Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Neil Warnock, Steve Gibson & Long Term Vision?


Recommended Posts

I don’t follow Brunners so I don’t know what he said.

In regards to Scott, this IS his chance to take on a DOF at a big club (at least from his perspective)…he has a bit of leverage as he’s been part of a successful set up but he doesn’t hold all the cards. No one else is throwing themselves at him are they? Gibson will dictate the role to him and not the other way round.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 636
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  •  

    62

  •  

    46

  •  

    33

  •  

    32

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As it's looking a virtual certainty that Warnock is going to get the job for next season, it's worth noting both the significant positives and negatives that will result from Warnock being our manager

👀Thanks for the invite, really appreciate it.

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 mot

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Humpty said:

I don’t follow Brunners so I don’t know what he said.

In regards to Scott, this IS his chance to take on a DOF at a big club (at least from his perspective)…he has a bit of leverage as he’s been part of a successful set up but he doesn’t hold all the cards. No one else is throwing themselves at him are they? Gibson will dictate the role to him and not the other way round.

humpty won't see this, but Scott can literally just sit and wait and take over at Norwich when Webber leaves. He doesn't need the Boro job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Johnmfc81 said:

What's the difference between a sporting director and director of football?

We're branching out into other sports.  With all the height we've now got we're setting up a volleyball team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Humpty said:

I don’t follow Brunners so I don’t know what he said.

In regards to Scott, this IS his chance to take on a DOF at a big club (at least from his perspective)…he has a bit of leverage as he’s been part of a successful set up but he doesn’t hold all the cards. No one else is throwing themselves at him are they? Gibson will dictate the role to him and not the other way round.

I follow Brunners.  Everywhere.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Humpty said:

I don’t follow Brunners so I don’t know what he said.

In regards to Scott, this IS his chance to take on a DOF at a big club (at least from his perspective)…he has a bit of leverage as he’s been part of a successful set up but he doesn’t hold all the cards. No one else is throwing themselves at him are they? Gibson will dictate the role to him and not the other way round.

It's an uncomfortable area for Gibson, even giving Scott a moderate remit, so it will likely come down to whether Gibson actually realises that a Sporting Director needs to control the key strategic decisions to have maximum effect. If he does then it should be the ideal remit for Scott.

But I get your point that from both parties bargaining positions, if Gibson wanted to have a degree of control, say, such wanting Scott to consult with him on hiring and firing the head coach or not selling any academy players without his authority(ie, wanting Scott to explain the logic such as to raise funds for players x and y), Gibson could possibly have offered just enough to entice him despite not giving him everything. 

Hopefully the range of Scott's remit will become apparent soon. The wider the better as far as I'm concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, p_mards said:

I agree with what @Brunners just said. My fear was that Gibson would appoint someone connected to him without a reputation built from being successful elsewhere. Scott would surely have strict parameters of the fundamentals to carry out the role of Sporting Director. If he didn’t get the sufficient remit then I’m sure he’ll have stayed where he was and bided his time waiting for the right project. I’d like to think so anyway. I’m sure he could illustrate to Gibson how the Sporting Director role needs a wide remit if it’s going to be implemented successfully.

I think this is SG starting to wind back a little bit realising that time waits for no man. Bausor will by now know how he likes things done, what he wants, what upsets him and what he doesn't like otherwise he wouldn't have lasted this long. Scott arriving will be the icing on the cake to look after the footballing side of things.

As much as SG loves control even he must realise that Father Time will be coming along some time soon and he better enjoy what time he has left. What better way than to hand over control but still hold the on/off switch in his Chauffeured mobility scooter (aka Range Rover).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, p_mards said:

It's an uncomfortable area for Gibson, even giving Scott a moderate remit, so it will likely come down to whether Gibson actually realises that a Sporting Director needs to control the key strategic decisions to have maximum effect. If he does then it should be the ideal remit for Scott.

But I get your point that from both parties bargaining positions, if Gibson wanted to have a degree of control, say, such wanting Scott to consult with him on hiring and firing the head coach or not selling any academy players without his authority(ie, wanting Scott to explain the logic such as to raise funds for players x and y), Gibson could possibly have offered just enough to entice him despite not giving him everything. 

Hopefully the range of Scott's remit will become apparent soon. The wider the better as far as I'm concerned.

Spot on 👌🏻

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, p_mards said:

Great 48 minutes discussion with Kieran Scott regarding his role behind the scenes at Norwich City.

Good watch that. Sounds like he'll be good at scouting foreign leagues for cheap gems (as he did for Norwich of course).

Hope we can sign the lass interviewing him as well!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, p_mards said:

It's an uncomfortable area for Gibson, even giving Scott a moderate remit, so it will likely come down to whether Gibson actually realises that a Sporting Director needs to control the key strategic decisions to have maximum effect. If he does then it should be the ideal remit for Scott.

But I get your point that from both parties bargaining positions, if Gibson wanted to have a degree of control, say, such wanting Scott to consult with him on hiring and firing the head coach or not selling any academy players without his authority(ie, wanting Scott to explain the logic such as to raise funds for players x and y), Gibson could possibly have offered just enough to entice him despite not giving him everything. 

Hopefully the range of Scott's remit will become apparent soon. The wider the better as far as I'm concerned.

You don’t actually realistically think that a Sporting Director or DOF could decide on hiring and firing without consultation with the board of any football club? Every club will have a budget and it will have to be adhered to. Scott won’t be able to sign Harry Kane for eg as he would be outside our budget. This is a fantastic move from Steve Gibson to bring this guy in and still you somehow manage to get a dig in at Gibson. Did he run over your cat when you were a child or something? You really do seem to despise the man no matter what he does 🙄

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Blanco said:

You don’t actually realistically think that a Sporting Director or DOF could decide on hiring and firing without consultation with the board of any football club? Every club will have a budget and it will have to be adhered to. Scott won’t be able to sign Harry Kane for eg as he would be outside our budget. This is a fantastic move from Steve Gibson to bring this guy in and still you somehow manage to get a dig in at Gibson. Did he run over your cat when you were a child or something? You really do seem to despise the man no matter what he does 🙄

Point is he should at the very least be able to reasonably find, interview and put forward candidates for the board's approval without their involvement. He should be the one assessing their quality and going back to the board with his recommendations and the board should only be advising on candidates in respect of how much they will hope to earn and stuff like that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

Point is he should at the very least be able to reasonably find, interview and put forward candidates for the board's approval without their involvement. He should be the one assessing their quality and going back to the board with his recommendations and the board should only be advising on candidates in respect of how much they will hope to earn and stuff like that. 

Agreed

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blanco said:

You don’t actually realistically think that a Sporting Director or DOF could decide on hiring and firing without consultation with the board of any football club? Every club will have a budget and it will have to be adhered to. Scott won’t be able to sign Harry Kane for eg as he would be outside our budget. This is a fantastic move from Steve Gibson to bring this guy in and still you somehow manage to get a dig in at Gibson. Did he run over your cat when you were a child or something? You really do seem to despise the man no matter what he does 🙄

I actually used "consult" in a loose, fairly neutral manner. Most DOF's and Sporting Director's consult their owners in an informal manner - as a matter of courtesy and convention, but in reality they have the authority to sack or appoint a head coach without the owner having any actual meaningful influence. If they do overrule the DOF by refusing to appoint a head coach that they want then the DOF will surely resign. If Stuart Webber wanted to sack Daniel Farke as he had lost faith in him, but Delia Smith overruled him, then I'm sure he'd resign.

I mentioned hiring and firing the head coach so I've got absolutely no idea why you've gone off on a tangent about Harry Kane being outside our budget. I've read it back 3 times and I'm still baffled.

My post was speculative discussion with Humpty regarding Scott's potential remit here and, if you actually read it, I was having faith in Gibson as I thought he will probably give Scott a wide remit, more than say someone who had no caliber and is connected to Gibson - whereas Humpty doubted that Gibson will give him as wide of a remit as I thought. It was speculative stuff between me and him - and then there's you frothing on the sideline a few hours later.

Edited by p_mards
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BoroJake said:

This is the bit that excites me:

Quote

The Teesiders had been looking to fill a head of recruitment role that has been vacant since 2019, but have instead decided to put Scott in charge of their entire technical operation, having been impressed with his vision for the club.

It is expected that Scott will oversee recruitment and player welfare from the first-team right down through the academy, negotiating new signings and contracts, overseeing loans and player pathways, while working closely with chief executive Neil Bausor.

If we actually can let him have full control of everything football related, we might ACTUALLY get that "golden thread" we talked about before.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...