Head of recruitment

But is he just recruiting the people that Hughes asks for?

 

Nobody really knows what he does as he's only the head scout with Hughes having the final say. He could be putting very good players forward and Hughes rejects them or even he could be finding players then the budget isn't there for them. I don't think this squad is as bad as the results have been and the team is underachieving.

Tonight, Saturday and Harrogate we've not looked like we had any plan to get back in the game and almost just throwing players forward in hope rather than expectation.

 

You can't just sack everyone when it goes a bit wrong.

Stephen Gent isn't picking the team or the tactics, it's not his fault the players seem to lack a backbone - that's got to be the gaffer.

Let me guess, if we install a Director of Football (which we absolutely must do) there would be calls for him to go every time we change managers?

No, not for me.

Gent stays and we judge his performance with another gaffer.

 

Surely if we employ a DoF the ideal solution would be sack the DoF and keep the head coach

 

I don’t agree with having a recruitment guy like this, who has achieved nothing in the game. He shouldn’t be signing players for a manager who has a far bigger standing. If we were basing it on xG or stats and there was a method in it, and we were developing players and selling on, then I think you’d accept it. But I didnt like it when Abbot - a failed manager - was signing players for McCall either.

both guys, like Archie Christie as well, just seem to have signed with no real strategy

 

That's not how it works though is it? Hughes has the final say on who we sign. It's rare that a big name goes into recruiting rather than coaching/management because it's less profile (and pay).

Greg Abbott's helped Carlisle go from L2 strugglers into L1 as their head of recruitment.

There seems to be a strange reluctance in our fanbase to accept that coaching, managing and recruiting is a joint effort.

 

Yes, he will have the final say but my understanding is the chairman sets the budget. Recruitment man draws up a shortlist of five or six names per position - some cheaper than others. Then the committee get together and discuss the options presented?

chairman may refuse to sanction option a), so they then move on to agreed option b), then c) etc

i.e. the manager is only as good as the shortlist he’s working from - and recruitment man compiles that.

some of our signings just seem random though - not like they were planned months ago, the loans especially.

 

No he isn’t. He is recruiting the positions that Hughes is asking for. Gent is in control of recruitment. Hughes gets the final say though.

 

This last sentence: there's so much push back on having anything outside of a manager, it's a bit strange. Not necessarily with Gent, but certainly with a DoF or someone to work above the manager.

I don't really get it.

Even if Gent did leave, I'd still want a DoF (long term), a manager (term based on success), and a recruitment specialist (ideally long term) as an absolute bare minimum.

But then we have to remember, it wasn't that long ago that certain managers (was it Bowyer?) wasn't even allowed an assistant at one point thanks to the higher ups.

 

So Hughes gives a brief and then has final say. So how is Gent in control? In control implies that it is his call.

 

I'm undecided on Gent. Some of the sigings seem poor, but I think that's largely caused by our poor recruitment strategy, squad management and use of the budget which must come from Hughes/Sparks.

Once again we have a heavily bloated squad of mediocre players rather than a lean squad of quality players.

We've renewed several contracts over the last two seasons for average players frequently out of the starting 11.

We finished last season with a squad geared towards 4231, and needed 4-5 quality additions to enhance that. Instead we opted to sign players to go 3 at the back which didn't complement the players already ay the club. Then right before deadline day we've panicked and brought in several players capable of playing 4231. So rather than the 5 quality additions, we've brought in large numbers... Again!

Perhaps Gent has put forwards some quality names. But if you're spreading your budget too thinly across an inflated squad, the chances are you'll miss out on the best signings.

 

Greg abbott was also part of our recruitment team not long ago.
Remind us how that went?

 

Hughes was involved in identifying and recruiting Gent to the role, if Gent isn't identifying the players Hughes wants then he could probably remove him. He certainly doesn't need to sign anyone he doesn't want.

It's not like past relationships we've had at VP where Richmond was signing players for Hutchings, Lawn/Christie were signing players for Jackson or Rahic for Collins because those managers were just happy to have the job.

The Head of Recruitment is not above the manager, examples of people in those roles who have a better pedigree in the game than managers are few and far between. In the Premier League Brighton and Brentford are probably the most effective recruiters at the moment, Brighton's Head of Recruitment is Paul Jewell's son, and I think Brentford's was brought in from Bury.

It's a massive failure on all concerned that recruitment for this year has taken us backwards, and, in particular, that the failings of panic loan signings who add nothing seem to have been repeated leaving us with a bloated squad with less quality. Hughes and Gent should both be accountable for it.

 

My summary at the moment is….they’re all equally as bad as each other: Rupp, sparks, gent, hughes, all the players….unfortunately we can’t sack them all, unless an oil sheikh buys us out

 

So if a season goes tits up…., who do we sack… the Director of Football or the Manager.

Therein lies the problem with that proposition.

 

Yes, it was Bowyer. I think that was in the aftermath of relegation with an expensive squad and under JR who, in some ways understandably, was obsessed with controlling spend.

We have progressed from then, from a financial perspective, and have a better resourced backroom setup - it's just that the appointments are consistently poor, whether that is in their ability or cultural fit.