Mowbray’s Future

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, den said:

There are plenty of reasons why it might not work here Parson.

Shebby, SEM, Anderson have all supplied players for our "coach" for the last 6 years. Now Senior has stepped in, denied Coyle his signings and thrust Joao on us.

I can't believe how naive some people are to the dangers. Appoint a good manager, let him decide who he wants to bring in - and back him.

Nah, that's much too simple a way of behaving.

[Roverthechimp]

Just now, den said:

There are plenty of reasons why it might not work here Parson.

Shebby, SEM, Anderson have all supplied players for our "coach" for the last 6 years. Now Senior has stepped in, denied Coyle his signings and thrust Joao on us.

I can't believe how naive some people are to the dangers. Appoint a good manager, let him decide who he wants to bring in - and back him.

This is the real issue. Both systems can work (in fact i suspect most prem clubs operate this way but discretely with a "transfer panel/Groupon").

Rovers problem is that we appointed donkeys for coaches/managers and agents/pundits/spivs as being responsible for player recruitment.

In both cases the club (and possibly Venkys) have @#/? away money on dross.

So i would suggest that both systems would work with the right people and the DOF solution does give some continuity as managers tend to have a short shelf life at our club these days (for obvious reasons)

Is Senior a decent and honest DOF is the big question?

[47er]

Mowbray is a very different type of man to Kean, judging from his Wikipedia profile-----"he has not drunk alcohol since the age of 19"!

[duggy9197]

Can,t anyone change wikipedia profiles

[den]

Just now, klc_2012 said:

This is the real issue. Both systems can work (in fact i suspect most prem clubs operate this way but discretely with a "transfer panel/Groupon").

Rovers problem is that we appointed donkeys for coaches/managers and agents/pundits/spivs as being responsible for player recruitment.

In both cases the club (and possibly Venkys) have @#/? away money on dross.

So i would suggest that both systems would work with the right people and the DOF solution does give some continuity as managers tend to have a short shelf life at our club these days (for obvious reasons)

Is Senior a decent and honest DOF is the big question?

Fair points. I'm arguing to Parson that there are reasons to doubt it will work here.

The important point in any way of working, is to appoint a good manager. For rovers, the focus is more on the provision of players and that is always hit and miss whoever is bringing players in. There are no guarantees that any player will work out, at any club. The owners seem to think that teaming the external provision of players with more or less ANY decent coach will bring success. It hasn't worked and it won't work. Maybe they've changed stance with Mowbray, but for me, if they think he's a good manager, then I would let him bring in his own players that fit into his system, his way of playing. If Senior is going to deny him his choice of player and push his own choice on him - as I think he will (moneyball and all that), then we are going to struggle.

i would get rid of Senior and simply back Mowbray. That avoids any possible conflict of personalities, or indeed conflict of interests.

[Roverthechimp]

Just now, den said:

Fair points. I'm arguing to Parson that there are reasons to doubt it will work here.

The important point in any way of working, is to appoint a good manager. For rovers, the focus is more on the provision of players and that is always hit and miss whoever is bringing players in. There are no guarantees that any player will work out, at any club. The owners seem to think that teaming the external provision of players with more or less ANY decent coach will bring success. It hasn't worked and it won't work. Maybe they've changed stance with Mowbray, but for me, if they think he's a good manager, then I would let him bring in his own players that fit into his system, his way of playing. If Senior is going to deny him his choice of player and push his own choice on him - as I think he will (moneyball and all that), then we are going to struggle.

i would get rid of Senior and simply back Mowbray. That avoids any possible conflict of personalities, or indeed conflict of interests.

Fair enough and agree on the need for the manager (or head coach) to be decent and at least have a sayinin recruitment.

[RV Blue]

38 minutes ago, den said:

There are plenty of reasons why it might not work here Parson.

Shebby, SEM, Anderson have all supplied players for our "coach" for the last 6 years. Now Senior has stepped in, denied Coyle his signings and thrust Joao on us.

I can't believe how naive some people are to the dangers. Appoint a good manager, let him decide who he wants to bring in - and back him.

Did you see Coyle's potential signings though? Giles Barnes, Abdoul Ba etc. I'm not surprised they didn't want to sign them, especially as Coyle's job was clearly under threat anyway.

[Parsonblue]

Just now, den said:

Fair points. I'm arguing to Parson that there are reasons to doubt it will work here.

The important point in any way of working, is to appoint a good manager. For rovers, the focus is more on the provision of players and that is always hit and miss whoever is bringing players in. There are no guarantees that any player will work out, at any club. The owners seem to think that teaming the external provision of players with more or less ANY decent coach will bring success. It hasn't worked and it won't work. Maybe they've changed stance with Mowbray, but for me, if they think he's a good manager, then I would let him bring in his own players that fit into his system, his way of playing. If Senior is going to deny him his choice of player and push his own choice on him - as I think he will (moneyball and all that), then we are going to struggle.

i would get rid of Senior and simply back Mowbray. That avoids any possible conflict of personalities, or indeed conflict of interests.

Both Senior and Mowbray are new to the club so only time will tell if this relationship will work.  It works abroad and it works in American sport so there is no reason why it can't work here.  Naturally people are suspicious of anyone that the present owners appoint as their track record is one of failure followed by failure.  It would seem more clubs are going down this route and even in the Premier League managers are now having to work with directors of football or committees when it comes to buying players.  The key to making it work is the relationship between the head coach and the director of football. 

[RV Blue]

14 minutes ago, klc_2012 said:

This is the real issue. Both systems can work (in fact i suspect most prem clubs operate this way but discretely with a "transfer panel/Groupon").

Rovers problem is that we appointed donkeys for coaches/managers and agents/pundits/spivs as being responsible for player recruitment.

In both cases the club (and possibly Venkys) have @#/? away money on dross.

So i would suggest that both systems would work with the right people and the DOF solution does give some continuity as managers tend to have a short shelf life at our club these days (for obvious reasons)

Is Senior a decent and honest DOF is the big question?

Exactly, it is rare in today's game that a manager has full control of who comes in at any club. I think the DoF model kind of makes sense here to provide some stability and continuity even when the manager leaves. We need a philosophy that will carry on no matter who the coach/manager is. Hopefully the plan is to buy young lads with the view to selling them on for profit, rather than a manager signing players with no resale value for the here and now, that would make sense. Is Senior the man to do it though? I doubt it. Are Venky's capable of doing it? I doubt that even more.

[chaddyrovers]

4 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

Both Senior and Mowbray are new to the club so only time will tell if this relationship will work.  It works abroad and it works in American sport so there is no reason why it can't work here.  Naturally people are suspicious of anyone that the present owners appoint as their track record is one of failure followed by failure.  It would seem more clubs are going down this route and even in the Premier League managers are now having to work with directors of football or committees when it comes to buying players.  The key to making it work is the relationship between the head coach and the director of football. 

Exactly what I've been saying for weeks. The key is having a good relationship between them. Also having a style of play/tactics that we sign players for to fit that and have a clear plan. I think Mowbray and Senior will work together on signings. But its leave Mowbray currently working on the coaching side of the club and Senior more on the recruitment side. Then when we know what division we will be playing in then Mowbray and Senior can get together and put a proper recruitment in place with specific targets for the positions we need players for.

Most English clubs now have a director of football or transfer committee in place. I can only think of 3 premier league clubs where this doesn't happen. These clubs are Man Utd, Arsenal and Burnley.

6 minutes ago, RV Blue said:

Did you see Coyle's potential signings though? Giles Barnes, Abdoul Ba etc. I'm not surprised they didn't want to sign them, especially as Coyle's job was clearly under threat anyway.

Exactly RV.

[Stuart]

27 minutes ago, den said:

Fair points. I'm arguing to Parson that there are reasons to doubt it will work here.

The important point in any way of working, is to appoint a good manager. For rovers, the focus is more on the provision of players and that is always hit and miss whoever is bringing players in. There are no guarantees that any player will work out, at any club. The owners seem to think that teaming the external provision of players with more or less ANY decent coach will bring success. It hasn't worked and it won't work. Maybe they've changed stance with Mowbray, but for me, if they think he's a good manager, then I would let him bring in his own players that fit into his system, his way of playing. If Senior is going to deny him his choice of player and push his own choice on him - as I think he will (moneyball and all that), then we are going to struggle.

i would get rid of Senior and simply back Mowbray. That avoids any possible conflict of personalities, or indeed conflict of interests.

Good post.

I would add that one of the further problems with such an arrangement are when players are brought in for reasons aside from their importance to the team and how the manager wants to play. For instance, they are the only players available for no transfer fee/low % wages or they happen to be from a particular agency - and need to be moved to generate income for agents.

There is a high profile exception to this in recent times in Swansea (possibly Southampton to an extent) where there is a ethos at the club about the way they want to play and they bring in coaches and players who will be part of that ethos. They also happen to have the fans as part of the ethos by way of their supporters' Trust involvement.

I'm far from convinced any decision at Rovers is taken with the fans in mind, and I'm not convinced that players are brought in for the good of the team. More wingers that we can shake a stick at, yet no right back and not midfield general. Gaping holes in the squad season after season, window after window, and "head coach" after manager.

[Mike E]

23 minutes ago, RV Blue said:

Did you see Coyle's potential signings though? Giles Barnes, Abdoul Ba etc. I'm not surprised they didn't want to sign them, especially as Coyle's job was clearly under threat anyway.

While I realise the difference in quality, one could equally apply those misgivings to some of Hughes' better signings.

Namely the Kiwi from an MLS team, the tall African in Hertha Berlin's C team, the injury-prone Paraguayan, the angry stroppy Welshman.

[Stuart]

Just now, Mike E said:

While I realise the difference in quality, one could equally apply those misgivings to some of Hughes' better signings.

Namely the Kiwi from an MLS team, the tall African in Hertha Berlin's C team, the injury-prone Paraguayan, the angry stroppy Welshman.

Did you just use the word 'equally'?

[4000Holes]

Just now, Mike E said:

While I realise the difference in quality, one could equally apply those misgivings to some of Hughes' better signings.

Namely the Kiwi from an MLS team, the tall African in Hertha Berlin's C team, the injury-prone Paraguayan, the angry stroppy Welshman.

Reasonable comment Mike but I think there is a world of difference in the calibre of Hughes and Coyle.  Hughes knew the system he wanted to play and brought players to fit in that system.  Coyle was all over the place and bought / borrowed whatever was available, possibly his mates.  When budget was extremely tight, why Giles Barnes when everybody knew we needed the defence shorting up?  

[den]

53 minutes ago, RV Blue said:

Did you see Coyle's potential signings though? Giles Barnes, Abdoul Ba etc. I'm not surprised they didn't want to sign them, especially as Coyle's job was clearly under threat anyway.

Yes mate. That's where the good manager comes in.

[RV Blue]

Just now, den said:

Yes mate. That's where the good manager comes in.

Of course, but we can't really blame Senior for Coyle, apart from not sacking him sooner I suppose.

[RV Blue]

Just now, 4000Holes said:

Reasonable comment Mike but I think there is a world of difference in the calibre of Hughes and Coyle.  Hughes knew the system he wanted to play and brought players to fit in that system.  Coyle was all over the place and bought / borrowed whatever was available, possibly his mates.  When budget was extremely tight, why Giles Barnes when everybody knew we needed the defence shorting up?  

Exactly, Hughes earned the right to be trusted, Coyle didn't.

[Amo]

I wonder if we've gone through so many managers because it's a great diversionary tactic? 

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, Amarillo said:

I wonder if we've gone through so many managers because it's a great diversionary tactic? 

No,that's not the reason. It was because there were a lot of terrible appointments. With the exception of ,arguably, Bowyer. 

[Hasta]

Senior has put himself on the back foot with some cringeworthy interviews that have show he will happily fiddle while Rome burns. However he has done 3 major things so far. Remove Coyle (the good), give us Jaoa (the bad) and bring in Mowbray (the ugly ).

 

Going forward, the relationship between him and Mowbray will need to be exceptionally good if he's providing players, However it has to be Mowbrays call if he wants them. It's no good forcing players on a manager and forcing him to adapt his system.which brings us back to is a DOF a glorified scout?

 

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Hasta

[Amo]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

No,that's not the reason. It was because there were a lot of terrible appointments. With the exception of ,arguably, Bowyer. 

Every appointment has been a failure. The fact people look fondly on Bowyer's three years of midtable mediocrity says it all.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, Amarillo said:

Every appointment has been a failure. The fact people look fondly on Bowyer's three years of midtable mediocrity says it all.

We were under FFP restrictions. While we had a decent squad. The championship was a lot stronger and more competitive then than it is now. Bowyer did a solid job here. No more,no less. In no way could he be called a failure. 

[J*B]

Absolutely nothing I have seen in the past 6 years gives me any confidence that this won't be another total disaster. I give it 18 months before Mowbray and Senior are both sacked with more pay offs. 

Oh and for anyone with confidence still, the damage has already been done - we're going down this season. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

7 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Senior has put himself on the back foot with some cringeworthy interviews that have show he will happily fiddle while Rome burns. However he has done 3 major things so far. Remove Coyle (the good), give us Jaoa (the bad) and bring in Mowbray (the ugly ).

 

Going forward, the relationship between him and Mowbray will need to be exceptionally good if he's providing players, However it has to be Mowbrays call if he wants them. It's no good forcing players on a manager and forcing him to adapt his system.which brings us back to is a DOF a glorified scout?

 

 

I find the fact that people are using the signing of Jaoa as a stick to beat senior with a bit weak. He is a player we signed on loan. I really don't see how it is a big issue. 

Senior has literally just gotten in the door,with one January transfer window,where the manager was a dead man walking. 

I just find the immediate conspiracy and negativity around him,with little or nothing to back it up all a bit strange. I'm not actually referring to your post by and large as I think it is balanced and you make some good points. 

I will be judging senior after next summer. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Bigdoggsteel

[AllRoverAsia]

4 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Senior has put himself on the back foot with some cringeworthy interviews that have show he will happily fiddle while Rome burns. However he has done 3 major things so far. Remove Coyle (the good), give us Jaoa (the bad) and bring in Mowbray (the ugly ).

 

Going forward, the relationship between him and Mowbray will need to be exceptionally good if he's providing players, However it has to be Mowbrays call if he wants them. It's no good forcing players on a manager and forcing him to adapt his system.which brings us back to is a DOF a glorified scout?

 

 

Not even a scout. Seniors wife can do that. It will depend on who wears the pants .....Rovers meanwhile will be getting theirs pulled down.