PDA

View Full Version : hibs getting pulled apart on bbc



coco22
25-06-2011, 02:05 PM
currently discussing the 'discipline problems' at easter road on the radio, with yogi giving his tuppence worth in the usual way. if cc goes, do we need a big character, no nonsense manager to sort some of these issues? yogi saying JC was the man to do it but failed as we all know

Callum_62
25-06-2011, 02:11 PM
Its actually good honest listening.

Intresting comments from Yogi about the working structure at ER...

Reaper
25-06-2011, 02:11 PM
I think the whole issue has been hit on the head though. There's is obviously, as more of us were saying, problems in the dressing room at Hibs or has been. I think that would be why certain players were moved on as well as being out of contract. Yogi couldn't do it either so i wish he'd shut up with his comments on the club cos if he was so knowledgable on he subject he'd still be there.

As far as the latest incident, it'll happen at training grounds all over the place, it's just in this instance the lads suffered a serious injury which is why it's more news worthy.

hibiedude
25-06-2011, 02:17 PM
Its actually good honest listening.

Intresting comments from Yogi about the working structure at ER...

Both Edinburgh Clubs being discussed in detail and its been very interesting listening.

If I could bottle Yogi’s passion for our club I would be very rich guy.

NORTHERNHIBBY
25-06-2011, 02:19 PM
As long as we have a chairman that entertains mutiny rather than offering a door in the face, then causing trouble in the dressing room will still be a viable way of scoring points, rather than knuckling down and doing as you are told.

persevere1875
25-06-2011, 02:20 PM
I think the whole issue has been hit on the head though. There's is obviously, as more of us were saying, problems in the dressing room at Hibs or has been. I think that would be why certain players were moved on as well as being out of contract. Yogi couldn't do it either so i wish he'd shut up with his comments on the club cos if he was so knowledgable on he subject he'd still be there.

As far as the latest incident, it'll happen at training grounds all over the place, it's just in this instance the lads suffered a serious injury which is why it's more news worthy.

Unfortunately things like this just give him the opportunity to witter on

yekimevol
25-06-2011, 02:37 PM
will it be repeated on the website or that ?

Cropley10
25-06-2011, 03:22 PM
Its actually good honest listening.

Intresting comments from Yogi about the working structure at ER...

The working structure? Can you elaborate?

IWasThere2016
25-06-2011, 03:24 PM
Was good listening .. I missed bit on 'working structure' also - was that later in the piece as I missed the end. Yogi spoke not too badly for once.

Andy74
25-06-2011, 03:24 PM
I think the whole issue has been hit on the head though. There's is obviously, as more of us were saying, problems in the dressing room at Hibs or has been. I think that would be why certain players were moved on as well as being out of contract. Yogi couldn't do it either so i wish he'd shut up with his comments on the club cos if he was so knowledgable on he subject he'd still be there.

As far as the latest incident, it'll happen at training grounds all over the place, it's just in this instance the lads suffered a serious injury which is why it's more news worthy.
Although Hughes had intentionally allowed most of that lot to be out of contract.

We barely have any players left from the Mixu days never mind JC so how can we keep talking about problem players and it not getting sorted? Do we just keep signing the same sort?

The Falcon
25-06-2011, 03:25 PM
Its actually good honest listening.

Intresting comments from Yogi about the working structure at ER...

That'll be the one he said he agreed to at the interview and gave him plenty time to work with the players. :rolleyes:

matty_f
25-06-2011, 03:27 PM
What show was this on? I'll try and listen on the iplayer.

Dashing Bob S
25-06-2011, 03:27 PM
As long as we have a chairman that entertains mutiny rather than offering a door in the face, then causing trouble in the dressing room will still be a viable way of scoring points, rather than knuckling down and doing as you are told.

I think you've hit it on the head here. Since the Mowbray (and probably even during) the same problems have cropped up again and again. It's okay saying they stop with the manager, but they evidently don't.

IWasThere2016
25-06-2011, 03:29 PM
Although Hughes had intentionally allowed most of that lot to be out of contract.

We barely have any players left from the Mixu days never mind JC so how can we keep talking about problem players and it not getting sorted? Do we just keep signing the same sort?

Aye - by my reckoning Hughes signed more than the others before and after him ..

FROM THE OTHER THREAD ON THIS SUBJECT:


Anybody listen to him on radio Scotland.......

He wouldn't have signed O'Connorn or Sproule and given more backing from the board he would have challenged the OF apparently:confused:

Just read it on twitter.

Had I heard that I would've turned aff .. what a deluded twat!


Hughes signed De Graaf (headline signing) and Hart.......case closed.

Indeed .. add Trakys and Cregg and you have a complete horror show!

offshorehibby
25-06-2011, 03:33 PM
What show was this on? I'll try and listen on the iplayer.

Sportsound was on about 2PM, with Hughes, Craigen and some journalist. Nothing startling. Hughes still got sour grapes. Although he was right in that RP should have backed Collins and slammed the door in the players faces.
Yogi had a bit of a love in about JJ

The Falcon
25-06-2011, 03:33 PM
Was good listening .. I missed bit on 'working structure' also - was that later in the piece as I missed the end. Yogi spoke not too badly for once.

What Yogi said was that at Falkirk he had control over all aspects of the club and that wasnt what happened at Hibs. Yogi said that this was a mistake on his part and he should have had the same level of control over negotiating with players over contracts and wages that he had a Falkirk but didnt have at Hibs.

This was made clear to him at the interview stage that this was how the club operates and he agreed and was fine with this. That he identified the players and "someone else" did the negotiating.

He also felt the Stokes transfer should have happened before it did but also said that he (Yogi) was not going to stand is way when Celtic came calling. The implication being that he could have. All aspects of Stokes joining the club and leaving the club were carried out by "someone else"

grunt
25-06-2011, 03:38 PM
He also felt the Stokes transfer should have happened before it did but also said that he (Yogi) was not going to stand is way when Celtic came calling. The implication being that he could have. All aspects of Stokes joining the club and leaving the club were carried out by "someone else"Yeah, but he also claimed credit for persuading "Stokesy" to come to Hibs, by telling him that if he came and did well, Yogi was sure that Celtc would come in for him.

The more I hear of Hughes on the radio, the more surprised am I that the Hibs Board ever thought he could be a good manager.

Cropley10
25-06-2011, 03:42 PM
What Yogi said was that at Falkirk he had control over all aspects of the club and that wasnt what happened at Hibs. Yogi said that this was a mistake on his part and he should have had the same level of control over negotiating with players over contracts and wages that he had a Falkirk but didnt have at Hibs.

This was made clear to him at the interview stage that this was how the club operates and he agreed and was fine with this. That he identified the players and "someone else" did the negotiating.

He also felt the Stokes transfer should have happened before it did but also said that he (Yogi) was not going to stand is way when Celtic came calling. The implication being that he could have. All aspects of Stokes joining the club and leaving the club were carried out by "someone else"

Interesting insight on what is said at the interview stage.

gringojoe
25-06-2011, 03:42 PM
I've not listened to the bbc report but if the board appoints the manager they should back him to the hilt, we might still have had JC in charge if they had.

The Falcon
25-06-2011, 03:53 PM
Interesting insight on what is said at the interview stage.

They also went on to say that its fairly common at clubs now as it supposedly allows the manager more time to spend on the football team. I dont think it's news to anybody.

I'm sure Harry Redknapp commented the other week that he has no idea how much any of the Spurs players get paid.

brog
25-06-2011, 04:07 PM
They also went on to say that its fairly common at clubs now as it supposedly allows the manager more time to spend on the football team. I dont think it's news to anybody.

I'm sure Harry Redknapp commented the other week that he has no idea how much any of the Spurs players get paid.

Hey, Harry doesn't even know how much tax he pays, or doesn't pay!! :wink:

hstn747
25-06-2011, 04:36 PM
Don't think this is going to be available to listen to again. The BBC could easily just put it onto youtube surely.

Gatecrasher
25-06-2011, 04:37 PM
Sportsound was on about 2PM, with Hughes, Craigen and some journalist. Nothing startling. Hughes still got sour grapes. Although he was right in that RP should have backed Collins and slammed the door in the players faces.
Yogi had a bit of a love in about JJ

he has a huge chip on his shoulder :agree:

Reaper
25-06-2011, 05:11 PM
Although Hughes had intentionally allowed most of that lot to be out of contract.

We barely have any players left from the Mixu days never mind JC so how can we keep talking about problem players and it not getting sorted? Do we just keep signing the same sort?

From what I've heard it is not necessarily the players that were the problem in the dressing room, but people who had no place in the dressing room. Just a rumour I heard.

BEEJ
25-06-2011, 07:13 PM
What Yogi said was that at Falkirk he had control over all aspects of the club and that wasnt what happened at Hibs. Yogi said that this was a mistake on his part and he should have had the same level of control over negotiating with players over contracts and wages that he had a Falkirk but didnt have at Hibs.

This was made clear to him at the interview stage that this was how the club operates and he agreed and was fine with this. That he identified the players and "someone else" did the negotiating.
This quote is of fundamental importance as it finally lays to rest the questions on here over the way our club is run and why Hibs Managers often struggle with the regime within which they are asked to operate.

Hughes found himself in a different set-up to the one in place at Falkirk. Mixu has made similar comments since his departure and reflecting on his experience at Killie. And JC was quite emphatic in quoting similar reasons for his departure.

It seems that while Managers have a player budget, they have absolutely no say ultimately on how that budget is allocated. They just hand over a list of players and RP takes it from there.

Mibbes Aye
25-06-2011, 07:18 PM
I heard a big chunk of it and I hope it is available on iplayer or whatever, as Hughes was speaking forth about a number of things he obviously wouldn't have been able to as a manager and it was interesting

Worth bearing in mind that it was of course his perspective, which is informed but also very subjective.

In addition to what has been said above, he was clearly frustrated about Duffy picking up his injury and that Trakys was essentially brought in to make up the numbers, so nothing too revelatory there :greengrin

sahib
25-06-2011, 07:24 PM
From what I've heard it is not necessarily the players that were the problem in the dressing room, but people who had no place in the dressing room. Just a rumour I heard.

Give us a clue who you mean?

Agents, wags, Petrie, board members, ex-casuals with books for sale, hangers on, Tam McCourt (Kit Manager) & Joyce McCourt (Kit Co-ordinator) please tell.

smurf
25-06-2011, 07:33 PM
This quote is of fundamental importance as it finally lays to rest the questions on here over the way our club is run and why Hibs Managers often struggle with the regime within which they are asked to operate.

Hughes found himself in a different set-up to the one in place at Falkirk. Mixu has made similar comments since his departure and reflecting on his experience at Killie. And JC was quite emphatic in quoting similar reasons for his departure.

It seems that while Managers have a player budget, they have absolutely no say ultimately on how that budget is allocated. They just hand over a list of players and RP takes it from there.

No. And No again. That simply can't be the case. Because every time I ask on here "IF" that's the case I'm told it absolutely isn't.

matty_f
25-06-2011, 08:02 PM
This quote is of fundamental importance as it finally lays to rest the questions on here over the way our club is run and why Hibs Managers often struggle with the regime within which they are asked to operate.

Hughes found himself in a different set-up to the one in place at Falkirk. Mixu has made similar comments since his departure and reflecting on his experience at Killie. And JC was quite emphatic in quoting similar reasons for his departure.

It seems that while Managers have a player budget, they have absolutely no say ultimately on how that budget is allocated. They just hand over a list of players and RP takes it from there.

I thought it was common knowledge that Petrie did the contracts? In fact, I'd go so far as to say I can remember Hibs making this public at one of the points where Scott Lyndsay took on more responsibilities. It's hardly a revelation.

Hibrandenburg
25-06-2011, 08:06 PM
Both Edinburgh Clubs being discussed in detail and its been very interesting listening.

If I could bottle Yogi’s passion for our club I would be very rich guy.

Could it be that both Edinburgh clubs are playing the infirm on the opening day of the season? Same old same old!

Pedantic_Hibee
25-06-2011, 09:07 PM
I thought it was common knowledge that Petrie did the contracts? In fact, I'd go so far as to say I can remember Hibs making this public at one of the points where Scott Lyndsay took on more responsibilities. It's hardly a revelation.

I was certainly aware of this. And to an extent, I can agree with it.

In fact, I can remember Yogi saying during his tenure how impressed he was with the structure. To paraphrase him, it was along the lines of "Everything is done professionally, including signings. If I want a player, I have to go to the board and put forward a business case, i.e why we need him, what he'll do for the club, what his background's like, what his character's like, his marital status, what car he drives etc etc".

Of course, translated into Yogi speak, it's more "If a want a player, a tell the board ah want him tae join the club and tell um that he's a good laddie with a bit ay sense up there ken *taps head*, and then Rod does ays hing. Fitba' folk ken whit's gaun oan" but certainly that was the jist of it as per above.

I think most clubs run that way to be fair (except Hearts of course).

The manager goes to Petrie, tells him which players he wants in order of priority. And once the club are at negotiation stage with Hibs, Petrie and manager will liaise in terms of how much the manager wants that player and discuss the percentage of budget this would take up.

There's a myth that, when often repeated becomes gospel, Petrie is in charge and completely runs the show. Lets not confuse ourselves with our mental neighbours from across the city.

We have managers that manage, coaches that coach, and players that couldnae gie a ******. :agree:

The Falcon
25-06-2011, 09:08 PM
It seems that while Managers have a player budget, they have absolutely no say ultimately on how that budget is allocated. They just hand over a list of players and RP takes it from there.

That is not what he said.

Lucius Apuleius
26-06-2011, 05:54 AM
Personally I would be more worried if Petrie was not handling the financial side of contracts. Imagine Yogi doing wage negotiations????? Whit dae ye waaant son? Ten grand a week Boss. That'll be f'n right son, here have 15 grand.

RP's job in my opinion.

Cropley10
26-06-2011, 07:42 AM
I thought it was common knowledge that Petrie did the contracts? In fact, I'd go so far as to say I can remember Hibs making this public at one of the points where Scott Lyndsay took on more responsibilities. It's hardly a revelation.

Petrie doing the contracts is no bad thing. But what does this mean? Where does his involvement begin and end.

From what JC, Mixu and Hughes have inferred it's more than that, which in turn leads to issues.

My big hope is that CC has the balls to come out and tells us what actually happens. Cos something ain't right, it can't be or we wouldn't be back here, again!

matty_f
26-06-2011, 08:00 AM
Petrie doing the contracts is no bad thing. But what does this mean? Where does his involvement begin and end.

From what JC, Mixu and Hughes have inferred it's more than that, which in turn leads to issues.

My big hope is that CC has the balls to come out and tells us what actually happens. Cos something ain't right, it can't be or we wouldn't be back here, again!

I missed the interviews where more was suggested or inferred. What were they saying?

H18sry
26-06-2011, 08:27 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13917136.stm :rolleyes:

Kaiser1962
26-06-2011, 08:56 AM
I missed the interviews where more was suggested or inferred. What were they saying?

I also note that they didnt complain too much about it until they were booted, even then there was nothing clear cut. Accusation by insinuation really.

Or in JC's case took a hissy fit and stormed off in a huff.

BEEJ
26-06-2011, 12:13 PM
Petrie doing the contracts is no bad thing. But what does this mean? Where does his involvement begin and end.

From what JC, Mixu and Hughes have inferred it's more than that, which in turn leads to issues.
:agree: Some folks are confusing the different stages in the process here.

The practicalities of sitting down and working through the paperwork and discussing / finessing the finer points of terms and conditions with agents should never be the job of a Manager or Coach. It's the club decisions that precede this stage that are in question.

These decisions are around just how much that player target merits in terms of the salary to be offered; even taking account of a percentage of the club's overall player budget where the target is a senior / experienced player.


I also note that they didnt complain too much about it until they were booted, even then there was nothing clear cut. Accusation by insinuation really.

Or in JC's case took a hissy fit and stormed off in a huff.
:greengrin Do you seriously expect any football manager to mump and moan publicly (and in detail) about their work conditions while they are still in the job?

And even if they did, presumably you would then always dismiss them as simply taking 'a hissy fit'?

matty_f
26-06-2011, 12:25 PM
:agree: Some folks are confusing the different stages in the process here.

The practicalities of sitting down and working through the paperwork and discussing / finessing the finer points of terms and conditions with agents should never be the job of a Manager or Coach. It's the club decisions that precede this stage that are in question.

These decisions are around just how much that player target merits in terms of the salary to be offered; even taking account of a percentage of the club's overall player budget where the target is a senior / experienced player.


Who is getting confused by it?

I haven't seen an interview yet that elaborates on the contract negotiation and signing process other than to say that the manager identifies the targets, has a discussion with the board to say why they want/need them, then the board try to make it happen.

I have read Scott Lyndsay say that how the budget is used (for wages) is up to the manager, so I'd guess that between the manager and Petrie they will have an idea on what offer Hibs are able to make to a player who we're looking to sign.

silverhibee
26-06-2011, 01:36 PM
This quote is of fundamental importance as it finally lays to rest the questions on here over the way our club is run and why Hibs Managers often struggle with the regime within which they are asked to operate.

Hughes found himself in a different set-up to the one in place at Falkirk. Mixu has made similar comments since his departure and reflecting on his experience at Killie. And JC was quite emphatic in quoting similar reasons for his departure.

It seems that while Managers have a player budget, they have absolutely no say ultimately on how that budget is allocated. They just hand over a list of players and RP takes it from there.


In a nutshell. Yes. :aok:

Kaiser1962
26-06-2011, 02:51 PM
:agree: Some folks are confusing the different stages in the process here.

The practicalities of sitting down and working through the paperwork and discussing / finessing the finer points of terms and conditions with agents should never be the job of a Manager or Coach. It's the club decisions that precede this stage that are in question.

These decisions are around just how much that player target merits in terms of the salary to be offered; even taking account of a percentage of the club's overall player budget where the target is a senior / experienced player.


:greengrin Do you seriously expect any football manager to mump and moan publicly (and in detail) about their work conditions while they are still in the job?

And even if they did, presumably you would then always dismiss them as simply taking 'a hissy fit'?


Then how are they going to change anything? Are they total pussies?

Hughes said on the radio that the system in place at Hibs was made clear to him at the interview. It SHOULD have left him free to concentrate on football matters and training the team to compete better. Ferk knows where we might have ended up if he had other jobs to do as well.

smurf
26-06-2011, 02:51 PM
In a nutshell. Yes. :aok:

So the board may well decide not to go after the Managers prefered targets...

matty_f
26-06-2011, 03:07 PM
So the board may well decide not to go after the Managers prefered targets...

Why on earth would they do that, and what do you think the manager would have to say about it?

hibs0666
26-06-2011, 03:12 PM
So the board may well decide not to go after the Managers prefered targets...

On what basis would you come up with that nonsense?

truehibernian
26-06-2011, 03:29 PM
I really don't see what the issue is with the way budgets are managed at Hibs. We have qualified businessmen and accountants who negotiate the best deals they can, for all parties concerned, then can report back to the manager progress of other deals, how much finance is left etc.

I most certainly would not hand over monetary control to Hughes, not in a million years. What do you think Martin Edwards did at Man Utd ? The exact same as RP and Scott Lindsay.

Contracts are complex and not just financial. We tend to microanalyse Hibs and the behind the scenes dealings, but it happens the same the world over. What did Murray and Bain do at Rangers......I doubt Walter sat down and told players what he could give them each month. He more than likely gave Bain a list of players and said 'get me him, him and him if you can'.

Kaiser1962
26-06-2011, 03:32 PM
There is also the thought that by others doing the contract negotions it maintains the relationship, to a degree, between the manager and player.



I really don't see what the issue is with the way budgets are managed at Hibs. We have qualified businessmen and accountants who negotiate the best deals they can, for all parties concerned, then can report back to the manager progress of other deals, how much finance is left etc.

I most certainly would not hand over monetary control to Hughes, not in a million years. What do you think Martin Edwards did at Man Utd ? The exact same as RP and Scott Lindsay.

Contracts are complex and not just financial. We tend to microanalyse Hibs and the behind the scenes dealings, but it happens the same the world over. What did Murray and Bain do at Rangers......I doubt Walter sat down and told players what he could give them each month. He more than likely gave Bain a list of players and said 'get me him, him and him if you can'.

Franck Stanton
26-06-2011, 04:00 PM
currently discussing the 'discipline problems' at easter road on the radio, with yogi giving his tuppence worth in the usual way. if cc goes, do we need a big character, no nonsense manager to sort some of these issues? yogi saying JC was the man to do it but failed as we all know

Yogi should learn to keep his big mouth shut - he was in the position to sort it all out but he didn't exactly do very well now did he ?
IMO the only problem at E/R is and has been for a number of years is the Board - get them out and replace with forward thinking FOOTBALL-minded men.

BEEJ
26-06-2011, 04:01 PM
Why on earth would they do that, and what do you think the manager would have to say about it?
I'm assuming Smurf means that there would be the risk that those preferred targets at the top of the Manager's list would be quickly dismissed as being too expensive.

Options further down his list would then become the targets.


Contracts are complex and not just financial. We tend to microanalyse Hibs and the behind the scenes dealings, but it happens the same the world over.
Obviously it doesn't, otherwise three of our former Managers wouldn't have commented on it, two of them in relation to the procedures at other clubs.

Maybe we've just been unfortunate to have a series of self-justifying prima donnas as managers of our club in recent years.

matty_f
26-06-2011, 04:26 PM
I'm assuming Smurf means that there would be the risk that those preferred targets at the top of the Manager's list would be quickly dismissed as being too expensive.

Options further down his list would then become the targets.


Obviously it doesn't, otherwise three of our former Managers wouldn't have commented on it, two of them in relation to the procedures at other clubs.

Maybe we've just been unfortunate to have a series of self-justifying prima donnas as managers of our club in recent years.


The board would surely enquire about the expensive players first, and only once they were out of our budget would they move down the list.

It makes no sense for a company whose main objective is to finish the season as successfully as possible (the one sure way to increase revenue) to go for poorer players than it could potentially get.

I don't expect that you want to answer for smurf, however from what I take from your explanation and his comments, you seem to be suggesting that the board would start down the list instead of going for top targets, would I be right I'm saying that?

Danderhall Hibs
26-06-2011, 07:59 PM
I missed the interviews where more was suggested or inferred. What were they saying?

JC said Petrie asked him more than once if he wanted John Rankin. That's the only one I know of though.



Why on earth would they do that, and what do you think the manager would have to say about it?

If they've got cash in their pocket they'd probably walk - that's what JC done. The only other manager we've had recently who's already made his cash is Calderwood.

matty_f
26-06-2011, 08:24 PM
JC said Petrie asked him more than once if he wanted John Rankin. That's the only one I know of though.




If they've got cash in their pocket they'd probably walk - that's what JC done. The only other manager we've had recently who's already made his cash is Calderwood.

Collins said no though, so we never signed him. Rankin was only signed once Mixu said so.

Albion Hibs
26-06-2011, 08:59 PM
The BBC programme was clearly directed by some soap dodger (working and with the ability to write - I know it sounds unlikely but it could happen) as a means of deflecting the attention away from the usual west coast football problems.

In any event how two players exchanging a few blows can we classed as a news article is nothing shy of joke journalism. The only reason these guys ran with the Scott V Welsh thing is so they could talk about CC and all of the rumours.

The hertz issues fine, thats news but the above is nothing, and perhaps just an example of crap journalism.

BEEJ
26-06-2011, 09:17 PM
I don't expect that you want to answer for smurf, however from what I take from your explanation and his comments, you seem to be suggesting that the board would start down the list instead of going for top targets, would I be right I'm saying that?
You're correct ... I'm simply giving you my interpretation of Smurf's post. :wink:

For a fuller explanation, I suggest you ask him.

Don Giovanni
26-06-2011, 10:06 PM
Collins said no though, so we never signed him. Rankin was only signed once Mixu said so.

That sounds like the board have a role in identifying targets and are prepared to push them on the manager.

Is this right?

And if so it would seem that they do step beyond simply negotiating contracts.

The Falcon
26-06-2011, 10:14 PM
That sounds like the board have a role in identifying targets and are prepared to push them on the manager.

Is this right?

And if so it would seem that they do step beyond simply negotiating contracts.

Or maybe a list gets faxed or emailed through of players available and then board member and manager/coaches/scouts sit down and speak about who's available. Weird huh?

matty_f
26-06-2011, 10:21 PM
Or maybe a list gets faxed or emailed through of players available and then board member and manager/coaches/scouts sit down and speak about who's available. Weird huh?

Yep. Agent phones the club "my player is available, are you interested?", Petrie (to the manager) "This player is available, are you interested?" Manager "aye/no *delete as appropriate"

Don Giovanni
26-06-2011, 10:30 PM
Or maybe a list gets faxed or emailed through of players available and then board member and manager/coaches/scouts sit down and speak about who's available. Weird huh?

Yep. Very weird that the board should be suggesting players to the manager.

Should it not be the other way around?

matty_f
26-06-2011, 10:33 PM
Yep. Very weird that the board should be suggesting players to the manager.

Should it not be the other way around?

I don't think it's exclusively one way.:wink:

Don Giovanni
26-06-2011, 10:50 PM
I don't think it's exclusively one way.:wink:

Very probably not. Im sure its a "team" effort.

IMO its quite right that business/law minded board members are involved with the contracts. However, I an slightly uncomfortable with the idea that Petrie, Lindsay or whoever are identifying targets. That should be down to the manager, his assistant and the scouting set-up.

If Hibs want to go down the route of a director of football and first team coach, rather than a traditional manager role, then fine. Be up front about it and get the right people in place. The director of football should be a "football person", not a businessman.

Football people for football operations and business folk to run the off-field side of the club.

Simples.

matty_f
26-06-2011, 10:54 PM
Very probably not. Im sure its a "team" effort.

IMO its quite right that business/law minded board members are involved with the contracts. However, I an slightly uncomfortable with the idea that Petrie, Lindsay or whoever are identifying targets. That should be down to the manager, his assistant and the scouting set-up.

If Hibs want to go down the route of a director of football and first team coach, rather than a traditional manager role, then fine. Be up front about it and get the right people in place. The director of football should be a "football person", not a businessman.

Football people for football operations and business folk to run the off-field side of the club.

Simples.

There's a world of difference between letting a manager know a player is available and actually identifying the targets.

Don Giovanni
26-06-2011, 11:11 PM
There's a world of difference between letting a manager know a player is available and actually identifying the targets.

So what did JC have to say "no" to unless he was suggested / offered to the manager? (Assuming Danderhalls info is correct).

That Mixu should identify and recommend signing the same player is a big coincidence?

matty_f
26-06-2011, 11:18 PM
So what did JC have to say "no" to unless he was suggested / offered to the manager? (Assuming Danderhalls info is correct).

That Mixu should identify and recommend signing the same player is a big coincidence?

The board were offered Rankin who offered him to JC. JC said no ( a couple of times, IIRC).

Mixu came in, Rankin was still available and the offer was still open to Hibs, the board put it to Mixu who consulted with Park (who knew Rankin from ICT) and Mixu wanted him based on Park's advice.

Don Giovanni
27-06-2011, 07:22 AM
The board were offered Rankin who offered him to JC. JC said no ( a couple of times, IIRC).

Mixu came in, Rankin was still available and the offer was still open to Hibs, the board put it to Mixu who consulted with Park (who knew Rankin from ICT) and Mixu wanted him based on Park's advice.

Ok. So its nit-picking but as you acknowledge in your post, Matty, "the board offered Rankin to JC", "they (the board) put it to Mixu (about the Rankin deal)".

Why does JC have to say "no" on more than one occasion?

Are we acknowledging also that Rankin, who was linked to ER under two different managers, was "suggested" by the board rather than either manager?

blackpoolhibs
27-06-2011, 08:04 AM
Ok. So its nit-picking but as you acknowledge in your post, Matty, "the board offered Rankin to JC", "they (the board) put it to Mixu (about the Rankin deal)".

Why does JC have to say "no" on more than one occasion?

Are we acknowledging also that Rankin, who was linked to ER under two different managers, was "suggested" by the board rather than either manager?

Could it be agents get in touch with the club about players, and the board pass on these agents players to the manager? I'd bet every penny i own Rankin and Nish were not the only players offered to the board.

matty_f
27-06-2011, 10:17 AM
Could it be agents get in touch with the club about players, and the board pass on these agents players to the manager? I'd bet every penny i own Rankin and Nish were not the only players offered to the board.

That's exactly it. They're not scouting these players. I have no idea why JC had to say no more than once, right enough.

Don Giovanni
27-06-2011, 11:14 AM
Could it be agents get in touch with the club about players, and the board pass on these agents players to the manager? I'd bet every penny i own Rankin and Nish were not the only players offered to the board.

Should it not be the manager who is approached regarding the signing / availability of players rather than going to the board?

Interesting that you mention Nish as well.
If I remember correctly both Rankin and Nish were linked with Hibs around about December (when JC was still in charge). JC storms out in a huff a couple of weeks later (I'm not entirely sure why?) but it seems JC was not interested in Rankin (and possibly Nish either).
Yet almost as soon as Mixu is in the door these two follow.

There is no consistency in the management team of that time. Yet the new guy has brought in two players we were linked with prior to the old managers departure.

I'm not convinced the fans have had the full story. As someone else pointed out we are unlikely to hear grumbles of discontent from the current incumbent (whoever they may be) and from recent previous managers there has been allusions to unhappiness with the freedom the Hibs "manager" has to operate.

Anyway, I'm not really sure our discussion is going anywhere so I'll leave it at this: I think the Hibs board may have more influence on player recruitment than they would care to let on.
Either let the manager manage or else appoint a "football person" (I hate that phrase, but you know what I mean) as director of football.

Feel free to disagree...! :greengrin

[as an aside if (when) CC does go it will be interesting to see whether we are still in pursuit of the same players we have been linked with so far (i.e. Porter, Rooney, Towell, etc.) or whether we will have a new list of targets]

BEEJ
27-06-2011, 11:50 AM
Should it not be the manager who is approached regarding the signing / availability of players rather than going to the board?

:agree: That would be the norm - agents dealing with club managers, marketing their players' skills and experience and trying to drum up interest on the coaching side.

The Manager, once suitably impressed, then approaches the Board setting out the case for signing that player and the value he will be to the squad. The Board then pursue the negotiations, trying to fend off any competition from other clubs in order to secure the signing.

I can't work out the circumstances under which one could justify a player being touted to a club director in the first instance, rather than a Manager. It seems to be a pointless step in the procedure.

offshorehibby
27-06-2011, 12:36 PM
would it not be a case that come transfer time there are only so many players up for grabs that are in our range. One manager goes and an other comes in, the same players are still on the look out for a club.
One manager might fancy said player one manager might not.

blackpoolhibs
27-06-2011, 01:11 PM
Should it not be the manager who is approached regarding the signing / availability of players rather than going to the board?
I dont know who the agent contacted?????
Interesting that you mention Nish as well.
If I remember correctly both Rankin and Nish were linked with Hibs around about December (when JC was still in charge). JC storms out in a huff a couple of weeks later (I'm not entirely sure why?) but it seems JC was not interested in Rankin (and possibly Nish either).

Is anyone sure why he left, although he never signed either player.


Yet almost as soon as Mixu is in the door these two follow.

What does that say about Mixu?


There is no consistency in the management team of that time. Yet the new guy has brought in two players we were linked with prior to the old managers departure.
Maybe he fancied them i dont know, but i'm very sure petrie does not sign our players.

I'm not convinced the fans have had the full story. As someone else pointed out we are unlikely to hear grumbles of discontent from the current incumbent (whoever they may be) and from recent previous managers there has been allusions to unhappiness with the freedom the Hibs "manager" has to operate.

Yet ever one of them seems happy to take the shilling

Anyway, I'm not really sure our discussion is going anywhere so I'll leave it at this: I think the Hibs board may have more influence on player recruitment than they would care to let on.
Either let the manager manage or else appoint a "football person" (I hate that phrase, but you know what I mean) as director of football.

Feel free to disagree...! :greengrin


[as an aside if (when) CC does go it will be interesting to see whether we are still in pursuit of the same players we have been linked with so far (i.e. Porter, Rooney, Towell, etc.) or whether we will have a new list of targets]

I do disagree, i don't think they do interfere like you suggest, they might put players to the manager that have intimated they are available to the club, but i don't think for one minute they sign them if the manager does not want them.

smurf
27-06-2011, 01:20 PM
On what basis would you come up with that nonsense?

That the manager is asked to give targets and the board decides which of those targets to persue...

silverhibee
27-06-2011, 02:02 PM
Could it be agents get in touch with the club about players, and the board pass on these agents players to the manager? I'd bet every penny i own Rankin and Nish were not the only players offered to the board.

Should the agent not be getting in touch with the manager first about players and if the manager likes the player he gets in touch with the board about signing said player, why do agents have to go through the board first, its not as if RP is picking the team or anything like that. :greengrin

blackpoolhibs
27-06-2011, 02:10 PM
Should the agent not be getting in touch with the manager first about players and if the manager likes the player he gets in touch with the board about signing said player, why do agents have to go through the board first, its not as if RP is picking the team or anything like that. :greengrin

Perhaps they did? Perhaps this was all petrie did was pass on information that had been given to previous managers?

Maybe some managers dont deal with agents, i know some have come out and said so in the past?

ancient hibee
27-06-2011, 03:03 PM
Agents will deal with the tea lady if they think there's a percentage in it.Of course they will contact the board as that is who they are used to dealing with.A manager won't waste his time sitting in on wage contracts so it is quite likely that the agent will actually know Petrie better from previous negotiations.Petrie however will not be daft enough to sign a player against the manager's wishes and pay him to sit in the stand.Nish in the SPL top 10 goal scorers-Rankin driving force at ICT-both semed good signings.