I know we all look back through rose tinted glasses on a simpler time when managers were in control of all recruitment and there was no such thing as a recruitment analyst or highlight reels, and we sent an old duffer to watch players play in real time and then reported back if we should sign them or not. But can anyone remember when that stopped and whether it made a difference to the quality of signing? The Premier League season was a bit of a mixed bag, obviously Ashley Ward and Fjortoft did a good job, but Hristov and Tinkler were hardly roaring successes. I forget if it was Mel Machin but a manger signed Dave Regis. Some managers fill their team full of their old mates to keep them going. I guess I’m saying I’m not sure the old way was better in terms of strengthening the team and the main factor that determines the quality of player is how much money we have to spend.
I remember Hecky asking the board for recruitment to be extended because he was having trouble fitting everything into his work time wise. He said he still had imput into who we signed.
Not just that, some managers get kick backs from agents for signing their players, thats for sure. The other issue I have with the guy in charge being given the powers of a dictator, and then leaving - either sacked or whatever, then you're left with THEIR team, their players, their system, etc. you bring someone new in who wants full control, etc. And they don't like the other guys team/system - players then get shut out, sent out on loan, sold for peanuts, a whole new bunch come in and off we go again. It worked at Man U and Arsenal back in the day, but they're the exception to the rule IMHO.
Just checked. You’re correct. He made 16 appearances and scored one goal. Isn’t that a better record than Cauley in our relegation season?
I think some managers did fill their team with old mates, and some filled their pockets with old used banknotes!
Keith Hill signed a load of his mates, Kennedy, Wiseman, McNulty etc who he must have had shares in the amount of times he bought and sold them
I’m sure there was a link with their agents at the time, someone on here dig some digging. They were basically all lining each others pockets allegedly.
Could have been either. Or both. But if the player is out of his depth it makes no difference either way.
Him choosing to sign Wiseman over Trippier on a permanent deal will always be one of the worst ever footballing decisions
Yes, with Andy Rammel and a cash adjustment going the other way to Southend, ( they truly had out pants down there)
Just reminds me that Wiseman has retired from playing … latterly with Lincoln Red Imps in Gib. If you want any really exciting news , don’t call me !!!!
Managers don’t get as long in the hot seat nowadays, it dosnt make sense to spend money on one managers players to then sack them in 12 months and start over. I prefer it this way, where the club has an identity and we sign players and employ managers that fit into it. it works in our favour more so because we always have a smaller budget than most teams so every penny we spend counts. Like now, we already have players who fit into Collins style because we’ve been signing players based on that style for years and Collins appointment fits into the clubs style so in turn the players will adapt to his ways quicker, academy players have been training to that style for years so anyone promoted to the first team stands a far better chance of making it. Where as the old days a new manager would have a different style and half the squad wouldn’t fit it, it’d take time to replace those players by which point the managers buggered off and we repeat