Football Trust response to FAB meeting minutes.

[Nugent]

Dalman is a football administrator and has some experience of that from his time at City and previously when trying to broker business deals elsewhere. Borley is also an experienced football administrator. So were Ridsdale and Hammam. This doesn't mean any of them have a scooby doo about what happens on a football pitch.

Having experienced football administrators probably isn't that important - after all, football boardrooms are full of executives that have parachuted in from whatever business allowed they or their bosses to accumulate the wealth to buy a football club in the first place.

Having senior leaders who can affect what happens on the pitch is a different kettle of fish though.

All of the Premier League clubs have someone in a Technical Director/Director of Football role. Virtually all of those are "football people" - i.e. they've ended up in their roles after professional football playing or coaching or scouting careers. You get the odd outlier who's done something different - the guy at Brentford is a data/analytics expert, for example - but they all have experience that is applicable to improving results on the pitch.

Here's the PL list, I wonder why Vincent thinks he knows better than this lot: -

Wtf you on about?

Apart from wilcox and freedman who the fuck are all those people and what point you trying to prove

 

[the other bob wilson]

I did specify trustworthy

As to the others quoted, they were in the basement where we were for 18 years,.

My point is that, Scam and the Riddler aside, we have never had that level of expertise, certainly that did us any good, even though most of our seasons have been spent in the second tier.

For most of club's existence, the team manager would select the players he wanted to sign and carry out the relevant negotiations with the player/agent himself, the only Board involvement at well run and successful clubs tended to consist of giving a yes or no as to whether the transfer fee for the targeted player could be afforded or not. That sort of approach is virtually obsolete at EFL level and above these days because so many clubs now have recruitment departments who have taken over to the extent that many managers have little input into who the club signs - he's just given a squad of players to work with and charged with turning them into winners.
It's not quite like that at City because the manager sits on the the "transfer committee", but I suspect he could be outvoted by the others on the Committee when it comes to a player he really wanted.
At City these days, it seems we have a Board that gets a say on playing matters to a greater extent than they once did and an owner who, seemingly, makes shall we say interesting comments to players and football staff as to how the team should be playing and, possibly, who should be selected. So, we have a Board and owner mare likely to be making football decisions besides hiring and firing of managers and it has to be said that the last fifteen or so years have seen enough questionable decisions made by owner and Board members to cast doubt on whether they have the requisite knowledge of the game or not, I agree that there hasn't always been the need for one, but, in this day and age, some sort of "buffer" between the football side and the administrators with knowledge of how both sides operate is more necessary than it once was - especially with this Board and owner,

 

[TDA]

For most of club's existence, the team manager would select the players he wanted to sign and carry out the relevant negotiations with the player/agent himself, the only Board involvement at well run and successful clubs tended to consist of giving a yes or no as to whether the transfer fee for the targeted player could be afforded or not. That sort of approach is virtually obsolete at EFL level and above these days because so many clubs now have recruitment departments who have taken over to the extent that many managers have little input into who the club signs - he's just given a squad of players to work with and charged with turning them into winners.
It's not quite like that at City because the manager sits on the the "transfer committee", but I suspect he could be outvoted by the others on the Committee when it comes to a player he really wanted.
At City these days, it seems we have a Board that gets a say on playing matters to a greater extent than they once did and an owner who, seemingly, makes shall we say interesting comments to players and football staff as to how the team should be playing and, possibly, who should be selected. So, we have a Board and owner mare likely to be making football decisions besides hiring and firing of managers and it has to be said that the last fifteen or so years have seen enough questionable decisions made by owner and Board members to cast doubt on whether they have the requisite knowledge of the game or not, I agree that there hasn't always been the need for one, but, in this day and age, some sort of "buffer" between the football side and the administrators with knowledge of how both sides operate is more necessary than it once was - especially with this Board and owner,

Absolutely correct, but I couldn't imagine a Bill Shankly or Brian Clough working in the modern system.

I think the sheer number of transfers these days compared to years ago has led to the situation we have now and the modern club structure. I have to wonder though whether the freedom of movement and right to work has really done the game below the elite leagues any favours.

 

[Woody]

Wtf you on about?

Apart from wilcox and freedman who the fuck are all those people and what point you trying to prove

DYOR

 

[Martin John]

Yes

It's not unusual for businesses to outsource for specialist knowledge. Arguments for both approaches, but it's easier to replace an outside agency than board members that haven't worked out.

This type of thinking is why smaller clubs like Brentford, Brighton and Bournemouth have left us in the dust.

 

[Martin John]

Dalman is a football administrator and has some experience of that from his time at City and previously when trying to broker business deals elsewhere. Borley is also an experienced football administrator. So were Ridsdale and Hammam. This doesn't mean any of them have a scooby doo about what happens on a football pitch.

Having experienced football administrators probably isn't that important - after all, football boardrooms are full of executives that have parachuted in from whatever business allowed they or their bosses to accumulate the wealth to buy a football club in the first place.

Having senior leaders who can affect what happens on the pitch is a different kettle of fish though.

All of the Premier League clubs have someone in a Technical Director/Director of Football role. Virtually all of those are "football people" - i.e. they've ended up in their roles after professional football playing or coaching or scouting careers. You get the odd outlier who's done something different - the guy at Brentford is a data/analytics expert, for example - but they all have experience that is applicable to improving results on the pitch.

Here's the PL list, I wonder why Vincent thinks he knows better than this lot: -

Spot on. If we were having some success then there’s some merit to be had in being an outlier, but we’ve just been relegated to the third tier for the first time in 23 years. Meanwhile, smaller clubs with smaller budgets continue to run laps around us.

It’s the same reason why most clubs wouldn’t hire someone as inexperienced as Riza. We’re the outliers, but not for the right reasons.