Undermining of Manager

[Baldy Foghorn]

Pretty sure Bamba came back late last January from ANC, then came back late from summer vacations........

He was put straight back into teams thereafter, which IMO would have irritated most of the squad, and making them wonder if they could break disciplinary rules also.... I am also led to believe Bamba was not fined for either incident, making me wonder what internal systems are in place by the Board, when you consider DR was fined for slating the state of the pitch..... Is it favoratism?

When in Holland, spoke to Yogi who intimated that Bamba would not play again for Hibs after being AWOL, and several Hibs players were really annoyed that he was behind them in terms of training.... Therefore is the Board undermining the manager by telling them who they have to play?

Worrying if true

[matty_f]

Pretty sure Bamba came back late last January from ANC, then came back late from summer vacations........

He was put straight back into teams thereafter, which IMO would have irritated most of the squad, and making them wonder if they could break disciplinary rules also.... I am also led to believe Bamba was not fined for either incident, making me wonder what internal systems are in place by the Board, when you consider DR was fined for slating the state of the pitch..... Is it favoratism?

When in Holland, spoke to Yogi who intimated that Bamba would not play again for Hibs after being AWOL, and several Hibs players were really annoyed that he was behind them in terms of training.... Therefore is the Board undermining the manager by telling them who they have to play?

Worrying if true

It would be worrying if true:agree:, though it could have been that Yogi didn't want to play Bamba but when faced with the alternatives decided that it would be better to play him. Can't think why we wouldn't have fined Bamba for it, but again I don't know the full story. Maybe there was sufficient mitigation to take the blame away from Bamba :dunno:

I think the same goes for Stokes, there were lots of stories doing the rounds on here about how he'd been phoning in sick but going out in getting steamboats up the town in the week leading up to the Huns game at Easter Road, then he was straight back into the side to play them.

I would be surprised if that level of interference came from this board though, given that they always maintain that the manager has full control over first team affairs. It would do massive damage to their credibility if it was to transpire that they were forcing the manager to play players.

[The Falcon]

Pretty sure Bamba came back late last January from ANC, then came back late from summer vacations........

He was put straight back into teams thereafter, which IMO would have irritated most of the squad, and making them wonder if they could break disciplinary rules also.... I am also led to believe Bamba was not fined for either incident, making me wonder what internal systems are in place by the Board, when you consider DR was fined for slating the state of the pitch..... Is it favoratism?

When in Holland, spoke to Yogi who intimated that Bamba would not play again for Hibs after being AWOL, and several Hibs players were really annoyed that he was behind them in terms of training.... Therefore is the Board undermining the manager by telling them who they have to play?

Worrying if true

My understanding BH is that any "favouritism" at ER was from Hughes himself. I am told, reliably, that there appeared to be a clique of "senior" players (by no means all of them) who, no matter what they did, continued to be selected much to the chagrin of others. I am sure there are others on here who will support this or blow it out the water.

[Mikey]

Maybe Yogi realised that if he didn't play his best defender again he would compromise the defence and be unlikely to get anything for him when he left, thereby reducing the funds available to him.

He's a passionate guy and if he told you personally that Bamba wouldn't play again it may well have been in the heat of the moment. He could well have changed his mind when he sat down and thought it through.

I can't think of any instances where the board have told the manager who he can and can't play. Although I'm sure there will be someone along soon to correct that :wink:

[BEEJ]

My understanding BH is that any "favouritism" at ER was from Hughes himself. I am told, reliably, that there appeared to be a clique of "senior" players (by no means all of them) who, no matter what they did, continued to be selected much to the chagrin of others. I am sure there are others on here who will support this or blow it out the water.
:agree: A much more likely scenario than Board interference on team selection.

[Golden Bear]

Bamba is old news so let's hope CC can now get the squad working and behaving like true professionals.

It's a good thought if nothing else.

[Andy74]

Pretty sure Bamba came back late last January from ANC, then came back late from summer vacations........

He was put straight back into teams thereafter, which IMO would have irritated most of the squad, and making them wonder if they could break disciplinary rules also.... I am also led to believe Bamba was not fined for either incident, making me wonder what internal systems are in place by the Board, when you consider DR was fined for slating the state of the pitch..... Is it favoratism?

When in Holland, spoke to Yogi who intimated that Bamba would not play again for Hibs after being AWOL, and several Hibs players were really annoyed that he was behind them in terms of training.... Therefore is the Board undermining the manager by telling them who they have to play?

Worrying if true

What's the point of this fabrication at this stage?

[Baldy Foghorn]

What's the point of this fabrication at this stage?

Fabrication??? How exactly is it fabrication??? Given I spoke to Yogi in Holland when he was calm, and clearly said Bamba would not play again..... Something changed in that time.....He feels let down by Hibs......

There is something fundamentally wrong at ER, and my guess is that it is eminating from Board level.....

[smurf]

I would like to know if our Manager is allowed to properly Manage our football team?

Imagine if Sir Alex Ferguson didn't have FULL AND ABSOLUTE control of all areas and aspects of discipline at Manchester United particularly 1986-1990....

[H18sry]

Pretty sure Bamba came back late last January from ANC, then came back late from summer vacations........

He was put straight back into teams thereafter, which IMO would have irritated most of the squad, and making them wonder if they could break disciplinary rules also.... I am also led to believe Bamba was not fined for either incident, making me wonder what internal systems are in place by the Board, when you consider DR was fined for slating the state of the pitch..... Is it favoratism?

When in Holland, spoke to Yogi who intimated that Bamba would not play again for Hibs after being AWOL, and several Hibs players were really annoyed that he was behind them in terms of training.... Therefore is the Board undermining the manager by telling them who they have to play?

Worrying if true

Yogi passed the buck on this and asked the board to deal with it, in the same way they dealt with DR last season when he critisized the pitch, as he did not want to be seen as the bad guy, but the board refused as it was the managers job, which was seen as the start of his downfall, Source a mate who works for Hibs :agree:

[smurf]

Yogi passed the buck on this and asked the board to deal with it, in the same way they dealt with DR last season when he critisized the pitch, as he did not want to be seen as the bad guy, but the board refused as it was the managers job, which was seen as the start of his downfall, Source a mate who works for Hibs :agree:

IF true then the board should have told Hughes that it was his responsibility part of his remit as Manager of Hibernian Football Club. And if he wasn't going to do it he should have been sacked.

Furthermore IF true Hughes got everything he deserved that came to him.

IF the Manager of our club is not in FULL AND ABSOLUTE control of all areas and aspects of discipline at ER it could partly explain our miserable under performance IMHO.

For a long time (since GJP IMO) i've felt that the Manager of our club is in office but not in power.

Our Manager needs to Manage the football club.

[Baldy Foghorn]

Yogi passed the buck on this and asked the board to deal with it, in the same way they dealt with DR last season when he critisized the pitch, as he did not want to be seen as the bad guy, but the board refused as it was the managers job, which was seen as the start of his downfall, Source a mate who works for Hibs :agree:

I would have thought that if Board sanctioned fine to DR then they should have been consistent in their approach with regards to Bamba... Smacks of changing the goalposts.....

[Cropley10]

My understanding BH is that any "favouritism" at ER was from Hughes himself. I am told, reliably, that there appeared to be a clique of "senior" players (by no means all of them) who, no matter what they did, continued to be selected much to the chagrin of others. I am sure there are others on here who will support this or blow it out the water.

So which senior players were these?

The only ones I can think of are Miller who got his game every week, Rankin as well, most often. But then most Clubs will have a core of players, often the most senior, who play despite, not due to, their performances.

Yogi had favourites - Wotherspoon being one - but Bamba is now history. We don't have to worry about 'valuable' players being played with or without the managers full say-so as we don't have any left.

[silverhibee]

Maybe Yogi realised that if he didn't play his best defender again he would compromise the defence and be unlikely to get anything for him when he left, thereby reducing the funds available to him.

He's a passionate guy and if he told you personally that Bamba wouldn't play again it may well have been in the heat of the moment. He could well have changed his mind when he sat down and thought it through.

I can't think of any instances where the board have told the manager who he can and can't play. Although I'm sure there will be someone along soon to correct that :wink:

DR a couple of season,s ago was left out for a freindly against was it Blackburn i think, i am sure that was the boards decision.

[PISTOL1875]

Pretty sure Bamba came back late last January from ANC, then came back late from summer vacations........

He was put straight back into teams thereafter, which IMO would have irritated most of the squad, and making them wonder if they could break disciplinary rules also.... I am also led to believe Bamba was not fined for either incident, making me wonder what internal systems are in place by the Board, when you consider DR was fined for slating the state of the pitch..... Is it favoratism?

When in Holland, spoke to Yogi who intimated that Bamba would not play again for Hibs after being AWOL, and several Hibs players were really annoyed that he was behind them in terms of training.... Therefore is the Board undermining the manager by telling them who they have to play?

Worrying if true

It irratated most of the fans as well.. When Sol was away , Hanlon stepped up and was playing well in defence.. Sol came back , went straight into the team and had a nightmare in his first game back...

[Pretty Boy]

Surely if the board were undermining the manager and instructing him on which players to play, how to discipline players etc the one of them would have resigned by now?

The only manager to resign was Collins. When he left there was no mention from him of boardroom interference. I'm still certain a major reason for Collins resignation was the realisation he was making an absolute mess of the job and was way out his depth. People look back with rose tinted specs and forget just how bad we were at the time of his departure.

Hughes and Mixu were 'mutually consented'. Mowbray left for a bigger job and Blobby left for another job. It just seems strange to me that if boardroom interference was a rife as being suggested at least one of these managers would have cited it as a reason for leaving.

[Baldy Foghorn]

Surely if the board were undermining the manager and instructing him on which players to play, how to discipline players etc the one of them would have resigned by now?

The only manager to resign was Collins. When he left there was no mention from him of boardroom interference. I'm still certain a major reason for Collins resignation was the realisation he was making an absolute mess of the job and was way out his depth. People look back with rose tinted specs and forget just how bad we were at the time of his departure.

Hughes and Mixu were 'mutually consented'. Mowbray left for a bigger job and Blobby left for another job. It just seems strange to me that if boardroom interference was a rife as being suggested at least one of these managers would have cited it as a reason for leaving.

Confidentiality clauses?

[Andy74]

Fabrication??? How exactly is it fabrication??? Given I spoke to Yogi in Holland when he was calm, and clearly said Bamba would not play again..... Something changed in that time.....He feels let down by Hibs......

There is something fundamentally wrong at ER, and my guess is that it is eminating from Board level.....

Due to it being all ifs, but and guesswork which together you've taken to paint as black a picture as possible. Really, what is the point?

[JimBHibees]

Fabrication??? How exactly is it fabrication??? Given I spoke to Yogi in Holland when he was calm, and clearly said Bamba would not play again..... Something changed in that time.....He feels let down by Hibs......

There is something fundamentally wrong at ER, and my guess is that it is eminating from Board level.....

Sounds more than likely Yogi changed his mind about not playing him, not wanting to cut his nose off to spite his face due to Bamba being Hibs best defender. Much like no doubt Latapy got away with coming back late when GJP was in charge.

Without being funny managers arent going to be totally forthright with fans.

[Baldy Foghorn]

Due to it being all ifs, but and guesswork which together you've taken to paint as black a picture as possible. Really, what is the point?

I have not tried to paint a black picture.....It was a genuine concern I had after hearing a few things...... Some straight from the horses mouth so hardly guesswork or conjecture.....

It was something I wanted to share on forum, but you seem determined to knock it out the park without credence?

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Surely when the posse of players went up to Rod's for a barbecue when Collins was in France, and didn't immediately get a door in the face, the die was caste as to who is really in charge?

[Pretty Boy]

Confidentiality clauses?

A possibility.

It still seems strange to me though that given the alleged board interference managers don't seem keen to leave ER with only Collins choosing to resign.

Mowbray, if i remember correctly, turned down another job (Ipswich?) before eventually going to WBA, Hughes and Williamson were forced out due to the lethal mixture of poor results, poor performances and fan pressure and Mixu was, to all intents and purposes, sacked.

Not totallly dismissing what you are saying as there are clearly problems at ER, and i have no clue what they are, but i would have thought at least one manager would have resigned quickly if the board were constantly interfering in footballing matters.

[Golden Bear]

A possibility.

It still seems strange to me though that given the alleged board interference managers don't seem keen to leave ER with only Collins choosing to resign.

Mowbray, if i remember correctly, turned down another job (Ipswich?) before eventually going to WBA, Hughes and Williamson were forced out due to the lethal mixture of poor results, poor performances and fan pressure and Mixu was, to all intents and purposes, sacked.

Not totallly dismissing what you are saying as there are clearly problems at ER, and i have no clue what they are, but i would have thought at least one manager would have resigned quickly if the board were constantly interfering in footballing matters.

I think I'm right in saying that the composition of the Board has changed a number of times in recent years. Not that that is an indication of anything sinister.

[Pretty Boy]

Surely when the posse of players went up to Rod's for a barbecue when Collins was in France, and didn't immediately get a door in the face, the die was caste as to who is really in charge?

What exactly could Petrie do though? The players had a problem with their 'line manager' and felt unable to resolve it with hin so they went to his superior. That to me is standard workplace grievance procedure.

I don't agree with how it was done (at Petries house) but the fact a meeting took place is nothing for Petrie to be sorry about IMO. I would also argue that despite meeting the players, by leaving JC in charge and allowing him to empty a few players at the centre of the revolt in the summer (Shields, Stewart, Sproule, Simon Brown to name a few) he actually backed Collins in many ways.

[Pretty Boy]

I think I'm right in saying that the composition of the Board has changed a number of times in recent years. Not that that is an indication of anything sinister.

Whilst i don't wish to work on supposition alone i would assume, given the general mood around here at the moment, that when the OP refers to the board he means Rod Petrie, who has been a constant throughout the reign of all the managers i mentioned.

[s.a.m]

What exactly could Petrie do though? The players had a problem with their 'line manager' and felt unable to resolve it with hin so they went to his superior. That to me is standard workplace grievance procedure.

I don't agree with how it was done (at Petries house) but the fact a meeting took place is nothing for Petrie to be sorry about IMO. I would also argue that despite meeting the players, by leaving JC in charge and allowing him to empty a few players at the centre of the revolt in the summer (Shields, Stewart, Sproule, Simon Brown to name a few) he actually backed Collins in many ways.

I agree. Whatever the rights and wrongs of either party's position, it's what would be standard procedure in any other workforce, surely? It may have looked better if the meeting had taken place at Easter Road, but other than that, I don't have a problem with it.

[JimBHibees]

What exactly could Petrie do though? The players had a problem with their 'line manager' and felt unable to resolve it with hin so they went to his superior. That to me is standard workplace grievance procedure.

I don't agree with how it was done (at Petries house) but the fact a meeting took place is nothing for Petrie to be sorry about IMO. I would also argue that despite meeting the players, by leaving JC in charge and allowing him to empty a few players at the centre of the revolt in the summer (Shields, Stewart, Sproule, Simon Brown to name a few) he actually backed Collins in many ways.

Completely agree with that.

[RIP]

To the best of my knowledge Rod works closely with all his managers in a Director of Football role. Purchases, sales, new contracts, releases, procuring signing targets, identifying who is available and who is not. He's carried out this role since John Collins era.

This role was confirmed around the time that Scott Lindsay took over the reigns as Chief Executive

Coaches come and go and therefore by exercising boardroom control over the squad Rod would be able to ensure that no one manager had free reign to hire or fire

Rod is the boss and the football manager is Waaay down the pecking order. Do we know who the Academy manager reports to for example? Do we know who lined up Derek Adams? Is the answer Rod in both cases?

Confidentiality clauses notwithstanding Collins, Mixu and Hughes have all alluded to boardroom interference into what THEY considered to be their job. I don't know if this made the job less rewarding for them but I would be surprised if Rod will ever be prepared to give TOTAL control over the football side of the club to any manager

Whilst Lindsay in theory discplines players, he reports to Petrie

Nothing moves at ER without RP's say so

[The Falcon]

The person who told me this was referring, in the main, to Stokes and Bamba amongst some others still at the club.
I think it was their off field behaviour as opposed to poor form, although after January last year the loss of form affected everybody.

It could also have been sour grapes by a player not getting a regular game but I think not.




So which senior players were these?

The only ones I can think of are Miller who got his game every week, Rankin as well, most often. But then most Clubs will have a core of players, often the most senior, who play despite, not due to, their performances.

Yogi had favourites - Wotherspoon being one - but Bamba is now history. We don't have to worry about 'valuable' players being played with or without the managers full say-so as we don't have any left.

[greenlex]

After reading the posts on this thread here are my thoughts.
The board will be in charge of discipline where a player brings the club into disrepute. Riordan openly critisising the pitch in the media and indirectly the ground staff. (fined for doing so) and left out of the Blackburn game (off feild indiscresions IIRC)
The manager will be in charge of footballing matters Bamba(not returning to training etc).:dunno:
Both would fit in with what folks are hearing.

[Cropley10]

To the best of my knowledge Rod works closely with all his managers in a Director of Football role. Purchases, sales, new contracts, releases, procuring signing targets, identifying who is available and who is not. He's carried out this role since John Collins era.

This role was confirmed around the time that Scott Lindsay took over the reigns as Chief Executive

Coaches come and go and therefore by exercising boardroom control over the squad Rod would be able to ensure that no one manager had free reign to hire or fire

Rod is the boss and the football manager is Waaay down the pecking order. Do we know who the Academy manager reports to for example? Do we know who lined up Derek Adams? Is the answer Rod in both cases?

Confidentiality clauses notwithstanding Collins, Mixu and Hughes have all alluded to boardroom interference into what THEY considered to be their job. I don't know if this made the job less rewarding for them but I would be surprised if Rod will ever be prepared to give TOTAL control over the football side of the club to any manager

Whilst Lindsay in theory discplines players, he reports to Petrie

Nothing moves at ER without RP's say so

We're lucky to be able to afford to have such talented people running the Club.

[The Falcon]

We're lucky to be able to afford to have such talented people running the Club.

Agreement at last. I knew I'd win you round in the end :greengrin

[cabbageandribs1875]

DR a couple of season,s ago was left out for a freindly against was it Blackburn i think, i am sure that was the boards decision.

why was he dropped ?

[greenlex]

why was he dropped ?

I am sure he had been in trouble off the park. Cannae mind exactly what but it was around the time him and Darren Mac were sent on an anger management course.

[Heckys Wheel]

Agree with every IF in this thread and would also add...

IF Rod Petrie or any member of the board, in an act of defiance to the manager, is responsible for the floods in Queensland just now, they should be removed from Easter Road immediately.

IF any of the board were on the grassy knoll the day JFK was shot, they should hand in their HFC blazers as they leave the premises.

IF Scott Lyndsay, was anywhere near the Twin Towers near the date 9/11, he should be placed in a burlap sack and lashed with reeds.