Welcome to the LTLF Forest Forum.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 65 of 65

Thread: Chameleon Club?

      
  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,112

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    I'm not going to compare the current regime to Fawaz because that would be unfair and ignore all of the geniunely good things they have done (and are doing) off the pitch. However, the Footballing decision making since the takeover (and before if you include the Marinakis inspired Montanier/Pedro Pereira appointments) has been pretty shambolic.

    I don't understand the desperation to get to the PL, people talk about it being 'promotion or nothing' but what does that mean? It also ignores the fact that not many teams go up having been thrown together in a hurry. Teams like Villa, Boro have thrown even bigger money at proven Champ players and are still struggling to put together a serious promotion push. Yet because we've chucked a lot of money (mainly at two players, one of them a kid from Portugal) after years of poor investment, promotion is now a demand.

    The managerial situation has been covered. Lurching from one 'style' of manager to the next and all that comes with it shows a lack of understanding and patience. It also leads to a huge turnover of players which is incredibly expensive and leads to a player recruitment track record which is pretty bad considering the money spent. We're a few days away from the 1st anniversary of the great purge of January 2018, something which I think everyone agreed was necessary and a welcome show of ruthlessness from AK. Yet just one year on, assuming MON brings a few in, we'll have accumulated just as much dead wood as before, just that this time it'll be on bigger wages.

    I had a quick glance at the players brought in over the last 4 transfer windows and of the 40 odd players brought in, I reckon you'd only make a profit on two: Lolley and Robinson and one of them was a free transfer. Colback, to be fair has been a good loan as well. The reliance on Marinakis' network for players shows no real sign of paying off despite continued attempts and the fact that we still keep bringing in players at the back end of their careers despite consistently poor returns when doing so previously, makes me want to pull my hair out.


  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Posts
    Many

  3. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Athens
    Posts
    5,393

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    Quote Originally Posted by It's Baggio View Post
    I had a quick glance at the players brought in over the last 4 transfer windows and of the 40 odd players brought in, I reckon you'd only make a profit on two: Lolley and Robinson and one of them was a free transfer. Colback, to be fair has been a good loan as well. The reliance on Marinakis' network for players shows no real sign of paying off despite continued attempts and the fact that we still keep bringing in players at the back end of their careers despite consistently poor returns when doing so previously, makes me want to pull my hair out.
    I agree that you have brought in very few players with resale value, and this is completely uncharacteristic of EM's transfer business. Which, in turn, probably means that most transfers were the manager's choice: ready-made players for the here and now. Take a look at the players for whom there is good reason to believe that they were chosen by the club and not by the manager:

    Carvalho (agent): obvious resale value.
    Dias (agent): potential resale value, did not work.
    Gonšalves (agent): potential resale value, did not work.
    Soudani (scouting): no resale value.
    Figueiredo (scouting): resale value.
    Tachtsidis (owner): although a favour to the other club, you could still make profit out of him.
    Ansarifard (owner): flop for both clubs.
    Kapino (owner): you made a profit.
    Bouchalakis (owner): noone counted on his muscles of glass.
    Dejagah (agent): given that you've got money for his World Cup (no-)participation, you made some money.

    Regardless of what worked and what didn't, regardless of the quality of the players, regardless even of the motive behind a 'club' transfer, a concern for making money out of players is obvious in most of the choices that were not the manager's. The majority of the players were brought in by the manager. The alternative would have been not to respect his wishes.


  4. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,112

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    I'm not bothered who 'chose' them. Our Footballing administration should be implementing a strategy and appointing a manager that fits into it. Recruitment should then mirror this strategy.

    This blatanly hasn't happened and here we are.


  5. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    8,986

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    Quote Originally Posted by It's Baggio View Post
    I'm not going to compare the current regime to Fawaz because that would be unfair and ignore all of the geniunely good things they have done (and are doing) off the pitch. However, the Footballing decision making since the takeover (and before if you include the Marinakis inspired Montanier/Pedro Pereira appointments) has been pretty shambolic.

    I don't understand the desperation to get to the PL, people talk about it being 'promotion or nothing' but what does that mean? It also ignores the fact that not many teams go up having been thrown together in a hurry. Teams like Villa, Boro have thrown even bigger money at proven Champ players and are still struggling to put together a serious promotion push. Yet because we've chucked a lot of money (mainly at two players, one of them a kid from Portugal) after years of poor investment, promotion is now a demand.

    The managerial situation has been covered. Lurching from one 'style' of manager to the next and all that comes with it shows a lack of understanding and patience. It also leads to a huge turnover of players which is incredibly expensive and leads to a player recruitment track record which is pretty bad considering the money spent. We're a few days away from the 1st anniversary of the great purge of January 2018, something which I think everyone agreed was necessary and a welcome show of ruthlessness from AK. Yet just one year on, assuming MON brings a few in, we'll have accumulated just as much dead wood as before, just that this time it'll be on bigger wages.

    I had a quick glance at the players brought in over the last 4 transfer windows and of the 40 odd players brought in, I reckon you'd only make a profit on two: Lolley and Robinson and one of them was a free transfer. Colback, to be fair has been a good loan as well. The reliance on Marinakis' network for players shows no real sign of paying off despite continued attempts and the fact that we still keep bringing in players at the back end of their careers despite consistently poor returns when doing so previously, makes me want to pull my hair out.



  6. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hogwarts
    Posts
    482

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    Don't Wolves serve as a reminder that identity is over-rated in a football club? I think there's a tendency to seize upon a lack of sensible leadership, and lament it as a lack of an identity. On the face of things, Fosun did everything at Wolves that members of this board would suggest you ought not to do in building a football club. They brought in expensive foreign imports to add quality to the side. They sacked Kenny Jackett within days of buying the club, and replaced him with Walter Zenga who was a bit of a numpty. Paul Lambert came in and lasted six months. Within their first year of owning Wolves, Fosun had sacked 3 managers. Now, the important point to make here is that they backed these decisions up with heavy investment, strong links with knowledgeable football people, and a strong desire to find a methodology that would work in their goal to make it to the Premier League, even if by trial and error. But there was no identity, they just kept going till something worked.

    The other side of the coin is that, if you have some success with a manager, even if he isn't sacked he may be poached by somebody else. You can't plan for the long-term with a manager because, whether because they're a success or a failure, they won't stay for long. The problem for me is that at boardroom level, we suffer from inadequate leadership, or inadequate football knowledge, and we consistently pay the price for that. Identity isn't really necessary unless you're a smaller club looking to over-achieve, and while we talk a lot about identity, we only really use it to laud smaller clubs that are playing above their level. Yeovil of a few years ago probably had an 'identity', they're back in League Two now because the size of the club is such that that's where they belong. Success is much more about investing money sensibly and having a succession strategy than it is about an identity, although you might call that an identity in itself. When Swansea were succeeding, they had an 'identity', I doubt anybody really looks at them as a positive example now.

    We don't need an identity, we need to stop spending our money on average players, stop appointing average managers, and stop replacing the previous manager with somebody who plays a completely different style of football.


  7. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    8,986

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chivalry Augustus View Post
    Don't Wolves serve as a reminder that identity is over-rated in a football club? I think there's a tendency to seize upon a lack of sensible leadership, and lament it as a lack of an identity. On the face of things, Fosun did everything at Wolves that members of this board would suggest you ought not to do in building a football club. They brought in expensive foreign imports to add quality to the side. They sacked Kenny Jackett within days of buying the club, and replaced him with Walter Zenga who was a bit of a numpty. Paul Lambert came in and lasted six months. Within their first year of owning Wolves, Fosun had sacked 3 managers. Now, the important point to make here is that they backed these decisions up with heavy investment, strong links with knowledgeable football people, and a strong desire to find a methodology that would work in their goal to make it to the Premier League, even if by trial and error. But there was no identity, they just kept going till something worked.

    The other side of the coin is that, if you have some success with a manager, even if he isn't sacked he may be poached by somebody else. You can't plan for the long-term with a manager because, whether because they're a success or a failure, they won't stay for long. The problem for me is that at boardroom level, we suffer from inadequate leadership, or inadequate football knowledge, and we consistently pay the price for that. Identity isn't really necessary unless you're a smaller club looking to over-achieve, and while we talk a lot about identity, we only really use it to laud smaller clubs that are playing above their level. Yeovil of a few years ago probably had an 'identity', they're back in League Two now because the size of the club is such that that's where they belong. Success is much more about investing money sensibly and having a succession strategy than it is about an identity, although you might call that an identity in itself. When Swansea were succeeding, they had an 'identity', I doubt anybody really looks at them as a positive example now.

    We don't need an identity, we need to stop spending our money on average players, stop appointing average managers, and stop replacing the previous manager with somebody who plays a completely different style of football.
    Fair point.

    I do sometimes wonder whether we went somebody else's route that was successful and they did the exact same here it wouldn't work.

    Derby have successfully made the change from last season and are everything they weren't last season. Rowett (old, turgid and predictable teams) to Lampard (young, positive and energetic) and its worked.

    I ask is that luck or was their planning involved ? Let's not forget Mad Mel has had his critics.

    Their recruitment included Prem loans and league one players but their academy is serving a vital purpose which Mad Mel wanted and could he have got anyone better than managers coaches with no stereotypes as they did because its their first jobs.

    Last edited by BryanRoy; 20-01-19 at 19:26.

  8. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    preston
    Posts
    2,165

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chivalry Augustus View Post
    Don't Wolves serve as a reminder that identity is over-rated in a football club? I think there's a tendency to seize upon a lack of sensible leadership, and lament it as a lack of an identity. On the face of things, Fosun did everything at Wolves that members of this board would suggest you ought not to do in building a football club. They brought in expensive foreign imports to add quality to the side. They sacked Kenny Jackett within days of buying the club, and replaced him with Walter Zenga who was a bit of a numpty. Paul Lambert came in and lasted six months. Within their first year of owning Wolves, Fosun had sacked 3 managers. Now, the important point to make here is that they backed these decisions up with heavy investment, strong links with knowledgeable football people, and a strong desire to find a methodology that would work in their goal to make it to the Premier League, even if by trial and error. But there was no identity, they just kept going till something worked.

    The other side of the coin is that, if you have some success with a manager, even if he isn't sacked he may be poached by somebody else. You can't plan for the long-term with a manager because, whether because they're a success or a failure, they won't stay for long. The problem for me is that at boardroom level, we suffer from inadequate leadership, or inadequate football knowledge, and we consistently pay the price for that. Identity isn't really necessary unless you're a smaller club looking to over-achieve, and while we talk a lot about identity, we only really use it to laud smaller clubs that are playing above their level. Yeovil of a few years ago probably had an 'identity', they're back in League Two now because the size of the club is such that that's where they belong. Success is much more about investing money sensibly and having a succession strategy than it is about an identity, although you might call that an identity in itself. When Swansea were succeeding, they had an 'identity', I doubt anybody really looks at them as a positive example now.

    We don't need an identity, we need to stop spending our money on average players, stop appointing average managers, and stop replacing the previous manager with somebody who plays a completely different style of football.
    Agree with most of that bar the poaching of successful managers. I can count how many times that had happend on the end of my cock.





    Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


  9. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Athens
    Posts
    5,393

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chivalry Augustus View Post
    Don't Wolves serve as a reminder that identity is over-rated in a football club? I think there's a tendency to seize upon a lack of sensible leadership, and lament it as a lack of an identity. On the face of things, Fosun did everything at Wolves that members of this board would suggest you ought not to do in building a football club. They brought in expensive foreign imports to add quality to the side. They sacked Kenny Jackett within days of buying the club, and replaced him with Walter Zenga who was a bit of a numpty. Paul Lambert came in and lasted six months. Within their first year of owning Wolves, Fosun had sacked 3 managers. Now, the important point to make here is that they backed these decisions up with heavy investment, strong links with knowledgeable football people, and a strong desire to find a methodology that would work in their goal to make it to the Premier League, even if by trial and error. But there was no identity, they just kept going till something worked.

    The other side of the coin is that, if you have some success with a manager, even if he isn't sacked he may be poached by somebody else. You can't plan for the long-term with a manager because, whether because they're a success or a failure, they won't stay for long. The problem for me is that at boardroom level, we suffer from inadequate leadership, or inadequate football knowledge, and we consistently pay the price for that. Identity isn't really necessary unless you're a smaller club looking to over-achieve, and while we talk a lot about identity, we only really use it to laud smaller clubs that are playing above their level. Yeovil of a few years ago probably had an 'identity', they're back in League Two now because the size of the club is such that that's where they belong. Success is much more about investing money sensibly and having a succession strategy than it is about an identity, although you might call that an identity in itself. When Swansea were succeeding, they had an 'identity', I doubt anybody really looks at them as a positive example now.

    We don't need an identity, we need to stop spending our money on average players, stop appointing average managers, and stop replacing the previous manager with somebody who plays a completely different style of football.
    One might think you're suggesting that the club hierarchy should be given the precious commodity of time...


  10. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    320

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    Quote Originally Posted by It's Baggio View Post
    I'm not bothered who 'chose' them. Our Footballing administration should be implementing a strategy and appointing a manager that fits into it. Recruitment should then mirror this strategy.

    This blatanly hasn't happened and here we are.
    This is exactly the point. The "blame" if any lies with the layer between owner and manager regarding the football side of things. I think it's a pretty simple formula that should be adopted:

    Owner sets the mission = promotion. No problem with that.

    Directors / CEO / Sporting Director = implement a strategy to achieve the mission. This is where we keep going wrong. Choose a strategy/identity!! Don't keep ripping it up. I would favour something progressive, energetic that involves recruiting young athletic players of high potential.

    Manager = One that reflects the strategy. Plenty of examples such as Wagner, Joka, Farke - take a punt on Arteta? The manager, while obviously important, fits with OUR strategy. Not the other way around!

    Then maybe we can get an identity that we can be proud of.


  11. #60
    Forum Tactician
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    B C UPPER
    Posts
    14,231

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    Quote Originally Posted by Johno22 View Post
    This is exactly the point. The "blame" if any lies with the layer between owner and manager regarding the football side of things. I think it's a pretty simple formula that should be adopted:

    Owner sets the mission = promotion. No problem with that.

    Directors / CEO / Sporting Director = implement a strategy to achieve the mission. This is where we keep going wrong. Choose a strategy/identity!! Don't keep ripping it up. I would favour something progressive, energetic that involves recruiting young athletic players of high potential.

    Manager = One that reflects the strategy. Plenty of examples such as Wagner, Joka, Farke - take a punt on Arteta? The manager, while obviously important, fits with OUR strategy. Not the other way around!

    Then maybe we can get an identity that we can be proud of.
    We've got a director for everything at Forest these days, none of whom Id back over Karanka or even O'Neil for that matter. Its structural overkill for championship football, highlighted perfectly when AK has us in position to strike, despite constant interference holding him back.


  12. #61
    It's all about mid-table...
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Wetherspoons
    Posts
    15,946

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    Quote Originally Posted by MASE View Post
    We've got a director for everything at Forest these days, none of whom Id back over Karanka or even O'Neil for that matter. Its structural overkill for championship football, highlighted perfectly when AK has us in position to strike, despite constant interference holding him back.
    You're right there Mace. Structural overkill.

    Thuz a fukin army onum. Gravy train.


  13. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not sure. Cell window too high.
    Posts
    2,357

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    Good thought Heffing - but I'll come at it from a different angle.

    We are as we are now because even when we 'were something' the club never really realised it. Our history, on the whole, is one of being badly run.

    At one time we were a medium sized club doing very big things. The club never looked to take that and make us a big club doing big things, we were strapped for cash just a couple of years on from back-to-back Euro Cup wins.

    Yes, the Clough years rolled on with cups being won, but as a club we still never grew. We looked much bigger than our foundations ever were.

    We were bloody lucky to get to where we did. But once that luck finally ran out then the years of failing to capitalise off the pitch with the success that had occurred on it showed and soon we were ex-Euro Champs in the 3rd tier without so much as a pot to piss in.

    Since then it's all been about getting us back to where we were - which was a poorly run business, so without realising it they've not failed.


    Perhaps the key is not to strive for what we once were but to strive to be what we MIGHT HAVE BEEN. Unfortunately, year on year, the financial gap of from here to there has grown. 22 million buys very little now so chucking money around for a quick solution is a dangerous game. It would take planning, patience and a resilient heart to get there. I wonder, of the sort who nowadays can afford to buy a club at our level, if such a mentor exists?


  14. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,532

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    Read this article today, part interview with John Thompson

    Some poignant paragraphs in there that highlight some problems.


    He appreciates fan frustrations; the 20th anniversary of the club's exit from the Premier League is in May.

    The assumption was that Forest would soon bounce back, yet they have never managed it. Thompson was part of some teams that came close. Others were miles away. There were three seasons spent in League One, a gut-punch to morale considering older fans can remember Forest winning successive European Cups.

    In the centre, a newsagent sells Forest programmes from the past 30 years. Precious memories of Brian Clough's best days, chronicling great exploits on foreign fields, sit incongruously next to characterless offerings from lost Championship years.
    and maybe part of the underachieving player/manager problem:

    "Even when we were in the Championship, you always felt like the fans had watched better generations of players and it can weigh down on you," admits Thompson, who does note that a lot of ex-players still end up living here. Reid is a local now too.

    "I was always proud to say I played for Forest as many times as I did but I know a lot of managers and players found it just too difficult because of the past glory.



  15. #64
    Billy Davies long lost lovechild.
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    36,833

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    Quote Originally Posted by MASE View Post
    We've got a director for everything at Forest these days, none of whom Id back over Karanka or even O'Neil for that matter. Its structural overkill for championship football, highlighted perfectly when AK has us in position to strike, despite constant interference holding him back.
    Things were going well until Dourekas arrived too.


  16. #65
    Senior Mass Debater
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    16,822

    Default Re: Chameleon Club?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymondo Ponte' View Post
    You're right there Mace. Structural overkill.

    Thuz a fukin army onum. Gravy train.
    We probably have a Diversity Officer and a Gender Sensitivity Trainer also?


 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •