18 hours ago, Changing Times said:

Why would we want to continue doing something that isn't working particularly well?

I guess it’s a difference in opinion! I don’t think Scott has done badly in his role, I think he’s had more hits than misses and those misses have been better than some of the choices made by previous managers. Ultimately, if Jones were to get the job, he’s probably got his own ideas of how a team should be built and could be completely different to Scott but at least the transition would be easier than someone completely new.

No one knows how well Scott has performed apart from Scott, Gibson and those that know what his remit is. I doubt it's as simple as 'Get Boro promoted'

9 minutes ago, Humpty said:

No one knows how well Scott has performed apart from Scott, Gibson and those that know what his remit is. I doubt it's as simple as 'Get Boro promoted'

I think the intentions behind Scott's appointment were more finance based than results based, though obviously the signings still need to perform to increase their value.

It's a model that's seen us been able to reinvest in the squad using significant transfer fees that most others in the division haven't been able to do. Nobody else outside of the parachute payment clubs are paying what we paid for Whittaker. It's getting that reinvestment right that's key, and January was a disaster, not taking any blame away from Carrick. 

 

Dan Ashworth

58 minutes ago, Marz said:

I think the intentions behind Scott's appointment were more finance based than results based, though obviously the signings still need to perform to increase their value.

It's a model that's seen us been able to reinvest in the squad using significant transfer fees that most others in the division haven't been able to do. Nobody else outside of the parachute payment clubs are paying what we paid for Whittaker. It's getting that reinvestment right that's key, and January was a disaster, not taking any blame away from Carrick. 

 

Agreed and I think that's my point. I think there'll have been several targets for him to hit. No one knows what they are, albeit you can make some good guesses.

53 minutes ago, Riverside94 said:

Dan Ashworth

he's probs on more money than our best players are on, plus he's not going to go from both United's to us in this league anyways.

his united severance terms would likely exclude him from working for another club for a set amount of time.

and if they don't, with his payoff being more than we would pay him, it would mean he was probably working for free while they are still paying him as any payments from another DOF would normally be deducted from any future payments he is down to receive from his severance 

I would fully expect Gibson to know if Scott is interested in this. He isn't daft and if there is a chance if our key role needing to be filled he will be on it. Scott might even have helped line up a replacement.

But Scott might quite like where he is at. He could be the person responsible for us doing a Brighton,  Bournemouth or Brentford. So that aspect might sway him to stay.

4 hours ago, edinboro said:

I would fully expect Gibson to know if Scott is interested in this. He isn't daft and if there is a chance if our key role needing to be filled he will be on it. Scott might even have helped line up a replacement.

But Scott might quite like where he is at. He could be the person responsible for us doing a Brighton,  Bournemouth or Brentford. So that aspect might sway him to stay.

Scott might set us up with a loan🫠

7 hours ago, Humpty said:

Agreed and I think that's my point. I think there'll have been several targets for him to hit. No one knows what they are, albeit you can make some good guesses.

Unless the targets are to miss out on the play offs, increase costs, and have a first team squad decimated by injuries then I'm not sure what else he's accomplished exactly.  It would certainly be another interesting move by Gibson to appoint a Head of Football whose aim wasn't to get us promoted though.  Maybe Carrick's targets don't revolve around promotion as well?

38 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Unless the targets are to miss out on the play offs, increase costs, and have a first team squad decimated by injuries then I'm not sure what else he's accomplished exactly.  It would certainly be another interesting move by Gibson to appoint a Head of Football whose aim wasn't to get us promoted though.  Maybe Carrick's targets don't revolve around promotion as well?

It’s Scott’s fault the players are injured?

2 minutes ago, LinoJo3 said:

It’s Scott’s fault the players are injured?

He's the Head of Football.  I'm assuming it's his job to oversee all football operations.  If it isn't then none of the following applies of course.  He's responsible for employing the staff, and he's responsible for the facilities, so yes, if we have two years worth of players being decimated by injuries, then it ultimately falls down on him.  Who else would be responsible?  It can only be people working under him right?  Obviously the club feel there is something wrong because training pitches were identified as the issue, and then they were changed last summer.  That hasn't worked, and if diggerlad is correct then there will be staffing changes this summer, so, and obviously I'm making another assumption here, I'm assuming that it's the staff that have no been identified as the issue.  If things improve as a result of those changes then why wouldn't he get the credit for it?  

 

28 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

He's the Head of Football.  I'm assuming it's his job to oversee all football operations.  If it isn't then none of the following applies of course.  He's responsible for employing the staff, and he's responsible for the facilities, so yes, if we have two years worth of players being decimated by injuries, then it ultimately falls down on him.  Who else would be responsible?  It can only be people working under him right?  Obviously the club feel there is something wrong because training pitches were identified as the issue, and then they were changed last summer.  That hasn't worked, and if diggerlad is correct then there will be staffing changes this summer, so, and obviously I'm making another assumption here, I'm assuming that it's the staff that have no been identified as the issue.  If things improve as a result of those changes then why wouldn't he get the credit for it?  

 

Without knowing the staff he’s employed, how the players have picked up the injuries, how they have been treated, how the training may/may not affect injuries I really don’t see how you can make that kind of judgement? 
 

He should be responsible for getting to the bottom of it yes, but responsible for the injuries? I think that’s a bit harsh.

Just now, LinoJo3 said:

Without knowing the staff he’s employed, how the players have picked up the injuries, how they have been treated, how the training may/may not affect injuries I really don’t see how you can make that kind of judgement? 
 

He should be responsible for getting to the bottom of it yes, but responsible for the injuries? I think that’s a bit harsh.

I'm basing that on the fact that the club appear to be changing things that's all.  If it's simply down to rotten luck then he has nowt to do with it.  The club seem to believe otherwise though.  We're two years into it and he hasn't gotten to the bottom of it so he's responsible in that sense.  I don't believe he's responsible for the injuries though if that's what you mean?  It's his job to sort it out though, yes?

1 minute ago, Changing Times said:

I'm basing that on the fact that the club appear to be changing things that's all.  If it's simply down to rotten luck then he has nowt to do with it.  The club seem to believe otherwise though.  We're two years into it and he hasn't gotten to the bottom of it so he's responsible in that sense.  I don't believe he's responsible for the injuries though if that's what you mean?  It's his job to sort it out though, yes?

It depends on why it’s happening I guess, with the training pitch redoing and apparent staff changes then clearly he’s looking at potential issues and must believe he’s identified them. But at the same time Carrick is deciding what work and how much of it the players do so he has to take as much of the blame/responsability. 

3 minutes ago, LinoJo3 said:

It depends on why it’s happening I guess, with the training pitch redoing and apparent staff changes then clearly he’s looking at potential issues and must believe he’s identified them. But at the same time Carrick is deciding what work and how much of it the players do so he has to take as much of the blame/responsability. 

Then you would change the coach or make him change his methods presumably.