubt Jason Pearce is included on board meetings so what does he know past "coach said this, coach said that, coach didn't work out, coach went bye"
Is one person to blame, probably not. Just as long as any mistakes have been learned from is all that matters.2 -
But nobody put any allegations to him... That he'd insisted on a formation to Adkins, that he'd meddled in first team affairs, that he'd caused Bowyer's demise, personally caused the delay in the window, etc. etc.Cafc43v3r said:
He has and he has confirmed his remit covers recruitment, coaching pathways and the "Charlton style" amongst other things. I would say with any criticism of any of those it is valid to at least question to what degree Roddy is accountable or responsible.Chunes said:Roddy has twice sat in front of the fans for forums and things. If people honestly feel these are credible allegations, has anyone put a single one of these to him?
Of course its not ALL his fault, I don't think anyone is reasonably suggesting it is. The fact is in his first year we have gone from 2nd to 18th. Hardly a glorious success. If he doesn't have any influence on the first teams performance why has it been said he does?
I'd challenge anyone who keeps this stuff up, ask at the next one. The man should have the chance to defend himself from this character assassination. And I wouldn't be surprised to see his colleagues jumping to his defense as well.
In response to your last point, interested to know where it has been said that he has an influence on first team performances?
0 -
I'm genuinely not sure if he does. It seems to come down to what exactly is meant by the very nebulous sounding "Charlton style" part of the remit.Chunes said:
Where has it been said that he has an influence on first team performances?Cafc43v3r said:
He has and he has confirmed his remit covers recruitment, coaching pathways and the "Charlton style" amongst other things. I would say with any criticism of any of those it is valid to at least question to what degree Roddy is accountable or responsible.Chunes said:Roddy has twice sat in front of the fans for forums and things. If people honestly feel these are credible allegations, has anyone put a single one of these to him?
Of course its not ALL his fault, I don't think anyone is reasonably suggesting it is. The fact is in his first year we have gone from 2nd to 18th. Hardly a glorious success. If he doesn't have any influence on the first teams performance why has it been said he does?
IF this was a case of imposing a formation and telling the coaches they had to use it come what may then that is definitely problematic but I don't think it is. Bowyer had a different style/formation to Adkins. Jackson has a formation preference of his own different to both of those.
I'm not at all saying that there haven't been problems nor that any such problems have definitely been solved as it's far too soon to know that. I'm simply questioning whether he's the cause of the problems or being affected by them in turn.2 -
So are you saying that the recruitment and retention of players, promotion, retention and recruitment of coaching staff and the manager and style of play have no impact or influence on the first teams performance. Or are you saying that Roddy doesn't do any of that?Chunes said:
But nobody put any allegations to him, right? That he'd insisted on a formation to Adkins, that he'd meddled in first team affairs, that he'd caused Bowyer's demise, held up the transfer window, etc. Etc.Cafc43v3r said:
He has and he has confirmed his remit covers recruitment, coaching pathways and the "Charlton style" amongst other things. I would say with any criticism of any of those it is valid to at least question to what degree Roddy is accountable or responsible.Chunes said:Roddy has twice sat in front of the fans for forums and things. If people honestly feel these are credible allegations, has anyone put a single one of these to him?
Of course its not ALL his fault, I don't think anyone is reasonably suggesting it is. The fact is in his first year we have gone from 2nd to 18th. Hardly a glorious success. If he doesn't have any influence on the first teams performance why has it been said he does?
When sat faced with Ged Roddy in the flesh, I think people can fee the weak nature of the allegations, if they're being honest with themselves. Otherwise they'd have asked. And I'd challenge anyone who keeps this stuff up, don't keep on unless you're gonna ask at the next one.
Where has it been said that he has an influence on first team performances?3 - Sponsored links:
-
.
1 -
Looking forward to face to face meetings once again0
-
Seems some people think that the only person that influences the first team is the man picking the first eleven.
There's a lot more that goes into a football club. Everyone needs to be pulling together or it all falls apart like we saw.
The change from the end of last season to the beginning of this one has never been explained and will leave a big cloud over the summer recruitment and changes.0 -
Bowyer left, Adkins came in, set a style of play and got good results - last season. The results/performances this season were poor, as per word from at least one senior player due to weak leadership. That manager was then removed, the same players (retained or recruited under Roddy) are now performing to a higher standard.Cafc43v3r said:
So are you saying that the recruitment and retention of players, promotion, retention and recruitment of coaching staff and the manager and style of play have no impact or influence on the first teams performance. Or are you saying that Roddy doesn't do any of that?Chunes said:
But nobody put any allegations to him, right? That he'd insisted on a formation to Adkins, that he'd meddled in first team affairs, that he'd caused Bowyer's demise, held up the transfer window, etc. Etc.Cafc43v3r said:
He has and he has confirmed his remit covers recruitment, coaching pathways and the "Charlton style" amongst other things. I would say with any criticism of any of those it is valid to at least question to what degree Roddy is accountable or responsible.Chunes said:Roddy has twice sat in front of the fans for forums and things. If people honestly feel these are credible allegations, has anyone put a single one of these to him?
Of course its not ALL his fault, I don't think anyone is reasonably suggesting it is. The fact is in his first year we have gone from 2nd to 18th. Hardly a glorious success. If he doesn't have any influence on the first teams performance why has it been said he does?
When sat faced with Ged Roddy in the flesh, I think people can fee the weak nature of the allegations, if they're being honest with themselves. Otherwise they'd have asked. And I'd challenge anyone who keeps this stuff up, don't keep on unless you're gonna ask at the next one.
Where has it been said that he has an influence on first team performances?
In essence there's no actual proof Roddy is doing anything other than his actual job. Clearly something happened for the change between the teams performances end of last season and the beginning of this one but there's multiple possible causes. It could be one or more of several people within the new system that was imposed, it could just be a badly implemented system.
0 -
Roddy himself is a major part of deciding the club's 'system' and that's from his own mouth.thenewbie said:
Bowyer left, Adkins came in, set a style of play and got good results - last season. The results/performances this season were poor, as per word from at least one senior player due to weak leadership. That manager was then removed, the same players (retained or recruited under Roddy) are now performing to a higher standard.Cafc43v3r said:
So are you saying that the recruitment and retention of players, promotion, retention and recruitment of coaching staff and the manager and style of play have no impact or influence on the first teams performance. Or are you saying that Roddy doesn't do any of that?Chunes said:
But nobody put any allegations to him, right? That he'd insisted on a formation to Adkins, that he'd meddled in first team affairs, that he'd caused Bowyer's demise, held up the transfer window, etc. Etc.Cafc43v3r said:
He has and he has confirmed his remit covers recruitment, coaching pathways and the "Charlton style" amongst other things. I would say with any criticism of any of those it is valid to at least question to what degree Roddy is accountable or responsible.Chunes said:Roddy has twice sat in front of the fans for forums and things. If people honestly feel these are credible allegations, has anyone put a single one of these to him?
Of course its not ALL his fault, I don't think anyone is reasonably suggesting it is. The fact is in his first year we have gone from 2nd to 18th. Hardly a glorious success. If he doesn't have any influence on the first teams performance why has it been said he does?
When sat faced with Ged Roddy in the flesh, I think people can fee the weak nature of the allegations, if they're being honest with themselves. Otherwise they'd have asked. And I'd challenge anyone who keeps this stuff up, don't keep on unless you're gonna ask at the next one.
Where has it been said that he has an influence on first team performances?
In essence there's no actual proof he's doing anything other than his actual job. Clearly something happened for the change between the teams performances end of last season and the beginning of this one but there's multiple possible causes. It could be one or more of several people within the new system that was imposed, it could just be a badly implemented system.0 -
System as in the on field tactics and team selection, or system with regards to the buying, selling and bringing on of players?SELR_addicks said:
Roddy himself is a major part of deciding the club's 'system' and that's from his own mouth.thenewbie said:
Bowyer left, Adkins came in, set a style of play and got good results - last season. The results/performances this season were poor, as per word from at least one senior player due to weak leadership. That manager was then removed, the same players (retained or recruited under Roddy) are now performing to a higher standard.Cafc43v3r said:
So are you saying that the recruitment and retention of players, promotion, retention and recruitment of coaching staff and the manager and style of play have no impact or influence on the first teams performance. Or are you saying that Roddy doesn't do any of that?Chunes said:
But nobody put any allegations to him, right? That he'd insisted on a formation to Adkins, that he'd meddled in first team affairs, that he'd caused Bowyer's demise, held up the transfer window, etc. Etc.Cafc43v3r said:
He has and he has confirmed his remit covers recruitment, coaching pathways and the "Charlton style" amongst other things. I would say with any criticism of any of those it is valid to at least question to what degree Roddy is accountable or responsible.Chunes said:Roddy has twice sat in front of the fans for forums and things. If people honestly feel these are credible allegations, has anyone put a single one of these to him?
Of course its not ALL his fault, I don't think anyone is reasonably suggesting it is. The fact is in his first year we have gone from 2nd to 18th. Hardly a glorious success. If he doesn't have any influence on the first teams performance why has it been said he does?
When sat faced with Ged Roddy in the flesh, I think people can fee the weak nature of the allegations, if they're being honest with themselves. Otherwise they'd have asked. And I'd challenge anyone who keeps this stuff up, don't keep on unless you're gonna ask at the next one.
Where has it been said that he has an influence on first team performances?
In essence there's no actual proof he's doing anything other than his actual job. Clearly something happened for the change between the teams performances end of last season and the beginning of this one but there's multiple possible causes. It could be one or more of several people within the new system that was imposed, it could just be a badly implemented system.2 -
I actually didn't say anything. I just asked you where it had been said. What was said?Cafc43v3r said:
So are you saying that the recruitment and retention of players, promotion, retention and recruitment of coaching staff and the manager and style of play have no impact or influence on the first teams performance. Or are you saying that Roddy doesn't do any of that?Chunes said:
But nobody put any allegations to him, right? That he'd insisted on a formation to Adkins, that he'd meddled in first team affairs, that he'd caused Bowyer's demise, held up the transfer window, etc. Etc.Cafc43v3r said:
He has and he has confirmed his remit covers recruitment, coaching pathways and the "Charlton style" amongst other things. I would say with any criticism of any of those it is valid to at least question to what degree Roddy is accountable or responsible.Chunes said:Roddy has twice sat in front of the fans for forums and things. If people honestly feel these are credible allegations, has anyone put a single one of these to him?
Of course its not ALL his fault, I don't think anyone is reasonably suggesting it is. The fact is in his first year we have gone from 2nd to 18th. Hardly a glorious success. If he doesn't have any influence on the first teams performance why has it been said he does?
When sat faced with Ged Roddy in the flesh, I think people can fee the weak nature of the allegations, if they're being honest with themselves. Otherwise they'd have asked. And I'd challenge anyone who keeps this stuff up, don't keep on unless you're gonna ask at the next one.
Where has it been said that he has an influence on first team performances?
Also some questions re: the source of your points on the previous page unanswered. It would be good to know. I don't believe you are making things up, just would like to know the source and actual quote.0 -
Around and around and around we go. Have we not done this to death, If you really do not understand the clubs position then you have not been watching since 2008. The entire last decade has been a corporate, executive and operational performance disaster. It has consequences, long lasting consequences.oohaahmortimer said:We’re in the worse period in our 100 year league history soon to be 9 seasons in 14 in the third tier of wankness
of course there are gonna be questions, why are we so fucking shit and whose fault is it ffs
oh it’s no one’s, everything is rosey cos we’re flying in 18th position in this shithouse league ffs
I have tried to explain Mr Roddy’s role at least 3 times. If you do not understand it really is your problem. One particularly constructive comment defined my contribution as Corporate bollocks. C’est la vie.
I am comfortable with the role GR was and is being asked to fulfil. Does he need to do it better? Yes, but he is not alone.
He is doing precisely the job he was asked to do by his boss. 5 people TS, GR, SG, NA and SA signed into the business and football plan. In business and financial terms there was nothing wrong with the plan.
There were however assumptions made and a failure to understand the on field and off field infrastructure and the culture of a club on which they tried to impose their business plan. The club was and arguably is still not strong enough to carry the scale of technical, operational and communication challenges that came with number and nature of changes made.
It proved too big a challenge for Mr Adkins. He was ill served by the collective performance of the entire football executive during the close season, pre season and early season. That said, he signed into the « programme » and his approach simply was unable to impact our poor performances.
TS, GR and SG have at least twice owned and stood accountable for the decisions made but someone had to pay the price.
However I am not entirely sure there would have been, at the time, many Head coaches who would have readily and easily embraced the overall business plan. It was technical theory and strategy over operational need. It is a commonplace error of judgement.
If you do not understand the direction of travel perhaps you could tell me, with the new contract for young Ralfi Hand, the last time we had 54 professionals ( nearly 5 teams) under full contract.
IIRC it would probably be circa the early 1960s when we ran an « A » 3rd team in the Metropolitan League. Even then I believe most of the fringe players were part timers. I recall seeing a young brick house of a Centre Forward, I think his name was Jack Ryan, score with a powerful header. Resembling the modern day (Millwall) Matt Smith he was at the time either a full time Policeman or in the Police Reserve.
Ultimately I cannot help the personality based obsession so prevalent today. Nobody comes to work each day to fail. More often than not poor performance arises from the infrastructure and processes in and with which they work. There were key missed steps dating back to April and May which indicated key people were simply not on the same page.
TS, GR, SG and now JJ are collectively accountable. In terms of playing style JJ has imposed a different performance and structural discipline. I have added comments to the recent Leyton Orient post match thread. I am simply not sure where everybody now fits within the revised structure.
The job TS is asking his Head Coach to do goes well beyond the 25 names in the frame for the first team senior squad. If you asses the business plan to include any number of the notable emerging talents within the U18s then across the football executive you are looking at game planning circa 65-70 playing careers. There is still a significant journey to travel here.
6 -
I have never said there is. What I am saying is what ever he has been doing as had no positive effect on the first team as proved by our league position and arguably our worst ever 12 months of results.thenewbie said:
Bowyer left, Adkins came in, set a style of play and got good results - last season. The results/performances this season were poor, as per word from at least one senior player due to weak leadership. That manager was then removed, the same players (retained or recruited under Roddy) are now performing to a higher standard.Cafc43v3r said:
So are you saying that the recruitment and retention of players, promotion, retention and recruitment of coaching staff and the manager and style of play have no impact or influence on the first teams performance. Or are you saying that Roddy doesn't do any of that?Chunes said:
But nobody put any allegations to him, right? That he'd insisted on a formation to Adkins, that he'd meddled in first team affairs, that he'd caused Bowyer's demise, held up the transfer window, etc. Etc.Cafc43v3r said:
He has and he has confirmed his remit covers recruitment, coaching pathways and the "Charlton style" amongst other things. I would say with any criticism of any of those it is valid to at least question to what degree Roddy is accountable or responsible.Chunes said:Roddy has twice sat in front of the fans for forums and things. If people honestly feel these are credible allegations, has anyone put a single one of these to him?
Of course its not ALL his fault, I don't think anyone is reasonably suggesting it is. The fact is in his first year we have gone from 2nd to 18th. Hardly a glorious success. If he doesn't have any influence on the first teams performance why has it been said he does?
When sat faced with Ged Roddy in the flesh, I think people can fee the weak nature of the allegations, if they're being honest with themselves. Otherwise they'd have asked. And I'd challenge anyone who keeps this stuff up, don't keep on unless you're gonna ask at the next one.
Where has it been said that he has an influence on first team performances?
In essence there's no actual proof Roddy is doing anything other than his actual job. Clearly something happened for the change between the teams performances end of last season and the beginning of this one but there's multiple possible causes. It could be one or more of several people within the new system that was imposed, it could just be a badly implemented system.
If the critism, valid or not, is about things in Roddy's remit its fair to at least ask the question. It might be nothing to do with Roddy why it went wrong but that's also potentially a failing of his leadership and handle of his brief?0 -
Would love to see the club's job descriptions for each role......1
- Sponsored links:
-
Thank you Grapevine for your concise post.
No way was it verbose and you highlighted some salient points regarding our infrastructure off the pitch and how it needs to dovetail from 1st team player to 1st year scholars.
1 -
I am not going to quote @Grapevine49, to save everyone's fingers, but one point I totally agree with, and I paraphrase:
Adkins should never have been offered, or accepted, the managers job in the circumstances and conditions it was offered under.
In my opinion, and its only my opinion, any external candidate would have struggled/failed.6 -
i don't agree with Grapevine's post at all - football fortunes can turn round very quickly - if bowyer hadn't had the rug (finances) pulled from under him when we got promoted to the championship, that side could have stayed together and been added to and we may well be pushing or even be in, the premiership by now - as i've said before, its a football club not a worldwide corporate business - good infrastructure obviously helps to sustain good results / a strong business but its 11 blokes, a football and a good manager as jacko is now proving - none of the stuff roddy is doing has any bearing on what we do this Saturday or the rest of the year - bowyer got us promoted with bugger all infrastructure as the club had apparently been 'hollowed out' - Lennie Lawrence did the same at selhurst - its a simple game if you have good players and a good manager and don't over complicate things.10
-
Phil said:Don’t underestimate the part Roddy played in Bowyer’s departure. Neither ignore the part he played in Adkins arrival as I suspect he wasn’t on Thomas’s (or anyone else’s) radar.
He has remained silent throughout our slide down the league in which we saw some of the worst football any Charlton side has ever produced.
Surely as director of football he has a view and a responsibility to say something?RickAddick said:Communication between the club and it's supporters should encompass the bad as well as the good. And surely the 'director' of football should be contributing to this?
Silence when times are bad will only generate meltdowns on this and other social media sites. Which benefits no one!
Bad vibes won't generate additional supporters TS wants and needs to fill the terraces.
Roddy isn't Director of Football, that's Steve Gallen. Roddy is Technical Director.
0 -
So....he's pretty much gone now.
Only left acting as a consultant for Category One and no longer an employee or director.0 -
No longer a full time employee at the Club - but just announced softly.
He had to hand the "Black box" back to HR on his way out.0 -
just hoping he's made some tangible progress on the CAT 1 academy stuff and not just got a quote for a portacabin0
-
Just noticed your comments. There is no conflict at all in what you say. It is a subset of exactly the same position. I entirely agree it is about good players and a good manager. It is however also a matter of how you get to that point in the first place and then maintain it on a sustainable and stable basis.DOUCHER said:i don't agree with Grapevine's post at all - football fortunes can turn round very quickly - if bowyer hadn't had the rug (finances) pulled from under him when we got promoted to the championship, that side could have stayed together and been added to and we may well be pushing or even be in, the premiership by now - as i've said before, its a football club not a worldwide corporate business - good infrastructure obviously helps to sustain good results / a strong business but its 11 blokes, a football and a good manager as jacko is now proving - none of the stuff roddy is doing has any bearing on what we do this Saturday or the rest of the year - bowyer got us promoted with bugger all infrastructure as the club had apparently been 'hollowed out' - Lennie Lawrence did the same at selhurst - its a simple game if you have good players and a good manager and don't over complicate things.
It is a matter of bottom up or top down management. I.e. do you empower the workforce (manager & players) or impose executive disciplines. The best answer normally is you do both.
You focus on personal qualities and decisions I focus on business process and why those decisions were made. You can identify whether an individual fails I focus on why they failed. Nobody at this level goes to work everyday to fail. If the process is wrong then it won’t matter who you employ.
16 Managers in 15yrs can’t all be wankers.
Your points on Lawrence and Bowyer are well made. Powell did the same. Your comment about the rug pulled from under the latter two is the issue. It defines why we have spent so long in League 1.
There was no sustainable basis on which to build. Why are Millwall where they are?
At no point have I said TS has it right. I have said it is a perfectly logical strategy to follow and he had every right to expect the CVs in the room to work it out. They didn’t and now Adkins and Geddy have paid the price. That’s business.
Is TS blameless? No, everyone in the room had a part to play. Whatever the strength of a strategy ( Roddy is primarily a strategist) it is when and how it is implemented which will define its success.
The club was not structurally strong enough (a matter of due diligence) and the unity of the entire management team was not strong enough to handle the changes, both start with TS. You can have what expectation you like. It happens with new businesses.GR offered real value in strategic thinking but operationally was probably a Subject Matter Expect too far.We move to seemingly a more streamlined and defined process. As always the proof will be in the results.0 -
Thanks Grapevine and yes, i agree that the infrastructure is needed to sustain things which is why i said exactly that in my post - my point is though that the set up at a football club is a lot simpler than you make it sound - a good manager, good recruitment, a good academy and a stable and interested owner prepared to fund things on a consistent basis so everybody can work to a plan. Thats it and that has always been it - the stable owner has been the bit missing for a number of years now - we now have it but we don't need to overcomplicate it and we don't need to be in the doldrums for another 5 years because of the last 15, because as i say, football fortunes can change very quickly.Grapevine49 said:
Just noticed your comments. There is no conflict at all in what you say. It is a subset of exactly the same position. I entirely agree it is about good players and a good manager. It is however also a matter of how you get to that point in the first place and then maintain it on a sustainable and stable basis.DOUCHER said:i don't agree with Grapevine's post at all - football fortunes can turn round very quickly - if bowyer hadn't had the rug (finances) pulled from under him when we got promoted to the championship, that side could have stayed together and been added to and we may well be pushing or even be in, the premiership by now - as i've said before, its a football club not a worldwide corporate business - good infrastructure obviously helps to sustain good results / a strong business but its 11 blokes, a football and a good manager as jacko is now proving - none of the stuff roddy is doing has any bearing on what we do this Saturday or the rest of the year - bowyer got us promoted with bugger all infrastructure as the club had apparently been 'hollowed out' - Lennie Lawrence did the same at selhurst - its a simple game if you have good players and a good manager and don't over complicate things.
It is a matter of bottom up or top down management. I.e. do you empower the workforce (manager & players) or impose executive disciplines. The best answer normally is you do both.
You focus on personal qualities and decisions I focus on business process and why those decisions were made. You can identify whether an individual fails I focus on why they failed. Nobody at this level goes to work everyday to fail. If the process is wrong then it won’t matter who you employ.
16 Managers in 15yrs can’t all be wankers.
Your points on Lawrence and Bowyer are well made. Powell did the same. Your comment about the rug pulled from under the latter two is the issue. It defines why we have spent so long in League 1.
There was no sustainable basis on which to build. Why are Millwall where they are?
At no point have I said TS has it right. I have said it is a perfectly logical strategy to follow and he had every right to expect the CVs in the room to work it out. They didn’t and now Adkins and Geddy have paid the price. That’s business.
Is TS blameless? No, everyone in the room had a part to play. Whatever the strength of a strategy ( Roddy is primarily a strategist) it is when and how it is implemented which will define its success.
The club was not structurally strong enough (a matter of due diligence) and the unity of the entire management team was not strong enough to handle the changes, both start with TS. You can have what expectation you like. It happens with new businesses.GR offered real value in strategic thinking but operationally was probably a Subject Matter Expect too far.We move to seemingly a more streamlined and defined process. As always the proof will be in the results.1
