DRJosh
Full Member
Now all we need is for SJ to sell his shares and call it a day.
Yeah, that and it’s also very possible that as things evolved and new information has become available (state of infrastructure, state of the squad, the way forward etc) - strategy could have changed/tilted from initial discussions they had with Ashworth - now he’s not aligned with the new strategy or whatever. Or maybe it’s just as simple as Ashworth putting his neck on the line with the EtH decision (but even that feels a little odd as it should’ve been a collective call)….alas, I guess we’ll find out in time. But it was always a risk - appointing these high level exec positions in isolation. Lots of egos and generally ceos and the sort love working with “their own people” etc.Yeah It all feels very messy at the moment but we will find out what’s happened in due course.
If you want to be optimistic then you can say at least decisions are being made swiftly if problems are identified. Absolutely no point dragging on a relationship if it’s not aligned or functioning as it should.
The main question is why these factors weren’t identified before appointment however if there’s been a personality clash then some things you can’t really anticipate.
I think this is very close to what has happened. They tried to fix things way to fast with just picking some of the highest rated people available.Seems they appointed the CEO, DOF (& potentially Wilcox as well), all in isolation, meaning there was always the possibility of personality clashes etc. Should probably have appointed the CEO first, & then let him have a big say in who the DoF of his choice was etc. Or maybe I’m wrong and Berrada had input into the Dan appointment. I don’t recall the timelines.
If you hire a shit and sack in 5 months after so much of scouting, his track record and then paid for his garden leave, then the management has a bigger problem than Ashworth.What if the people that were hired are just shit? We keep them in the name of stability? Become stably shit?
I’m not sure why it all played out last night but JR did an interview with The Athletic and said a major change was coming. This was a week or two ago. Assume this was it. Obviously in preparation of the January window too.My guess is that Ashworth didn't want Anorim, had been annoying Berrada and Big Jim about it in the last few weeks and on Saturday night said something like "see, Southgate wouldn't lose at home to Forest" and that was the last straw which made Jimbo tell him to clear his desk.
It is the thing that makes most sense, that the two just didn't get along.Didn't someone suggest that Berrada wasn't part of the Ashworth decision? And if true unless the board knew Berrada and Ashworth personally, the chance of them not meshing was always fairly high.
The other point is they needed to do it before the January window?Yeah, that and it’s also very possible that as things evolved and new information has become available (state of infrastructure, state of the squad, the way forward etc) - strategy could have changed/tilted from initial discussions they had with Ashworth - now he’s not aligned with the new strategy or whatever. Or maybe it’s just as simple as Ashworth putting his neck on the line with the EtH decision (but even that feels a little odd as it should’ve been a collective call)….alas, I guess we’ll find out in time. But it was always a risk - appointing these high level exec positions in isolation. Lots of egos and generally ceos and the sort love working with “their own people” etc.
The constant gardener
Apparently wanted SouthgateThis is insane… I just don’t understand this. Why bring someone in for the footballing expertise and then not get them along in making the decision to hire Amorim? Well I’m not even sure if that was the reason. I don’t get it.
This just doesn’t make any fecking sense…
It just sounds lazy, imo.I don't believe he wanted Southgate. That would make him a man with a single idea.
Disaster is firing a man who wanted us to appoint Southgate? Ok.
I mean that would be a huge problem if we still appointed a manager that the sporting director didn't want. That would put into question the structure and how they are operating. That's not to say Ashworth would be right but he should be the leading voice.
You can hire someone with a great CV only to realise they don’t culturally fit, especially when you’re mass hiring for multiple new positions. I’m sure Berrada will have some strong recommendations for the next Sporting manager who will be more inline with what everyone else is thinking.If you hire a shit and sack in 5 months after so much of scouting, his track record and then paid for his garden leave, then the management has a bigger problem than Ashworth.
Maybe Wilcox can step up to DoF and Vivell become technical director, it always felt like one too many with Vivell being brought in.Oh well, I'm sure we'll find somebody competent and compatible with Berrada and Amorim.
It is the thing that makes most sense, that the two just didn't get along.
However, if the bolded were true, it casts a huge shadow on the hiring process. It was January 2024 that Berrada was cast as the new CEO, and the Ashworth pursuit as DoF officially began in February.
If the latter happened without the freshly recruited CEO candidate being at least in the loop or on board, it would be nonsensical strategy, especially given the protracted, tedious and highly publicized of Ashworth's hiring. I have hard time imagining that.
The other point is they needed to do it before the January window?