. . . and take Gartside with you, too.

[H. Pedersen]

So a Chairman has to go because he didn't sack 1 manager soon enough? Because Megson upset you? Blimey, no one would last 2 minutes in any job if the world applied your thought processes. These days it seems to be de rigeur to be outraged at the most minor of things. Gartside hasn't been mistake free, but he's been a better chairman for us than most clubs have had.

Let me add then that Megson fell out with the fans not only because of his attitude, but largely due to the underwhelming results of his relatively massive spending spree . . . again, predictable.

I also don't think relegation is "the most minor of things" from a footballing standpoint. In fact, Coyle's only task was to avoid relegation, and he failed due to his incompetence. How he wasn't fired is an absolute mystery.

[thebish]

I also don't think relegation is "the most minor of things" from a footballing standpoint. In fact, Coyle's only task was to avoid relegation, and he failed due to his incompetence. How he wasn't fired is an absolute mystery.

because it's never black and white... (sorry!)

wolves sacked earlier - whoop-de-doo - they were relegated. A chairman can jump one way or the other - neither direction is risk free or carries any measure of certainty...

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I also don't think relegation is "the most minor of things" from a footballing standpoint. In fact, Coyle's only task was to avoid relegation, and he failed due to his incompetence. How he wasn't fired is an absolute mystery.

because it's never black and white... (sorry!)

wolves sacked earlier - whoop-de-doo - they were relegated. A chairman can jump one way or the other - neither direction is risk free or carries any measure of certainty...

Stop attributing HP's 'views' to me

[bedwetter2]

I also don't think relegation is "the most minor of things" from a footballing standpoint. In fact, Coyle's only task was to avoid relegation, and he failed due to his incompetence. How he wasn't fired is an absolute mystery.

because it's never black and white... (sorry!)

wolves sacked earlier - whoop-de-doo - they were relegated. A chairman can jump one way or the other - neither direction is risk free or carries any measure of certainty...

You are being a little disingenuous there. Wolves sacked McCarthy when they still had a decent chance of staying up but replaced him with a certain assistant who was dropped right in the deep doo-doo. From day one he was like a rabbit caught in the headlights - that bad, even I felt sorry for him.

I know quite a few Wolves supporters and most couldn't understand the logic of sacking McCarthy when they did. The optimum time to dismiss a manager is right at the end of the season - all the better if you have a reason!

[H. Pedersen]

wolves sacked earlier - whoop-de-doo - they were relegated. A chairman can jump one way or the other - neither direction is risk free or carries any measure of certainty...

I'm not talking about a mid-season firing though. That IS a case where hindsight is 20/20. I'm saying Coyle should have been fired after he had already taken us down. He had shown by then that he was not up to the job.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

So a Chairman has to go because he didn't sack 1 manager soon enough? Because Megson upset you? Blimey, no one would last 2 minutes in any job if the world applied your thought processes. These days it seems to be de rigeur to be outraged at the most minor of things. Gartside hasn't been mistake free, but he's been a better chairman for us than most clubs have had.

Let me add then that Megson fell out with the fans not only because of his attitude, but largely due to the underwhelming results of his relatively massive spending spree . . . again, predictable.

I also don't think relegation is "the most minor of things" from a footballing standpoint. In fact, Coyle's only task was to avoid relegation, and he failed due to his incompetence. How he wasn't fired is an absolute mystery.

The fans fell out with Megson before he even arrived. ED backed Megson with funds and he bought some decent players and some poor ones (like every other manager). The point is that Gartside implements whatever plan and instructions he is given. He advises ED, but he doesn't decide everything. I'm no fan of Megson and was not happy that he was appointed. Did he stabilise the club at that time? IMO yes. Did he kick on and move us back up the table? IMO no. Did Megson get sacked once it became apparent he wasn't going to kick us on? Yes. So on the whole Gartside got that right(ish).

I agree Coyle should have gone last year. Wrong call. That doesn't mean that Bolton would be better off without Gartside. I suggest you do a bit of reading up on the many poor chairmen that have been around the game in recent years. You might just change your opinion.

[bedwetter2]

We should keep Gartside because he brought in Eddie Davies and Big Sam? I guess we should play Djorkaeff and Hierro too, eh?

Or we could get Randy Lerner in, see how popular he is with Villa fans eh?

FFS Gartside is effectively Chief Operating Officer reporting to Eddie Davies.

If you think appointing a different person to do that job would make things better, then you don't understand the job. Nobody can guarantee a managerial appointment will be successful. Nobody can come in and make a club like ours profitable and successful on the pitch. There are plenty trying and failing to do that up and down the country.

It is you who misunderstands the relationship between a CEO and a majority shareholder. The status of the shareholder owner is generally remote from the day to day business of a company, so the Villa fans are directing their ire at the wrong person. It will be the CEO who agrees any budget with department heads and monitors compliance.

Whilst you are correct in stating that no-one can guarantee the success of a managerial appointment it is very simple to reduce the risk of failure by applying sound business principles. Monitor, advise, direct, correct very regularly after an appointment , the interview process for which has been conducted in an open and even handed manner. No long or open-ended contrects should ever be awarded upon first appointment, but heavily incentivise based upon the results required.

I should know - I have successfully run a number of companies with a similar turnover to BWFC.

[H. Pedersen]

I'd like to introduce you to the CEO, Mr. Bed Wetter . . .

Has a nice ring to it.

[BWFC_Insane]

We should keep Gartside because he brought in Eddie Davies and Big Sam? I guess we should play Djorkaeff and Hierro too, eh?

Or we could get Randy Lerner in, see how popular he is with Villa fans eh?

FFS Gartside is effectively Chief Operating Officer reporting to Eddie Davies.

If you think appointing a different person to do that job would make things better, then you don't understand the job. Nobody can guarantee a managerial appointment will be successful. Nobody can come in and make a club like ours profitable and successful on the pitch. There are plenty trying and failing to do that up and down the country.

It is you who misunderstands the relationship between a CEO and a majority shareholder. The status of the shareholder owner is generally remote from the day to day business of a company, so the Villa fans are directing their ire at the wrong person. It will be the CEO who agrees any budget with department heads and monitors compliance.

Whilst you are correct in stating that no-one can guarantee the success of a managerial appointment it is very simple to reduce the risk of failure by applying sound business principles. Monitor, advise, direct, correct very regularly after an appointment , the interview process for which has been conducted in an open and even handed manner. No long or open-ended contrects should ever be awarded upon first appointment, but heavily incentivise based upon the results required.

I should know - I have successfully run a number of companies with a similar turnover to BWFC.

Bully for you.

However, the relationship between an owner of a football club and his 'coo' is somewhat different.

Anyhow, Eddies choice, and if he wants Phil, as it's his club, I'm prepared to trust his judgement.

And as far as I'm aware Lerner picks the managers at Villa and supports them himself...

[Worthy4England]

So a Chairman has to go because he didn't sack 1 manager soon enough? Because Megson upset you? Blimey, no one would last 2 minutes in any job if the world applied your thought processes. These days it seems to be de rigeur to be outraged at the most minor of things. Gartside hasn't been mistake free, but he's been a better chairman for us than most clubs have had.

Let me add then that Megson fell out with the fans not only because of his attitude, but largely due to the underwhelming results of his relatively massive spending spree . . . again, predictable.
I also don't think relegation is "the most minor of things" from a footballing standpoint. In fact, Coyle's only task was to avoid relegation, and he failed due to his incompetence. How he wasn't fired is an absolute mystery.

He got booed his very first game after appointment. How did results play into that?

Don't get me wrong, I was glad to see the back of him, but call it as it is.

[midlands exile]

We should keep Gartside because he brought in Eddie Davies and Big Sam? I guess we should play Djorkaeff and Hierro too, eh?

Or we could get Randy Lerner in, see how popular he is with Villa fans eh?

FFS Gartside is effectively Chief Operating Officer reporting to Eddie Davies.

If you think appointing a different person to do that job would make things better, then you don't understand the job. Nobody can guarantee a managerial appointment will be successful. Nobody can come in and make a club like ours profitable and successful on the pitch. There are plenty trying and failing to do that up and down the country.

It is you who misunderstands the relationship between a CEO and a majority shareholder. The status of the shareholder owner is generally remote from the day to day business of a company, so the Villa fans are directing their ire at the wrong person. It will be the CEO who agrees any budget with department heads and monitors compliance.

Whilst you are correct in stating that no-one can guarantee the success of a managerial appointment it is very simple to reduce the risk of failure by applying sound business principles. Monitor, advise, direct, correct very regularly after an appointment , the interview process for which has been conducted in an open and even handed manner. No long or open-ended contrects should ever be awarded upon first appointment, but heavily incentivise based upon the results required.

I should know - I have successfully run a number of companies with a similar turnover to BWFC.

Sounds like very sound business strategy - clearly no place for that in football!

Seriously though, my old man saw Ronnie Whelan giving a talk about the managers he'd worked with, and he was amazed by how he described the poor levels of management in the game, even when Liverpool were successful under Dalglish. But it was just accepted as the way it is because that's the way it's always been. Anyone acting like that as a manager in a "real world" business would be out of the door so fast you could light your fags on the hinges.

Admittedly, the stories were about managers of the playing staff rather than the club as a whole, but the football bubble seems to operate to different rules and standards. The reason why we were so successful under Big Sam was because we challenged the way things were done, and improved them by taking on best practice from other sports. There's always room for improvement, even for Mr Garside. As I've said previously, I'd still keep him on but with performance related pay, and now you can add Bedwetter's post above ringing in his ears.

[Prufrock]

Lol at Bedwetter. Big man.

[bedwetter2]

Lol at Bedwetter. Big man.

Not really, I'm of average height.

I've occasionally put forward views on this forum during the last several years but never, unlike quite a few I could mention, divulged anything of my background as it wasn't relevant. The current conversation regards a topic with which I am familiar through previous experience so I mentioned it. Sorry for offending any 'down with the lads' sensibilities.

[midlands exile]

Lol at Bedwetter. Big man.

Why? For making sense?

[Wandering Willy]

Lol at Bedwetter. Big man.

Not really, I'm of average height.

I've occasionally put forward views on this forum during the last several years but never, unlike quite a few I could mention, divulged anything of my background as it wasn't relevant. The current conversation regards a topic with which I am familiar through previous experience so I mentioned it. Sorry for offending any 'down with the lads' sensibilities.

Personally, I can't wait until we start talking about robbing banks.

[BWFC_Insane]

Bedwetter, given your experience perhaps you could suggest a person spec that we should be matching to fill the managers role?

Putting yourself in Eddie Davies' shoes where the most important thing about protecting his investment is an instant return to the premiership.

What would the criteria be in your opinion?

[Prufrock]

Lol at Bedwetter. Big man.

Not really, I'm of average height.

I've occasionally put forward views on this forum during the last several years but never, unlike quite a few I could mention, divulged anything of my background as it wasn't relevant. The current conversation regards a topic with which I am familiar through previous experience so I mentioned it. Sorry for offending any 'down with the lads' sensibilities.

Keep your knickers on, I'm only messing .

In fairness I don't think the Eddie-Gartside relationship is a normal CEO-majority shareholder jobbie. ED is a fan, and has a fook load of money invested in us. I'd be very surprised if he was hands off and just let Phil get on with it. The revenue growth, brand, all that pish, sure, but the hiring and firing of managers side, the transfer budgets, not convinced.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

In fairness I don't think the Eddie-Gartside relationship is a normal CEO-majority shareholder jobbie. ED is a fan, and has a fook load of money invested in us. I'd be very surprised if he was hands off and just let Phil get on with it. The revenue growth, brand, all that pish, sure, but the hiring and firing of managers side, the transfer budgets, not convinced.

Indeed, Coyle mentioned that he would speak to PG & ED every day, and I believe his predecessors have mentioned a very involved relationship. ED isn't a venture capitalist helicoptering in money from afar; if that were the case, a football club would be the last thing to invest in...

[bedwetter2]

Bedwetter, given your experience perhaps you could suggest a person spec that we should be matching to fill the managers role?

Putting yourself in Eddie Davies' shoes where the most important thing about protecting his investment is an instant return to the premiership.

What would the criteria be in your opinion?

I will refer you to the subject "Is it time yet?" pages 4 & 5 for some of my views. However a job spec. is difficult to put together without knowing the extent of duties to be encompassed, i.e. a Sam Allardyce type role being responsible for everything, including the cleaners and caterers, or a team manager's role which would be far more limited.

In all I'm not sure that ED would want to draw up the actual spec. as it is more the job of the Chief Exec. ED would certainly want to review it however, and suggest alterations if necessary.

The first criteria for a football club (but not so much in other sectors) would be "can we work with this guy?" This would not appear on a job specification but would be crucial for the club management bearing in mind the egos involved in football. If they were up with recent management techniques they would have a behavioural psychologist present in the interviews. Psychometric tests are invaluable in weeding out the unbalanced and despite the view that results can be faked by a clever interviewee there is no real evidence to support this.

The next items depend upon what the club management want to achieve in the short and long terms. I can imagine that a review of track record would take some part in this although perhaps not as much as you may think. The interviews are a means of drawing out philosophies toward the essential people management requirements.

The interviewee's network of contacts would also be viewed as important and I suspect would also be seen as evidence for or against meritocratic behaviour.

The interviewee's flexibility/willingness to adapt to changed circumstances would be questioned and evidence sought.

The individuals being interviewed would probably be pre-selected upon the basis of a stated single-minded determination to succeed but I would wish to put a variety of different scenarios in front of each interviewee and ask them to select a set of actions which would demonstrate sound reasoning.

Accessibility to staff would also be a requirement and a decent attitude to supporters and the media helpful but not a showstopper.

There's probably a lot more that PG and ED should be including and I have left the second most important one till last - a real in-depth investigation into what people who have worked with the interviewee really think of him, including players, other staff as well as bosses.

Of course, the interviewees would want to know some stuff themselves such as salary, contract term, budget, etc.

However, PG and ED should never lose sight of the fact that the new guy will be paid a lot of money and for that they should want to get a lot of bangs for their bucks.

I doubt that they will conduct a really rigorous process, however. That is not the way it is done in football apparently.

[bedwetter2]

In fairness I don't think the Eddie-Gartside relationship is a normal CEO-majority shareholder jobbie. ED is a fan, and has a fook load of money invested in us. I'd be very surprised if he was hands off and just let Phil get on with it. The revenue growth, brand, all that pish, sure, but the hiring and firing of managers side, the transfer budgets, not convinced.

Indeed, Coyle mentioned that he would speak to PG & ED every day, and I believe his predecessors have mentioned a very involved relationship. ED isn't a venture capitalist helicoptering in money from afar; if that were the case, a football club would be the last thing to invest in...

I agree with this but remember that ED in addition to being a fan is also a businessman who may be now aware of the old saying "decide in haste, repent at leisure".