Chairman update (free on Argyle TV)

[Emu]

Great interview.

It sounds like we cut out the cancer but not before it had already caused some damage.

Terribly analogy mate! Must be a better way of wording it than that...

 

[the corkscrew]

I

Simon Hallett also said they followed the process that was used to recruit Ryan Lowe and Steven Schumacher. You don't mention what he actually said about being a contrarian either.

This is life, not every decision will work out the way you want it to.

He said he's a contrarian as an investor. I.e. when a crowd follows an investment, just because the crowd are blindly following, you go the opposite way. Mainly, he said, because of chants/calls/'abuse' from the fans.
I'm not sure where his analogy is here. It was obvious very early this was a bad investment. No brainer.

 

[Deacster]

In my own working life I have recruited people on who turned out to be unlike what you thought you were getting so can relate to what Simon has said here. Ultimately just a bad spell for all concerned including IF but time for all to move on.

When I was first recruiting many years ago, I remember agonising over making a decision. Then someone said to me 'the only people who don't make mistakes, are those who don't make decisions' And it instantly resonated with me.
The only question is why they left it so long? It was very obvious on the pitch things were not working and so much bad news coming out.
Perhaps it was too much good faith but if one person was damaging so many others then why not pull the plug earlier?
Fair play to Hallett though alongside Edwards and Scarr for saying as much as they could reasonably be expected to say.

 

[jimsing]

To summarise what we now know.
The task was to find a coach with a
modern player management attitude, good media skills and playing attacking football, amongst others.

"Data-based decision making" to find that man.

In the end, we chose someone with awful player management, no track record on media handling and who was obsessed with stopping the opposition rather than what his players could do. The decision was heavily made by 1 man, of the 3 on the panel.
He also implemented bizarre staff working hours leading to grievances, ostracised players from the squad, upset the club captain and sponsors, and came up with bizarre and abrasive interviews.
The signs of this awful, awful appointment were evident quickly. We let him get involved in transfers and other areas that were not his business but Simon Hallett decided to deliberately go against the crowd view (that he should be sacked) because he believes in a contrarian investment strategy.

My, oh my.

We do not know. Pure speculation again.

We do not know for definite what happened behind the scenes.

Your opinion I suppose, based on conjecture and hearsay.

Nothing more.

Wrong person for the job I would say. Anything else is irrelevant.

Not too sure what you are suggesting, but it has no basis in fact.

 

[Jon with no H]

I

He said he's a contrarian as an investor. I.e. when a crowd follows an investment, just because the crowd are blindly following, you go the opposite way. Mainly, he said, because of chants/calls/'abuse' from the fans.
I'm not sure where his apology is here. It was obvious very early this was a bad investment. No brainer.

I know what contrarian means, thanks.

 

[jimsing]

I

He said he's a contrarian as an investor. I.e. when a crowd follows an investment, just because the crowd are blindly following, you go the opposite way. Mainly, he said, because of chants/calls/'abuse' from the fans.
I'm not sure where his apology is here. It was obvious very early this was a bad investment. No brainer.

Very early we were getting pointage and Foster was nominated for manager of the month, so I don't see where you are coming from.

 

[third earl of jean]

For me, there are two theories to the Foster hire and how it went so wrong.

1. The theory that eventually we are all promoted to a level of incompetence. IF may be a great coach but lack the additional skills required to manage a football club (media, interpersonal skills not related to football) and he was out of his depth and his response was to lash out and be spiky to hide his own insecurity.

2. The way he speaks and behaves to those above him is very different to how he treats those below him. I’m sure we all know of a manager who was nice as pie to the big bosses but treats his reports like 💩 when they are not around.

In either case, players will not have been impressed and lost respect very quickly. At least he’s gone now.

Probably a bit of both, and maybe a third one that his way of working, his modus operandi, was just completely ill judged, inappropriate for our club values and for managing Championship footballers compared to say under 20's. We've all worked with people who are not very pleasant at work, don't treat people well, and then you eventually encounter them in a different setting and you are surprised to find they actually a perfectly reasonable person away from work. But for whatever reason they (mistakenly) thought that was the way they needed to be to get on. I suspect there was an element of that with Foster, together with as WoodsyGreen insightfully observed a very strong blueprint of how he would do the role as club manager. Unfortunately for him he based that blueprint on what he perceived to work in age group international football.

 

[Biggs]

Very early we were getting pointage and Foster was nominated for manager of the month, so I don't see where you are coming from.

The signs were there that it wasn't a good fit, though we didn't know HOW bad it was.

Simon Hallett's statements about the job criteria (which I thought were dismissed very strangely at the time) didn't tally with what Foster was doing in terms of the style of play and the changes he was making.

 

[Mark Smith]

For me, there are two theories to the Foster hire and how it went so wrong.

1. The theory that eventually we are all promoted to a level of incompetence. IF may be a great coach but lack the additional skills required to manage a football club (media, interpersonal skills not related to football) and he was out of his depth and his response was to lash out and be spiky to hide his own insecurity.

2. The way he speaks and behaves to those above him is very different to how he treats those below him. I’m sure we all know of a manager who was nice as pie to the big bosses but treats his reports like 💩 when they are not around.

In either case, players will not have been impressed and lost respect very quickly. At least he’s gone now.

I agree with both points.

I would only add that point 2. can be more nuanced. I have seen many managers who are genuinely nice human beings (good CV, interview well, good to talk to as a peer) but who think they need to adopt a different persona when it comes to managing their team.

The best advice I was ever given when I entered management 25 years ago: "don't fake it".

And maybe that brings us back to point 1. about insecurity. It sounds like IF thought he had to be billy big b******s around the players, my way or the highway, and that's precisely why he didn't get buy-in.

 

[the corkscrew]

We do not know. Pure speculation again.

We do not know for definite what happened behind the scenes.

Your opinion I suppose, based on conjecture and hearsay.

Nothing more.

Wrong person for the job I would say. Anything else is irrelevant.

Not too sure what you are suggesting, but it has no basis in fact.

That's the point. It's all fact.

 

[the corkscrew]

I know what contrarian means, thanks.

Why was his statement as to why he took a contrarian view relevant, as you mentioned it without further explanation?

 

[the corkscrew]

Very early we were getting pointage and Foster was nominated for manager of the month, so I don't see where you are coming from.

Certainly off the pitch it was obvious.
On the pitch, flukes happen short term.

 

[Jon with no H]

Why was his statement as to why he took a contrarian view relevant, as you mentioned it without further explanation?

It seemed to me when you posted "Simon Hallett decided to deliberately go against the crowd view (that he should be sacked) because he believes in a contrarian investment strategy", you were suggesting the chairman only decides to do anything if it's contrarian, which I do not believe would be the case. The wisdom of crowds only goes so far.

Simon Hallett is quoted as saying "Look, I'm an investment guy. You become a good investment guy by being a contrarian. It makes you dig your feet in a bit more, particularly when that tiny minority of fans were being so abusive. I'm sorry but it makes us less likely to make a change they are demanding." He is not saying everything he does is because it's contrarian, that would be cutting his nose off to spite his face.

He also makes the point that IF was nominated for manager of the month in January (whether he would have won it or not, given other teams' performances, is a different argument). Given that Simon has further said results were the reason for this decision being made, it strikes me there would not have been a change if the team had kept going the way it started in IF's first four matches in charge.

 

[Biggs]

He also makes the point that IF was nominated for manager of the month in January (whether he would have won it or not, given other teams' performances, is a different argument). Given that Simon has further said results were the reason for this decision being made, it strikes me there would not have been a change if the team had kept going the way it started in IF's first four matches in charge.

I'm not sure that's true, given what he's said in that interview about the reports he was receiving, and the lack of unity that was getting frayed.

 

[jimsing]

The Chairman has said that Foster was sacked because of poor results.

End of.

The rest is pure speculation.

It is a results business after all.