That Shane McFaul Interview

[BUTTERBALL]

The Mc Faul Interview (i'll summarise it):

Reporter: Shane, did you enjoy your time at Brighton?

McFaul: No

Reporter: Thanks Shane.

-----

 

[BigGully]

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?

You havent commented on the Archer regime, by your own admission then, they had every right to sell us down the river and I dont accept that they had that right.

A football manager should have the defined role to manage the football part of the business, within the financial constraints that the Board rightly agree on.

They employ a manager because they have specific skills that most of us cannot possess, therefore the board should be clear to try to support that manager as best they can.

You seem to accept that the Chairman or the Board can intefer with any manager in terms of player indentification, retention. I dont agree.

Of course they should always be discussion even disagreement, but ultimately the manager should be allowed the freedom to work within those financial constraints without hindrance from those in the Boardroom.

If the manager fails or succeeds he can at least be genuinely judged.

There are'nt too many jobs where if things dont go so well, he can have abuse shouted at him from 1000's of the clubs customers.

It deserves support from those that employ him.

 

[BigGully]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can only guess that you didnt read my post !

 

[Easy 10]

I can only guess that you didnt read my post !

Can you blame him ?

 

[BigGully]

Can you blame him ?

Not particularly

 

[Don Tmatter]

Mr Naylor would be advised not to take the same attitude with Micky as he did with Deano.

 

[Knotty]

You havent commented on the Archer regime, by your own admission then, they had every right to sell us down the river and I dont accept that they had that right.

A football manager should have the defined role to manage the football part of the business, within the financial constraints that the Board rightly agree on.

They employ a manager because they have specific skills that most of us cannot possess, therefore the board should be clear to try to support that manager as best they can.

You seem to accept that the Chairman or the Board can intefer with any manager in terms of player indentification, retention. I dont agree.

Of course they should always be discussion even disagreement, but ultimately the manager should be allowed the freedom to work within those financial constraints without hindrance from those in the Boardroom.

If the manager fails or succeeds he can at least be genuinely judged.

There are'nt too many jobs where if things dont go so well, he can have abuse shouted at him from 1000's of the clubs customers.

It deserves support from those that employ him.

So if you were a football club owner, you would support the manager even if you thought he was making mistakes that were detrimental to the club?

If he came to you and said he wanted to spend YOUR money on a player you really thought was not right for the club, would you say nothing and let him buy?

At what point do you, as an owner, decide if a manager has failed or succeeded?

As far as his responsibilities to us, the customers, are concerned, he has the obligation to provide us with 90 minutes of football every other week. There are no guarantees that it will be winning football.

However, if he wants us to continue to be regular and satisfied customers, and he wants to attract more to provide him with a successful business, he should do all he can to ensure winning football by employing the right calibre of people to provide that, within his budget constraints.

If he believes that an employee's work is not conducive to that, he has the total right, (and obligation to his shareholders), to advise, overrule and, ultimately, dismiss that employee.

The principle applies to all businesses, including football clubs.

 

[BigGully]

So if you were a football club owner, you would support the manager even if you thought he was making mistakes that were detrimental to the club?

If he came to you and said he wanted to spend YOUR money on a player you really thought was not right for the club, would you say nothing and let him buy?

At what point do you, as an owner, decide if a manager has failed or succeeded?

As far as his responsibilities to us, the customers, are concerned, he has the obligation to provide us with 90 minutes of football every other week. There are no guarantees that it will be winning football.

However, if he wants us to continue to be regular and satisfied customers, and he wants to attract more to provide him with a successful business, he should do all he can to ensure winning football by employing the right calibre of people to provide that, within his budget constraints.

If he believes that an employee's work is not conducive to that, he has the total right, (and obligation to his shareholders), to advise, overrule and, ultimately, dismiss that employee.

The principle applies to all businesses, including football clubs.

If I was owner and made the appointment I would of made that appointment in the light that he is an expert in something that I cannot possibly compare to.

I would with my Board members agree to certain level of support, financial and personal.

If he worked within them, then yes he would have my support and freedom to manage the playing side of the club with a freedom that most top managers demand without any interference from me.

We might acknowledge that we disagree on certain aspects of the playing side, from where he might sit, to which players he preferred ahead of other players but whilst the team is performing I would trust his judgement.

If at times the team wasnt performing I would continue to trust his judgement as I would hopefully trust my own judgement for appointing him in the first place.

If he fails and a change is necessary, I would accept some responsibility but he would go and I would stay, after all I am the owner of the club.

But during the time between the appointment and the dismissal I would not try and effect playing issues, that I would leave to my football manager.

 

[andybaha]

Naylor seems to have it in for Wilkins. I'm not sure the original article was justified but it certainly doesn't warrant a second go. Mc Faul was brought over here on an extended trial. Wilkins didn't think he was good enough, now the guy needs to get over it. If he is the great player he thinks he is he'll have plenty of opportunities to prove Wilkins wrong. Can you imagine the papers picking it over that Ferguson didn't rate a youth player at ManU and didn't keep cuddling him and reassuring him. I think not!!

I suspect Naylor will try to suck up to MA and his reporting style will be very different. Otherwise I hope Adams tells him to F.O.

 

[Knotty]

If I was owner and made the appointment I would of made that appointment in the light that he is an expert in something that I cannot possibly compare to.

I would with my Board members agree to certain level of support, financial and personal.

If he worked within them, then yes he would have my support and freedom to manage the playing side of the club with a freedom that most top managers demand without any interference from me.

We might acknowledge that we disagree on certain aspects of the playing side, from where he might sit, to which players he preferred ahead of other players but whilst the team is performing I would trust his judgement.

If at times the team wasnt performing I would continue to trust his judgement as I would hopefully trust my own judgement for appointing him in the first place.

If he fails and a change is necessary, I would accept some responsibility but he would go and I would stay, after all I am the owner of the club.

But during the time between the appointment and the dismissal I would not try and effect playing issues, that I would leave to my football manager.

So, if the team was not performing, you would say and do nothing?

 

[TSB]

Just like any thread that Arthur contributes to, I will now ignore any thread that BigGully contributes to. It's just all so tediously negative.

 

[BigGully]

So, if the team was not performing, you would say and do nothing?

There are degrees of not performing.

After one game, a month, half a season, a season ??

I think it might be reasonable to offer the manager a time scale and a target that is attainable with the resources that has been given to him at the time of his appointment.

It must take a couple of seasons for that manager to have a playing squad which he has in part assembled and imparted his own playing ethos, does this immediately translate into winning, not necessarily, but hopefully.

How long might you of given Ferguson in his early days ?

 

[BigGully]

Just like any thread that Arthur contributes to, I will now ignore any thread that BigGully contributes to. It's just all so tediously negative.

Which bit might that be ??

Or have you already your started your self iimposed ignoring thingy ?

Can you imagine the utter devistation that both Arthur and I feel that you are in someway ignoring us, as if you ever contribute anything !!

Get outta here, you gotta be kiddin' !!

 

[Dave the OAP]

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

actually we covered this a few pages ago and Yes we do.

ie If I moved away to say Newcastle/ Birmingham/manchester/timbuktoo, I would endeavour to go and watch the local team and support them. Yes we may have a soft spot for a team we have supported for ages, go and see them if they were playing close by, but personally as much as I support the club ( and have done for 35 odd years) I wouldn't say I would not go and support someone close by.

If that makes sense?

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

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.

While I want to agree with you I just can't. When you say 'we' you mean 'us' NSCers but we are different. The vast majority of people do treat football
clubs like that, switching allegiences as clubs go up and down the league. This is clearly shown in the gates of clubs.

It is also true that a small minority of people stay loyal to a product or brand for years and years, regardless of whether there is a better product on the market.

So for the majority of people, unfortunately, football is just like business. I wish it wasn't and that's why I would like to see the end of professional football .

 

[Fourteenth Eye]

I suspect Naylor will try to suck up to MA and his reporting style will be very different. Otherwise I hope Adams tells him to F.O.

The problem with this is, Wilkins pretty much DID tell Naylor where to go and we are witnessing the end result.

I think its fair to say that most of us dont have much time for the Stoke reporting scribe but read his articles as we like to read about our club

 

[BigGully]

While I want to agree with you I just can't. When you say 'we' you mean 'us' NSCers but we are different. The vast majority of people do treat football
clubs like that, switching allegiences as clubs go up and down the league. This is clearly shown in the gates of clubs.

It is also true that a small minority of people stay loyal to a product or brand for years and years, regardless of whether there is a better product on the market.

So for the majority of people, unfortunately, football is just like business. I wish it wasn't and that's why I would like to see the end of professional football .

I was mindful that it did seem an over romanticised view of football, but much if it I still think is valid.

I really dont sell the 'Socialist Worker' paper in Churchill Square, I accept that a properly run football business is likely to deliver a successful club.

It was more a response to Knotty's reasonable assumption that football is no different to all other business's and the owners should have the right to conduct themselves how they will, irrespective of the concerns of players, managers and supporters and the local community.

I think football clubs have a far greater responsibility than that.

Many football clubs are not just accountable to their fans, but have a responsibilty to the local community in which they trade.

Although it might be true that a small minority stay loyal to a brand or product, it is still true I think that the majority of supporters do stay loyal to a club throughout that clubs existance.

I would suspect the fluctuating gates is more down to otherwise 'passive' supporters deciding to attend matches during a successful period rather than 'regular' supporters shifting their allegiance to another team.

 

[ROSM]

But the argument falls down when you realise that Archer and Bellotti did actually break the rules by removing the no profits clause. Thatw as a breach of the operating rules under which they could trade - the memorandum and articles.

Whereas whatever you may be trying to infer or imply about the actions of our current chairman, they are certainly not (even if they are as bad as you are saying).

But the point is that we have you (and Bhadeb) on one side peddling the view which can only have emanated from Dean Wilkins himself in the first instance, and then we have the other view which doubtless is based on the views of the situation of the chairman or board.

The position is that other clubs perceive the Albion to be a well run football club. I have heard this from 3 clubs that I deal with in a social capacity - Dave the Gaffer wrote on here that he'd heard the same from a Crewe official. They cant all be wrong (to paraphrase bhadeb)

 

[BigGully]

But the argument falls down when you realise that Archer and Bellotti did actually break the rules by removing the no profits clause. Thatw as a breach of the operating rules under which they could trade - the memorandum and articles.

Whereas whatever you may be trying to infer or imply about the actions of our current chairman, they are certainly not (even if they are as bad as you are saying).

But the point is that we have you (and Bhadeb) on one side peddling the view which can only have emanated from Dean Wilkins himself in the first instance, and then we have the other view which doubtless is based on the views of the situation of the chairman or board.

The position is that other clubs perceive the Albion to be a well run football club. I have heard this from 3 clubs that I deal with in a social capacity - Dave the Gaffer wrote on here that he'd heard the same from a Crewe official. They cant all be wrong (to paraphrase bhadeb)

Wasnt really discussing DK role in the recent posts and I think your stretching it a bit to insinuate that any negative post must emanate from Wilkins himself, thats not accurate.

It was more an overview of how football seems to be heading and how many seem quite accepting of it.

Brighton may or may not be a well run club, it has survived and we are all looking forward to Falmer so I will agree that the club is in some respects fantastically successful and if DK deserves an accolade fairplay to the guy.

But just because he is brilliant in one aspect of his stewardship, does it mean that you need to accept other things that you personally feel is detrimental to the club ?

I dont think so.

 

[ROSM]

Wasnt really discussing DK role in the recent posts and I think your stretching it a bit to insinuate that any negative post must emanate from Wilkins himself, thats not accurate.

.

however as we have mentioned before, much of the post about 'truth' relate to player negotiations and that information can only be 100% reliable (note i said relaible, not accurate as all will put their own varnish on it) if it comes from those actually present at the meeting. Those will ONLY be, the player (sometimes); the manager; the chairman/chief executive and the agent.