You said players don't agree pt's and then have a medical. Now you say the procedure is fee, pt's and then medical.
Yeah. Said the same thing??? You dont agree pt's and go on to have a medical. I thought that obvious. Soz.
I don't know how you know this stuff, I'm not sure it's true, and Bishop's statements at the time were all pretty convincing in terms of his desire to join Portsmouth. And it's one player we didn't sign. One player who has never played a game above League One. Why are we looking for things to beat Mansford with? If he's a poor CEO the evidence will be more obvious than that. I don't think the problem is one person. And, if it is, it's more likely Sadler.
And Brannagan is another player we didn't sign either. How many times did we go in for him? And how many contracts have we given to players who are basically nothing more than crocks? How much money have we poured down the drain there? All pretty compelling evidence and reasons why this season has been an unmitigated disaster.
You don't have a medical until pt's are agreed. That is the way it is.
I've said the responsibility is collective/shared on quite a few occasions. You seem to think that means no responsibility. Think harder.
Sure. So he failed a medical or there was a change of heart. I'm not convinced it was a bad decision and I don't know whose decision it was.
But referring all key spending and recruitment decisions to the boss. Working together but one man firmly in charge. That's how it seems but I don't know. If Ben is in sole charge of recruiting managers then he's not very good at it and should lose that job or his job perhaps. But he's hanging on in there which suggests that Sadler doesn't hold him ultimately responsible. To me it suggests that anyway. Quite a few people have left the building since Sadler took over but Mansford remains. I think I can see how it works. Roughly speaking. You have to stay on the right side of one person in particular. We're heading to blue in the face stuffI've said the responsibility is collective/shared on quite a few occasions. You seem to think that means no responsibility. Think harder.
He has managed to survive all this with his job intact and that suggests to me that he is staying onside with Sadler. Doing as Sadler wishes. Referring key stuff to Sadler for decisions. Which I'd expect. It's up to Sadler to stump up the money for Brannagan. He didn't.
Sure. So he failed a medical or there was a change of heart. I'm not convinced it was a bad decision and I don't know whose decision it was.
My suspicion is that the way the club is run is down to Sadler, and Mansford is a posher, despite being from Hull, Matt Williams. Being paid (much better than Matt Williams) to do all the donkey work, and to shield the owner to some extent. Take the flak from the peasants. You lot.
Karl Oyston had the wisdom to bring in Jimmy Armfield to help with manager choices. To either use his advice, or to absolve himself of criticism of it went wrong. Knowing Jimmy would never speak up in public about it so he could still do whatever he wanted. We've no idea what happened there either.
Your blueness is down to your own closed form of thinking, or confusion, I'd suggest!We're heading to blue in the face stuff
SS employs a CEO to run 'the business' that's the definition of BM's role. I doubt SS is involved in large percentage of decisions- he has a day time job to do, and so trusts BM to be the figurehead of the business.
I'm sure SS would be involved in the managers appointment and Graysons appointment stank of a misguided fan taking over, but at what time in the process would he normally get involved? I doubt he would be involved in drawing up shortlists. Maybe last interview? One before? I'd be surprised if he's not being briefed in writing with recommendations/notes from BM, the CEO in conjunction with his recruitment team. And is swayed by them.
You seem to have a reluctance to read the words penned. I said SS will leave the running of the business to BM, the CEO and wrt the manager only get involved at the final stages. That's SS trusting his employee, BM, to get things right. We are talking about the football side and clearly that is the main focus of the business and appears to have gone boobies up over the last 12+ months, with signs being there before that. That's BM territory.Your blueness is down to your own closed form of thinking, or confusion, I'd suggest!
Your sentences all start with things like "I doubt", "I'm sure", "I'd be surprised".
And you concede that SS is likely involved in some key decisions. Which is what I said above - he sets the budget, he'll have a wage structure agreed, he'll at least sanction the key recruitment decisions. He will be briefed by BM, and swayed by his recruitment team. BM would have gone by now if he was actually responsible for the poor run of recruitment decisions made by the club. I suspect. Others have gone for less.
So, like you say, it's pretty shared isn't it? With SS calling the shots. As you'd expect to do if it was your millions going into the club and paying these people's wages.
I'm not getting blue here, just calmly pointing out that you appear to agree with me after all.
I read your words back to you. I'll try again.
not sure why you'd pay some-one 300k pa if you were ultimately responsible for all the decisions being made. Especially when it comes to football matters. But hey, you keep digging that hole and making excuses. It keeps the thread going and we all know how you love a good argument even though you might try and deny it.I read your words back to you. I'll try again.
"I'm sure SS would be involved in the managers appointment." Indeed, SS said he had the final say on Appleton who interviewed really well.
"I'd be surprised if he's (SS) not being briefed in writing with recommendations." So BM just makes recommendations. You say.
You mention a recruitment team.
You say SS is swayed by these recommendations.
So is it not joint responsibility with SS ultimately responsible? You seem to be describing the same thing as me but then deducing that BM is ultimately responsible. I think SS is accepting that he isn't, or he would have gone by now. And it's his decision to make anyway - he's in full view of all the facts, and owns the place. And his best mate has gone, so there's no pussy footing around, obviously.
I don't know what more can be said? SS runs his own large company and employs BM as CEO FULL TIME to look after BFC. It's seems bleedin' obvious to me that by definition the CEO makes pretty much all the decisions and in the managers case will present his findings for final discussion and rubberstamping by the board of Directors.I read your words back to you. I'll try again.
"I'm sure SS would be involved in the managers appointment." Indeed, SS said he had the final say on Appleton who interviewed really well. Of course he would have the final say based on the recommendations of the CEO and boardroom discussions. No mention of candidates eliminated by the CEO and his team who might have been better.
"I'd be surprised if he's (SS) not being briefed in writing with recommendations." So BM just makes recommendations. You say. See above. Same thing.
You mention a recruitment team. The CEO's workforce answerable to him
You say SS is swayed by these recommendations. Thats what the CEO is there for, to sift through applications. You think SS oversaw everything to the point that BM wasn't needed? You think he oversees the purchase of T bags too?
So is it not joint responsibility with SS ultimately responsible? You seem to be describing the same thing as me but then deducing that BM is ultimately responsible. I think SS is accepting that he isn't, or he would have gone by now. And it's his decision to make anyway - he's in full view of all the facts, and owns the place. And his best mate has gone, so there's no pussy footing around, obviously.
Because it's your millions going in. And 300k isn't a lot of money in Sadler's world tbh. There are no excuses here and it's typical of you to say stuff like that. Childish.
He employs BM full time sure. He employs a lot of people full time. Sometimes he gets rid. Why has he not got rid of BM? You and 20s obviously would, but the guy with the money who BM is accountable to hasn't done. So I think you're getting something wrong.
Of course you are making excuses. Saying he's better at some parts of his job or words to that effect is making an excuse.
So what? I think he does need better advice. From various sources. We've seen changes of personnel with this in mind. Saying BM is better at some parts of his job is not an excuse. It's a fact. You don't seem to understand what an excuse is. There is a collective problem and you are trying to put it all on one person is all I am saying. Which is a mistake in my opinion. And there is actually only one person who can put those things right when there is a problem. And we are not well placed to grasp what is going on, what is going wrong and why. And to be honest we have zero control over this stuff so it is pointless. Sadler has to sort it out. He's probably more to blame than BM. But, like BM, he is doing some stuff well and other stuff not so well. He's better at some aspects of ownership than others!
A very good post.
Thanks. Phil called it nonsense.
You'll be telling me next that bears have loo roll hanging from forest trees?