Manager Race

[irnbru]

5 minutes ago, Chicken_Soup said:

I don’t think it’s as unusual or confusing as is being made out. Would it be different if Davies’ title was Director of Football and the other guy was Manager or Head Coach? It’s very common for clubs to have a head coach responsible for training and picking the team, with another role behind the scenes. The days of a “Manager” as a club figurehead, responsible for everything, and a Chairman holding the purse strings have been gone for a while.

Do the job titles matter that much? Anyone applying for the job will obviously be happy with the structure they’re stepping into. 
 

 

It says Davies is doing it until the end of the season and it's a coach to develop in that time so there's a few questions:

Is this just a temporary arrangement? Is Davies leaving? Who is actually responsible for the first team? 

It doesn't say it's a head coach either so presumably Davies, a guy who said he doesn't want the job, is in charge. Does that mean he's just developing someone to take charge from next season? 

[Tubes]

Why can’t we just be fucking normal! The ambiguity continues, brilliant.

[SpoonTon]

I mean, it's the hole that we've dug for ourselves by appointing Davies as Technical Head Coach. I wasn't sure how there could be any other outcome than the ambiguity we've just been served. 

[Chicken_Soup]

17 minutes ago, irnbru said:

It says Davies is doing it until the end of the season and it's a coach to develop in that time so there's a few questions:

Is this just a temporary arrangement? Is Davies leaving? Who is actually responsible for the first team? 

It doesn't say it's a head coach either so presumably Davies, a guy who said he doesn't want the job, is in charge. Does that mean he's just developing someone to take charge from next season? 

Your use of the term “in charge” is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. In charge of what? Expecting one person to be in charge of everything at a football club is simplistic thinking from a bygone era. 

 

[dunning1874]

1 hour ago, Chicken_Soup said:

I don’t think it’s as unusual or confusing as is being made out. Would it be different if Davies’ title was Director of Football and the other guy was Manager or Head Coach? It’s very common for clubs to have a head coach responsible for training and picking the team, with another role behind the scenes. The days of a “Manager” as a club figurehead, responsible for everything, and a Chairman holding the purse strings have been gone for a while.

Do the job titles matter that much? Anyone applying for the job will obviously be happy with the structure they’re stepping into. 
 

 

When you have a Director of Football and a manager or head coach, everyone knows that the manager/head coach is responsible for taking training and picking the team. It is completely unclear from that statement whether Davies or the new appointment will be responsible for taking training and picking the team.

No one would care about the job titles if they actually defined what the roles involve, but right now what everyone is supposed to be doing is as clear as mud.

[Chicken_Soup]

18 minutes ago, dunning1874 said:

When you have a Director of Football and a manager or head coach, everyone knows that the manager/head coach is responsible for taking training and picking the team. It is completely unclear from that statement whether Davies or the new appointment will be responsible for taking training and picking the team.

No one would care about the job titles if they actually defined what the roles involve, but right now what everyone is supposed to be doing is as clear as mud.

Nobody was wondering if Davies was picking the team when Imrie was here, I see no reason why that should change, unless they’ve specified it would - which they haven’t.  
 

As for training, some managers are more involved than others. Martin O’Neill, for example, was reported to have mostly left training to Maloney and Fotheringham in his recent spell at Celtic. Nobody cared. Other managers are more hands on. Why does it matter if it’s Davies or (for example) Miller who’s setting the training agenda and delegating which coaches are taking which sessions throughout the week? 

The only problem for me here is if it’s unclear to applicants and is causing us a problem in attracting the right candidates. I doubt it’ll have an impact, as more detailed discussions will naturally take place as part of the application process, but time will tell. 

 

[Greacen2000]

1 hour ago, Chicken_Soup said:

Your use of the term “in charge” is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. In charge of what?

If the club had been clearer on the answer to this question, nobody would be as confused as they are right now

Expecting one person to be in charge of everything at a football club is simplistic thinking from a bygone era. 

I don't see anyone is saying that this is what they expect. 

My relief at the club finally issuing an update quickly turned to frustration when the opaque nature of the statement became apparent. All that is being asked for here is clarity on the following points

• What is the nature of Davies technical head coach role - is it an assistant/co-manager type thing (as seemed to be the case during Imries time), is it a DoF/technical director/performance director who will sit between head coach & board in the org structure (as might be suggested by the current state of affairs), or is it some sort of mentor to help develop a newly appointed rookie coach into Morton Manager material (or maybe a combination of a couple of these)?
• How long do we expect Davies to be here for?  The statement mentions until the end of the season - does this mean he will be leaving?  If so then it might not be good from a medium-long term strategy pov to have him acting in a DoF type role (if that is even what he is doing).  If on the other hand it is to be some sort of mentor to help in "supporting the development of this individual", what is the plan for when he leaves(as 5 months doesn't feel like a lot of time)?
• What is the role we are recruiting for? the statement just says "an enthusiastic and driven coach to work with Billy during this period".  I do not know what this means.

I congratulate you on not being confused by this situation and thinking that the clubs comms are adequate, but you seem to be in a minority.  I am not against us having a DoF & Head coach type setup, but nowhere has it been stated that this is the intention. 

 

Edited December 18, 2025 by Greacen2000

[Chicken_Soup]

13 minutes ago, Greacen2000 said:

I congratulate you on not being confused by this situation and thinking that the clubs comms are adequate, but you seem to be in a minority.  I am not against us having a DoF & Head coach type setup, but nowhere has it been stated that this is the intention. 

 

I warmly accept your congratulations.  If people want more detailed information about the roles then hopefully it’s forthcoming.
 

There will be an easy opportunity for the club to note that desire from fans and address it when making the appointment. 

 

[Charles_Joe]

Expect Tidser taking the team at Partick on the 3rd Jan.

[SpoonTon]

27 minutes ago, Chicken_Soup said:

Nobody was wondering if Davies was picking the team when Imrie was here, I see no reason why that should change, unless they’ve specified it would - which they haven’t.  
 

 

Imrie was the First Team Manager. We're looking to appoint a "coach" to work with Davies until the end of the season. 

That would appear to be a change in role which implies less authority than Imrie had. It's certainly ambiguous as to who is in charge of what. I'd actually read that statement as Davies being more in control of things like team selection (as a "coach", not head coach or manager, wouldn't usually have that responsibility). 

[Greacen2000]

2 hours ago, port-ton said:

He’s my favorite Morton player of all time but this absolutely stinks of Laird hiring Tidser

 

22 minutes ago, Charles_Joe said:

Expect Tidser taking the team at Partick on the 3rd Jan.

 

This is exactly where my head went to after reading this latest statement.  I wasn't going to mention it on here as it was based on nothing other than vibes but since you guys have mentioned the name I will too.  At this stage I would be amazed if we appoint anyone other than him

[Greacen2000]

54 minutes ago, Chicken_Soup said:

Nobody was wondering if Davies was picking the team when Imrie was here

Imrie was the manager and it was abundantly clear that he was the man responsible for picking the team.  why would anyone have questioned it at the time???

54 minutes ago, Chicken_Soup said:

I see no reason why that should change, unless they’ve specified it would - which they haven’t.  

Things have changed though - Imrie left and we have had a period of 3 weeks where the technical head coach presumably has been selecting the team, and we have now been told that "a coach"(not a new manager or a head coach) will be recruited to work with said technical head coach.  It is perfectly reasonable to seek clarification on roles & responsibilities.

54 minutes ago, Chicken_Soup said:

As for training, some managers are more involved than others. Martin O’Neill, for example, was reported to have mostly left training to Maloney and Fotheringham in his recent spell at Celtic. Nobody cared. Other managers are more hands on. Why does it matter if it’s Davies or (for example) Miller who’s setting the training agenda and delegating which coaches are taking which sessions throughout the week? 

It doesn't matter - what matters is who has responsibility for these tasks.  O'Neill was quite clearly & unambiguously the manager.  He had full responsibility and chose to delegate those responsibilities to his coaches.  The same was the case here when Imrie was the manager.  It feels like we are now going in a different direction (which I am fine with), but nothing coming out of the club has went any way towards clarifying the situation.  Quite the opposite in fact

54 minutes ago, Chicken_Soup said:

The only problem for me here is if it’s unclear to applicants and is causing us a problem in attracting the right candidates. I doubt it’ll have an impact, as more detailed discussions will naturally take place as part of the application process, but time will tell. 

Since you are so adamant that everything here is totally normal and not at all confusing, why would it be unclear to any potential candidates?

 

[TRVMP]

2 hours ago, Chicken_Soup said:

I don’t think it’s as unusual or confusing as is being made out. Would it be different if Davies’ title was Director of Football and the other guy was Manager or Head Coach? It’s very common for clubs to have a head coach responsible for training and picking the team, with another role behind the scenes. The days of a “Manager” as a club figurehead, responsible for everything, and a Chairman holding the purse strings have been gone for a while.

Do the job titles matter that much? Anyone applying for the job will obviously be happy with the structure they’re stepping into. 
 

 

The fact that you have to switch the titles around to make it make any sense indicates that it actually is pretty unusual.

Reporting to a "technical head coach" until the summer (then what happens?) is unique. It doesn't mean it's destined to fail but it is the weirdest system imaginable. If a DoF is set to leave in summer it's obvious what happens next - a new DoF comes in. If a "technical head coach" leaves do we advertise for a new one? No, probably not, since it's made up.

38 minutes ago, Greacen2000 said:

 

 

This is exactly where my head went to after reading this latest statement.  I wasn't going to mention it on here as it was based on nothing other than vibes but since you guys have mentioned the name I will too.  At this stage I would be amazed if we appoint anyone other than him

This is the biggest problem of all. He utterly failed at full-time management, completely and totally, commanded zero respect from his players, set them up badly, and suffered a string of dreadful results. Because he's a nice, driven guy and because Billy's lurking in the stand like the Phantom of the Opera he's going to suddenly undo all that? Aye, stranger things have happened, maybe he'll prove me wrong, but IMO his limit is League One with a part-time squad, a big budget, and zero expectations of success.

Edited December 18, 2025 by TRVMP

[Chicken_Soup]

8 minutes ago, Greacen2000 said:

Imrie was the manager and it was abundantly clear that he was the man responsible for picking the team.  why would anyone have questioned it at the time???

Things have changed though - Imrie left and we have had a period of 3 weeks where the technical head coach presumably has been selecting the team, and we have now been told that "a coach"(not a new manager or a head coach) will be recruited to work with said technical head coach.  It is perfectly reasonable to seek clarification on roles & responsibilities.

It doesn't matter - what matters is who has responsibility for these tasks.  O'Neill was quite clearly & unambiguously the manager.  He had full responsibility and chose to delegate those responsibilities to his coaches.  The same was the case here when Imrie was the manager.  It feels like we are now going in a different direction (which I am fine with), but nothing coming out of the club has went any way towards clarifying the situation.  Quite the opposite in fact

Since you are so adamant that everything here is totally normal and not at all confusing, why would it be unclear to any potential candidates?

 

I’m not adamant about anything, I just have a different opinion to you. I don’t think it will be unclear to any candidates, hence why I didn’t think it was a problem. It might be a problem externally if it’s annoyed so many fans, it just hasn’t annoyed me.

In the example of Celtic, Paul Tisdale is Head of Football Operations, so O’Neill didn’t have “full responsibility”, whatever that means. His was one role within a larger operation where he had a set of responsibilities, and he chose to delegate some of them as he saw fit. Quite different to the old fashioned “Manager” role of years gone by, and yet nothing unusual about it.

 

[Chicken_Soup]

12 minutes ago, TRVMP said:

The fact that you have to switch the titles around to make it make any sense indicates that it actually is pretty unusual.

Reporting to a "technical head coach" until the summer (then what happens?) is unique. It doesn't mean it's destined to fail but it is the weirdest system imaginable. If a DoF is set to leave in summer it's obvious what happens next - a new DoF comes in. If a "technical head coach" leaves do we advertise for a new one? No, probably not, since it's made up.

Wouldn’t the uncertainty for 2026/27 be based on the fact that we’ve yet to decide if we’re continuing the Dalrada partnership? I doubt we’d be in a position to keep Davies in that role if we chose to discontinue the sponsorship at the end of the season. 

[SpoonTon]

8 minutes ago, Chicken_Soup said:

I’m not adamant about anything, I just have a different opinion to you. I don’t think it will be unclear to any candidates, hence why I didn’t think it was a problem. It might be a problem externally if it’s annoyed so many fans, it just hasn’t annoyed me.

In the example of Celtic, Paul Tisdale is Head of Football Operations, so O’Neill didn’t have “full responsibility”, whatever that means. His was one role within a larger operation where he had a set of responsibilities, and he chose to delegate some of them as he saw fit. Quite different to the old fashioned “Manager” role of years gone by, and yet nothing unusual about it.

 

If Billy Davies was Head of Football Operations and we were looking to appoint a new first team Manager then nobody would be complaining about any confusion, because that's quite clear and something which has become quite common. A Technical Head Coach working with a Coach is about as clear as mud and very much unusual (perhaps unique). 

[Greacen2000]

14 minutes ago, Chicken_Soup said:

In the example of Celtic, Paul Tisdale is Head of Football Operations, so O’Neill didn’t have “full responsibility”, whatever that means. His was one role within a larger operation where he had a set of responsibilities, and he chose to delegate some of them as he saw fit. Quite different to the old fashioned “Manager” role of years gone by, and yet nothing unusual about it.

Do you actually think Tisdale has ever had anything to do with organising training sessions or selecting the team?  You explicitly mentioned Maloney & Fotheringham taking training sessions as an example of why we shouldn't care about exactly who is doing what when it comes to running the first team (something that O'Neill had full responsibility for during his time at Celtic).  Not sure what relevance Tisdale has to this conversation.

Once again and just to be 100% clear - I am fine with different responsibilities being assigned to different roles.  I am just very confused as to where that division of responsibilities lies in our current & proposed future setup.

Edited December 18, 2025 by Greacen2000

[Chicken_Soup]

4 minutes ago, Greacen2000 said:

Do you actually think Tisdale has ever had anything to do with organising training sessions or selecting the team?  You explicitly mentioned Maloney & Fotheringham taking training sessions as an example of why we shouldn't care about exactly who is doing what when it comes to running the first team (something that O'Neill had full responsibility for during his time at Celtic).  Not sure what relevance Tisdale has to this conversation.

Once again and just to be 100% clear - I am fine with different responsibilities being assigned to different roles.  I am just very confused as to where that division of responsibilities lies.

Everything involved in Tisdale’s role would once have been the responsibility of a manager, and Tisdale’s role would not have existed. So what you would once have described as “full responsibility” is not what the manager at most clubs now have, this is one example.
 

 

[Madton]

The last few pages perfectly sums up how much of a shitshow we are at board level...

[Greacen2000]

2 minutes ago, Chicken_Soup said:

Everything involved in Tisdale’s role would once have been the responsibility of a manager, and Tisdale’s role would not have existed. So what you would once have described as “full responsibility” is not what the manager at most clubs now have, this is one example.
 

 

sorry you have completely lost me here.  what exactly is your point about Paul Tisdale and what relevance does it have to this discussion?  I get that things like player recruitment etc are now under the remit of the DoF where in the olden days it would solely have been the job of the manager, but nobody is talking about that here.