Jump to content

There’s no way Monk decides who comes and goes


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, the third man said:

 

if that's true its his fault, no way would I take a job where whether I could do my job depended on someone else's decisions

Lucky you can pick and choose, many people in life have very little choice:sleep:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand why clubs want to negotiate transfers and contracts. Big money involved and there's a need to consider P & S aspects as well. I think the days of the manager having sole control have probably gone.

 

Personally I prefer the manager to be given a transfer fund to spend and a wage limit. Anything over those figures has to be balanced by outgoings.

 

With there having been questions about Monks transfer dealings at previous clubs I could understand the club being cautious in giving him total control.

 

( I'm not saying the questions are valid, just that they cropped up)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Owlinmad said:

Just for balance, that is how many clubs operate nowadays. Including our neighbours across the city.

 

The other lot have a manger who has full control and makes the final decisions on transfers and along with the CEO has total control of what happens at the club it seems. 

 

Us on the other other hand doesn’t know what the hand and elbow are doing..the fans deserve much more info in terms of the workings of the club, it’s disgusting how the fans are being left in the dark with 0 communication. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, asteener1867 said:

I would say..If I knew the circumstances.....

What are they?

 

I don't know - other than the carefully scripted media post from Westwood and the fact they're not in the squads even when fit, and our form is horrendous.

 

For the above only, you could argue that the omissions of Westwood and Hutch have 'rocked the boat'. Whether instigated by the players or Monk, it's Monk who is the Manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, the third man said:

 

if that's true its his fault, no way would I take a job where whether I could do my job depended on someone else's decisions

Hmmm. At this level the team manager can't be deeply involved in the transfer process. For incomings, he can't really get involved in target identification because the pool a championship club is fishing in is way too big for him to view. The club has to have a scouting system and analytics. And obviously he can't do the deals, or assess affordability.

 

Obviously he can set out priorities and types of player, and comment on identified targets. You'd hope he has a right of veto. All that's important. But it's only so much of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

I don't know - other than the carefully scripted media post from Westwood and the fact they're not in the squads even when fit, and our form is horrendous.

 

For the above only, you could argue that the omissions of Westwood and Hutch have 'rocked the boat'. Whether instigated by the players or Monk, it's Monk who is the Manager.

Thats the point..we don't actually know...

You would think that 3 grown men could at least agree to disagree and get on with it...or and this should happen..Chansiri gets hold of all 3 of them and lays the law down.

Whatever the scenario..Chansiri could surely sort it.

If it was for instance Westwood refusing to play on the bench...Breach of contract surely?

If it was Monk refusing to pick his best side..Tell him he bloody has to

We haven't the time, nor a strong enough squad for this sort of infantile tat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Owlinmad said:

Just for balance, that is how many clubs operate nowadays. Including our neighbours across the city.

 

This is true - and in many ways that's ideally how it should be, but in that ideal scenario there would still need to be a proper support structure at the club, which is something we don't appear to have anyway.

 

Many of us by now are probably having major doubts about Monk, but there's no doubting that given the current structure (or lack of) at the club, there surely can't be anyone who should be overruling the manager on the ins and outs to the first team squad. Of course, the club may fail to carry out Monk's wishes due to financial restrictions - but I'd hope that's all it is, because those tweets from Biggs are hinting more at Monk's advice just being ignored.

 

I'd really like to know what really happened with the rumoured transfers of Rhodes to Wigan, and Westwood to Huddersfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, asteener1867 said:

Thats the point..we don't actually know...

You would think that 3 grown men could at least agree to disagree and get on with it...or and this should happen..Chansiri gets hold of all 3 of them and lays the law down.

Whatever the scenario..Chansiri could surely sort it.

If it was for instance Westwood refusing to play on the bench...Breach of contract surely?

If it was Monk refusing to pick his best side..Tell him he bloody has to

We haven't the time, nor a strong enough squad for this sort of infantile tat

 

If DC has outsourced the top-level management to Doyen, he's reliant on them doing what you suggest. Westwood signed a contract with the 'club', but who knows how this is financed and what trigger clauses are contained within. What actually constitutes a breach of contract is anyone's guess.

 

If it's true that 3rd party agencies, have sourced and part own players' contracts or rights, then normal man-management techniques are almost irrelevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gurujuan said:

Possibly, but the club’s strategy is no different to lots of clubs these days, especially on the continent Indeed, the chairman stated that would be the way forward, when he took over 

If that’s the deal, you look for a good coach, but one who can manage the players at his disposal In my opinion, Monk is neither a good coach, and man management is hardly a strongpoint As I mentioned in another thread, the only one to have made a decent fist of the job, was Carlos, although maybe Bruce might have done, had he stayed 

It might not be the chosen strategy of some folks on here, but it’s not unusual, and is probably here to stay


What strategy is this.

The one where the owner decides not to sell players because they are part of the family.

You can’t possibly think we have a recruitment and selling strategy and process that is working well and it is all the coaches fault.

 

Nobody has complained more about our recruitment than you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Owlinmad said:

Just for balance, that is how many clubs operate nowadays. Including our neighbours across the city.

 

Odd that. I always thought that the most telling reason for the success under Wilder is that they only sign players that buy in 100% to his philosophy and are 100% Wilder men. The very reason he appears to turn journeymen League One players into ones that can perform to a more than satisfactory level in The Premier League when called upon. The Wilder project is also one of the major reasons I still absolutely feel that the manager should have sole responsibility for incoming signings. Others such as scouts may identify potential targets but the manager should have the absolute final say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rickygoo said:

There were some interesting lines in The Athletic this week

 

In difficult times over the past few years at Sheffield Wednesday, Sam Hutchinson has often been a voice of leadership in the dressing room, cajoling, encouraging and motivating those around him. Always the first to arrive at Hillsborough on match day along with fellow first-team mainstay Liam Palmer, Hutchinson is personable and well liked by team-mates. When the going has got tough, the 30-year-old has so often been the player to get Wednesday going on and off the field — but not recently.

 

And re him and Westwood....

“Both players, known to be influential in the Wednesday dressing room, have been sent to train separately from the first team......”

 

“Despite Westwood’s statement, The Athletic understands that in some cases players have been sent away from first-team training by members of coaching staff without individual discussions with Monk — instead having to seek the Wednesday boss out for clarity on their exclusion after the event.

 

Those players who have been excluded from first-team training are not thought to be training with the under-23s — some of whom train with the senior side anyway as Monk looks to promote youth when possible — and are instead training away from the rest of the group, which has caused frustration.”

 

Whats all that about? 

 

 

Whatever the motivation, justified or not, we can safely surmise the fallout has torpedoed the season.

 

I think there's a lot more to the story than what's written.  A manager with no say in recruitment now has the pull to banish 

senior members?  And if Hutch is such a vital locker room presence, why the banishment at all?  

 

I think this is one convenient side of the story (agent?) meant to minimize lingering fallout and help in future employ elsewhere.

 

One thing is obvious, we deserve more transparency in club doings than what's been given.  Considering what we've been asked to do in terms of ticket prices and 10 year season ticket packages, we are owed some information here.

Edited by Socialist_Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, @owlstalk said:


To be honest I’d much rather look at this recruitment thing than any poor manager who have been in position dealing with it

 

The focus needs to be on who brings players to the club, and who decides if we sell or not

 

Thats what’s creating the real true issues here

What i fundamentally fail to understand is why does DC keep faith in Paxio or whoever's in charge of recruitment given its been an unmitigated disaster for the last 3 years. I hate to think how many players we've brought in that either never play are aren't deemed good enough by the manager to improve the starting* eleven.

 

 

 

*especially when you consider how shiite that eleven has been for at least two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brommers said:

What i fundamentally fail to understand is why does DC keep faith in Paxio or whoever's in charge of recruitment given its been an unmitigated disaster for the last 3 years. I hate to think how many players we've brought in that either never play are aren't deemed good enough by the manager to improve the starting* eleven.

 

 

 

*especially when you consider how shiite that eleven has been for at least two years.


 

Depends on the terms and conditions imposed on us from such an agreement

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mister Soul said:

Couldn’t agree more.

If it’s not Monk and it’s not DC (surely not) who is (and has been) targeting players to sign?

There is very little structure at the club anyway.

The tea lady? 

 

We have a recruitment manager and recruitment analyst, they must be responsible for getting the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...