Odd one signing players with no head coach in place. I know you’ve got a recruitment team in place that take charge of this, but I’d still have thought there would have to be an agreement from the head coach before signing off on any signing? *Unless of course, a head coach has been appointed and just not announced yet!
It’s k it’s not though, it’s how weve operated since the bros took over. Very clear coach is there to coach - would have a voice in recruitment I’m sure and who knows behind the scenes if this has happened but recruitment is the responsibility of someone else. Langstaff was signed before Williams was appointed amongst others. Also means when the coach is fired it’s not a rip up and start again, you come in knowing the approach and understand you work with the squad we have etc
Yup and once they are they rightly receive their compensation. May indeed be harsh when you haven't signed the players but managers historically had too much power to the detriment of the club for the (vast) majority of the time.
The owners haven't sacked one of their coaches part way through a season yet in six seasons. They always give them time and a decent budget.
We got rid of George Friend as DOF (officially he is stepping down but really he was pushed) following last seasons disastrous recruitment. Cant think of many L1 clubs who spent well over a million and get relegated. I do feel sorry for the head coaches though who are lumbered with wasters.
Yes, it's all on the coaches shoulders when the fans start booing, the head of recruitment gets mentioned at Notts when it's not going so well but nothing like the same scrutiny the head coach gets.
Friend did get some stick at the games apparently. 'A few tweaks' needed in January he said..... But yeah the one who picks the team gets the most blame, rightly or wrongly.
It is weird how football is kind of the only remaining sport where an omnipotent manager still feels like the default. Every Rugby team now has a Head of Rugby that does all the recruitment, for years England Cricket have had a board of selectors that picks the team rather than the coaches. American Sports all have general managers that draft, trade and sign free agents. I think it’s purely about sticking to your guns, it’d be mad if Notts signed a bunch of players without a manager and then brought in Steve Evans, but they’re not going to. There’s too many variables to know if we’re doing things ‘the right way’ but it certainly feels more sustainable and logical than cycling through eclectic managers and squads and hoping you land on a) the right one and b) one who is going to stick around even when he does well
Didn't expect either of them to sign, based on what I'd heard about Kaikai (assume we offered him 1 year initially and that was a sticking point), and it's felt like Bennett has been lined up to leave for the past year. No doubt his average season last year has helped us keep him, hopefully Harris can get him back to his best (though he seemed to prefer Gibbons). Glad Bennett is staying, but there's far too much of a squad left who were part of our relegation at least, if not part of the last 2 terrible seasons. As I said to my group of mates, if you'd told me after the end of the 23/24 season we'd have at least two more years of Kachunga and Kaikai, I'd have probably topped myself. Big concerns with our attacking options: Brophy - Fine Knight - Injuries/lack of games Kachunga - Mostly crap Kaikai - Injuries/mostly crap Lavery - Injuries Loft - Crap I'd be concerned if any more than 3 of them are starting more than half our games next season, but it can't leave us with a huge amount of wriggle room to bring in that many more options given they're mostly experienced and presumably on decent money (given that we have plenty of needs in other areas still as well).
Great player Jack but very injury prone only reason he isn't playing higher wish him the best of luck.
I’m sorry, but it is odd if the coach that manages & selects the team has no say on transfers. As I said, I get you have data guys at the top who choose the players based on the data they have etc, and there’s many clubs out there that do that, but the head coach is virtually always involved in that process in terms of the final nod of approval. So normally a club would pull together a shortlist of say 3-5 players within a certain position with similar stats, and then the manager has the final say from there on which one they’d prefer (& then a 2nd & 3rd choice from there). I just don’t see the point of a club going and signing players (especially loans) without the managers final word, because if the manager doesn't rate them, then they’re just not going to play them so becomes a pointless signing all round? *Once again, as I said originally, if the club has someone in mind / appointed but not announced yet that they’ve ran it by, then fair enough.
Get with the times old man just a liability shift isn’t it. I mean first of all managers sign their own players and decided they don’t rate them anyway and secondly it avoids the whole ‘not my signing, I’ll play my favourites’. pros and cons. Luke Williams said he liked not having the burden of signing players and was happy to trust a ‘specialist’, I imagine other managers hate that, but there’s enough of each for all of us thankfully
Everything I posted is a perfectly valid view. The brothers are just woke as **** aren’t they, no wonder no one wants the job
