That Shane McFaul Interview

[Mendoza]

The one about Wilkins and his man management skills.

In todays Argus there is a follow up article by Naylor saying why McFaul was right to say what he said, Sake!!

Then a little thing at the end to say that Wilkins had little to do with the players bought to the club last season


Cant find it online, and cant be arsed to type it out. Surely its time to leave Wilkins alone and stop putting him down after a relatively sucessful season??

 

[CHAPPERS]

So Wilkins couldn't manage players he had NO control over bringing to the club?

Well there's a surprise.

 

[BigGully]

I gotta feeling Wilkins will stay .......

 

[BensGrandad]

So Wilkins couldn't manage players he had NO control over bringing to the club?

QUOTE]


Who did all of this then?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

So Wilkins couldn't manage players he had NO control over bringing to the club?

Who did all of this then?

The Board on Barry Lloyd's recommendations?

 

[BigGully]

The Board on Barry Lloyd's recommendations?

Sometimes the Board on DK recommendation !!

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Sometimes the Board on DK recommendation !!

I think that is rather misleading. You could appear to be saying that DK trawls around football grounds with his eye out for talent. Do you mean Dick makes a recommendation from a recommendation? I.e. Turienzo

 

[BigGully]

I think that is rather misleading. You could appear to be saying that DK trawls around football grounds with his eye out for talent. Do you mean Dick makes a recommendation from a recommendation? I.e. Turienzo

No I dont necessarily mean that ........ he himself has been known to recommend a player to Lloyd.

It is that hands on !!

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

No I dont necessarily mean that ........ he himself has been known to recommend a player to Lloyd.

It is that hands on !!

:thud:

 

[Barrel of Fun]

No I dont necessarily mean that ........ he himself has been known to recommend a player to Lloyd.

It is that hands on !!

Wouldn't that be standard practice of most clubs?

Chairmen, being the front of the business, are going to meet with and speak to all sorts of people within the football world. From fellow Chairmen and managers to agents and ex-players etc. There are bound to be conversations about players and who is available. There is only so much ground a scout can cover on his own and calls a man can take.

 

[steward 433]

Wouldn't that be standard practice of most clubs?

Chairmen, being the front of the business, are going to meet with and speak to all sorts of people within the football world. From fellow Chairmen and managers to agents and ex-players etc. There are bound to be conversations about players and who is available. There is only so much ground a scout can cover on his own and calls a man can take.

Spot on

 

[BigGully]

Wouldn't that be standard practice of most clubs?

Chairmen, being the front of the business, are going to meet with and speak to all sorts of people within the football world. From fellow Chairmen and managers to agents and ex-players etc. There are bound to be conversations about players and who is available. There is only so much ground a scout can cover on his own and calls a man can take.

I kinda thought that would be the response and to a point of course you are right.

But I heard a story that a player that Wilkins wanted to have watched by Lloyd was overturned by DK due to him wanting Lloyd to watch a player he himself fancied.

It isnt that healthy by any stretch of the imagination.

I saw today that the Man City's Chairman has already said he wants Ronaldhino and thats before Hughes is in place, I would of preferred if it was the manager indentifying any prospective players himself !!

So undoubtedly this practice is widespread, but your not going to convince me that this is the correct way to run a football club.

The fans accept this behaviour due to the optimism any wealthy benefactor might bring whilst the manager allows the owner to have his say due to the unbeleivable wealth that owner affords that manager, anyhow the manager knows he is likely to be sacked within two years anyway.

We know it happens but I aint too sure if this is the way for any football club to be run.

 

[steward 433]

We know it happens but I aint too sure if this is the way for any football club to be run.

But that's the whole point, Every club does this AND it's down to the board of the club how it is run. Not the manager, players or supporters

 

[BigGully]

But that's the whole point, Every club does this AND it's down to the board of the club how it is run. Not the manager, players or supporters

That really isnt the discussion point.

Not everyone is run like this, the point being is that Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool is not run like this ...... yet they are the most successful clubs in recent history so there might be a lesson to be learnt here.

By your own acceptance the guy ( was it Knighton ) who did keep ups in front of the Stretford End and went on to become Chairman of a club where he made himself manager was legitimate !!

Nah, your total acceptance just because they are the Board and just 'because they can' is dangerous and undoubtedly counter productive in the longer term.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

I kinda thought that would be the response and to a point of course you are right.

But I heard a story that a player that Wilkins wanted to have watched by Lloyd was overturned by DK due to him wanting Lloyd to watch a player he himself fancied.

It isnt that healthy by any stretch of the imagination.

I saw today that the Man City's Chairman has already said he wants Ronaldhino and thats before Hughes is in place, I would of preferred if it was the manager indentifying any prospective players himself !!

So undoubtedly this practice is widespread, but your not going to convince me that this is the correct way to run a football club.

The fans accept this behaviour due to the optimism any wealthy benefactor might bring whilst the manager allows the owner to have his say due to the unbeleivable wealth that owner affords that manager, anyhow the manager knows he is likely to be sacked within two years anyway.

We know it happens but I aint too sure if this is the way for any football club to be run.

 

[BigGully]

Maybe ........ maybe not

and your views on the general poitn ?

Join in if you care.

 

[Knotty]

The fans accept this behaviour due to the optimism any wealthy benefactor might bring whilst the manager allows the owner to have his say due to the unbeleivable wealth that owner affords that manager, anyhow the manager knows he is likely to be sacked within two years anyway.

The fans have no choice but to accept it. The owners of any business are entitled to do exactly what they want with the business. If the customers don't like it, they have an option...

Equally, the manager is in no postion to 'allow' the owner to have his say. It is the owner's fundamental right to have his say - in every aspect of the running of the business. Wealth, unbelievable or otherwise, has nothing to do with it.

 

[BigGully]

The fans have no choice but to accept it. The owners of any business are entitled to do exactly what they want with the business. If the customers don't like it, they have an option...

Equally, the manager is in no postion to 'allow' the owner to have his say. It is the owner's fundamental right to have his say - in every aspect of the running of the business. Wealth, unbelievable or otherwise, has nothing to do with it.

I think your fundamentally wrong.

You always compare a normal business model with a football business model.

I dont accept that they are necessarily they same.

Football has differnet dynamics, they remain institutions even culturally important to us the public here in England.

The reality is that we as customers do not blindly follow Tesco from the age of 6 years old irrespective of them being grossly over priced and badly run.

We would change our allegiance monthly, weekly or even daily if they did.

We dont with football.

We tend to stay and patronise our favourite club sometimes/mostly blindly and invest our money, emotions and sometimes our lives to that club ( not brand ).

Therefore I think that the owners have a wholly different responsibility to other business leaders.

Remember Archer, Belotti and Stanley were within their own business right and law to do what they did, but they should never be awarded the luxury of accepptance just because it was theirs. NEVER.

 

[steward 433]

I think your fundamentally wrong.

You always compare a normal business model with a football business model.

I dont accept that they are necessarily they same.

Football has differnet dynamics, they remain institutions even culturally important to us the public here in England.

The reality is that we as customers do not blindly follow Tesco from the age of 6 years old irrespective of them being grossly over priced and badly run.

We would change our allegiance monthly, weekly or even daily if they did.

We dont with football.

We tend to stay and patronise our favourite club sometimes/mostly blindly and invest our money, emotions and sometimes our lives to that club ( not brand ).

Therefore I think that the owners have a wholly different responsibility to other business leaders.

Remember Archer, Belotti and Stanley were within their own business right and law to do what they did, but they should never be awarded the luxury of accepptance just because it was theirs. NEVER.

We don't change allegiance because football is in the blood. It's part of who we are!!!

We all still supported the Albion when Archer, Belotti and Stanley did what they did and like you moan about the most trivial little things we moaned like hell when corrupt businessmen tried to kill off our club forever.

You moan at all the trivial things you can find about DK but you convienietly forget he saved the club and is doing a damn good job keeping it going now when so many are falling by the wayside.

And whether you like it or not the board can do whatever the hell they like with their club!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Knotty]

I think your fundamentally wrong.

You always compare a normal business model with a football business model.

I dont accept that they are necessarily they same.

Football has differnet dynamics, they remain institutions even culturally important to us the public here in England.

The reality is that we as customers do not blindly follow Tesco from the age of 6 years old irrespective of them being grossly over priced and badly run.

We would change our allegiance monthly, weekly or even daily if they did.

We dont with football.

We tend to stay and patronise our favourite club sometimes/mostly blindly and invest our money, emotions and sometimes our lives to that club ( not brand ).

Therefore I think that the owners have a wholly different responsibility to other business leaders.

Remember Archer, Belotti and Stanley were within their own business right and law to do what they did, but they should never be awarded the luxury of accepptance just because it was theirs. NEVER.

I agree with you that a football club is different to any other business in that its customers have much more than brand loyalty and we invest emotions and parts of our lives to it, but basically I am talking about the owner's relationship with an employee, not with the customers.

I still don't see why that should affect in any way owners' rights in how they run that business. Why, because it's a football club ,should an owner not have the right to advise an employee on what he thinks should be done?

Are you saying he should just let the manager, and others, get on with it, without any interference, even if he believes it to be wrong? That he should let the manager have a totally free rein until the end of a season and only then, if things have not gone well, to act?