Manager options.

[themaninblack]

I may be in a minority but I think Wilder has a decent hit rate on that. The key would be beefing up the scouting department so he's getting less predictable shortlists to pick from

This is the thing people keep missing; all transfers are a risk and it is a fact that any club getting a success rate above 50% is doing incredibly well. I've referred to it before on here but Ian Graham's book How to win the Premier league is fascinating; an evidence-lead analysis that proves that at least one third of all recruitments will be outright failures.

I know Brewster, I know Cannon...but I've been watching us sign duds all my life and that isn't going to change. It's part of the process.

 

[Yogi]

Said it before but Henrik Rydstrom is an interesting up and coming manager.

But really it’s immaterial talking about potential changes in manager until the club is run in a professional fashion from the top down wether Wilder leaves at the end of this season or in 5 years time it doesn’t matter we’re unlikely to get consistently good appointments and we’ll be left hoping we luck into another good one until we change how we appointment managers and more broadly how the club is run.

The 5 appointments at least Slav, Hecky, Wilder mk II, Selles and Wilder mk III haven’t been the result of comprehensive hiring processes where a shortlist of candidates was drawn up, interviews conducted and the best candidate from that process hired. Instead they’ve been coronations where the sole candidate the owners wanted at that time was hired often having been surreptitiously sounded out behind the incumbents back prior to their firing.

That isn’t good process and will over a long enough time period lead to bad results. Until we conduct ourselves professionally and conduct managerial hiring with the degree of professionalism that such a high level position within the organisation merits we’ll continue to see less than ideal results and any good results which we do get will be much more down to luck than any kind of repeatable process.

It’s yet another symptom of the wider issue afflicting the club. We aren’t in any respect run in a serious or professional fashion meaning there is no facet of the club where a thorough process is in place from which we can expect consistent repeatable outcomes. Everything relies on unpredictable individual judgement.

 

[Danetheblade]

This is the thing people keep missing; all transfers are a risk and it is a fact that any club getting a success rate above 50% is doing incredibly well. I've referred to it before on here but Ian Graham's book How to win the Premier league is fascinating; an evidence-lead analysis that proves that at least one third of all recruitments will be outright failures.

I know Brewster, I know Cannon...but I've been watching us sign duds all my life and that isn't going to change. It's part of the process.

I’ll go along with the 50% success rate. But you’ve named two strikers we’ve signed who have been appallingly bad.

 

[themaninblack]

I’ll go along with the 50% success rate. But you’ve named two strikers we’ve signed who have been appallingly bad.

Yes. That’s my point.

 

[Danetheblade]

Yes. That’s my point.

How so? We’ve signed two strikers (50%) that have both been dreadful.

 

[themaninblack]

How so? We’ve signed two strikers (50%) that have both been dreadful.

Agreed. There are others that I have my doubts about as well (Barry, Bindon). The point is that if you’re getting more than 50% of your transfers right then you are doing well. If you have a way of beating the paywall then there’s an article in the Times on this, titled Fans beware: half your club’s transfers will fail

 

[Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou]

I wouldn't be surprised if Gary O'Neil was Big Ange's replacement at Forest .
Seamed to do a decent job following Nuno at wolves.

Would have been my pick infront of Selles .

Gary O'Neil wasnt popular with alot in the summer but id definitely appointed him over done fuck all Selles.

 

[Pintor75]

A name that might not be first on the list, but Lee Carsley might be a decent shout

 

[sheepbridge]

This is the thing people keep missing; all transfers are a risk and it is a fact that any club getting a success rate above 50% is doing incredibly well. I've referred to it before on here but Ian Graham's book How to win the Premier league is fascinating; an evidence-lead analysis that proves that at least one third of all recruitments will be outright failures.

I know Brewster, I know Cannon...but I've been watching us sign duds all my life and that isn't going to change. It's part of the process.

It's not the success rate that's the issue, it's the £50m + spent on strikers that returned very little and all left for £0. Throw in to the mix players like Robinson and Burke and we've made a lot of very expensive mistakes, Cannon just being the latest one. I'm struggling to think of a major signing who could actually be considered a success tbh and even retained their value. Ramsdale probably, and hardly a success.

 

[themaninblack]

It's not the success rate that's the issue, it's the £50m + spent on strikers that returned very little and all left for £0. Throw in to the mix players like Robinson and Burke and we've made a lot of very expensive mistakes, Cannon just being the latest one. I'm struggling to think of a major signing who could actually be considered a success tbh and even retained their value. Ramsdale probably, and hardly a success.

How we define success is also contentious; I wasn't a big fan of Robinson but I think we paid €500k for him and he was an important squad player for four years. It's difficult to say that signing him was a mistake. The other thing is that we don't really know the total cost of transfers and that some players are knowingly signed as cover, to come in and play maybe ten games per season rather than be a regular starter.

Personally I would say that of the recent large transfers (large by our standards that is) Berge, Anel, Ramsdale, Gus and McB could all be considered a success in their different ways; McB gets a lot of stick but he was an integral part of the team that finished ninth in the Prem. Brewster was obviously a failure (probably because of his physical frailty) and so far Cannon looks a really poor signing. All in all, especially when you think of some of the loan signings we have made, I think we have had a decent transfer record.

 

[Jan Age]

Sharpe
Mcgoldrick
Basham
Fleck
Baldock
JOC

Were all exceptional and I mean exceptional signings when balancing cost v impact

What we didn’t do with the ones we could was cash in when value was at its highest

 

[KMC-1889]

Sharpe
Mcgoldrick
Basham
Fleck
Baldock
JOC

Were all exceptional and I mean exceptional signings when balancing cost v impact

What we didn’t do with the ones we could was cash in when value was at its highest

They were nearly 10 years ago, and Wilder didn’t sign Sharp or Basham.

I’m happy to argue Wilder’s hit rate on transfers is way below 50% and worryingly gets worse every year.

 

[sheepbridge]

They were nearly 10 years ago, and Wilder didn’t sign Sharp or Basham.

I’m happy to argue Wilder’s hit rate on transfers is way below 50% and worryingly gets worse every year.

It's also very easy to point to a lot of cheap signings and say "well out those 50, these 20 were a success". Of course you're going to get successes, you also get a lot who are quickly discarded but it's not really an issue as there wasn't a huge investment in them.

What does concern me is the amount that fail and cost us money now that we have moved in to the market for players who cost many millions.
This is the list of our top transfers as shown by transfermarkt, and it actually makes for some pretty scary reading.

Biggest fees paid

 

[sheepbridge]

How we define success is also contentious; I wasn't a big fan of Robinson but I think we paid €500k for him and he was an important squad player for four years. It's difficult to say that signing him was a mistake. The other thing is that we don't really know the total cost of transfers and that some players are knowingly signed as cover, to come in and play maybe ten games per season rather than be a regular starter.

Personally I would say that of the recent large transfers (large by our standards that is) Berge, Anel, Ramsdale, Gus and McB could all be considered a success in their different ways; McB gets a lot of stick but he was an integral part of the team that finished ninth in the Prem. Brewster was obviously a failure (probably because of his physical frailty) and so far Cannon looks a really poor signing. All in all, especially when you think of some of the loan signings we have made, I think we have had a decent transfer record.

I wouldn't say any of those players were a big success. None of them made much, if any, of a profit on their fee and almost all of them, maybe with the exception of Gus had plenty of critics.
I would also argue about the loan signings tbh. We spent millions supposedly for JRS who wasn't a regular and didn't even make the squad for the playoff final (never did hear why not, would love to know) and the 'loan' of Archer for a year also cost us many millions.

 

[Lord Eddard Muir]

I’ll go along with the 50% success rate. But you’ve named two strikers we’ve signed who have been appallingly bad.

Supporters of any club could do the same. As a general rule unless it's your club or a major rival (Wendies have Jordan Rhodes right off the top of my head) you're only going to notice the players who get on the pitch and do well, which makes it look like we have more flops than others. Most neutrals won't know how much we paid for Cannon for instance, or how badly he's played unless it was against them.

 

[Jan Age]

They were nearly 10 years ago, and Wilder didn’t sign Sharp or Basham.

I’m happy to argue Wilder’s hit rate on transfers is way below 50% and worryingly gets worse every year.

I wasn’t arguing a point just pointing out we used to get it right at some point