It's late, I might be way off. Upon relegation, the club tell Danny they want to go down a different route. They've formulated some sort of recruitment strategy based on statistics. Danny agrees, so long as he gets to make the decision on who signs etc. So the recruitment team suggest we bring in Winnall, Hourihane, Berry, Hemmings. But Danny is worried this isn't enough and that we need some proven laikers brought in. The club accept that. And so we agree to sign Turnbull, Bailey, Lita and Treacy. Time shows that the likes of Hourihane, Winnall etc, the recruitment team's suggested signings have been the top performers, whereas the lads of experience that Danny wanted, they've not had the same impact. It gets to the New Year and the club mention this, and certain laikers are shown the door. And the club suggest to Danny a few more lads. Lalkovic, Pearson, Scowen, O'Sullivan. There's a fall out at some point. And the club, looking at the early successes of Hourihane, Winnall, Berry, Scowen, Pearson et al, they assume they're onto a winner, and that it's Danny's older heads that have failed. They feel they're better off without Danny, and better off appointing a head coach who buys into this strategy they're sure is the way forward. And we know the rest... Thoughts?
No. It's as simple as the club were 17th in the league and thought they could do better. Lee Johnson was appointed because nobody else wanted the job. No cloak and dagger transfer nonsense. No secret plotting. The strategy is Johnson's - this is how he believes a football club should be run.
I've always been convinced there was a falling put over recruitment. That transfer window was a shambles and we ended up substantially weaker than we had been a few weeks earlier. I'm sure with the experience Danny has he could see where things were heading and there must have been some discussion about it Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
Your theory adds meat to the bones that I wrote about in my post "A Sea Change at the Top". As I outlined in that post, I think that there is evidence that Johnson's responsibilities are different from those who have gone before, and that the reluctance to explain the reason for the change of job title and the sudden departure of Danny Wilson give depth to the feeling that something has changed. Of course, it is the board, or specifically the owner, who sign the cheques. Therefore, they have always controlled who the club sign and the wages that the club is prepared to pay, so any change that has been made is probably more subtle than taking away the manager's responsibility for buying players, which is why I suggested that the responsibility has been given to a transfer committee consisting of say Johnson, Mansford and Watkins. It is unclear how this works and whether any member of the committee has a veto on signings, but I think that you are right when you suggest that there is a bias towards younger players. A do not forget about SCMP. It will not have escaped the logic of the board that very young players (e.g Crowley) are not covered by the SCMP rules, and also that young players are generally less costly to buy and less costly in wages. The policy of filling the squad with young players will have ticked all the boxes for a board who want to balance the books and comply with SCMP. However, I remain convinced that the biggest problem was that the club missed out on a lot of its transfer targets in the last window, and that the number of loans that we have had to resort to is a reflection of this, rather than an active policy. I also believe that the loan agreement for Michael Smith is a sign of a disagreement and compromise within the transfer committee. If I am right, we will see a very busy January transfer window. If I am wrong, 4th tier football awaits.
Winnall wasn't a purchase made using our "recruitment system"..He was signed based on the old scouting method.
It holds water. I suspect though the signing of lita and tracey is more down to the absolute shambles that occurred over the transfer window last summer post relegation rather than those players being high on the list of recruiment options.
My Theory Whoever is making the decisions is all over the ******* shop. And thus we are Conference bound. Get used to it.
Think back to how many managers were in the frame and ruled themselves out, or that we were refused permission to speak to.
Re: My Theory Yep, I don't think anyone is corrupt or dishonest or a fraud or out to line their own pockets, any of that stuff. I just don't think anyone at that club that makes critical decisions on or off the field is any good.
I can't remember any managers ruling themselves out, but I think Swindon knocked back our approach for Cooper. If you think 'nobody wanted the job' then I disagree. Because I know different.
I seem to recall O'Driscoll and Butcher ruling themselves out again, and Rosler and Adkins were both in the frame - Adkins was definitely the fan choice to take over. Cooper was the other one. I think had any of those five expressed a serious interest or been available that they'd have got the job instead of Johnson. So yeah, perhaps not "nobody" but I definitely don't think he was first or even fifth choice.
