Should we sack Steve Walsh?

[Makis]

Someone provide me with a good example where a DOF has worked in the Prem

Premier League isn't exactly a good example of forward thinking. Took foreign coaches to even get the players into the same shape as their colleagues in the mainland.

[Makis]

I got the impression our failed move for Kolasinac was also driven by Walsh (see, we did try to replace Baines!), and he's done alright with Arsenal.

Kolasinac agreed to sign with Arsenal way before the window even opened so he had enough time to identify another target.

[Makis]

It's just an aspect of the game today that managers can't do everything. There was a time when they were also practically the head scout but their schedule got so busy it was a good idea to hire someone to that role.

This model has been used in the continent for a long time, in fact in many countries they have never had a British-style manager who has a dual role. Manager's job is to make the best of the team he is provided. US sports is the same, btw. You have a general manager who deals with team building and all that and a head coach who is in charge of game-related things. The idea is simple: you can change the coach but you still have a guy in charge of the larger picture. You don't scrap everything that happened in the past two or three years just because the new guy has a new idea on how to build the team.

[Makis]

Oh yes. No, double that with extra fries.

What's his point? He doesn't have a vision for the club (if he has he's sure hiding it well). He doesn't pick the managers. He doesn't do any team planning. He on one hand allows managers to overspend (or he overspends himself) and on the other hand allegedly blocks some signings. He has failed on every possible metric I can come up with.

[Makis]

Agree with most of that, but the small piece about Tosun I don't, surely it's too early to judge him ?

I think the issue was that we needed a striker who can contribute right away. It's pointless to buy players in January otherwise.

[Makis]

I just feel as a club we should be starting a policy of signing nobody over 23 unless somebody of exceptional quality becomes available.

We need to get out of the habit of being a retirement home for old footballers and cast offs from 'big clubs'

We need to build our own and compete that way not try and desperately play catch up by signing 30 year olds who have been proven to not have it at a top level anymore. What Spurs and Liverpool do should be our model.

This would pretty much mean bye-bye to a top-4 challenge. Your policy is pretty much about making a business of buying and selling players. Players won't stay long enough in that case to reach full potential at the club so we'd have very few players at their prime.

[Makis]

There is a middle ground tbh.

If we believe in the Moshiri millions and we assume turnover and profit is not THAT essential to our success, then my rule would be nobody over 26 who is not currently a) a top player - demonstrable historic success in a top league b) relatively injury free c) a top, top attacker - rules out the winfow For superstar attackers, get them whenever you can.

26 is actually much more realistic age, signing players at 25-26 would mean players would hit their peak at the club.

I would still try to keep one to three more experienced players in the team. We've seen their worth in the past in players like Reid, Gray, Gough, Martyn, and most lately Barry. But the focus should be to buy players before they hit their peak.

[Makis]

It's completely coincidental that his missus told him she wants to visit Copacabana.