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.
"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
"I don't trust Nourry, but nor do I trust a manager that walks out after 18 months at every job."
You make it sound like Cifuentes has a sulk and strops off every 18 months.
He hasn't walked and he hasn't been sacked with loads of compo (Mourinho stylee).
He has traded up every time and his club has received compensation.
We had to pay Hammarby compensation to get him here. At the very least we should be backing him to the extent that we can recover that initial investment.
And he's currently the fifth longest serving manager in the Championship:
"People say that Marti is in demand but if I was a club owner I would look at that roller coaster ride and Marti would remain on my watch list!"
I think Marti has done very well with us in very difficult circumstances.
Marti also has a promotion with his Norwegian team and European football with his Swedish team. Not to mention also managing in Denmark and Spain.
He has far more on his CV than Russell Martin had when he got the Southampton job, or Danny Rohl has up to now.
In this age of data profiling, tactical style seems to count for a lot with managers. So if Marti is unsettled I think quite a few Championship clubs could come sniffing around.
On the other hand Marti hasn't stayed anywhere for any length of time and I think it would enhance his CV if he stuck with us for at least another year to see if he can push us towards playoff contention.
Also worth remembering that the club did stick with him when we were bottom of the table earlier in the season. That suggests that the club still has faith in him.
I don't agree with your reading of Marti's motives (and I don't know him and I'm not ITK), but I don't want to muddy the waters so lets stick to Ben Williams.
You ask if his performance is a resigning issue? Leaving aside everything else, if you look at his LinkedIn page (see below) he says his role with us is full-time and hybrid. Unless that changed somewhere along the line he hasn't been giving that level of service.
Looking at the injuries data I think it's clear that two of his major clients appear to have had a poor return for his services this season.
In particular both us and Brooklyn Nets have had a lot of soft tissue injuries which the sports science academics are adamant are wholly preventable.
I think it is fair to say that having players fit and available to play is BW's remit and it is entirely fair that he should explain himself. (at least with regard to QPR).
I also think it is entirely fair that the club reviews his working arrangements and gives serious consideration to whether Williams is devoting sufficient time to his QPR responsibilities.
The onus should be on Williams to justify why he continue to live in Dubai and continue to service a global client base.
In the circumstances the owners might also ask Hoos and/or Nourry why they have allowed this situation to develop when he appears to have been appointed on a full time basis.
If Williams can't or won't give satisfactory answers to those questions then it probably is time to shake hands and move on.
Apropos of nothing. If you look at BW's LinkedIn he doesn't mention Brooklyn Nets (so might not have updated for a while). But it does say his role with QPR is full-time and hybrid, which to my mind means he should be devoting all his time to us and working onsite on a regular basis!
And strangely he says nothing about his QPR responsibilities but gives plenty of details about his previous roles!
Experience QUEENS PARK RANGERS FOOTBALL & ATHLETIC CLUB,LIMITED,(THE) logo Director of Performance Director of Performance QUEENS PARK RANGERS FOOTBALL & ATHLETIC CLUB,LIMITED,(THE) · Full-timeQUEENS PARK RANGERS FOOTBALL & ATHLETIC CLUB,LIMITED,(THE) · Full-time Aug 2023 - Present · 1 yr 9 mosAug 2023 to Present · 1 yr 9 mos London, England, United Kingdom · Hybrid
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
