Look it's fine if you disagree I've made my case but as I said it's just a opinion. The priority is to get a head coach they believe in if Clarke was the right man only 8 months since and Collins was in a similar time span they need to get this one right and that's a understatement.
This appointment wasn't quite the case of a new role being filled for the first time, as they'd had Hassell doing the role on an interim basis initially. I recall being surprised when the permanent appointment was announced, as it seemed to indicate a very different role being taken on by a "non-football" appointment compared to the interim role being done by an ex-player and current coach. It looked at the time like a change of the original remit as I believe that's when it became a "Sporting Director" title rather than the original "Director of Football" (could be wrong on this, but it rings a bell that it changed). Clearly the club didn't feel that Bobby was right for the permanent role at the time, perhaps because they wanted a commercial operator/negotiator rather than someone who knows the game as an ex-pro/coach, but I'm pretty sure our January window activity would have looked very different with an ex-pro or ex-manager in the role. In hindsight, I'd have taken "very different" over the actual result, as there are very few ways in which it could possibly have been any worse.
I expected Hassell, once he took an interim role, would get the full time gig. But I suspect you're right, that for whatever reason, our board/execs didn't think his face fit. And I'm certainly unimpressed with Sormaz, all the more that cowardice is part of his makeup. But fundamentally, I'm even more concerned with the internal structures that manage him, set his objectives, define his remit and assess his work. Because to the casual onlooker, his delivery to date has been abysmal. But if he's able to deliver what he has, who is guiding him? Is he doing this unchecked which seems crazy to even suggest, or is he being fed what to do, and if so, who is taking charge of him, and why are they coming to the conclusions and decisions they are? There are lots of questions and it seems, sadly, that the club has closed ranks and don't want scrutiny by fans or journalists.
Whilst Bobby was in some aspects a trial and stop gap and did a very good job, well liked and could have adapted to the role in terms of player management and nous, he didn't carry a data package that was relatively different to what we'd had previously. We got sold the latest data ideologies from someone who would supposedly give us an edge in both recruitment and playing style. Pretty much been sold a pup
I understand that many on here, as shown by the poll, want Mladen gone. What I don't understand, is the harsh, vindictive, spiteful language used against someone you don't know, just because you believe they are not doing their job to your satisfaction. I believe it is uncalled for.
Once he treats fans with anything other than utter contempt then I'll treat him with an ounce of respect. I think that's fair
To this I agree, despite my opinion of him being not right for the role, there is no place for it to be personal, vindictive or nasty.
Whilst agree with this, there should always be a line, differences of opinion and strategy should never turn into abuse. Wrongly or rightly just a bloke in a role
The line I draw is describing him as an utter coward lovely person. Again I think that's fair because he is. If he has any balls and actually faces the media I will retract that sentiment. Being **** at his job is one thing but it doesn't excuse his cowardice or frankly his lies to gaslight fans every time he signs a player.