Might MM walk away?

[lrm14]

12 hours ago, Ellafella said:

I heard Sam Rush say quite clearly that all of the decisions have been Board decisions not autocratic {ie MM only} ones. There is clearly an expectation that all managers are subject to key performance indicators so clearly the managers have an explicit brief which isn't just about results and league position. Perhaps those managers have "lost sight" of what they are being judged on...to their peril. So in short, decisions that have been taken have been when their deviation from the brief has been too wide.... It all sounds to me like very fair and scientific modus operandus and not whimsy, which is probably quite rare in the world of football yet increasingly the norm in modern, well-run organisations. It's how I would run things. 

That's probably how I would run the club also and if that's how the club is ran, then great. That's what we've heard from the club though and they're hardly going to say 'yeah the board decided on this but Mel said sod it and did otherwise'. I'm not saying that's what happened or that they're lying, I doubt that's the case. I'm just saying when reputable journalists are claiming he's very 'hands on' with his approach and then immediately afterwards at a forum they say the opposite, it poses a few questions. Chairmen that get overly involved with issues they shouldn't don't usually benefit the club with their actions in the long run.  

If the decision's made have been by the board, then I'd simply direct the criticism I've had over what I regarded as Mel's decisions to them. I'm very curious what the key performance indicators and the explicit brief say in that case as there doesn't seem to be too much consistency with the decisions. Clement seemed to go for footballing reasons, Mac the 2nd time for league position and Pearson for both. What worries me about all of them is that there seems to be stuff behind the scenes with all of them (less so Pearson, he was going regardless thank god).

Regardless of the decisions they've made over the past few years, I'm praying they give Rowett time. If we're around upper mid-table next season around the same time and they give him the job, I'd argue their criteria are far too harsh.

[Ken Tram]

It's impossible to imagine being in MM's position, but if I won the EuroMillions and could afford to be Chairman, then I would never contemplate "walking away," unless I thought that Derby would do better under someone else.

I certainly wouldn't consider putting money into an alternative "charitable cause" if I could afford to put it into Derby. 

So, I think I'd be wanting to hear, "Ken, Ken, Give us a wave!" occasionally. 

I guess I might walk away if fans no longer wanted my involvement, so perhaps when some of us get angry with MM we should be careful what we wish for.

[EssendonRam]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 22:01, David said:

Following on from @archied post, for what it's worth, this is my interpretation of what the "Derby Way" is with a few thoughts thrown in, grammar will be awful, there is no direct quotes from anyone at the club nothing, just personal opinions on everything I've heard and seen the club put out. I could be wrong on many parts, it has happened.

Entertaining Winning Football

Whilst promotion is the ultimate goal, they want to play football the right way and entertain the fans. There is no set formation managers must play, they have complete freedom but they are not looking for a repeat of a Billy Davies promotion.

Now this is does get slightly complicated, we was told at Moor Farm when Clement arrived that we want to create a philosophy at the club where you can easily replace the head coach who can come in and work with the squad with minimum disruption.

What we don't want is to be ripping up the squad and restarting back at square 1 with each change.

Now I know what you're thinking, Clement, Pearson, McClaren, Rowett couldn't be any different, but as we have been told each manager incoming was given a document highlighting what the club expects and were fully aware before signing on the dotted line.

Maybe they did get it wrong at times but you have to remember, when the manager is sat in front of you, nodding away like a Churchill dog, enthusiastically getting on board with everything that the club is asking, why wouldn't you give him the job?

Ask Leicester fans if Pearson played entertaining football? To say he wasn't capable isn't true at all. Personally I think he's a little tapped and wouldn't have touched him with a barge pole but he is proven in this league to take a team up with entertaining football, I can see why they brought him in without really agreeing with it.

Pulls on his lime green jumper, bank account details given to the Payroll team, Derby Way brochure in the bin and its go time, if I see any player over the half way line or running I want 100 press ups, we defend that goal behind us and we keep defending it until the ref blows his whistle. But in all seriousness not only did he stray so far off the plan but suspended for reasons still unknown, had to not been for that would he have been given more time? Probably not when you look at how McClaren's time was cut short.

Rowett who a few is saying more like Pearson, I'm not really seeing that to be honest, his job description would have been different at Birmingham and Burton, as yet we have not seen what he is capable of with a Garage full of tools and the expectation of a fancy motor to roll out the door, it's a risk of course but as with Clement we have seen they are willing to take risks. 

He's proven to get the best out of what he has had before, can he get the best out of this rabble? Time will tell.

No 2 managers are the same, every single one will have their own unique way of having the team play, I don't think it's as simple as slotting one square block in after another, just like it's not that easy to find a carbon copy of Chris Martin, the best suggestion we've seen on here is Kenwyne Jones. I rest my case.

If something isn't working, why try try again, you have to try a slightly different way of doing things. Some seem to be under the impression that Martin coming back is going to see a repeat of 13/14 and 4-3-3, nobody from the club or anywhere has said that. Martin is clearly capable of playing in different systems by continuing his scoring form in a 4-2-3-1 at Fulham. 

Some players and managers get pigeon holed into one system, how do they move on and play/manage for other clubs? Think about it.

No passengers

If you are at Derby County you have to be fully committed to the cause 100%, this applies to both managers and players. 

Create a pathway from the academy to the first team

Why spend £30m if you want to bring through the youth? Difficult one as you can't just rush youngsters through if they are not ready, it doesn't happen overnight and you're not going to have 3 or 4 in the team at the weekend.

Mel has said time and time again, he will back the manager in transfers 100% from the minute he walks in the door till he's shown the door. No manager will ever be left wanting or overruled on signings or departures.

Tough one, I've said it before I still think you need someone in there, an ex manager, someone with years of experience and put in a DOF role that can say look, come into my office and explain to me why you want to swap Vydra for Martin, here's the chalk, a copy of the Derby Way if you've lost yours. This has to be someone that the manager respects through the game.  

I know some of you want to know who exactly is on the recruitment team, which idiot found X player and all that but if the manager has the final say, for me personally he should be accountable. I've not heard one manager say I wasn't backed in the transfer market, I had signings forced upon me, players taken away.

Anyhow these are the main points that " I think" I understand from mainly the Moor Farm visits that we went on, I'm sure it's a more in depth plan that isn't for public knowledge which contains behind the scene stuff that we'll only find out with significant investment that gives us a seat in the board room.

 

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 22:45, David said:

I wouldn't say every club but many yes, "The Derby Way" title maybe should have been kept for internal purposes only but I believe it was used as a way to say to communicate with the fans this is what we want, get behind us and we will give you the entertaining football you all want.

It's probably not been communicated as well as it could have as there wouldn't be the confusion over the sackings.

When you spend £30m it is hard not to think that's it we're going for it, then when a manager gets the boot after a bad run and we're 5th stregenthens that view. 

Next X manager gets replaced with X manager that's it the plans changed, now what are we doing, it's chaos, when in reality it's exactly the same plan.

Swansea an example which was used at the time, I'm sure their plan is still the same, Monk, Bradley and Clement are not exactly identical like for like swaps.

There's a lot to be said for your summation, @David so thank you for it. For what it's worth, it seems to me you've come closest to explaining the Derby Way of those i've read. I'd add that (rather obviously I suppose) the Soton/Swansea model becomes the Derby Way if it's centred on Making Derby Great Again (if the slogan fits...) The comment re 100% commitment rings true, especially if you look at McClaren's first demise in that light. I've always criticised Morris for blowing up the managed exit plan on the basis that it showed insufficient loyalty but it is consistent with what you're saying.

Where I diverge is still on the question of how we've either recruited managers or fired them. If you're right that prospective managers agreed to do one thing and then did another, it's still a failure of the recruiting process. While recruitment can never be fail-safe, there are techniques which should identify and weed out nodding charlatans. Two in a row (Clement and Pearson; McClaren 2 was only a temporary appointment and was possibly never going to be a longer-term candidate whether he knew it or not) is strongly indicative that the issue lay with the recruiters.