Lags Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) Obviously the CEO should do the paper work and the owners have a say how much wonga and chat with the agent/player/CEO. But who should be the indentifier of the players wanted? Me I've always thought the manager/coach should be the only one. He's the guy that stands and falls by his successes and failures. Edited February 4, 2009 by Lags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Whats your point though... Isnt this going to be a land slide for the manager ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 Whats your point though... Isnt this going to be a land slide for the manager ? There's always a point.............let the poll run it's course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Maybe not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 The rarely wrong Chron keeps telling us that the manager "has identified.......[target positions]" to strengthen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Manager should identify which players he wants - no player should ever be brought to a club without the manager saying "I want him in my squad". CEO/Owner should agree the budget available. CEO should do the donkey work. (negotiations etc) Player should then be signed, placed in the reserves and watch from the sidelines as a loanee is brought in to cover the position that the new signing thought was his! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Manager should identify which players he wants - no player should ever be brought to a club without the manager saying "I want him in my squad". CEO/Owner should agree the budget available. CEO should do the donkey work. (negotiations etc) I pretty much agree with this. The manager says "I want X player". CEO/Owner discuss the budget to bring him in, CEO holds negotiations, player turns up for training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I pretty much agree with this. Shez says "I want X player". TTA/Hardy discuss the budget to bring him in, TTA/Hardy holds negotiations, player turns up for training. for Doncaster.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLegend Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I beleive the manager should be involved in ALL levels of negotiation, from discussing the fee up until contract talks and selling the club to the player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Wot no Barry Owen option? Actually, I think Barry Owen should be in charge of getting Schoelsy here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Manager should identify which players he wants - no player should ever be brought to a club without the manager saying "I want him in my squad". CEO/Owner should agree the budget available. CEO should do the donkey work. (negotiations etc) Player should then be signed, placed in the reserves and watch from the sidelines as a loanee is brought in to cover the position that the new signing thought was his! Your reference: Lee, Stephens, O'Grady etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Different clubs operate in slightly different ways, and I don't think there is one right way, even for one club: it depends on the boardroom and managerial staff, the manager's experience and a host of other things. I agree with the statement that no player should ever join unless the manager wants him, but that doesn't mean the manager has to have identified him. I would expect that scouts employed by the club should report to Sheridan, and should be sent out by Sheridan with instructions as to what kinds of player with what attributes he wants. However, at a club like Oldham the full scout network isn't quite so formal, and when you have football fans (and respectable amateur players) on the board like Blitz and Corney they are BOUND to get involved in conversations along the lines of "I think xxx would be really great for us, what d'you reckon Shez?" Once the player is identified, the emphasis moves to the board. If a fee is involved, TTA/Hardy should be the ones to agree that fee with input from Sheridan in terms of what he wants from the overall budget he's been given, and it should then be TTA/Hardy that discuss/agree personal terms with the player - with (as mentioned) input from Sheridan to 'sell the club' to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Chairman/owners should say "this is what you've got to spend" rest should be nowt to do with them in all fairness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Chairman/owners should say "this is what you've got to spend" rest should be nowt to do with them in all fairness In an ideal world that looks like Football Manager 2008, maybe. In reality, very rarely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 In an ideal world that looks like Football Manager 2008, maybe. In reality, very rarely. What knowledge have Corney, Blitz and gazal got on lower division footballers - they of course should have a say on the amounts spent/wages and the areas needing strenghening but it is not in their job descciptions to dictate who we sign - who we sell is business related and has financial implications on the club, but in terms of signings I'd be suprised if any had been not Sheridans choice. This is what pisses me off at the moment about the big guns, Owners who actually believe that they are qualified to make football related decisions - Put in some puppet and then use the club (any club) to live out some financially viable boyhood fantasy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kellys_discopants Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 The manager is in charge of the team .. the owner is in charge of the club. Pretty straight forward really. The manager identifies the targets he wants, and then as a team they work out if it`s feesable and realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 It should be slighlty different than my job. I am a manager (of 40 staff as it happens). I cannot hire and fire tehm in the same way Shez does, but I can buy commodities(food in my case) from nominated supplier, but go out of that if there is a business case for it. I also have a budget, which moves depending on how busy/quiet we are. So it is up to me what to buy ultiamtely, but within the restraints of a budget. I don't expect it is too much different for Shez, just the commodities are the players rather than the staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 (edited) The members have had their say (or those that have logged on and wanted to vote) and I have to say the results do not surprise me in the least. I believe the manager MUST be the one with the final say who is in his squad. The manager then stands and falls by HIS decisions. Sure he'll have trusted scouts and colleagues who will have their say if they believe a player would fit in better than the manager does and at that point it's a debate, but untimately I still believe it should be the managers final say. At that point he must go to the Board/Owners expressing his wishes that xyz is brought into the club. Then it's down to the owners/CEO to see if it's possible budget wise and parent club wise. What is wrong for me is if an agent or another club official mentions to an owner, xyz player is available and the owner then says YES we'll have him. In some cases we the fans may actually agree and would love to see a certain player here but, it really ought to be the manager who says YES. I think to many times we the fans question Shez about having 'so called friends' who he picks and doesn't seem to give others a fair go. I wonder.....just maybe are these players brought to the club by Shez, or is it someone else thats pushed them on to him?. Sure even then it could be argued that they should still be given a go when players are clearly not performing week in and week out. (and I am not a shez outter nor believe he is above critcism) The Board/Owners/Players/ Staff all read this board and one member asked whats the point of this poll. Well it allows us to be honest with the people that matter. That we ain't completely blind to what goes on within the club (though we are sometimes way of the mark with some posters comments) At the end of the day we all want to blame the real culprit when things go wrong. We have a great club to follows and all the people within it do fantastic jobs in the main.....when they do their own that is!!! Edited February 5, 2009 by Lags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 At the end of the day we all want to blame the real culprit when things go wrong. That's one of the biggest problems with so many fans right there. The assumption that someone must always be to blame. As to the rest, I disagree with your suggestion, Lags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 You're free to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 You're free to disagree. Why thank you. Actually, a friend reminded me that quite a while ago corney was directly asked the question about TTA involvement in football matters. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that they don't and won't, because all it does is give the manager an excuse for failure. i.e. the manager alone must stand or fall on his own decisions and players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 Rather than do a list that maybe debatable (and I think I'd be right in saying there's quite a few more) who do you reckon signed Rob Lee and Michael Ricketts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Without having an inside line to the club, and not being the type of person that makes things up without any shred of evidence, I assume the manager signed them. I think there may have been signings that Sheridan was less involved in. i.e. the name was suggested and he agreed, rather than him suggesting the name. Oddly enough (for your theory) I think the most likely example of that is one of Shez's "mates" - Hughes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 I think players agents have been told YES before Sheridan knew in some instances. So we'll have to differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Any grounds for thinking that or just a hunch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts