[Archived] Mowbray stays as manager

[Hasta]

14 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Well at the minute he coming in as part time advisor. Pasha appointment. 

Nixon tweets suggest that no one knows his role..probably come in as director of football eventually. 

Senior was trying to get rid of Coyle for weeks I believe. 

Swings and roundabouts with every appointment nowadays. If Pasha brought Senior in, and Senior wanted shut of Coyle for weeks, who then actually refused to sack Coyle?  If it is Pasha then whats the point of a DOF. It it wasn't Pasha, then whats the point of him.

The whole structure and realms of responsibility at Ewood are shrouded in confusion.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, davulsukur said:

He can do whatever he wants, as long as it works.

Well this is the first time I remember him doing this, so lets wait and see tomorrow 

[Athlete]

22 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Swings and roundabouts with every appointment nowadays. If Pasha brought Senior in, and Senior wanted shut of Coyle for weeks, who then actually refused to sack Coyle?  If it is Pasha then whats the point of a DOF. It it wasn't Pasha, then whats the point of him.

The whole structure and realms of responsibility at Ewood are shrouded in confusion.

It's the great football club swindle 

[NinjaTattoo]

1 hour ago, davulsukur said:

Actually, he can.

By winning football matches and taking the highest paid squad into the automatic promotion places.

We can (and will) sit here and pick apart everything he says and does whilst we languish in mid table of league one.

If we were sat top of the league, he can say whatever he likes, no one will really have much of a comeback.

Id rather the manager not say anything to the media apart from praising the team when we win.

Anything else ie bollockings or personal criticism of players be kept to the dressing room.

If the team /player has under performed we should have the confidence and power in the manager to give a rollicking behind close doors.

[Dreams of 1995]

3 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

1-How do you know that the plan didn't change? Most players we signed had worked with Mowbray before or played well against his teams(Mowbrays actual words) 

2-How is it a lack of confidence in TM? Is that not jumping to a wild conclusion as you don't even know what Riggs role will be yet? 

3-You don't know what position he will take up, again you are jumping to conclusions, so don't say that you aren't. As for an uninspiring CV, It looks pretty good for a League 1 club appointment to me, whatever role he takes up https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-rigg-131a7478/?ppe=1

 

1. Well, let me put it to you simply BDS: if Paul Snr came out in the press and said "don't worry, I have a plan for either scenario" and then Paul Snr loses his jobs weeks later you'd have to assume, with the largest degree of confidence, that the plan has changed. Further evidence of this is TMs comments about having to assemble a squad in a short space of time leaving room for full scouting reports (see the discussion earlier in this thread for links to those interviews). All of that would suggest whatever plan was in place at the time of our relegation quickly changed.

2. I'd say based upon the linkedin you posted yourself Rigg has a fairly consistent track record of being involved in player acquisition of some sort, whether that be chief scout, a consultant, head of recruitment or, rather laughably, a "global advisor" (where have we heard that one?). Now we have a head of recruitment, a chief scout, a head of academy; within Rigg's expertise all positions are filled, except namely, global advisor/sporting director. I'd say that's pretty good reason to suggest that, should the rumours be true, Rigg would be coming in under that role. Now, consider the way in which Snr was fired, and the following talk of TM going to India and being given full responsibility of recruitment, then you'd say for that to change less than a month after the transfer window has shut then there's been a loss of confidence in Tony Mowbray somewhere down the line. Unless, of course, you think different - if so what have you possibly deduced from this that none of the rest of us have?

3. Rigg's work with Mark Hughes at ourselves and City was promising - he oversaw the transfers of Zabaleta, Kompany and Aguero if I am right. However, during his time as "head of acquisitions" there were some largely embarrassing big money signings that you could argue overshadowed the rest. Aside from that he had a tumultuous time at Fulham and I don't know much about him since in honesty. Certainly not enough to argue he's the second coming, hence the "uninspiring CV" comment.

My basis for arguing about this piece of recruitment is that it's going against the grain of what we have been told in that TM has total say in how the playing staff are recruited, trained etc. They've suddenly, from the outside looking in anyway, gone back on that word. It's also terrible timing in that the window is shut and not open until January - you'd have thought they'd have had a man like Rigg, clearly here to fill the void of Snr, in place before sacking Snr. At least, I would have. In no way shape or form am I saying that Mike Rigg is going to come and do a bad job, I hope he comes and somehow manages to work with owners that people with seemingly better CVs with better connections haven't been able to do.

[tomphil]

More window dressing getting prepared for fan anger as the season threatens to flounder similar to the sham appointment of Senior. Rigg comes in and either oversees some big sales in Jan and replaces with loans/frees OR he does nothing and just provides a presence in the directors box for a few months whilst the usual scurry around in the shadows and money flies through the pipes.

It's beyond me how people actually keep buying into these things if there was any serious intent here they'd have sought out a real leader ages ago and let him do the job.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, tomphil said:

More window dressing getting prepared for fan anger as the season threatens to flounder similar to the sham appointment of Senior. Rigg comes in and either oversees some big sales in Jan and replaces with loans/fees OR he does nothing and just provides a presence in the directors box for a few months whilst the usual scurry around in the shadows and money flies through the pipes.

It's beyond me how people actually keep buying into these things if there was any serious intent here they'd have sought out a real leader ages ago and let him do the job.

Like the sales you predicted last summer?  

[JHRover]

7 minutes ago, tomphil said:

More window dressing getting prepared for fan anger as the season threatens to flounder similar to the sham appointment of Senior. Rigg comes in and either oversees some big sales in Jan and replaces with loans/frees OR he does nothing and just provides a presence in the directors box for a few months whilst the usual scurry around in the shadows and money flies through the pipes.

It's beyond me how people actually keep buying into these things if there was any serious intent here they'd have sought out a real leader ages ago and let him do the job.

If I were a betting man I'd go with this:

Rigg arrives in a blaze of glory on the club website with a few interviews full of PR rubbish about sorting the club out, bringing his expertise to the table, filling a niche etc.

Rigg gets plonked infront of frustrated supporters at the fans consultation meetings, talks a good game, other people remain hidden in the shadows. People buy into it thinking he is going to turn the club around and there is a workable structure now in place.

The January transfer window comes and goes with very little change.

By this time next year he's gone, so has Mowbray, and the whole thing starts again.

If that sounds familiar its because that's what happened with Paul Senior in January 2017-May 2017. Meanwhile invisible man and his mate continue to 'run' the club without so much as a peep.

At best it is box ticking as they know they're struggling to function with the skeleton staff they currently have. More likely its just bringing in another 'face' and 'voice' to the regime to avoid the spotlight being turned on the culprits and it will buy them another 6-12 months patience from most fans.

[Bigdoggsteel]

38 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

1. Well, let me put it to you simply BDS: if Paul Snr came out in the press and said "don't worry, I have a plan for either scenario" and then Paul Snr loses his jobs weeks later you'd have to assume, with the largest degree of confidence, that the plan has changed. Further evidence of this is TMs comments about having to assemble a squad in a short space of time leaving room for full scouting reports (see the discussion earlier in this thread for links to those interviews). All of that would suggest whatever plan was in place at the time of our relegation quickly changed.

2. I'd say based upon the linkedin you posted yourself Rigg has a fairly consistent track record of being involved in player acquisition of some sort, whether that be chief scout, a consultant, head of recruitment or, rather laughably, a "global advisor" (where have we heard that one?). Now we have a head of recruitment, a chief scout, a head of academy; within Rigg's expertise all positions are filled, except namely, global advisor/sporting director. I'd say that's pretty good reason to suggest that, should the rumours be true, Rigg would be coming in under that role. Now, consider the way in which Snr was fired, and the following talk of TM going to India and being given full responsibility of recruitment, then you'd say for that to change less than a month after the transfer window has shut then there's been a loss of confidence in Tony Mowbray somewhere down the line. Unless, of course, you think different - if so what have you possibly deduced from this that none of the rest of us have?

3. Rigg's work with Mark Hughes at ourselves and City was promising - he oversaw the transfers of Zabaleta, Kompany and Aguero if I am right. However, during his time as "head of acquisitions" there were some largely embarrassing big money signings that you could argue overshadowed the rest. Aside from that he had a tumultuous time at Fulham and I don't know much about him since in honesty. Certainly not enough to argue he's the second coming, hence the "uninspiring CV" comment.

My basis for arguing about this piece of recruitment is that it's going against the grain of what we have been told in that TM has total say in how the playing staff are recruited, trained etc. They've suddenly, from the outside looking in anyway, gone back on that word. It's also terrible timing in that the window is shut and not open until January - you'd have thought they'd have had a man like Rigg, clearly here to fill the void of Snr, in place before sacking Snr. At least, I would have. In no way shape or form am I saying that Mike Rigg is going to come and do a bad job, I hope he comes and somehow manages to work with owners that people with seemingly better CVs with better connections haven't been able to do.

1-I don't see the difference between then or now. He would have had minimum impact on transfers last summer coming in at such short notice. Perhaps he wasn't available then? Was he working somewhere? On gardening leave? I don't see the massive suspicion and problem with him coming in now as opposed to last summer.

2/3-His CV looks pretty good to me. High level rolls at clubs in divisions above us. Again ,you are assuming you know what role he is coming in for. You are also attempting to downplay the work he did transfer wise at city and before that here. I don't think "embarrassing big money signings" overshadow anything. Who do you even mean there? 

Maybe Mowbray has asked for the support with transfers? Plenty on here have been critical of his "sign players I know" policy. Perhaps that has filtered to the powers that be at the club. 

I don't see the problem with this appointment at all to be honest. I think people are just digging for problems. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, JHRover said:

If I were a betting man I'd go with this:

Rigg arrives in a blaze of glory on the club website with a few interviews full of PR rubbish about sorting the club out, bringing his expertise to the table, filling a niche etc.

Rigg gets plonked infront of frustrated supporters at the fans consultation meetings, talks a good game, other people remain hidden in the shadows. People buy into it thinking he is going to turn the club around and there is a workable structure now in place.

The January transfer window comes and goes with very little change.

By this time next year he's gone, so has Mowbray, and the whole thing starts again.

If that sounds familiar its because that's what happened with Paul Senior in January 2017-May 2017. Meanwhile invisible man and his mate continue to 'run' the club without so much as a peep.

At best it is box ticking as they know they're struggling to function with the skeleton staff they currently have. More likely its just bringing in another 'face' and 'voice' to the regime to avoid the spotlight being turned on the culprits and it will buy them another 6-12 months patience from most fans.

Or maybe January will build on last summers transfer dealings? 

[JHRover]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

Or maybe January will build on last summers transfer dealings? 

If we aren't well in the midst of a promotion push in January then you can forget squad building, it will be a car boot sale.

If we're sat in this position when the window opens then its bye bye Lenihan, Mulgrew, Evans.

If we're still in this league come the summer then its bye bye Graham, Samuel, Antonsson, Chapman, Harper, Downing

And we're back to square one again needing to sign another 10-15 players just to have a squad.

 

[JBiz]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

 

I don't see the problem with this appointment at all to be honest. I think people are just digging for problems. 

Firstly, it's just a rumour isn't it? I haven't seen it in print yet?

Secondly, you're spot on. The main issue people with a semblance of understanding point out; lack of directors and/or structure above the manager to run the club effectively.

Why is bringing someone new in to this, hiring a new director and bringing experience of football and most importantly, our club in an era when it worked, anything but positive? 

I think this is too good to be true, personally and can't see him coming here.

As for agents influence, a few of us would do well to acknowledge their influence throughout most clubs and players. It's not how I wanted to see the game go, but that's just the way it is. Even Mark Hughes at city - was heavily involved with Kia Joorabchian, who is one in a bagful of powerful "football fixers" who influence spreads far and wide.

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

1-I don't see the difference between then or now. He would have had minimum impact on transfers last summer coming in at such short notice. Perhaps he wasn't available then? Was he working somewhere? On gardening leave? I don't see the massive and suspicion problem with him coming in now as opposed to last summer.

2/3-His CV looks pretty good to me. High level rolls at clubs in divisions above us. Again ,you are assuming you know what role he is coming in for. You are also attempting to downplay the work he did transfer wise at city and before that here. I don't think "embarrassing big money signings" overshadow anything. Who do you even mean there? 

Maybe Mowbray has asked for the support with transfers? Plenty on here have been critical of his "sign players I know" policy. Perhaps that has filtered into the powers that be at the club. 

I don't see the problem with this appointment at all to be honest. I think people are just digging for problems. 

So the part in bold would suggest that confidence in his recruitment has been lost, no? It's not an incorrect assumption to say he will come in in the recruitment department. You are there posting his linkedin profile, which shows ALL of his experience has been in recruitment/consultation FOR recruitment and then saying we can't assume what role he's coming in for. What kind of nonsense is that? You are clearly arguing for the sake of arguing with comments like that.

Secondly he wasn't coming in then because the club made it obvious Tony had taken over the role of recruitment. Snr gets sacked, TM gets a new contract and his role goes from "head coach" to "manager". Recruitment was put firmly in his control hence his constant comments about it. In fact, you was one of the biggest posters saying that TM had ultimate control over transfer dealings, both incoming and outgoing, and now you are arguing that actually that might not have been the case all along and the real plan was to eventually replace him from manager back to head coach in order to employ a further recruitment guru later down the line. Which one is the case BDS or do you change your mind as per the argument?

As for the big money signings: didn't he oversee the signings of Jo, Adebayor, Santa Cruz, SWP, Savic, Robinho, Boetang etc? But this isn't me denouncing his ability but more saying that you claiming his CV is brilliant is wrong. Not only did he have failures at City, a club with infinite resources, he also had big failures at Fulham by bringing in the likes of Magrath and Symons. 

I don't see it is as a bad thing to bring in another man with football knowledge (AGAIN I have to repeat the same point over and over to you) but I'm not silly enough to say that this is nothing but a positive. The timing is extremely strange, there seems to be no reasoning behind it except a lack of faith in TMs transfer dealings and, finally, he's hardly what we need. For the final time: it's replacing a role we don't need replacing when we should be focusing on other roles on the board, ie: a managing director....

 

[JHRover]

Just now, Biz said:

Firstly, it's just a rumour isn't it? I haven't seen it in print yet?

Secondly, you're spot on. The main issue people with a semblance of understanding point out; lack of directors and/or structure above the manager to run the club effectively.

Why is bringing someone new in to this, hiring a new director and bringing experience of football and most importantly, our club in an era when it worked, anything but positive? 

I think this is too good to be true, personally and can't see him coming here.

As for agents influence, a few of us would do well to acknowledge their influence throughout most clubs and players. It's not how I wanted to see the game go, but that's just the way it is. Even Mark Hughes at city - was heavily involved with Kia Joorabchian, who is one in a bagful of powerful "football fixers" who influence spreads far and wide.

Because he won't be allowed to do the job. No directors since John Williams have had sufficient authority to run the club in the right way.

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, JHRover said:

Because he won't be allowed to do the job. No directors since John Williams have had sufficient authority to run the club in the right way.

And it's the wrong director. How can you have a director of football (or head of recruitment/whatever) when you don't have a managing director that can finalise transfer dealings without waiting for the infamous Venky nod?

You can't build a board from the bottom down and, ultimately, the director of football role is a role we haven't had success with and don't need. It's as simple as that. He's just another bloke to fall on the sword whilst the real shot-callers go unpunished because they aren't "officially" employed by the club.

[JBiz]

7 minutes ago, JHRover said:

If I were a betting man I'd go with this:

Rigg arrives in a blaze of glory on the club website with a few interviews full of PR rubbish about sorting the club out, bringing his expertise to the table, filling a niche etc.

Rigg gets plonked infront of frustrated supporters at the fans consultation meetings, talks a good game, other people remain hidden in the shadows. People buy into it thinking he is going to turn the club around and there is a workable structure now in place.

The January transfer window comes and goes with very little change.

By this time next year he's gone, so has Mowbray, and the whole thing starts again.

If that sounds familiar its because that's what happened with Paul Senior in January 2017-May 2017. Meanwhile invisible man and his mate continue to 'run' the club without so much as a peep.

At best it is box ticking as they know they're struggling to function with the skeleton staff they currently have. More likely its just bringing in another 'face' and 'voice' to the regime to avoid the spotlight being turned on the culprits and it will buy them another 6-12 months patience from most fans.

Isn't it quite as easy to point out that we don't know what Seniors remit was, just like we wouldn't know fully what MR would be expected to deliver?  (If hired)

For instance, if someone in the owners ear pointed out what was on the cards last year when Senior was appointed, isn't it more realistic to suggest Senior was expected to keep the club up, and therefore was released by contract on relegation? It uses the same format a your post, it assumes a lot, but I'd personally guess the truth is much nearer to that, as opposed to some paranoid theory that decisions are primarily made to appease fans feelings towards the club.

It literally makes 0 sense to me JHR, why would the owners suddenly start worrying about "patience from fans" now? 

[JBiz]

1 minute ago, JHRover said:

Because he won't be allowed to do the job. No directors since John Williams have had sufficient authority to run the club in the right way.

Ofcourse full autonomy at Ewood is preferable, but I don't think we saw the same stumbling on decisions the previous summer though. I thought it looked like a club that had agreed budgets and remit prior to the transfer window opening.

[Bigdoggsteel]

4 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

So the part in bold would suggest that confidence in his recruitment has been lost, no? It's not an incorrect assumption to say he will come in in the recruitment department. You are there posting his linkedin profile, which shows ALL of his experience has been in recruitment/consultation FOR recruitment and then saying we can't assume what role he's coming in for. What kind of nonsense is that? You are clearly arguing for the sake of arguing with comments like that.

Secondly he wasn't coming in then because the club made it obvious Tony had taken over the role of recruitment. Snr gets sacked, TM gets a new contract and his role goes from "head coach" to "manager". Recruitment was put firmly in his control hence his constant comments about it. In fact, you was one of the biggest posters saying that TM had ultimate control over transfer dealings, both incoming and outgoing, and now you are arguing that actually that might not have been the case all along and the real plan was to eventually replace him from manager back to head coach in order to employ a further recruitment guru later down the line. Which one is the case BDS or do you change your mind as per the argument?

As for the big money signings: didn't he oversee the signings of Jo, Adebayor, Santa Cruz, SWP, Savic, Robinho, Boetang etc? But this isn't me denouncing his ability but more saying that you claiming his CV is brilliant is wrong. Not only did he have failures at City, a club with infinite resources, he also had big failures at Fulham by bringing in the likes of Magrath and Symons. 

I don't see it is as a bad thing to bring in another man with football knowledge (AGAIN I have to repeat the same point over and over to you) but I'm not silly enough to say that this is nothing but a positive. The timing is extremely strange, there seems to be no reasoning behind it except a lack of faith in TMs transfer dealings and, finally, he's hardly what we need. For the final time: it's replacing a role we don't need replacing when we should be focusing on other roles on the board, ie: a managing director....

 

And what is wrong with him coming in to deal with transfers? Who says that him and Mowbray cant/won't work together? 

[JHRover]

3 minutes ago, Biz said:

Isn't it quite as easy to point out that we don't know what Seniors remit was, just like we wouldn't know fully what MR would be expected to deliver?  (If hired)

For instance, if someone in the owners ear pointed out what was on the cards last year when Senior was appointed, isn't it more realistic to suggest Senior was expected to keep the club up, and therefore was released by contract on relegation? It uses the same format a your post, it assumes a lot, but I'd personally guess the truth is much nearer to that, as opposed to some paranoid theory that decisions are primarily made to appease fans feelings towards the club.

It literally makes 0 sense to me JHR, why would the owners suddenly start worrying about "patience from fans" now? 

Don't think its anything to do with the owners, who I think have effectively washed their hands of it apart from annual reviews. Its Cheston and his mysterious friend that are worried about patience as they are at risk of grief and aggravation from supporters if they aren't seen to be doing something. Maybe even a League investigation into the lack of directors and invisible man's true role at the club (unlikely but I suppose a possible concern they have). In addition to that the appalling lack of footballing experience and knowledge at the club must be difficult to cope with on their own.

 

[tomphil]

35 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Like the sales you predicted last summer?  

Can't get everything right first time i'm only human

[JBiz]

1 minute ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

And it's the wrong director. How can you have a director of football (or head of recruitment/whatever) when you don't have a managing director that can finalise transfer dealings without waiting for the infamous Venky nod?

You can't build a board from the bottom down and, ultimately, the director of football role is a role we haven't had success with and don't need. It's as simple as that. He's just another bloke to fall on the sword whilst the real shot-callers go unpunished because they aren't "officially" employed by the club.

Whilst we've had 7 years of venkys, and it's very easy for that to merge into one bad dream;

When you're talking about the "Venky-light", you're essentially giving credence to Nixons famous transfer stories, and if you look at the previous summer- you'd find it hard to prove the same issues happened when we've signed 12 players, some for an outlay.

Bringing in actual football experience above the manager to fill the cavernous vacuum! Makes sense to me, whatever his primary role. Perhaps finding a new manager might be one of his first jobs? 

[Bigdoggsteel]

3 minutes ago, Biz said:

Ofcourse full autonomy at Ewood is preferable, but I don't think we saw the same stumbling on decisions the previous summer though. I thought it looked like a club that had agreed budgets and remit prior to the transfer window opening.

Shhhhhh you can't say that. The only reason we didn't sell Lenihan, Mulgrew and Roar the lion last summer is because the Glasgow mafia sent the email to the monkey with the type writer okaying the sales, but he was busy eating his banana ,so missed the memo. They then sent it to Paul seniors wife and she rang Balaji putting on Tony Mowbrays voice. This led to huge confusion. Anyway, that is pretty much the story I heard as to why they weren't sold. My source is reliable. 

[tomphil]

2 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Don't think its anything to do with the owners, who I think have effectively washed their hands of it apart from annual reviews. Its Cheston and his mysterious friend that are worried about patience as they are at risk of grief and aggravation from supporters if they aren't seen to be doing something. In addition to that the appalling lack of footballing experience and knowledge at the club must be difficult to cope with on their own.

 

Bingo !

[JBiz]

4 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Don't think its anything to do with the owners, who I think have effectively washed their hands of it apart from annual reviews. Its Cheston and his mysterious friend that are worried about patience as they are at risk of grief and aggravation from supporters if they aren't seen to be doing something. Maybe even a League investigation into the lack of directors and invisible man's true role at the club (unlikely but I suppose a possible concern they have). In addition to that the appalling lack of footballing experience and knowledge at the club must be difficult to cope with on their own.

 

The EFL aren't fans though, so I'm not concerned by their relevance to your position. I also don't think the FA, EFL or EPL etc - none of them are fit for purpose, and I doubt they'll ever be.

Grief and aggravation of the supporters? Didn't you see Suhail taking selfies in front of protestors? They don't give a hoot about the fans, and since thousands have walked away, I doubt they are concerned by thought of those left in uproar. Division 3? That's not conducive to back page headlines either, or even discussion on football shows.

The last thing you mention though, that's not about face saving, and it's sort of what I'm saying - if they've made a decision to bring more "expertise" to the club, for whatever reason; Good decision. Reason? The problem from the start; vacuum between club/owners.

Something like this is not a fix all solution though. The initial thought for me is it feels like a way of ramping up the pressure on TM, and at the same time planning for the potential of him leaving.

Would you rather see Rigg choose his successor or an accountant?

[tomphil]

It's been said he might be coming in as a part time adviser there's no mention of appointing directors to fill vacuums or actually direct. That won't happen because the club is being directed by a shadow man and a set of agents with blessings from India.

Like Senior possibly was he'll just another guy who'll pitch up for a while in the directors box and get a bit of publicity to get some of the more willing to swallow fans putting faith in him and the way things are being done before he'll disappear again once the window is shut or the season is over.

Whether another manager is appointed or not Rigg could be another convenient figure to sack off at the end of another disappointing season when alleged targets haven't been reached again deflecting blame for shadow man, Cheston, whoever the manger may be and the Indian gimps.

'Oh they tried they appointed Rigg'

We've been there before several times it's classic Venkys.

Now if they appointed a DOF or CE in a full time public facing role to actually run the club under the remit of building a promotion achieving squad and with the license to do so I might view it differently.