Here Wycombe again. At home to the other Wanderers. V the high flyers, Friday 18th Apr, 3-0 Clock.

[Worthy4England]

Therein lies the problem with the DOF model, for me. Last utterance I heard from him on the failsafe system was something along the lines of "Me, Chris, Ludanautics and Sharon all need to be happy before we sign someone."

I think that's like having a no throat to choke committee, albeit you'd think Sharon was mainly looking at the cheque, rather than the spreadsheet.

Also in an interview with Markham about what appealed in the Bolton job, he said "no real change control," as in easier at Bolton than most places because at the time we didn't have a load of over paid bad assets. He did well to sort that out.

It's very frustrating and here we are again with a head coach...

The thing is I actually don’t think that matters with Schumacher. He’s going to say what he feels we need and I suspect will make it very clear if he’s unable to make that happen.

A model where a DoF has a team who identify potential players and present them as options to a head coach is fine I think. Where players are signed without a head coach having a say is problematic. And it was only really problematic because evatt’s character was to try and blame everyone else. I suspect it’s administratively too much work for a manager to oversee the first team and recruitment teams these days given they are much larger than they used to be.

I would instinctively prefer a manager who does the whole lot - but speaking to those in the game and those who were in the game it’s not really practical anymore. Allardyce might have been the top overseer for example but much of the work was done by Mike Forde and his team. And you could call the lines of responsibility clearer maybe but that didn’t stop Sharon sacking a coach to try and save Evatt - nor would it I think have stopped that sort of thing historically. It’s not like when you have a head scout and a few other scouts who basically are like freelance employees mates of the manager. You have full analysis teams, data bods and then the negotiation and contract side. Asking a manager to effectively line manage all that on top of the first team and larger coaching backroom setups is I’m told simply not realistic anymore. And wasn’t even when managers were still called managers - Allardyce would say more or less that he had a similar setup just inverted. He carried the can but had a much of staff he trusted to actually do the do.

I have zero problem with there being people who look after elements of running the club. Just the notion that the buck has to stop somewhere.

Ultimately the buck stops with Sharon. She’s running it. The leaders of the football side and the commercial side are all her appointments and report to her.

Great. Find us another mug to throw 10 mill a year at it, or stop complaining.

[Bertie Wooster]

Great. Find us another mug to throw 10 mill a year at it, or stop complaining.

I highly doubt that Ms Brittan is putting much of her own personal cash into BWFC if any, certainly nowhere near £10M - isn't most of it from the Swiss investors ?, also I may be wrong but isn't her contribution actually from the Pink Floyd drummer ?

I suspect that Michael James has put significantly more of his own personal money into BWFC than Ms Brittan.

[Worthy4England]

Great. Find us another mug to throw 10 mill a year at it, or stop complaining.

I highly doubt that Ms Brittan is putting much of her own personal cash into BWFC if any, certainly nowhere near £10M - isn't most of it from the Swiss investors ?, also I may be wrong but isn't her contribution actually from the Pink Floyd drummer ?

I suspect that Michael James has put significantly more of his own personal money into BWFC than Ms Brittan.

Look at where the equity is. It'll help your doubt. The Swiss investors are Nick Lucock's brother and his 60 mates. Suspect and believe what you want mate. If Nick Mason in still investing, it ain't obvioud.

[Bertie Wooster]

Great. Find us another mug to throw 10 mill a year at it, or stop complaining.

I highly doubt that Ms Brittan is putting much of her own personal cash into BWFC if any, certainly nowhere near £10M - isn't most of it from the Swiss investors ?, also I may be wrong but isn't her contribution actually from the Pink Floyd drummer ?

I suspect that Michael James has put significantly more of his own personal money into BWFC than Ms Brittan.

Look at where the equity is. It'll help your doubt. The Swiss investors are Nick Lucock's brother and his 60 mates. Suspect and believe what you want mate. If Nick Mason in still investing, it ain't obvioud.

I'm sure that someone who knows better than me about BWFC finances can shed more light, but Ms Brittan's stated equity I was led to believe is basically funded by Nick Mason, however I stand to be corrected if incorrect.

[Worthy4England]

Great. Find us another mug to throw 10 mill a year at it, or stop complaining.

I highly doubt that Ms Brittan is putting much of her own personal cash into BWFC if any, certainly nowhere near £10M - isn't most of it from the Swiss investors ?, also I may be wrong but isn't her contribution actually from the Pink Floyd drummer ?

I suspect that Michael James has put significantly more of his own personal money into BWFC than Ms Brittan.

Look at where the equity is. It'll help your doubt. The Swiss investors are Nick Lucock's brother and his 60 mates. Suspect and believe what you want mate. If Nick Mason in still investing, it ain't obvioud.

I'm sure that someone who knows better than me about BWFC finances can shed more light, but Ms Brittan's stated equity I was led to believe is basically funded by Nick Mason, however I stand to be corrected if incorrect.

If we assumed that was correct and we know that they're connected, how would you rate the chances of either Nick Mason or Nick Luckocks brother, dumping a tax break into Bolton without Shaz?

[Bertie Wooster]

Worthy I've absolutely no idea regarding Nick Mason or Nick Luckocks' brother / the Swiss investors. I was simply responding to your comment about Ms Brittan putting in £10M of her own money.

[The_Gun]

We need to get rid of the short socks brigade.

Shouldn’t matter but it does. It’s so utterly infuriating seeing no marks taking the money out of the club acting like they’ve made it without any success in their careers whatsoever.

I know it’s irrational but it just makes it even worse.

If this triggers you, prepare yourself for a lot of annoyance over the coming years.

I wouldn't say that it triggers me (whatever that really means), I just think at league 1 level in a team that has a soft, weak mentality levelled at them, to turn up like show ponies with your low socks round near your ankles gives the wrong impression. Don't get me wrong over the years some great attacking players have played with their socks down - I seem to recall the likes of Stan Bowles, Gerd Muller and lately Grealish etc. but these are proven players not league 1 wannabes

It’s just the trend these days. Loads of our youth players do it, including the much lauded David Abimbola.

[BWFC_Insane]

Therein lies the problem with the DOF model, for me. Last utterance I heard from him on the failsafe system was something along the lines of "Me, Chris, Ludanautics and Sharon all need to be happy before we sign someone."

I think that's like having a no throat to choke committee, albeit you'd think Sharon was mainly looking at the cheque, rather than the spreadsheet.

Also in an interview with Markham about what appealed in the Bolton job, he said "no real change control," as in easier at Bolton than most places because at the time we didn't have a load of over paid bad assets. He did well to sort that out.

It's very frustrating and here we are again with a head coach...

The thing is I actually don’t think that matters with Schumacher. He’s going to say what he feels we need and I suspect will make it very clear if he’s unable to make that happen.

A model where a DoF has a team who identify potential players and present them as options to a head coach is fine I think. Where players are signed without a head coach having a say is problematic. And it was only really problematic because evatt’s character was to try and blame everyone else. I suspect it’s administratively too much work for a manager to oversee the first team and recruitment teams these days given they are much larger than they used to be.

I would instinctively prefer a manager who does the whole lot - but speaking to those in the game and those who were in the game it’s not really practical anymore. Allardyce might have been the top overseer for example but much of the work was done by Mike Forde and his team. And you could call the lines of responsibility clearer maybe but that didn’t stop Sharon sacking a coach to try and save Evatt - nor would it I think have stopped that sort of thing historically. It’s not like when you have a head scout and a few other scouts who basically are like freelance employees mates of the manager. You have full analysis teams, data bods and then the negotiation and contract side. Asking a manager to effectively line manage all that on top of the first team and larger coaching backroom setups is I’m told simply not realistic anymore. And wasn’t even when managers were still called managers - Allardyce would say more or less that he had a similar setup just inverted. He carried the can but had a much of staff he trusted to actually do the do.

I have zero problem with there being people who look after elements of running the club. Just the notion that the buck has to stop somewhere.

Ultimately the buck stops with Sharon. She’s running it. The leaders of the football side and the commercial side are all her appointments and report to her.

Great. Find us another mug to throw 10 mill a year at it, or stop complaining.

I don’t think being an investor puts you above someone ‘complaining’. Indeed I’d say the opposite (how it should be not how it is).

But hopefully now they have learned and we are better placed to move forwards. Sharon doesn’t need to know how to run a football club she does need to know who to appoint and who to seek advice from.

[Worthy4England]

Therein lies the problem with the DOF model, for me. Last utterance I heard from him on the failsafe system was something along the lines of "Me, Chris, Ludanautics and Sharon all need to be happy before we sign someone."

I think that's like having a no throat to choke committee, albeit you'd think Sharon was mainly looking at the cheque, rather than the spreadsheet.

Also in an interview with Markham about what appealed in the Bolton job, he said "no real change control," as in easier at Bolton than most places because at the time we didn't have a load of over paid bad assets. He did well to sort that out.

It's very frustrating and here we are again with a head coach...

The thing is I actually don’t think that matters with Schumacher. He’s going to say what he feels we need and I suspect will make it very clear if he’s unable to make that happen.

A model where a DoF has a team who identify potential players and present them as options to a head coach is fine I think. Where players are signed without a head coach having a say is problematic. And it was only really problematic because evatt’s character was to try and blame everyone else. I suspect it’s administratively too much work for a manager to oversee the first team and recruitment teams these days given they are much larger than they used to be.

I would instinctively prefer a manager who does the whole lot - but speaking to those in the game and those who were in the game it’s not really practical anymore. Allardyce might have been the top overseer for example but much of the work was done by Mike Forde and his team. And you could call the lines of responsibility clearer maybe but that didn’t stop Sharon sacking a coach to try and save Evatt - nor would it I think have stopped that sort of thing historically. It’s not like when you have a head scout and a few other scouts who basically are like freelance employees mates of the manager. You have full analysis teams, data bods and then the negotiation and contract side. Asking a manager to effectively line manage all that on top of the first team and larger coaching backroom setups is I’m told simply not realistic anymore. And wasn’t even when managers were still called managers - Allardyce would say more or less that he had a similar setup just inverted. He carried the can but had a much of staff he trusted to actually do the do.

I have zero problem with there being people who look after elements of running the club. Just the notion that the buck has to stop somewhere.

Ultimately the buck stops with Sharon. She’s running it. The leaders of the football side and the commercial side are all her appointments and report to her.

Great. Find us another mug to throw 10 mill a year at it, or stop complaining.

I don’t think being an investor puts you above someone ‘complaining’. Indeed I’d say the opposite (how it should be not how it is).

But hopefully now they have learned and we are better placed to move forwards. Sharon doesn’t need to know how to run a football club she does need to know who to appoint and who to seek advice from.

I'd rather have their £10m (made up number) per annum investment, the your £500 ((or whatever). One might win us promotion, the other's going to give you an opinion.

I generally pay way more than season ticket holders to watch my team (last 18 months excepted )

[Worthy4England]

As an aside, if anyone could possibly explain why Nick Lucock's brother (BMLL - tax vehicle), or Nick Lucock, or Nick Mason (pocket money, tax vehicle and Shazz's mate) would put 1£ into Bolton, without Shazz. Please have at it, and enlighten me.

I think Michael would probably sink an ED amount, but he doesn't have it, whilst being wealthy enough to pay the wages under KA/Parky. Thank you, Sir.

Fcuk Sharon off if you want. I wouldn't.

[BWFC_Insane]

Therein lies the problem with the DOF model, for me. Last utterance I heard from him on the failsafe system was something along the lines of "Me, Chris, Ludanautics and Sharon all need to be happy before we sign someone."

I think that's like having a no throat to choke committee, albeit you'd think Sharon was mainly looking at the cheque, rather than the spreadsheet.

Also in an interview with Markham about what appealed in the Bolton job, he said "no real change control," as in easier at Bolton than most places because at the time we didn't have a load of over paid bad assets. He did well to sort that out.

It's very frustrating and here we are again with a head coach...

The thing is I actually don’t think that matters with Schumacher. He’s going to say what he feels we need and I suspect will make it very clear if he’s unable to make that happen.

A model where a DoF has a team who identify potential players and present them as options to a head coach is fine I think. Where players are signed without a head coach having a say is problematic. And it was only really problematic because evatt’s character was to try and blame everyone else. I suspect it’s administratively too much work for a manager to oversee the first team and recruitment teams these days given they are much larger than they used to be.

I would instinctively prefer a manager who does the whole lot - but speaking to those in the game and those who were in the game it’s not really practical anymore. Allardyce might have been the top overseer for example but much of the work was done by Mike Forde and his team. And you could call the lines of responsibility clearer maybe but that didn’t stop Sharon sacking a coach to try and save Evatt - nor would it I think have stopped that sort of thing historically. It’s not like when you have a head scout and a few other scouts who basically are like freelance employees mates of the manager. You have full analysis teams, data bods and then the negotiation and contract side. Asking a manager to effectively line manage all that on top of the first team and larger coaching backroom setups is I’m told simply not realistic anymore. And wasn’t even when managers were still called managers - Allardyce would say more or less that he had a similar setup just inverted. He carried the can but had a much of staff he trusted to actually do the do.

I have zero problem with there being people who look after elements of running the club. Just the notion that the buck has to stop somewhere.

Ultimately the buck stops with Sharon. She’s running it. The leaders of the football side and the commercial side are all her appointments and report to her.

Great. Find us another mug to throw 10 mill a year at it, or stop complaining.

I don’t think being an investor puts you above someone ‘complaining’. Indeed I’d say the opposite (how it should be not how it is).

But hopefully now they have learned and we are better placed to move forwards. Sharon doesn’t need to know how to run a football club she does need to know who to appoint and who to seek advice from.

I'd rather have their £10m (made up number) per annum investment, the your £500 ((or whatever). One might win us promotion, the other's going to give you an opinion.

I generally pay way more than season ticket holders to watch my team (last 18 months excepted )

Yeah but the fact remains that she is an investor but also is running the club. So is to answer your initial question ultimately responsible. She hires and fires and makes the calls. She doesn’t have to. She could appoint someone to do that as Eddie Davies did - sort of. He wasn’t responsible but as it stands Sharon is. The fact that she also is responsible for saving the club and financing it (not necessarily personally but as you say through attracting investors) does not obscure the fact that she is still as it stands where the buck stops.

[Worthy4England]

The buck, for poor football results has generally never stopped with the Chairman and usually not the CEO or COO either. When fans are singing "You're getting sacked in the morning," it isn't usually at anyone other than the dude in the dugout. So the whole convo was around the interactions between DoF and Manager/Coach. Evatt started out with us as Coach, Markham iirc as Technical Director or some such, over time Evatt was changed to Manager and as far as I know, Markham changed to DoF. My only point was, when the football results don't go according to plan which of those two should get chopped. Coach implies that they're working to some other buggers strategy and how many times do you hear fans say "x doesn't feel like the Manager's pick for a signing?" I prefer a model where it's very clear that the Manager is in control of how we play and who we buy within whatever budget they've been set. These days with a Head Coach, I'm less sure.

We know for a fact we weren't looking at experienced 27 year olds from the Champo as "targets," who made that pick, Evatt or Markham? And if it's felt that some experience in the shape of a couple of lads from one div up or within our Div, would help us get promoted and they're within budget but we can only afford 2 rather than another 5, 24 year old glass cannons, who makes that call? Not at all sure that's the Coach.

To your point, it never felt like Mike Forde was driving what Sam got as signings. It never felt like there was anyone other than Ferguson calling the shots at OT. It feels different, to an outsider such as me, at say Spurs or any number of incarnations at Newcastle under DoFs.

If Schumacher wanted to change it to 442, target man (not suggesting he does, should or would) can he effect that change, I'm not convinced he or any other Coach can in a DoF model. It's set up so the Coach works at the direction of the DoF, yet when it clearly isn't working on the pitch we turf the Coach and the DoF just sorta says "great squad, not my fault Fred couldn't coach 'em right." It's bizarre.

[BWFC_Insane]

The buck, for poor football results has generally never stopped with the Chairman and usually not the CEO or COO either. When fans are singing "You're getting sacked in the morning," it isn't usually at anyone other than the dude in the dugout. So the whole convo was around the interactions between DoF and Manager/Coach. Evatt started out with us as Coach, Markham iirc as Technical Director or some such, over time Evatt was changed to Manager and as far as I know, Markham changed to DoF. My only point was, when the football results don't go according to plan which of those two should get chopped. Coach implies that they're working to some other buggers strategy and how many times do you hear fans say "x doesn't feel like the Manager's pick for a signing?" I prefer a model where it's very clear that the Manager is in control of how we play and who we buy within whatever budget they've been set. These days with a Head Coach, I'm less sure.

We know for a fact we weren't looking at experienced 27 year olds from the Champo as "targets," who made that pick, Evatt or Markham? And if it's felt that some experience in the shape of a couple of lads from one div up or within our Div, would help us get promoted and they're within budget but we can only afford 2 rather than another 5, 24 year old glass cannons, who makes that call? Not at all sure that's the Coach.

To your point, it never felt like Mike Forde was driving what Sam got as signings. It never felt like there was anyone other than Ferguson calling the shots at OT. It feels different, to an outsider such as me, at say Spurs or any number of incarnations at Newcastle under DoFs.

If Schumacher wanted to change it to 442, target man (not suggesting he does, should or would) can he effect that change, I'm not convinced he or any other Coach can in a DoF model. It's set up so the Coach works at the direction of the DoF, yet when it clearly isn't working on the pitch we turf the Coach and the DoF just sorta says "great squad, not my fault Fred couldn't coach 'em right." It's bizarre.

Don’t disagree but if results aren’t right it’s Sharon’s job to disentangle why and act appropriately. As it stands. She decides who needs to go or not.

I also think that the ‘who carried the can’ shouldn’t be an issue if it’s all done properly.

The new guy to me feels less ‘football’ than Markham did. Markham had an FA job and was clearly embedded into the game and identifying players. Whilst I’m sure the new guy takes responsibility for running that side he feels less someone who might have an opinion on football and players given he’s largely from a corporate background. I know he’s played the game but he feels more akin to how these sporting directors are at the top level. Make stuff happen, deal in the shadows. Maybe not bringing a whole ‘data approach to identifying players’ with him. Perhaps I’m wrong but that’s how I’d see it.

[Worthy4England]

I know you want to keep clouding the picture with Sharon, but I'm not sure why, particularly. Let's try a different way.

Who decides BWFC stylistically are going to play possession football?
Who decides we're not in the market for experienced 27 year olds?
Who decides "this is our brand?"
Who decides "we're not buying shouty/pointy/leader types?" But calm, laid back footballers...

When these things go wrong and your loitering in 8th are we saying the fall guy for that is the Manager (none of it falls on DoF?). I ask because when Evatt was here the narrative was "it's mainly the manager," but with similarly disappointing results under the new Coach, it's all the players that need sacking, yet bar a couple they're the same ones Evatt had.

So very specifically does Schumacher organisationally report to the DoF?
Does he work to a style / set of formations that are set by the DoF?
If he wanted to sign Cosgrave to help change games but doesn't fit our profile, can he do that?

I dunno.

I doubt Shazza's drafting internal memo's of stuff like that every day.

[BWFC_Insane]

I know you want to keep clouding the picture with Sharon, but I'm not sure why, particularly. Let's try a different way.

Who decides BWFC stylistically are going to play possession football?
Who decides we're not in the market for experienced 27 year olds?
Who decides "this is our brand?"
Who decides "we're not buying shouty/pointy/leader types?" But calm, laid back footballers...

When these things go wrong and your loitering in 8th are we saying the fall guy for that is the Manager (none of it falls on DoF?). I ask because when Evatt was here the narrative was "it's mainly the manager," but with similarly disappointing results under the new Coach, it's all the players that need sacking, yet bar a couple they're the same ones Evatt had.

So very specifically does Schumacher organisationally report to the DoF?
Does he work to a style / set of formations that are set by the DoF?
If he wanted to sign Cosgrave to help change games but doesn't fit our profile, can he do that?

I dunno.

I doubt Shazza's drafting internal memo's of stuff like that every day.

I guess what I’m saying is that Sharon decides we need a coach and DoF and hires them. If it goes wrong she makes the decision as to who has to go or not. As it stands at least.

If Sharon wants a gruff experienced manager to do it all she is the only one who can appoint one.

That’s not confusing.

If the structure isn’t clear or appointments are the wrong ones only one person can be responsible for that.


As for the issue when evatt was here the players were discussed in exactly the same way. It’s just he and Markham bought them. And it’s not like the issues weren’t pointed out back then. The difference now is that we can’t blame Schumacher for the squad nor his new DoF who hasn’t even started yet. If the problems remain when Schumacher has been able to assemble his squad then I think that’s a totally different conversation.

[Worthy4England]

If the structure is so bloody clear. Maybe you can answer the questions I asked about it?

[BWFC_Insane]

If the structure is so bloody clear. Maybe you can answer the questions I asked about it?

In terms of the specifics the person who can answer your questions in detail is Sharon. Nobody else can. Given she defines those roles and their specifics in the club.

I can give you a read but it would be no more helpful than your own I don’t think.

But the JDs - Sharon’s. And they report to her.

[Worthy4England]

If the structure is so bloody clear. Maybe you can answer the questions I asked about it?

In terms of the specifics the person who can answer your questions in detail is Sharon. Nobody else can. Given she defines those roles and their specifics in the club.

I can give you a read but it would be no more helpful than your own I don’t think.

But the JDs - Sharon’s. And they report to her.

That'd be a no then. Which was the whole of my fcuking point.

[BWFC_Insane]

If the structure is so bloody clear. Maybe you can answer the questions I asked about it?

In terms of the specifics the person who can answer your questions in detail is Sharon. Nobody else can. Given she defines those roles and their specifics in the club.

I can give you a read but it would be no more helpful than your own I don’t think.

But the JDs - Sharon’s. And they report to her.

That'd be a no then. Which was the whole of my fcuking point.

Why would anyone need to know those details? Outside of decision makers?

[Worthy4England]

If the structure is so bloody clear. Maybe you can answer the questions I asked about it?

In terms of the specifics the person who can answer your questions in detail is Sharon. Nobody else can. Given she defines those roles and their specifics in the club.

I can give you a read but it would be no more helpful than your own I don’t think.

But the JDs - Sharon’s. And they report to her.

That'd be a no then. Which was the whole of my fcuking point.

Why would anyone need to know those details? Outside of decision makers?

Because if fans are going to go round demanding heads roll, when things aren't going right, it'd be good to know you're shouting for the removal of the correct cranium.

I mean you have on occasion, suggested people need removing from the payroll.