how about booker ?

[theweasel]

Any thoughts or comments ?

 

[Wez]

Nah he is to close to the players.

 

[SiNZ]

Just asked this on another thread:

When we appointed Hinshelwood before, why was Booker not in running then? Perhaps he does not want to be the number one?

 

[Cheshire]

Given the chance Booker would take it and it is was on the cards that at sometime in the future he would be offerred the position. However in view of the poor record we have of such internal appointments - this should not now be a consideration. Booker is too valuable as our number 2.

 

[SiNZ]

Given the chance Booker would take it and it is was on the cards that at sometime in the future he would be offerred the position. However in view of the poor record we have of such internal appointments - this should not now be a consideration. Booker is too valuable as our number 2.

So how come we went straight to Hinshelwood before? At the time, I thought Booker would have been a better choice as he would have at least dealt with the first team. However, now I wonder whether Booker is even interested in the number one role. The other point I've seen raised is that he is very much "one of the lads" and in any career it is very difficult to make the change to being the boss of people you're pally with.... or was that just my experience

 

[Trigger]

We've tried appointing from within before, it just doesn't work