Why has the Director of Football failed?

[St.Ricky]

22 minutes ago, turrabuddie said:

24 minutes ago, magnus said:

I don't doubt that Gus and Tony are working extremely hard to bring in new players. However, I find it hard to understand why the Club is always shocked at the going rate for players wages and seem to expect successful signings by making unacceptably low wage offers. This is why we have 15 signed players with days to go before the new season starts. 

As someone else asked, is Sam Jamieson one of those 15 players ? What happened to him ?

Still listed on wikipedia as a St Mirren player 

[turrabuddie]

Still listed on wikipedia as a St Mirren player 

What about the official website - sorry haven't checked myself.....

[beyond our ken]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

But how exactly is GLS & Gus to blame for professional footballers not being able to beat semi professional footballers? 

You have claimed to work in risk management, so I'll remind you of one of the basic tenets of that discipline

All failures, incidents, non-conformances, non-compliances and other unexpected & unwanted adverse events can be traced back to a root-cause of management failure-even if it was unreasonable for the management to be aware of or understand their failure at the time that they created the situation.  The caveat is intended to get management off the hook for the selection of an employee or contractor who commits an aberrant act that in itself is difficult or impossible to foresee, the manager could have avoided the event by not selecting that party, but you can't blame them if that person then fails in an unexpected and spectacular fashion.  You can blame them if they fail to act and the bleedin' obvious comes to pass though.

So, the management are collectively to blame for the failure of this group of players as it is clear that there are insufficient numbers in the squad and of those in the squad too many lack the required skills for the jobs they are currently asked to perform.  i.e. a surfeit of midfielders and a dearth of even adequate attacking players.

 

All of the above is academic, though, if the management took a conscious decision to play a longer game in terms of squad building and more or less wrote off the LC as they concentrated on the job they prioritised-getting us squad-ready for the league campaign.  that still makes them liable for their conscious decision and early exit though, if that is the way they played it.

[Cornwall_Saint]

12 hours ago, bazil85 said:

League is our bread and butter, would you rather we rushed and signed poorer players capable of beating East Kilbride but not good enough for the SP? (Existing squad should have been good enough by far)

I get your point here as Stubbs did this and we ended up looking dire.

I do however think we should be looking to be at a decent stage in recruitment by the time the League Cup starts. Perhaps not a full squad, but a side where we may only need 3 more additions and not half a team. Realistically we have no chance of winning the league, so we really should be looking for success in this tournament, and this exit is a complete embarrassment for the club.

[jaybee]

16 hours ago, stlucifer said:

On 7/23/2019 at 8:37 AM, bazil85 said:

So This is where your point falls down completely. There is a massive difference between keeping the ball rolling as you put it and getting players over the line. The latter for us and other teams at our level can be a timely process. 

To confuse no signings with no targets, back up targets, we’ll scouted players and plans in place to sign the right quality makes no sense. It’s also completely contrary to what Goodwin has said in several interviews (list as long as my arm) 

whether you like Gus or not we only have one window as a reference point so far for his signing capabilities and that’s January  even the most negative of fan on here would struggle to say it was anything other than successful 

 

I'll start my answer with the same phrase I used previously.

Absolute nonsense.

It was reported that he got the job to stop EXACTLY what's happening. If it needs a manager to be there to get things "over the line2 then there is NO POINT in having him. He's been employed all close season. IF he was employed to keep things ticking over then, to be a success in the post, we would be far further down the line with signings. Not running around like headless  chickens looking at the bottom of the barrel.

Hate agreeing with Lucy but he is right ... there is no point whatsoever having to run every potential player through the as yet to be appointed manager , otherwise why bother.  There must surely be a mandate for ie;; we definitely need a left back and a center half, a midfielder or whatever.  I am not saying sign lots but if you leave it all till the new man is in post then it doesn't work ........clearly.

[Bud the Baker]

Amongst all the ramblings, the Andreu signing bucks the narrative, it was reported that Hamilton wanted to sign him for this season yet he ended up with us and that can only be due to us offering more money.

When we have been desperate, during the Jan 2017 & 2019 windows we were able to make signings quickly, presumably by loosening the purse-strings (the 2017 Financial Report certainly supports this idea). Is it time to go to DEFCON 1?

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Player lists can be made up. The bottom line is if we cant compete in wages they wont sign unless they are in a corner.  

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

2 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Amongst all the ramblings, the Andreu signing bucks the narrative, it was reported that Hamilton wanted to sign him for this season yet he ended up with us and that can only be due to us offering more money.

When we have been desperate, the Jan 2017 & 2019 we have been able to make signings quickly, presumably by loosening the purse-strings (the 2017 Financial Report certainly supports this idea). Is it time to go to DEFCON 1?

 

 

 

I'm sure we can compete with Hamilton and Livie and most Championship clubs. Goodwin saying he wants a high caliber experienced pros. These guys cost a bit more. Fingers crossed. 

[Big Yards]

7 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Player lists can be made up. The bottom line is if we cant compete in wages they wont sign unless they are in a corner.  

We didnt need a list to know we should’ve done everything to get Popescu, Muzek and McAllister back

[Kemp]

[santaponsasaint]

Exercise in vanity, are we any better or worse with Gus as technical director. I can't see any difference. Complete waste of money. A wage that could have been spent on another player. GLS Fitzy and Gus should hang their heads in shame. What we have had to witness in this league cup is a utter shambles and it comes from the top.

This window at least, having a "Director of Football to ensure stability even if there is a management change" has been a complete failure. This isn't up for debate, the reason for bringing the role in couldn't have been clearer & having lost to a Championship team, failed to beat a non league team and be about to start the season almost without any full backs or wingers it is fairly obvious something has gone wrong.
And before anyone says "wait until the last day of the window"; the season has started and we are heading out a cup which is financially very important to us. Even if we do bring in new players now we are looking at week 4 or 5 before they will have properly formed in to a team.
I understand the thinking behind creating the position and fully supported it, and agreed at the time that Gus seemed to be the man for the job.
Why has it failed then? I would be interested to know how much thought and research went in to creating the role. I found the "Moneyball" talk at the time to be rather cringeworthy, and I do hope there was more research than one trip to the cinema for entertainment. Comparing ourselves to clubs like Southampton, which I saw at the time, is pointless as they work on an entirely different level from us.
What clubs the size of St Mirren have such a structure and how does it work for them? Are there any successful models out there of a one man team being able to make much of a difference in recruitment structure? How much should we be expecting from Gus in this role?
Do we have a proper network of scouts that are being coordinated by Gus? If we do, then what exactly have they been doing?
I saw it mentioned Gus was over in Spain in his tracksuit helping at training? Is this true? Surely that is complete madness when the squad is incomplete.
Are we chasing after players that are out of our price range? It seems we have once again been naive to say the least in getting played by the big Dutch strikers agent. We were talking in the press about a guy who never had any intention of getting on the plane. I'm surprised someone as experienced as Gus got taken in.
This isn't intended to be a thread for the usual rabble to slag off Gordon, Tony and Gus. I would be interested to hear some genuine answers to the above. There is clearly something wrong with the management structure of the club for a relatively simple idea (one full time person recruiting players well in advance) to be executed so poorly.

[BuddieinEK]

But how exactly is GLS & Gus to blame for professional footballers not being able to beat semi professional footballers? 

Had we a stronger squad in place for the start of the competitive matches we may well have competed.

Not hard to understand.

[BuddieinEK]

The squad isn't good enough to beat a lower league and league 2 side?? Are you serious? We had a makeshift defense yes but didn't concede a goal. Mullen, Cooke, McGinn, Flynn, Magennis, Djorkaeff & Andreu have all either played in the top flight or been signed for this seasons top flight squad. It is categorically not a 'provide' player issue regarding the last three results. 
The buck for these results stops with the players on the park and management, not Gus and GLS. 

No... Had the newly assembled squad of better quality trained together in Spain and had time to learn one anothers game as well as the Managers requirements, we would in all probability have performed much better in our games to date.

[Sweeper07]

2 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Would not underestimate the Jonneys just yet the have quite a few injuries in defence.  Just brought in a new centre back from eastern Europe funnily enough and Stvie May going back to his roots. Saying all that its us I'm concerned about. 

I was simply using the comparison with a club who had managerial consistency for years as the previous poster to me had alluded to. He was dreaming of us having that I suspect...

[Sweeper07]

On 7/24/2019 at 11:20 AM, jaybee said:

Hate agreeing with Lucy but he is right ... there is no point whatsoever having to run every potential player through the as yet to be appointed manager , otherwise why bother.  There must surely be a mandate for ie;; we definitely need a left back and a center half, a midfielder or whatever.  I am not saying sign lots but if you leave it all till the new man is in post then it doesn't work ........clearly.

AND if the manager is here for 3 years, surely some of the essential positions we need to be filled could be done so with guys on a 1 year deal with an option to extend? That way JG has at least some essential squad positions filled and time to make adjustments or say thank goodness some good players were brought in before I arrived ...

Edited July 25, 2019 by Sweeper07
word error

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, beyond our ken said:

You have claimed to work in risk management, so I'll remind you of one of the basic tenets of that discipline

All failures, incidents, non-conformances, non-compliances and other unexpected & unwanted adverse events can be traced back to a root-cause of management failure-even if it was unreasonable for the management to be aware of or understand their failure at the time that they created the situation.  The caveat is intended to get management off the hook for the selection of an employee or contractor who commits an aberrant act that in itself is difficult or impossible to foresee, the manager could have avoided the event by not selecting that party, but you can't blame them if that person then fails in an unexpected and spectacular fashion.  You can blame them if they fail to act and the bleedin' obvious comes to pass though.

So, the management are collectively to blame for the failure of this group of players as it is clear that there are insufficient numbers in the squad and of those in the squad too many lack the required skills for the jobs they are currently asked to perform.  i.e. a surfeit of midfielders and a dearth of even adequate attacking players.

 

All of the above is academic, though, if the management took a conscious decision to play a longer game in terms of squad building and more or less wrote off the LC as they concentrated on the job they prioritised-getting us squad-ready for the league campaign.  that still makes them liable for their conscious decision and early exit though, if that is the way they played it.

I could give a detailed breakdown of my workings on this from a risk management perspective. Say for example if asked to perform a thematic assurance review on SMFC summer activity. It would however bore the vast majority to death and my first recommendation would be to postpone the review until we have sufficient relative data for said review scope. 

I will though go on a mild bore. Simplistically if we're talking about accountability for failings, it depends fully on circumstance as you have more or less noted. That's not to say overarching accountability will not sit with more senior colleagues for less senior colleagues mistakes but that's not what I am getting at. I am talking about the errors/ failings.

To give an example, in the financial institution I work with we may see a number of mistakes by front end colleagues caused by a lack of adequate training. Would the accountability be with the colleague, the trainer or senior management? Likely the accountability would sit with senior management, it doesn't mean they are specifically to blame though does it? Their role will involve delegation of authority but ultimately when the authority results in failed process (in this occasion the training) the scrutiny on the delegation will fall back on senior management. 

The case that face our club is simple and certainly doesn't need a risk management methodology to address. Professional footballers have been unable to beat their part-time counter parts playing at least three levels below them. That's where the blame sits, you can go up a level to the guidance and preparation from coaching staff and IMO that is enough. Of course if I was doing a thematic review, accountability could sit with GLS as the person ultimately responsible for the actions to fix... But my comment was never intended to go into that level. I'm sure you aren't suggesting just because of my job role, I should be expected to go deeper than our players letting themselves down twice in four days? 

[bazil85]

41 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Had we a stronger squad in place for the start of the competitive matches we may well have competed.

Not hard to understand.

We should categorically not need a stronger squad to beat L2 and Lowland league opponents. Also not hard to understand. 

[St.Ricky]

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I could give a detailed breakdown of my workings on this from a risk management perspective. Say for example if asked to perform a thematic assurance review on SMFC summer activity. It would however bore the vast majority to death and my first recommendation would be to postpone the review until we have sufficient relative data for said review scope. 

I will though go on a mild bore. Simplistically if we're talking about accountability for failings, it depends fully on circumstance as you have more or less noted. That's not to say overarching accountability will not sit with more senior colleagues for less senior colleagues mistakes but that's not what I am getting at. I am talking about the errors/ failings.

To give an example, in the financial institution I work with we may see a number of mistakes by front end colleagues caused by a lack of adequate training. Would the accountability be with the colleague, the trainer or senior management? Likely the accountability would sit with senior management, it doesn't mean they are specifically to blame though does it? Their role will involve delegation of authority but ultimately when the authority results in failed process (in this occasion the training) the scrutiny on the delegation will fall back on senior management. 

The case that face our club is simple and certainly doesn't need a risk management methodology to address. Professional footballers have been unable to beat their part-time counter parts playing at least three levels below them. That's where the blame sits, you can go up a level to the guidance and preparation from coaching staff and IMO that is enough. Of course if I was doing a thematic review, accountability could sit with GLS as the person ultimately responsible for the actions to fix... But my comment was never intended to go into that level. I'm sure you aren't suggesting just because of my job role, I should be expected to go deeper than our players letting themselves down twice in four days? 

Simple, clear and sensible. In short, present responsibility sits with the manager, too early to rope the others into things just yet but eventually the buck stops with GLS. 

[jaybee]

41 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

2 hours ago, jaybee said:

Hate agreeing with Lucy but he is right ... there is no point whatsoever having to run every potential player through the as yet to be appointed manager , otherwise why bother.  There must surely be a mandate for ie;; we definitely need a left back and a center half, a midfielder or whatever.  I am not saying sign lots but if you leave it all till the new man is in post then it doesn't work ........clearly.

AND if the manager is here for 3 years, surely some of the essential positions we need to be filled could be done so with guys on a 1 year deal with an option to extend? That we JG has at least some essential squad positions filled and time to make adjustments or say thank goodness some good players were brought in before I arrived ...

Zactley

[alanb]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

We should categorically not need a stronger squad to beat L2 and Lowland league opponents. Also not hard to understand. 

Correct we should not need a stronger squad to win these games.

What is hard to understand is why we did not win them and the reasons why not.

Maybe the players are disenfranchised with goings on at the club, so until that changes, JG gets the players we wants and those we already have onside,

GLS and Gus need to get the finger out and along with TF do the business to provide the above and give JG a chance.

[DLBud]

I could give a detailed breakdown of my workings on this from a risk management perspective. Say for example if asked to perform a thematic assurance review on SMFC summer activity. It would however bore the vast majority to death and my first recommendation would be to postpone the review until we have sufficient relative data for said review scope. 
I will though go on a mild bore. Simplistically if we're talking about accountability for failings, it depends fully on circumstance as you have more or less noted. That's not to say overarching accountability will not sit with more senior colleagues for less senior colleagues mistakes but that's not what I am getting at. I am talking about the errors/ failings.
To give an example, in the financial institution I work with we may see a number of mistakes by front end colleagues caused by a lack of adequate training. Would the accountability be with the colleague, the trainer or senior management? Likely the accountability would sit with senior management, it doesn't mean they are specifically to blame though does it? Their role will involve delegation of authority but ultimately when the authority results in failed process (in this occasion the training) the scrutiny on the delegation will fall back on senior management. 
The case that face our club is simple and certainly doesn't need a risk management methodology to address. Professional footballers have been unable to beat their part-time counter parts playing at least three levels below them. That's where the blame sits, you can go up a level to the guidance and preparation from coaching staff and IMO that is enough. Of course if I was doing a thematic review, accountability could sit with GLS as the person ultimately responsible for the actions to fix... But my comment was never intended to go into that level. I'm sure you aren't suggesting just because of my job role, I should be expected to go deeper than our players letting themselves down twice in four days? 

Sweet Jesus! Risk management methodology?[emoji15]

Can you not just accept our squad should be in better shape right now? That’s all people are saying and they are asking questions about the guy who’s sole task is to provide the manager with a decent bunch of players.

We’ve played four competitive matches and the league season kicks off in 10 days yet our squad is as poor as it’s been in a long time and not fit for purpose.

You argue we should wait until we see the finished article before judging Gus but with that mindset maybe we should just see where we finish at the end of the season for a truly accurate review?

That is, of course, nonsense but so is the view that Gus is somehow above reproach because there are 5 weeks until the window closes.

[NB18]

Last season, bringing Gus on board was the right call from GLS.

 

We had a manager who had no knowledge or experience of the Scottish game so having someone like Gus with his experiences would have no doubt been very useful for Oran to have.

 

But this season, We have Goody and Sharp in charge, two guys who have played most of their footballing career in Scotland and know the leagues very well.

 

Surely these guys could have worked with Tony to identify and recruit players without the need of a Technical Director?

 

Waste of a Wage IMO

 

 

[LargsBud]

3 hours ago, santaponsasaint said:

Exercise in vanity, are we any better or worse with Gus as technical director. I can't see any difference. Complete waste of money. A wage that could have been spent on another player. GLS Fitzy and Gus should hang their heads in shame. What we have had to witness in this league cup is a utter shambles and it comes from the top.

We'd very likely be in the championship right now if Gus wasnt here. 

Do you think OK could have identified all those players and brought them in on his own in January while trying to manage the team and adapt to a new league at the same time? 

Edited July 24, 2019 by LargsBud

[magnus]

1 minute ago, LargsBud said:

We'd very likely be in the championship right now if Gus wasnt here. 

Do you think OK could have identified all those players and brought them in on his own in January while trying to manage the team and adjust to a new league at the same time? 

There has been some doubt expressed about who brought those excellent players in. Who ever it was did a great job. I hope it was Gus because he is still with us and can hopefully do it again.

[melmac]

IMO, the DofF has not failed - my preference would have been to have Danny Lennon in that role but heyho.

The DofF will deem to have failed if the players he suggests / recommends we sign sign turn out to be coo's; if he is suggesting / recommending certain players to improve the team and the Chairman is not backing him, then that must rest at the feet of the Chairman.