Managers Who Sit In Dugouts V Managers Who Stand At Touch Line

[Stuart Dickson]

Danny does seem to be slow to react when the formation needs changing, Saturday's gubbing being a prime example. He exchanged 3 for 3 when the horse had not only bolted, but was already out of sight. That has happened on several other occasions and criticising him for it is fair in my humble opinion.

Maybe he fielded what he thought was his strongest team and he looked at his bench and couldn't see any changes available to him that were going to fix the deficiencies in the team.

I know I'm not comparing like with like but helping to run the kids team we found ourselves last season with a pretty weak squad. We had a decent core team which would make up most of the starting eleven and the subs were players I would have said who were in development. We had a few doings last year and sometimes I'd look at the guys who were subs and I knew that they weren't going to turn the game around for us, and infact we were more at risk of destroying confidence of players who we would be bringing on so we'd minimise their game time. Perhaps Danny Lennon feels the same when he looks at his squad and at his bench. I haven't seen the highlights yet of the game and I obviously wasn't there so I'm just speculating but were there really substitutions you feel you could have made that would have stopped St Mirren getting the doing they got?

[Stuart Dickson]

I believe the crux of the matter lies somewhere in between these posts which is why I have clicked "like" for both of them. In jobs out with the World of Sport I believe that employees should be capable of going into their workplace and performing their duties without having their line manager constantly standing beside them guiding them or "holding their hand" for want of a better phrase. I have worked in jobs where part of my line manager's job which he had to fulfil every day as part of his job description duties was observation of his staff doing their jobs. I had no problem with this at all and sometimes he would walk to each desk just asking how we were getting on and it was at times like that we were able to bring up ideas to be more productive or let him know if there was something we were unsure about and it would then be his job to report these things to his Bosses so sometimes it was helpful. I wouldn't have liked him being at my side all the time mind you but he was good at coming round to give pep talks and say things that made you appreciated and therefore more motivated.

In the World of Sport it is very much a different kettle of fish. Sportsmen and women quite often need things pointed out to them during their event and encouragement to keep going. They are a different breed of person and you just need to look at how some Coaches/Managers who have a little word in the ear of a player or the Captain at the side to see how they can alter the events on the field of play. Also, look at some individual sports like Boxing, Tennis, Badminton etc. - these people have team members on the side-lines constantly shouting instructions and words of encouragement. If it didn't make any difference these people wouldn't bother.

It's about man management though isn't it. In any workplace there are employees you can trust to get a job done, and others who might need a bit more attention.

I don't know if I agree with the idea that a sportsman specifically needs encouragement from off the park during a game but I would agree that if the manager has noticed something in a match that needs sorting immediately he should be out making getting his message across and making those changes. Those calling for the manager to be stood at the touchline ranting and raving and kicking every ball are just wrong though. Far from it helping I'd imagine it would be an absolute nightmare for a player.

[GlenburnSaint]

Totally seperate from DL as viewing your opinions toward him in a negitive manner make some of you fragile people a bit teary...

I prefer a manager who is more interactive with his team especially when there is younger players on the pitch who will benefit from the advice that should be given by the management team.

I dont think lennon is quite as bad as Mowbray but he needs to get talking to his team more.

It doesent always work as the gaffer needs a brain in his heed. Example the wanker that is Pressley. Sometimes i think they falkirk players musta bn prayin he would sit doon n clamp it!

[oaksoft]

You better hope that none of your colleagues/bosses see this post then I suppose...

I don't have a boss or "colleagues".

Nobody in the world works on the same stuff as me.

I'm on my own. As independent as it gets.

[Stuart Dickson]

I don't have a boss or "colleagues".

Nobody in the world works on the same stuff as me.

I'm on my own. As independent as it gets.

Yeah - the dole does that for people.

[Leicester Saint]

I don't have a boss or "colleagues".

Nobody in the world works on the same stuff as me.

I'm on my own. As independent as it gets.

Finally, the admission we've waited so long for.

Oaksoft is actually God!!

[oaksoft]

Yeah - the dole does that for people.

If I WAS on the dole, the only consolation for me in an otherwise bleak world would be the sure knowledge that your tax was paying to keep me going.

[oaksoft]

Finally, the admission we've waited so long for.

Oaksoft is actually God!!

It's only part time apprenticeship at the moment (£2.45 an hour) but I'm hopeful I'll get kept on.

It was either this or Ann Summers.

[BuddieinEK]

 

If I WAS on the dole, the only consolation for me in an otherwise bleak world would be the sure knowledge that your tax was paying to keep me going.

Good comeback.

From the sidelines, these "encounters" are fascinating and certainly entertaining!

;)

[BAWZ]

Maybe he fielded what he thought was his strongest team and he looked at his bench and couldn't see any changes available to him that were going to fix the deficiencies in the team.

Perhaps, but I sincerely hope that was not the case, as five of the seven on the bench were Danny's new signings. If he brought in Grainger, Harkins, Bahoken and Caprice but can't see how they could be used to make tactical changes in a game where we were being run ragged, then all the "Danny Must Go brigade" really do have something to shout about.

And before anybody suggests that I can't count, I didn't list Cornell because changing the goalkeeper would not have made tactical sense when the problems obviously lay elsewhere on the field. I also think that to change three players at one time is almost always a mistake, as it unsettles every area. To do it when already 3-0 down smacks of desperation.

[BAWZ]

Just say, give me a example and I will make up some suppositional shite to debunk that theory

It wasn't written to debunk a theory, or it would have been worded in direct reference to the theory. It was however worded to suggest that Fergie is not the best example to use to support the theory, as the man was a genius and seldom got it wrong from the outset. On the occasions where the original line-up was not doing the job, he was never afraid to make the necessary changes.

The Champion's League final of 1999 was maybe the best example, where he started with Cole and Yorke up front, but later brought on Sheringham and Solskjaer to score the winning goals. Taking Cole off with 10 minutes to go was a bold move.

So, what I wrote was not "made up", but was my opinion, to which I'd hope I'm entitled. "Suppositional" and "shite" may or may not be accurate descriptions, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

[BuddieinEK]

You might think that but once you've shown that you're just another idle, fat waster that likes to sit beside his computer all day spending time on football forums whilst eating multi-packs of Walkers crisps they cut off all of your benefit money...

or make you do voluntary work... probably for the Samaritans... taking calls from idle, fat wasters that likes to sit beside their computer all day spending time on football forums whilst eating multi-packs of Walkers crisps!!!

[stlucifer]

They're supposed to be bringing that "voluntary work" thing back i.e. "work for your dole money" but I think it's mainly cleaning the streets and stuff because the guy that does near us was moaning that some of his work would be taken away from him for "aw they lazy baisturds that cannae be arsed to get their ain joab"...he is some character. I don't agree with his attitude but he does make us laugh sometimes...

How could you not agree with his sentiment?

As far as I am concerned, if the government make folk work, it should be for a wage of similar standard to those already employed in those tasks.

What a Feckin' load of nonsense this policy is.

By all means make sure, as much as is possible, that shirkers don't live of of my taxes but that can't be by making someone work for less than the legally binding minimum wage as well as giving the likes of burgerking free workers. The ruling party can't be exempt from laws put in place to prevent almost slave labour.

Edited October 30, 2013 by stlucifer

[oaksoft]

You might think that but once you've shown that you're just another idle, fat waster that likes to sit beside his computer all day spending time on football forums whilst eating multi-packs of Walkers crisps they cut off all of your benefit money...

Did they reinstate your money in the end or are you still cut off?

[oaksoft]

St Lucifer,

I never said that I didn't agree with people being given tasks to do for receiving whatever type of Benefit money they get. What I said I didn't agree with was the bloke who cleans round about our streets. It was about this statement that he made:-

I do not believe that everyone without a job is a "lazy baisturd" (although when you see some people on here all day every day it does make you wonder) and I believe some are trying hard to get a job. If, as you correctly mention, the Government say that people have to work they should be given the going rate for the work they are being asked to do but the problem is that some people whether it be street cleaners, cleaners in factories or Doctors Surgeries have this attitude of "that means there will be less work for me to do because of these shirkers" which in my personal opinion does not help anybody. I was unemployed a few years ago and volunteered to do some real work in offices and reception areas of a Community Centre. I didn't get any extra money for what I was doing and paid for my own travelling expenses etc. and all I heard was "with you here I have less to do". People didn't seem to care that I was actively doing something and keeping my attitude focused on doing proper work in an attempt to help me find something else. When I eventually got a new job the employer was impressed that I was doing what I was doing! I just don't think that our local street cleaner saying what he said was a positive attitude to have that's all.

Have you just publicly admitted working whilst on benefits?

[stlucifer]

St Lucifer,

I never said that I didn't agree with people being given tasks to do for receiving whatever type of Benefit money they get. What I said I didn't agree with was the bloke who cleans round about our streets. It was about this statement that he made:-

I do not believe that everyone without a job is a "lazy baisturd" (although when you see some people on here all day every day it does make you wonder) and I believe some are trying hard to get a job. If, as you correctly mention, the Government say that people have to work they should be given the going rate for the work they are being asked to do but the problem is that some people whether it be street cleaners, cleaners in factories or Doctors Surgeries have this attitude of "that means there will be less work for me to do because of these shirkers" which in my personal opinion does not help anybody. I was unemployed a few years ago and volunteered to do some real work in offices and reception areas of a Community Centre. I didn't get any extra money for what I was doing and paid for my own travelling expenses etc. and all I heard was "with you here I have less to do". People didn't seem to care that I was actively doing something and keeping my attitude focused on doing proper work in an attempt to help me find something else. When I eventually got a new job the employer was impressed that I was doing what I was doing! I just don't think that our local street cleaner saying what he said was a positive attitude to have that's all.

I cannot agree with people working for benefits when there are others looking for work.

If you were doing a necessary job then you were taking a job, however temporarily, away from a job seeker and were being used, all be it, in your case volunarily, as slave labour. Whether it was government or private is neither here nor there.

The fact of the matter is, IF you are doing a job of work, you should be paid the going rate for that task. To employ means to use not abuse.

[faraway saint]

I cannot agree with people working for benefits when there are others looking for work.

If you were doing a necessary job then you were taking a job, however temporarily, away from a job seeker and were being used, all be it, in your case volunarily, as slave labour. Whether it was government or private is neither here nor there.

The fact of the matter is, IF you are doing a job of work, you should be paid the going rate for that task. To employ means to use not abuse.

Ignore him, he makes stuff up.

Back on topic C'mon Danny, get out of that dugout, we will win every game, sorted.

[oaksoft]

I cannot agree with people working for benefits when there are others looking for work.

If you were doing a necessary job then you were taking a job, however temporarily, away from a job seeker and were being used, all be it, in your case volunarily, as slave labour. Whether it was government or private is neither here nor there.

The fact of the matter is, IF you are doing a job of work, you should be paid the going rate for that task. To employ means to use not abuse.

Actually it is illegal to do voluntary work if claiming jobseekers allowance.

Strange one but true.

The idea that if you are doing voluntary work then you are not actively job seeking and therefore not eligible for a job seeking benefit.

[BuddieinEK]

Actually it is illegal to do voluntary work if claiming jobseekers allowance.

Strange one but true.

The idea that if you are doing voluntary work then you are not actively job seeking and therefore not eligible for a job seeking benefit.

As just stated and evidenced... totally untrue Oaky. Poor show. I expect better from you.

One of the things that is pissing me off just now though is the vast number of people applying to do voluntary work... who then don't follow it through.

I maybe wrong here... but it seems to me that showing you are applying to do voluntary work helps with maintaining the benefits... irrespective of how much time of the charities concerned that it wastes!!!!!!!!!!!

[BAWZ]

So, was this a concerted effort to get this thread off topic? Or am I creating another misplaced conspiracy theory?

[stlucifer]

Maybe you should have read my post before responding and not getting all hot under the collar simply because you noticed that it was someone you perhaps don't see eye to eye with who had made the post.

But I did read your post. In particular I read this.

" I was unemployed a few years ago and volunteered to do some real work in offices and reception areas of a Community Centre. I didn't get any extra money for what I was doing and paid for my own travelling expenses etc. and all I heard was "with you here I have less to do"."

You were effectively giving yourself over to slave labour and stopping the need to employ a "real" worker or give the employer food for thought to reduce staffing levels and continuing with your trend.

Now. You may think it was OK to prostitute yourself at the expense of someone demanding reasonable recompence to do the task in the hope that some external employer would look at your record and think, "Hmm... This guy was willing to work for nowt. I wonder if we could exploit this a little further.", but I think it abhorrent to hold it up as an example to be proud of. I would have slinked into a dark corner and hid that act of desperation from the world.

[Stuart Dickson]

But I did read your post. In particular I read this.

" I was unemployed a few years ago and volunteered to do some real work in offices and reception areas of a Community Centre. I didn't get any extra money for what I was doing and paid for my own travelling expenses etc. and all I heard was "with you here I have less to do"."

You were effectively giving yourself over to slave labour and stopping the need to employ a "real" worker or give the employer food for thought to reduce staffing levels and continuing with your trend.

Now. You may think it was OK to prostitute yourself at the expense of someone demanding reasonable recompence to do the task in the hope that some external employer would look at your record and think, "Hmm... This guy was willing to work for nowt. I wonder if we could exploit this a little further.", but I think it abhorrent to hold it up as an example to be proud of. I would have slinked into a dark corner and hid that act of desperation from  the world.

What a load of shite.

He's shown initiative and drive and whilst that may not have landed him a job in the community centre it's moved him ahead of countless others and now he's working. He got the result he desired. He should be proud of himself - of course he should. He refused to be battered down by the welfare state and he's now working and earning a wage.

[oaksoft]

As just stated and evidenced... totally untrue Oaky.

Fair enough. Looks like I've misunderstood. There was a problem with someone doing this a couple of years back. Maybe they weren't showing evidence they were also actively looking for work. Has this been a recent change or has it always been like this? Either way, I support the fact that someone unemployed is prepared to take on voluntary work.

ETA. It's not often I make an arse of my facts. Enjoy the moment.

Edited November 1, 2013 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

Well, here is the thing. One I never said I was on Jobseekers Allowance. Secondly, I know people who have been put in touch with Voluntary Organisations to do something to help them get back into the swing of working again. These people were on Jobseekers Allowance and it was their Jobcentre Plus Advisors who were putting them in touch with the Voluntary Organisations. So are you saying that these people's advisors were breaking the law by encouraging them to go and do voluntary work whilst also actively looking for employment? If you are then you are making a serious allegation against these people.

I also know for a fact that charitable organisations such as WRVS and Save The Children take on volunteers who are on Jobseekers Allowance and are using their voluntary experience with the WRVS to add to their CV.

Blimey Mr Meltdown. We're only pulling your leg.

Relax. Take life easy. Try a Cadbury's Caramel.

Did that work? Nope? Still stressed?

In which case why not pop your coat on, go for a small walk and let us

know if you can locate anyone who cares.

[Drew]

My boss doesn't just tell me what to do and leave me till I finish - he's there to keep tabs, give guidance, tell me if I need to be more efficient, quicker, better.

To be brutally honest, that probably says more about you than him.