We keep getting told by the club that Ian Foster was selected via a thorough and a meticulous recruitment process. But it’s becoming clear that isn’t true. If there was a thorough and a meticulous recruitment process we wouldn’t have ended up with Ian Foster. Lots of lessons to be learnt.
Andy B. said:
That's an egregious statement Cobi. You're alluding that the Tier One management are inept and don't know what their doing - they've proved over and over that they do.
I'm not sure egregious is the word. In fact there is nothing outrageous about what Cobi has said! Entirely accurate might be a more appropriate description. They clearly got it horribly wrong. For all the good the current regime have done they are not perfect and this isn't the first time they have got something wrong, but they've never got anything THIS wrong. Don't get be wrong, I had total faith up until this point, but this appointment was a total cluster by any standards. In any environment serious questions would be asked and should be asked of those responsible.
It is crystal clear that either Foster is a monster fibber and master conman with a complex network covering his tracks, or the right questions were not asked prior to him being hired. Whatever the reasons the outcome suggests that however thorough or meticulous the process was considered to be at the time, it was clearly fundamentally flawed. We can't simply write it off as bad luck.
For example, serious eyebrows were raised when the shortlist was leaked. Subsequent information seems to indicate it wasn't far from accurate. If it WAS accurate, how the hell did we end up with that shortlist? It seemed totally inappropriate. Consider who wasn't interviewed - some very good candidates were binned off, by all accounts. Who made those decisions? How were those decisions made? Was it simply Dewsnip having a template in his mind about what an Argyle manager looked like (redlines seem to be they have to be either from Liverpool or an england pathway, and not a fan of 4 at the back especially inverted full-backs). If not was it stats led, references led, results led? Joking aside is there a particular system we're looking to play, or that a coach is required to play? If we have all this in place then how the hell was Foster allowed to jump the shark so dramatically within that structure? Someone has really taken their eye of the ball in this regard. What actually is the 'real' Argyle way anyhow?? It seems so nebulous.
Without knowing anything about it, in hindsight this appointment looks a product of muddled thinking in all these regards, plus a hint of panic. The major concern for the summer is whether or not there was there any likelihood of us ever hiring someone not already known to our Director of Football. If the shortlist was a product of this will the lessons be learned and the net cast wider this time?
I guess time will tell. It was SO far from the right appointment I'm completely disillusioned and baffled by the whole thing and have little faith they will get the next one right through any means other than blind chance. Although of course I hope. There is always hope.
