Jump to content
oneBoro Forum
Sign in to follow this  
p_mards

Neil Warnock, Steve Gibson & Long Term Vision?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Not sure Pearson  is a guarantee of stability. 7 clubs in 11 years.

Edited by GrimsbyBoro
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, p_mards said:

The Evening Gazette has said that Steve Gibson is against a director of football because it would add another 6 figure salary onto the wage bill. I can't help but question whether that is the true motive as it appears to be more down to Gibson wanting to retain power. The best way to assess whether this 6 figure salary is value for money, is to consider how Steve Gibson and his loyal courtiers like Gary Gill and co are actually performing with the powers that they have which, if we were to appoint a director of football, would be taken away from them.

Firstly, how much has our knee-jerking between managers of contrasting styles cost us through wasted transfer fees, wages and resulting underperformance of players not suiting the next managers tactics? I have our managerial merry-go-round as: McLaren (250 games) > Southgate (151 games) > Strachan (51games) > Mowbray (153 games) > Karanka (171 games) > Monk (26 games) > Pulis (80 games) > Woodgate (41 games) > Warnock. Considering the 3 and 4 year deals that each of them managers handed out only for them to leave shortly afterwards, it has left huge inefficiencies due to a lack of cohesion between what the current manager wants and what players he has which were bought by his predecessor. As an illustration (estimate figures), Britt Assombalonga was bought for £15 million in the summer of 2017 on a 4 year deal with wages of around £40,000 a week. The financials of that will cost us £23,320,000 (£15,000,000 transfer fee & £8,320,000 wages) over his 4 years here. This signing was thought to bring in a new era under Monk, however, he was sacked after 26 games and replaced by Pulis who did not rate Assombalonga as he could not lead the line as a target man, and wanted him sold in a cut price deal. Similar examples can be made about Monk's signings of Cyrus Christie & Martin Braithwaite who were bought for big money and wages only to be not wanted by Pulis as they did not fit his tactics which were in stark contrast to Monk's. My point is that this is the sort of extremely costly inefficiency that results from Gibson's knee-jerking between managers.

Also, what about all of the settlements for sacking the awful, reactionary appointments to key positions like Monk, Woodgate and Bevington. If we had a competent decision maker at the top of the club then we wouldn't needlessly bleed money as a result of appointing people who are unprepared for the job and only got the job through their closeness to Gibson like Woodgate and Bevington. To give Monk such a huge transfer kitty, and sack him 26 games later is bonkers by Gibson.

If we are terrified of adding a 6 figure salary onto the wage bill then this financial restraint is out of keeping with the lavish wages and financial packages Gibson is happy to give managers such as Pulis' £3 million a year a 6% of the transfer fees on all players sold. Equally, Warnock will not be coming cheap either and it wouldn't surprise me if he's on a similar sort of deal to Pulis. Them sorts of financial packages are more than enough to afford an excellent director of football and a head coach with the way Norwich have Stuart Webber and Daniel Farke.

If we had a director of football who set the club culture, long term template of tactics, style of play, recruit players to fit that template, personalities we sign to fit into that culture, appoint a head coach who must implement tactics to fit that template, then we would not regularly be in states of transition.

Considering all of that, my view is that Gibson's argument that we can't afford a director of football is absolute garbage. The utterly bonkers signings of Gestede and Gueudiora would have funded a director of football for many decades! The true reason why he doesn't want a director of football is that the only way one could be accommodated into the club is by Gibson giving up control of appointing the head coach, Gary Gill's "head of recruitment" role would become defunct and the director of football would be able to recruit player and sell players without Gibson's impulsive, reactionary input. Steve Gibson giving up that level of power to a director of football is never going to happen. Gibson's abhorrence to a director of football is not becuase of the 6 figure salary. It all comes down to the fact that Gibson wanting him and Gary Gill to retain their power.

This is painful reading.

Simply because it makes so much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GrimsbyBoro said:

Not sure Pearson  is a guarantee of stability. 

There is NO guarantee of stability in football. I'm just saying he has more of his career ahead of him than Warnock.

Okay, he's not got an amazing track record, but he did okay at Leicester and Hull. Also had a reasonable stint in Belgium with OH Leuven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AnglianRed said:

There is NO guarantee of stability in football. I'm just saying he has more of his career ahead of him than Warnock.

Okay, he's not got an amazing track record, but he did okay at Leicester and Hull. Also had a reasonable stint in Belgium with OH Leuven.

I don't know but I thought Belgium was a disaster. 

He has done well with certain clubs  it there always seems to be a fight of an arguement brewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

Well he'd hardly be the first manager to be obsessed with a particular style of play.

The article even acknowledges that the multitude of managers that have been sacked indicates there are likely bigger off-field issues that are largely responsible for Watford's problems.

We think Boro have gone through managers at an alarming rate, which has caused a lack of stability. God only knows what its been like for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pearson is good at coming in and sorting things out via his no nonsense style. In Boro's case we need to build a new squad as the old one has all but gone and the remnants of it are mainly youngsters so not a lot to sort. His record blows hot and cold and invariably there will be some bust ups that comes with the territory. Bringing him in in January would have worked for us but we are over that hurdle now and what we now require is a Coach that can build a squad capable of challenging for promotion on a tight budget. I dare say that Pearson could do that but of the two I'd rather trust Warnock.

In either case its unlikely that either of them would be here in 18 months time for different reasons and we would be once more plunged into the abyss. The difference in Warnock's case is that it is a known and can be planned for in advance in full knowledge of the Manager and like as not his support and assistance. There is no way that I could see Pearson operating with SG and Gary Gill, especially the latter, although it might be fun to sit back and bring out the popcorn.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, GrimsbyBoro said:

I don't know but I thought Belgium was a disaster. 

He has done well with certain clubs  it there always seems to be a fight of an arguement brewing.

Well we went through that with Karanka. Quite frankly we could go through it with any other potential manager that wasn't content to be a "yes man" for Gibson.

Warnock is probably more of a diplomat and able to bite his tongue if he's not happy with things behind-the-scenes...but again he is reaching the end of his career, so we should be looking for someone else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AnglianRed said:

Well he'd hardly be the first manager to be obsessed with a particular style of play.

The article even acknowledges that the multitude of managers that have been sacked indicates there are likely bigger off-field issues that are largely responsible for Watford's problems.

We think Boro have gone through managers at an alarming rate, which has caused a lack of stability. God only knows what its been like for them.

At least they didn't turn up fart, embarrass themselves and leave and are still in there fighting even possibly surviving for another season. Whilst I'm in no way advocating their approach or supportive of it, it puts Boro's effort into perspective. It wasn't so long ago that like Burnley, Bournemouth and Brighton we were contesting with them to get out of the Championship. The end of the article where its says "suggests the wrong people are doing the appointing, or the wrong tools are being placed at their disposal" rings true for both Boro and Watford. I think that Pearson has attributes that can be beneficial to a club in the short term but not long term developmental ones, that said had he been appointed instead of Woodgate last summer we wouldn't be in the position we are now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AnglianRed said:

Well we went through that with Karanka. Quite frankly we could go through it with any other potential manager that wasn't content to be a "yes man" for Gibson.

Warnock is probably more of a diplomat and able to bite his tongue if he's not happy with things behind-the-scenes...but again he is reaching the end of his career, so we should be looking for someone else.

 

I think the "diplomat" term is crucial for a Boro Manager with the absence of a DOF and that is where wily Warnock will be of more benefit to Boro. There is already mutual respect and from Warnock's perspective nothing to prove unlike Woodgate, Monk and even Karanka. Pulis was good at smoke blowing but his approach looked tired, Warnock has more recent experience at this level at achieving what we want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

Pearson is good at coming in and sorting things out via his no nonsense style. In Boro's case we need to build a new squad as the old one has all but gone and the remnants of it are mainly youngsters so not a lot to sort. His record blows hot and cold and invariably there will be some bust ups that comes with the territory. Bringing him in in January would have worked for us but we are over that hurdle now and what we now require is a Coach that can build a squad capable of challenging for promotion on a tight budget. I dare say that Pearson could do that but of the two I'd rather trust Warnock.

In either case its unlikely that either of them would be here in 18 months time for different reasons and we would be once more plunged into the abyss. The difference in Warnock's case is that it is a known and can be planned for in advance in full knowledge of the Manager and like as not his support and assistance. There is no way that I could see Pearson operating with SG and Gary Gill, especially the latter, although it might be fun to sit back and bring out the popcorn.

Fair points.

I think the difference with Boro is that, being a former player, he knows the club, knows the area and will probably have had some dealings with Gibson at some point (don't know if thats a positive or negative).

Might make him change his approach...but then again maybe not. 

He may not even want the job, but I think its worth at least finding out if he'd be interested. As you say, Warnock's departure is inevitable and Gibson needs to draw up a short list of possible replacements.

...and I believe it will be a very short list...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given a choice of Warnock and Pearson I’d definitely prefer Pearson. He’s applied for the job a few times already though and not got it so maybe Gibson isn’t keen on him. Probably for the reasons already mentioned such as him not being a yes man. 
 

watford is a mad house though, who would want to work there? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant imagine the Evening Gibson would appreciate Pearson calling Anthony Vickers an Ostrich after questioning Pearsons selection on a Zoom call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always got the impression that Pearson was a bit of a bully and a 🔔 🔚

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uwe said:

I always got the impression that Pearson was a bit of a bully and a 🔔 🔚

Well I think you’re an car attacking GIF

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


×
×
  • Create New...