Jump to content

AL (allegedly) signing players over managers head.


Are you OK with Abdallah making most of our signings?  

104 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you OK with Abdallah making most of our signings?

    • Yes
      38
    • No
      65


Recommended Posts

Lots of talk about Abdallah signing Vera and Sifil and Pete Wild having no say.

 

Journo's on Twitter and many on here talk as if it's definitely a bad thing.

 

Do you have a problem with this or is it the modern way and now becoming more normal for owners/directors of football to provide the players for the manager/first team coach to coach? 

 

If there was a de facto Director of Football that person would be doing this anyway.

What's the problem if the owner - whose money it is and who probably gives far more of a fuck than a DoF/manager who is just his employee - acts as such? 

 

Abdallah has also clearly let Bunn/Rhodes bring some of their own signings in - Coke, Iversen, Miller etc...

 

I'm fine with it not least because I like/have liked many of the players he's brought in. 

I'd like to think he'd still be open to future managers suggestions and/or objections as all evidence so far suggests he has been - even though that's probably largely been to our detriment...

Edited by HarryBosch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A hell of a lot of clubs have teams or individuals that decide on recruitment these days.  In some cases the manager gets a say and in many they don’t. 

 

Not too fussed either way to be honest. 

 

Can we we have a not bothered option in the poll please?

 

 

 

 

Edited by kowenicki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Provided he gets more right than wrong (and more right, than say we're used to through the traditional 'manager-led' method), AND the manager is completely on board with it, AND it doesn't wholly influence the style of play, I don't have a problem.

 

However, I can't help but feel that this gives any manager a legitimate excuse to abdicate responsibility when things aren't going well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no problem with the Chairman taking the lead, as long as the manager is part of the decision process in some capacity.  It should be a team effort where squad deficiencies are identified by the group, potential players are put forward by the DoF (or chairman in this case) and are then assessed by the coaching staff - either on trial or video or summink, then agreed as a collective that they should be a target we go after.  

 

I'm not happy with one person being in sole control of the transfers be that the DoF/chairman or 1st team manager.

 

Not sure how that means I should vote though 🤔

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously 42 but that’s easier said than done......hopefully, after generally 25 years of horrendous decision making and setback after setback we could finally have the right back room staff to be able to get this club out of reverse gear.

 

I live in hope, but that all it is just now....time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't necessarily have an issue with AL signing players, however I would like whoever the manager is at the time to have their own take on it before hand. 

 

What I do have issue with is AL instructing the manager who to play - that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

 

I'm inclined to believe that when Scholes is made official, we wont be seeing that anymore.  He wouldn't stand for it, doesn't need to stand for it, and would fuck off at the first instance of it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

I've no problem with the Chairman taking the lead, as long as the manager is part of the decision process in some capacity.  It should be a team effort where squad deficiencies are identified by the group, potential players are put forward by the DoF (or chairman in this case) and are then assessed by the coaching staff - either on trial or video or summink, then agreed as a collective that they should be a target we go after.  

 

I'm not happy with one person being in sole control of the transfers be that the DoF/chairman or 1st team manager.

 

Not sure how that means I should vote though 🤔

 

 

It sounds like you're "OK" with it to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going into the dressing room and shooting from the hip in the immediate aftermath of a defeat or a perceived bad performance is my biggest bug bear, of course he and his brother want to be hands on and that to a degree should be applauded but a chairman in a dressing room with a sore head after a game is going to cause disharmony. If players need reminding of their responsibilities I'd hope their manager or captain is tasked with that, it's no job of Abdallah or indeed his brothers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nzlatic said:

I've no problem with the Chairman taking the lead, as long as the manager is part of the decision process in some capacity.  It should be a team effort where squad deficiencies are identified by the group, potential players are put forward by the DoF (or chairman in this case) and are then assessed by the coaching staff - either on trial or video or summink, then agreed as a collective that they should be a target we go after.  

 

I'm not happy with one person being in sole control of the transfers be that the DoF/chairman or 1st team manager.

 

Not sure how that means I should vote though 🤔

 

 

I too would much prefer it being a group decision.

 

Still think this foreign recruitment policy needs a tweaking I don't think we have got enough value for money out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got absolutely no problem with the Lemsagam's having a large say over transfer policy, so long as the foreign imports that they bring in make a discernible [positive] difference..... and they maximise our outgoing assets by not selling on the cheap.

 

My issue with it to date is that one could argue domestic recruitment over the time the Lemsagams have been involved has still been better.

 

What they cannot do however, is tell the fully qualified professional football coach/manager who to play and/or undermine said coach/manager by marching into the dressing room. Both of which have & continue to happen.

Edited by lookersstandandy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Monty Burns said:

I’m happy with Nepo, Maouche, Moimbe, Missile, Branger, Vera and was happy with Placide for a while, so yes.

Wait and see on Cilla.

Omrani was a fail.

Provided they aren’t forced into the starting XI.

 

Nepo, Nazon & Missile I agree....

 

Maouche over the course of his contract to date, is a fail. I hope he turns it around in these last 5 months, but I wouldn't be laying money on it.

 

I think Branger is sh1te.

 

Menig, Placide, Moimbe, Omrami & Kyeremeh were all fails.

 

Zeus, Sylla, Vera, Sefil, Benteke [is he one of the Lemsagams?] we don't know.....

 

So far, 3/10 where we can judge have been a success in my opinion.

 

I think domestic recruitment yields better results than that..... Over the same period;

 

Gardner, Bryan, Doyle, Hunt, Davies, Iverson, Surridge, Lang, Lyden, O'Grady all successes?

 

Wilson, Ruddy, Byrne, Benyu, McEleney, Graham, Miller, Coke, Taylor all failures?

 

Baxter, fail to date..... but on this occasion I would put money on him to come good.

 

That's 10/20.

 

30% success plays 50% success. Domestic wins.

 

Edited by lookersstandandy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we know if these signings are affecting the budget for other players or we signing them instead of UK players?

 

If not and these players are improving the team then I see no problem in this.

 

It’ll change when Scholes comes in or will only be signed if Scholes is happy about it.

 

I don’t think for a second that AL is that arrogant to interview Scholes and completely disregard Scholes’ standing in football and dictate recruitment.  Had Wellens not had that purple patch, Scholes would have been Manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Midsblue said:

Do we know if these signings are affecting the budget for other players or we signing them instead of UK players?

 

If not and these players are improving the team then I see no problem in this.

 

It’ll change when Scholes comes in or will only be signed if Scholes is happy about it.

 

I don’t think for a second that AL is that arrogant to interview Scholes and completely disregard Scholes’ standing in football and dictate recruitment.  Had Wellens not had that purple patch, Scholes would have been Manager.

 

Well it could be argued that the foreign signings are at the expense of a domestic alternative. In some cases ones we could get better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...