January 24, 2018, 01:53:02 AM

Author Topic: Should we sack Steve Walsh?  (Read 19770 times)

Cassius and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 23, 2018, 10:31:55 PM
Reply #540


NSNO Subscriber
I would imagine in the bigger scheme of things binning him off wouldn't even cause a ripple in the finances so I'd sack him this afternoon. We managed without a DoF up to now and by and large ran a pretty decent ship. Since he took over we've lurched from one poor decision to another. Bin him off, tell Kenwright to resume transfer negotiations for a week and then we appoint a new DoF in the summer.

Only thing stopping me thinking this is the idea he’s had his hands tied with two directors and 3 managers sticking their fucking noses in.

Go and find us the next Mahrez or Kante and I’ll love you forever. Recommend Patrick van Aanholt and I’m done.
I knew that someday I was going to die, and I knew that before I died, two things would happen to me. That number one; I would regret my entire life, and number two; that I would want to live my life over again.

1 hour ago
Reply #541


always and every time for me....... (1) football has survived without these people for over 100 years.....
(2) some smart ass brings one in and "its the way forward..." yet no one knows exactly what they do...... (3) what's the selection criteria when appointing one...anyone know?

(1) It's not about football surviving; that's not a problem. It's about Everton surviving. Teams with dedicated, long-term recruitment experts will leave us in the dust if we keep letting managers control it.

(2) Only because we've done it badly. And no one would describe Moshiri as a "smart ass." He's more of an outright lunatic, if anything.

(3) Organizing a scouting network, identifying targets to fit the team's style of play, negotiating transfers, identifying managers that fit the club's preferred style of play, etc.
« Last Edit: 1 hour ago by kramer0 »

1 hour ago
Reply #542


always and every time for me.......football has survived without these people for over 100 years

Professional football evolves and the mandate of certain roles can change quite a bit.

Before WW2 many team selections were picked by the board of directors and a manager was usually just a coach who would organise training.

Then managers had in general more control of football affairs and some of the younger ones could even still operate as players like our very own Kendall at the very beginning of his first managerial spell.

But now in this era it seems imprudent to give too much control to a manager like we did with Moyes and Martinez, the moment they leave or are sacked then that vision they've tried to implement goes with them. If clubs go through on average a manager every 2 years then you see a problem with trying to provide continuity.

A director of football should be able to help formulate a long term vision for the footballing side of the club and help implement it while letting the manager get on with the job of training the players and achieving results on the pitch. The DoF can concentrate on the admin or business side more like negotiating player contracts or transfers and perhaps any upgrade to existing football facilities. We let Martinez have a lot of say in Finch Farm because the club bought into his vision but 18 months later we've got a manager whose philosophy is the polar opposite.

The big problem for Everton though is the implementation of this new structure and I don't think the club has sussed out at all how this DoF role should actually work.
« Last Edit: 1 hour ago by toffee_scot »