By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
"As Plymouth this weekend became Rooney’s third relegation from the Championship in three attempts, the idea Spud might possibly be back in this division next season should gladden the hearts at clubs like ours. There’s one opponent, straight away, we can write off as seven different levels of screwed."
You're tempting fate there, given that we might soon have a managerial vacancy of our own.
Good thing Tony Fernandes is no longer in charge of writing the cheques
It is ironic that former CEO Lee Hoos is still on the staff as a mentor/cheerleader for Nourry, but there's no wise footballing head helping him with his decision making.
Given that we are a football club that is a bit of an oversight.
Perhaps co-opting a former player onto the board as a non-executive director might be an idea. Les Ferdinand might be a bit too familiar to the board but someone like Gerry Francis could have a lot to offer.
John Percy wrote in the Telegraph a few days ago that RVN's position at Leicester was under review and Danny Rohl was one of the names he mentioned as a replacement:
"Now that relegation has been confirmed, he will have talks with the hierarchy next week. There is no break clause in the contract he signed in November, which runs to June 2027.
Russell Martin has admirers at Leicester for an identifiable style of play but it may be a tough sell with supporters.
At Southampton, Martin lost all three of his games against Leicester with an aggregate score of 12-3.
Sheffield Wednesday’s Danny Röhl and former Arsenal midfielder Cesc Fabregas, in charge at Serie A club Como, also have support."
Now we have Marti's people allegedly talking to an unnamed Championship club. But as luck would have it the approach hasn't been made formal, so QPR can legitimately claim to have no knowledge of it.
All a bit light on detail for my liking.
It's so vague you could read it any way you want.
I'm going to go for Marti messing with young Nourry's head
"On a point of order, similies referencing the Somme (wholly, partially or by implicit association) are sick and pathetic."
I studied history to A Level. And I'm old enough to have had history teachers who in turn had close relatives who had served in WW1 and shared some of their experiences from that time. And whilst there was some warmth and humour in those tales there was also lucky near misses and memories of lost comrades, so I can understand that it is still a sensitive topic for many.
I think you could make a case that the club hasn't adequately supported Marti to do his job and is arguably in breach of contract.
If your job requires you to work with professional athletes and those athletes have to be at peak health and fitness to do their job, then your Director of Performance is crucial to your overall results and effectiveness.
Throw in the DoP's unusual working arrangements, that the injuries have been piling up this season, and that we didn't have these problems last season and the argument that Marti hasn't been adequately supported starts to look convincing.
I am sure the club would argue that they took steps to mitigate against that. But the volume of injuries speaks for itself. Even more so if you factor in Brooklyn Nets seemingly having similar injury problems under Williams.
It would be a very ballsy move for Marti to follow through on that and quit claiming breach of contract. It would definitely sour his legacy here, especially if he rocked up at a rival Championship club next season. But in the meantime it would certainly turn up the pressure on the board and Nourry. And if he gets what he wants then he has a very public victory.
"it’s basically untenable if that story is accurate, one has to go and it’ll be the manager."
I'm not sure it's that straightforward.
The big issue (as reported) is the Director of Performance living oversees and working part-time.
I think the club must realise that in the modern game they will struggle to replace Marti with a reputable manager who is willing to accept the DoP being p/t and oversees.
If the owners let Marti go and then make the DoP f/t and require him to be onsite part of the time then Marti's lawyers and the LMA will be all over it claiming that their client was wrongfully dismissed.
The owners might have snookered themselves. In which case they will be looking at Hoos and Nourry and demanding answers.
"Sometimes it's just about sticking to your principals and being brave."
That seems like a fair point.
But what are the principles here?
The Sun story said Marti had two complaints:
1. He wasn't allowed to bring in a set-piece coach
2. He is unhappy that the Director of Performance is living overseas and working remotely and part-time.
I don't know why we don't have a set-piece coach, but many other clubs do. If it was just a matter of budget then I guess it's too bad and perhaps we can review it another time.
With regards to point 2 I personally think Marti has a good case. If I'm working with a group of professional athletes in any sport I think the guy responsible for ensuring they are healthy and fit enough to perform is a key member of the team and should be available full-time and on site.
If the club are willing to let Marti go for these reasons then they need to consider if any reputable potential replacement would accept the job without a set-piece coach and with the Director of Performance living on a different continent whilst simultaneously juggling several jobs around the globe.
I think you will struggle to sell the job to someone new if they have to work and be judged against that background.
And if you are forced to accept that the Director of Performance should be f/t and on site then you might as well stick with the manager you have already got, even if it means replacing the Director of Performance.
"Putting to one side views on MC (I like him, want him to stay etc.), if the direction of the club is to embed a culture, game model, recruitment strategy etc., as opposed the approach taken for years which was to bring in a manager, buy him a squad, sack / lose the manager, replace him with another manager, buy him a squad etc etc., then surely if it is a battle between MC and CN, then it has to be CN that stays and MC that goes. I don't want that, but logically it has to happen unless the owners throw everything in the air again and make a mockery of their declared approach."
You're overlooking the fact that for several years we had an experienced football CEO (Hoos) and an experienced football DoF (Sir Les) working in tandem and preaching that very message about embedding a culture and playing style. They were also the ones burning through managers and chopping and changing the playing styles.
So being the permanent fixture doesn't automatically make you right.
The argument that manager's come and go and CEO's stay longer sounds very persuasive. So by that logic if there's a conflict then the manager should be the one to go.
Yeah, I can buy that to a point.
But in our current circumstances the manager is the one with years of proven success behind him, not the CEO/DoF.
So I don't think it's a given that the manager should be the one forced out if he can't settle his differences with the CEO/DoF.
After all, was it right to get rid of Warburton just because he didn't think Ramsey's DS players were ready to be fast tracked into the first team!?
I know it's splitting hairs but he was headhunted, which isn't the same as walking in my book.
As for building long term. I think I'm right in saying Marti is close to overtaking Don Howe as our tenth longest serving manager since Alec Stock left in 1968
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
