What, Derek was a scout as well as a chairman as well as a Chief executive as well as an advisor as well as a businessman in his own right. There was me thinking the manager identified a player he wanted to sign and then went to the chairman. No wonder no one else would sit on the chairman's seat🙄
£46Million debt
What, Derek was a scout as well as a chairman as well as a Chief executive as well as an advisor as well as a businessman in his own right. There was me thinking the manager identified a player he wanted to sign and then went to the chairman. No wonder no one else would sit on the chairman's seat🙄
Hemmings > chairmen > manager > scout .
If Hemmings were to interfere with who the manager chose to sign , he would quite rightly get lynched .
The manager and scout got the decisions wrong , Derek got it wrong by allowing the change in strategy and Hemmings trusted the peoples judgement who he employed .
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2012
- Messages
- 1,260
We've been through the structure earlier.
The scout sees the player, he advises his manager, he advises his chairman he wants some money for x player identified, he advises his board / investors that he needs some money for x who's been identified by his manager.
They all have a role as that is their job!
So ultimately the failing could be said to come from whoever thought buying x was a good idea be it the scout or manager. The chairman appoints the manager so he should also carry part of the can.
The one person who shouldn't be expected to know whether the player is any good is the investor, that's not his job.
This isn't unique to Preston, it's how businesses are run throughout the world, delegation of tasks to the people who should know better.
The scout sees the player, he advises his manager, he advises his chairman he wants some money for x player identified, he advises his board / investors that he needs some money for x who's been identified by his manager.
They all have a role as that is their job!
So ultimately the failing could be said to come from whoever thought buying x was a good idea be it the scout or manager. The chairman appoints the manager so he should also carry part of the can.
The one person who shouldn't be expected to know whether the player is any good is the investor, that's not his job.
This isn't unique to Preston, it's how businesses are run throughout the world, delegation of tasks to the people who should know better.
You mean a scapegoat to sack when strategic decision makers balls up....and yes the strategic decision maker (the owner in this instance) IS RELEVANT in football in my opinion.
Ah got it, everyone was wrong except Hemmings whose unfortunate judgement in insisting Derek remain as chairman caused us to have the very large debt. Just a small point though, by eck them loans haven't half grown since Derek went and the player turnover has doubled. It explains PR talking double Dutch about winning draws the poor sod must be shattered.
Irvine was the main person who got it wrong .
Shaw did what a chairman does and supported his manager , and Hemmings supported the decisions that Shaw supported .
Would you be happy if Hemmings micro managed everything ?
Up until Irvine Hemmings would have had no reason to question the running of the club as wages were under control and we operated a sensible transfer policy .
When Irvine got sacked the wage bill had increased massively in a short space of time with a number of the signings struggling to make a impact on the squad .
Yes , since then there have been a host of bad decisions but the initial problem started with Irvine , everything else is a symptom if his bad buys.
Only a fool would dismiss this point!!!
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2012
- Messages
- 1,260
No, only someone who struggles with the concept of a business model would support it.
Jesus, your arrogance knows no bounds.
Look, you continue on your crusade of insisting that everything is rosey, I would rather deal with the obvious.
Which you dont of course...struggle with the concept I mean.
After all football is run exactly the same as most other businesses.....
EXCEPT FOR THE DEBT OF COURSE
...and you are alluding to me struggling with the concept of a business model.
Please please....get real.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2012
- Messages
- 1,260
I understand that for a business to run effectively it can't be micromanaged by investors yes, and that applies to any business even the running of a football club.
I appreciate that and Man Utd are the classic example with the Glazers (sp).
Although I have to say that I find the level of disconnect you say exists between Hemmings and the manager quite astonishing based on what previous managers have said regarding their relationships with the owner. Phil Brown in particular.
Perhaps Ridsdale has severed the link...after all he did talk Hemmings out of sacking Westley after the Brentford game last season.
I don't know why there's such debate about any of this. No single person can be held accountable, responsible and culpable for all of our problems. The club has been mismanaged both on the pitch and in the Boardroom for years. Lots of people are to blame, just to different degrees.
Trevor Hemmings: No one forced him to put his money into the club. But he did so. Much of it was spent unwisely and ultimately he felt he had to step in to protect his investment (which would have been all but wiped out should we have entered into administration). Any investment was his call, just as it is mine if I choose to invest thousands of pounds in a company whose share value plummets overnight. I can't ring the CEO when this happens and ask for a refund! And now he's the owner, he is also accountable for all affairs at the club under his watch. And I need only reference Maurice Lindsay, Phil Brown, Peter Ridsdale and Graham Westley to underline what a poor fist he's making of it.
Derek Shaw and the previous board: We may have enjoyed some of our best times during their tenure but they were the custodians of the club who ended up going cap-in-hand to Hemmings to try and shore our Championship position up. They sanctioned a host of appalling signings on ludicrous contracts and it was on their watch that we became totally reliant upon Hemmings' funding to keep afloat. The good times don't stop this being the case I'm afraid, no matter how ardent a supporter of Shaw you are. Before Hemmings took over, the Board were accountable for the club. And their mismanagement told in a number of ways, namely...
The appointment of Alan Irvine: Shumilikoski, Trotman, Elliott, Collins, Hart, Nolan, Nicholson, Parry, Chaplow...the list is endless. A host of overpaid players who failed to deliver for the club and who formed part of the squad as it started to slide from grace. But Irvine didn't sign the players himself, he didn't agree their contract terms. All he could do was recommend they should be signed. He was responsible for giving the Board (a) sound advice on the players we should sign and (b) for getting the best out of them once they were here. On both counts, he ultimately failed.
You could go on and on but I haven't the time or the inclination to depress myself by writing about Darren Ferguson, Maurice Lindsay or Graham Westley. Suffice to say, they have all had hands in our demise as well.
We have endured a succession of bad decisions at all levels of the club for far too long. Looking back on it makes me shudder in horror. We shouldn't be trying to exonerate any of them.
Bloody hell now I am depressed .............but fair comment all the same
Just got to keep hoping and praying that that light appears at the end of the tunnel soon !!
My little lad will be at the age to go on soon , I just hope we are on the upward curve by then !!!!
Brilliant post.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 10,527
Brilliant post hitman. I only have a slight beef with this bit.
To me, in order to do their job effectively, a manager should make recommendations on what a player is worth financially and work in conjunction to with the chairman to make sure that resources are spent effectively. That means not handing out expensive contract extensions to tried and tested crocks like Mellor and Brown and not signing people with knackered knees like Nicholls.
In my mind, we spend 3 or 4 years on candy shop management acting like we were playing Football Manager. Consequently millions of pounds was pissed away. Every layer of management was culpable here. The investor (Hemmings) for not taking sufficient interest in how his loans were spent, the chairman (Shaw) for sanctioning these deals and the football management (primarily Simpson and Irvine) for signing inappropriate players.
Very good post, could argue some bits, but as its all history and our problem is the future, whats your take on what needs to be done now.