Which muppet can we appoint next?

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Need to make sure that processes are in place to allow for disagreement but also to ensure there is a mechanism for decisions.

You see, this is what is wrong with the world these days (amongst other worse stuff). What does this even mean? It's really easy...

2 blokes need to decide who has the final say. No mechanisms and processes are needed, they can stay in the stupid management speak books.

[BWFC_Insane]

Need to make sure that processes are in place to allow for disagreement but also to ensure there is a mechanism for decisions.

You see, this is what is wrong with the world these days (amongst other worse stuff). What does this even mean? It's really easy...

2 blokes need to decide who has the final say. No mechanisms and processes are needed, they can stay in the stupid management speak books.

It means that they draw up their shortlist together taking people on each side and then make a joint decision. That might mean a disagreement but the process has to be joined up.

What it APPEARS to be now is Deano trying to land a manager and Anderson trying to land a manager in separate processes. That may or may not be right but that is the message going out via Sky, Iles etc... Disagreements happen but they need to stay behind closed doors and the world needs to see a united front. The mechanism might be (for example) a third, trusted independent advisor with the final vote or someone else on the board etc. There are ways of doing it, especially around recruitment.

Both Anderson and Holdsworth have interviewed separately. And outlined their criteria for a new manager. And those criteria whilst more than likely compatible have not really been the same. Need to show a united front and ensure that decisions get made however, they choose but that the decisions are backed by all parties.

I'm confident they'll do this and it is just teething trouble. But they do need to.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Did you see the build up on sky sports before the game? I was at the game, but hear that Kevin Davies was saying that there was already disagreement between the two owners and Holloway was laying into them for not being united?

Whether there is a solid basis for this sort of talk or not the message is going out there now. Needs to be stamped down quickly in my view because the club doesn't exactly have a reputation for stability these past few years and the last thing we need is more instability putting managers off.

I didn't, sadly, although at least it spared my eyes going wobbly at the sight of Ollie's triple-check outfit.

I'm confident they'll do this and it is just teething trouble. But they do need to.

I'm hopeful rather than confident. I'm increasingly worried this 50/50 arrangement is something of an Odd Couple marriage of inconvenience. They need to sit down and grow up.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Need to make sure that processes are in place to allow for disagreement but also to ensure there is a mechanism for decisions.

You see, this is what is wrong with the world these days (amongst other worse stuff). What does this even mean? It's really easy...

2 blokes need to decide who has the final say. No mechanisms and processes are needed, they can stay in the stupid management speak books.

It means that they draw up their shortlist together taking people on each side and then make a joint decision. That might mean a disagreement but the process has to be joined up.

What it APPEARS to be now is Deano trying to land a manager and Anderson trying to land a manager in separate processes. That may or may not be right but that is the message going out via Sky, Iles etc... Disagreements happen but they need to stay behind closed doors and the world needs to see a united front. The mechanism might be (for example) a third, trusted independent advisor with the final vote or someone else on the board etc. There are ways of doing it, especially around recruitment.

Both Anderson and Holdsworth have interviewed separately. And outlined their criteria for a new manager. And those criteria whilst more than likely compatible have not really been the same. Need to show a united front and ensure that decisions get made however, they choose but that the decisions are backed by all parties.

I'm confident they'll do this and it is just teething trouble. But they do need to.

You're just using crap management speak. If the 2 of them own the club 50/50 then they just have to decide who is responsible for what and who has final say. What we don't need is 2 people trying to do the same thing, venn diagrams or flow charts.

[BWFC_Insane]

Need to make sure that processes are in place to allow for disagreement but also to ensure there is a mechanism for decisions.

You see, this is what is wrong with the world these days (amongst other worse stuff). What does this even mean? It's really easy...

2 blokes need to decide who has the final say. No mechanisms and processes are needed, they can stay in the stupid management speak books.

It means that they draw up their shortlist together taking people on each side and then make a joint decision. That might mean a disagreement but the process has to be joined up.

What it APPEARS to be now is Deano trying to land a manager and Anderson trying to land a manager in separate processes. That may or may not be right but that is the message going out via Sky, Iles etc... Disagreements happen but they need to stay behind closed doors and the world needs to see a united front. The mechanism might be (for example) a third, trusted independent advisor with the final vote or someone else on the board etc. There are ways of doing it, especially around recruitment.

Both Anderson and Holdsworth have interviewed separately. And outlined their criteria for a new manager. And those criteria whilst more than likely compatible have not really been the same. Need to show a united front and ensure that decisions get made however, they choose but that the decisions are backed by all parties.

I'm confident they'll do this and it is just teething trouble. But they do need to.

You're just using crap management speak. If the 2 of them own the club 50/50 then they just have to decide who is responsible for what and who has final say. What we don't need is 2 people trying to do the same thing, venn diagrams or flow charts.

Possibly yes. But IF they are genuinely 50:50 is it likely that one will say "ok you decide on the manager" given appointing a manager is probably the biggest decision within the business and fairly wide ranging too?

I suspect IF they are disagreeing it is unlikely one will hand the responsibility on, so they may need a panel or wider board decision rather than just directly butting heads?

[Hoboh]

Need to make sure that processes are in place to allow for disagreement but also to ensure there is a mechanism for decisions.

You see, this is what is wrong with the world these days (amongst other worse stuff). What does this even mean? It's really easy...

2 blokes need to decide who has the final say. No mechanisms and processes are needed, they can stay in the stupid management speak books.

It means that they draw up their shortlist together taking people on each side and then make a joint decision. That might mean a disagreement but the process has to be joined up.

What it APPEARS to be now is Deano trying to land a manager and Anderson trying to land a manager in separate processes. That may or may not be right but that is the message going out via Sky, Iles etc... Disagreements happen but they need to stay behind closed doors and the world needs to see a united front. The mechanism might be (for example) a third, trusted independent advisor with the final vote or someone else on the board etc. There are ways of doing it, especially around recruitment.

Both Anderson and Holdsworth have interviewed separately. And outlined their criteria for a new manager. And those criteria whilst more than likely compatible have not really been the same. Need to show a united front and ensure that decisions get made however, they choose but that the decisions are backed by all parties.

I'm confident they'll do this and it is just teething trouble. But they do need to.

You're just using crap management speak. If the 2 of them own the club 50/50 then they just have to decide who is responsible for what and who has final say. What we don't need is 2 people trying to do the same thing, venn diagrams or flow charts.

Possibly yes. But IF they are genuinely 50:50 is it likely that one will say "ok you decide on the manager" given appointing a manager is probably the biggest decision within the business and fairly wide ranging too?

I suspect IF they are disagreeing it is unlikely one will hand the responsibility on, so they may need a panel or wider board decision rather than just directly butting heads?

I'd say one wants a successful club, the other wants a return on his cash ASAP.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Possibly yes. But IF they are genuinely 50:50 is it likely that one will say "ok you decide on the manager" given appointing a manager is probably the biggest decision within the business and fairly wide ranging too?

Which is why responsibility should be divided. For some decisions it might make sense to put it to a board vote and if necessary the chairman has casting vote. If they can't agree to divide responsibility then we're really truly fcuked.

[Worthy4England]

You're just using crap management speak. If the 2 of them own the club 50/50 then they just have to decide who is responsible for what and who has final say. What we don't need is 2 people trying to do the same thing, venn diagrams or flow charts.

The interview from Anderson didn't say "we had to convince the FL or the money we had and were putting in", it said "I"... That could of course just been a figure of speech as Holdsworth wasn't there being interviewed at the same time...

[BWFC_Insane]

You're just using crap management speak. If the 2 of them own the club 50/50 then they just have to decide who is responsible for what and who has final say. What we don't need is 2 people trying to do the same thing, venn diagrams or flow charts.

The interview from Anderson didn't say "we had to convince the FL or the money we had and were putting in", it said "I"... That could of course just been a figure of speech as Holdsworth wasn't there being interviewed at the same time...

He also said somewhere that the money from his side was "his own personal" money and not borrowed.

[Peter Thompson]

Need to make sure that processes are in place to allow for disagreement but also to ensure there is a mechanism for decisions.

You see, this is what is wrong with the world these days (amongst other worse stuff). What does this even mean? It's really easy...

2 blokes need to decide who has the final say. No mechanisms and processes are needed, they can stay in the stupid management speak books.

It means that they draw up their shortlist together taking people on each side and then make a joint decision. That might mean a disagreement but the process has to be joined up.

What it APPEARS to be now is Deano trying to land a manager and Anderson trying to land a manager in separate processes. That may or may not be right but that is the message going out via Sky, Iles etc... Disagreements happen but they need to stay behind closed doors and the world needs to see a united front. The mechanism might be (for example) a third, trusted independent advisor with the final vote or someone else on the board etc. There are ways of doing it, especially around recruitment.

Both Anderson and Holdsworth have interviewed separately. And outlined their criteria for a new manager. And those criteria whilst more than likely compatible have not really been the same. Need to show a united front and ensure that decisions get made however, they choose but that the decisions are backed by all parties.

I'm confident they'll do this and it is just teething trouble. But they do need to.

Can I please ask where you have got this information from that they have been interviewing separately ?

[BWFC_Insane]

Need to make sure that processes are in place to allow for disagreement but also to ensure there is a mechanism for decisions.

You see, this is what is wrong with the world these days (amongst other worse stuff). What does this even mean? It's really easy...

2 blokes need to decide who has the final say. No mechanisms and processes are needed, they can stay in the stupid management speak books.

It means that they draw up their shortlist together taking people on each side and then make a joint decision. That might mean a disagreement but the process has to be joined up.

What it APPEARS to be now is Deano trying to land a manager and Anderson trying to land a manager in separate processes. That may or may not be right but that is the message going out via Sky, Iles etc... Disagreements happen but they need to stay behind closed doors and the world needs to see a united front. The mechanism might be (for example) a third, trusted independent advisor with the final vote or someone else on the board etc. There are ways of doing it, especially around recruitment.

Both Anderson and Holdsworth have interviewed separately. And outlined their criteria for a new manager. And those criteria whilst more than likely compatible have not really been the same. Need to show a united front and ensure that decisions get made however, they choose but that the decisions are backed by all parties.

I'm confident they'll do this and it is just teething trouble. But they do need to.

Can I please ask where you have got this information from that they have been interviewing separately ?

Ermm, Holdsworth did an interview on the official site and in the BN.

Then Anderson did one.

I'd say that was separate unless the other was hiding off camera?

[Worthy4England]

I suspect interviewing separately was missing the word "managers"

[BWFC_Insane]

I suspect interviewing separately was missing the word "managers"

Yes, I meant interviewed as in, spoken to the press (official site) etc on separate occasions....not that they'd be interviewing managers.

[malcd1]

Need to make sure that processes are in place to allow for disagreement but also to ensure there is a mechanism for decisions.

You see, this is what is wrong with the world these days (amongst other worse stuff). What does this even mean? It's really easy...

2 blokes need to decide who has the final say. No mechanisms and processes are needed, they can stay in the stupid management speak books.

It means that they draw up their shortlist together taking people on each side and then make a joint decision. That might mean a disagreement but the process has to be joined up.

What it APPEARS to be now is Deano trying to land a manager and Anderson trying to land a manager in separate processes. That may or may not be right but that is the message going out via Sky, Iles etc... Disagreements happen but they need to stay behind closed doors and the world needs to see a united front. The mechanism might be (for example) a third, trusted independent advisor with the final vote or someone else on the board etc. There are ways of doing it, especially around recruitment.

Both Anderson and Holdsworth have interviewed separately. And outlined their criteria for a new manager. And those criteria whilst more than likely compatible have not really been the same. Need to show a united front and ensure that decisions get made however, they choose but that the decisions are backed by all parties.

I'm confident they'll do this and it is just teething trouble. But they do need to.

Can I please ask where you have got this information from that they have been interviewing separately ?

Ermm, Holdsworth did an interview on the official site and in the BN.

Then Anderson did one.

I'd say that was separate unless the other was hiding off camera?

Or of course they might just be splitting the workload, seeing who is available and how much it will cost them. Why have both of them doing the same work? They might get their lists together over a cup of tea and see who is the best candidate.

Lets face it, none of us know (or Iles or Nixon). Lets not read too much into it at the moment. Just relax and wait for the completion of the process.

[Worthy4England]

Pfft, I didn't read anything about tea drinking.

[Lord Kangana]

And the spiral continues...

[malcd1]

Pfft, I didn't read anything about tea drinking.

I'm pretty sure I have read it somewhere on Twitter so it is definitely true.

[palekm08]

Look i know we can't make presume who our next manager is, but after Wilder ruled himself out of the job, i decided to look into another of the managers linked. Didn't really want to look into Carvear or however it's spelt, he's not in my best interest at the moment, and quite frankly would be annoyed if he was hired.

However Steve is someone i was 50/50 with, until i decided to watch this video, it shows everything i personally like to hear from a manager. He brings up the use of youth players, which would suit our club dearly. He also mentions how he prefers to play a high tempo passing game. Exactly what we need. Obviously actions speak louder then words, but i like this guy.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Cotterill's a funny one. His career has been very mixed. Double promotion at Cheltenham – they love him – and he got Bristol City up out of the Third. He also led Notts County to the Fourth Division title, a decent achievement considering he only took over in Feb when they were 7th (of the remaining 18 games they won 14, drew 3 and lost 1) – but 19 days later he was gone after refusing to commit his future to the club. I know someone who watched him closely at Burnley and it didn't go well: dull 4-5-1 football and a personality perhaps best described as 'spiky'.

There's worse out there, for sure. Can't help feeling there might also be better.

[palekm08]

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/update/ ... t-manager/

Not sure if this has been seen, or mentioned, but the video in the link has KA stating that two of the shortlisted managers are still in work. Im going to say the 2 obvious currently employed managers linked are Chris Wilder and Phil Brown (even though he denys PB applying for the job) and hoping that Steve Cotts is the final shortlisted one.