Keith Hill has gone

What FV lack in cash they have to make up for by being smart and have a plan, hopefully this is stage one of a well thought out long term plan, Corona virus obviously was not part of any plan hence Emma going to save cash. 

Looks like a long list of candidates lets hope they make a good choice and the fans stick with them. KH talked himself out of favour at board level and with the fans we need a new Rioch type to get a positive vibe back, A lot on the list i know little about but maybe Sam Ricketts looks the part ?

If part of the plan is to emulate Brentford we could do much worse.

They've got the right idea for how they want to run thongs, but Brentford's model has still taken consistent levels of investment to get it off the ground.

Shame Hill didn't work out as he clearly loves the club, but I'm glad it's a clean break. I always lean towards taking a punt on lower league managers and players rather than known entities. Whatever happens next season needs to start with a bang.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:They've got the right idea for how they want to run thongs, but Brentford's model has still taken consistent levels of investment to get it off the ground.

Shame Hill didn't work out as he clearly loves the club, but I'm glad it's a clean break. I always lean towards taking a punt on lower league managers and players rather than known entities. Whatever happens next season needs to start with a bang.

Hill is Bolton born but he's widely known to be a United supporter.

Not unusual in Bolton as when Hill was a youngster United were winning things and Bolton were in the lower divisions.

Fwiw I don't think the Brentford model and/or Moneyball (are they meant to be the same thing?) are that good because if they were every club in the leagues would be doing them.  Aren't all clubs already looking to sign unknowns for buttons and sell them for millions?

Similarly although I can understand having a certain 'style' of play and employing 'coaches' rather than managers to fit the style as opposed to continually rip teams apart to change the style the 'manager' wants the club to play, if the chosen 'style' we put our mortgage on isn't successful and/or is so known to the opposition, then that's never going to work long term - think Coyle and his all out attack/no defence style for instance.

Compare however with Allardyce who was wrongly labelled a long ball manager when in fact he could nix it up by signing players with abundant skill such as Djorkaeff, Hierro and Okocha.

The bottom line for me is that teams and players must be able to do the basics well, the scouts should be able to spot talent,  the club must be able to attract them and the manager must be able to adapt, develop and motivate them as a team unit and be able to ongoingly out fox the opposition whilst he is here.

Allardyce seemed to get it right, Megson did in a fashion that was unpopular and no one else since.

And in these times all that needs to be done within a tight budget.

To be fair I thought Hill did ok until things obviously changed behind the scenes at the onset of the January window but after that it all turned to shit and his press conferences were utterly weird and terrible - unacceptable in fact imo.

If the idea of FV is to tick over at the third/fourth tier levels then I'm sure they could achieve that but I simply can't see how they are going to trade in profit let alone are going to get a return on their investment which in theory at least means refunding the £40m worth of initial investment in just over two years time.

Out of interest, what don’t you like about the Brentford model?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:They've got the right idea for how they want to run thongs

Are they moving into lingerie?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Out of interest, what don’t you like about the Brentford model?

I'm sure it's fine.

I'm just saying if it really was the way forward then all the other clubs would have been doing it by now.

Apparently Preston do similar but I don't know of any other club doing it?

To be honest I don't really know what the Brentford model is - I thought it was the Moneyball approach - which I was aware of having a slight interest in baseball from a number of years back - indeed I happened to watch Oakland play at the Coliseum around the time it was happening (although I was unaware of what the plan was back then and just took it as a normal game).

So if the Brentford plan is Moneyball, then are they also imposing a top down system in the way they play - as we are led to believe that is what Phoenix is here for - in which case it is a variation as such on Moneyball as not only is the plan to find underrated/overlooked players but to find underrated/overlooked players than it into a certain style of play that the club determines it wants.

I'm sure Brentford's model looks to scout the continent, in which case they are sourcing a different type of underrated/overlooked player than the likes of Faal and the young kid from Blackpool who we 'scooped' everybody else with from lower tier nonleague.

Looks to me we are looking to bring in players we can develop rather than those that have had a 'chance' at other clubs already but have not seen to be a success at where they've been for whatever reason.

If so that isn't Moneyball as per the Brentford model as I understand it, it's a different strategy seeking players in a different market, to develop and sell on.

Isn't that what most clubs do now anyway?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Are they moving into lingerie?

 
Probably be more popular with our fans if they did.

Supposedly we already had a long term plan with Keith etc. 
So a new manger brings a different plan?
Last time I checked we still have some financials not resolved and under the embargo and half a team currently. I can't immediately see how somebody coming in who knows nowt about the club will be able to do anything. Hopefully I stand to be corrected.

Sluffy wrote:

I'm sure it's fine.

I'm just saying if it really was the way forward then all the other clubs would have been doing it by now.

Apparently Preston do similar but I don't know of any other club doing it?

To be honest I don't really know what the Brentford model is - I thought it was the Moneyball approach - which I was aware of having a slight interest in baseball from a number of years back - indeed I happened to watch Oakland play at the Coliseum around the time it was happening (although I was unaware of what the plan was back then and just took it as a normal game).

So if the Brentford plan is Moneyball, then are they also imposing a top down system in the way they play - as we are led to believe that is what Phoenix is here for - in which case it is a variation as such on Moneyball as not only is the plan to find underrated/overlooked players but to find underrated/overlooked players than it into a certain style of play that the club determines it wants.

I'm sure Brentford's model looks to scout the continent, in which case they are sourcing a different type of underrated/overlooked player than the likes of Faal and the young kid from Blackpool who we 'scooped' everybody else with from lower tier nonleague.

Looks to me we are looking to bring in players we can develop rather than those that have had a 'chance' at other clubs already but have not seen to be a success at where they've been for whatever reason.

If so that isn't Moneyball as per the Brentford model as I understand it, it's a different strategy seeking players in a different market, to develop and sell on.

Isn't that what most clubs do now anyway?

I suppose the obvious question here is what is your understanding of the money ball system employed by Brentford?

I can’t pretend to be an expert but I know they cut their academy completely as they couldn’t compete with other London clubs and instead focus on a B team picking up ‘elite club’ rejects.

Wonder if the decision to cut the academy funding back is linked to this. 

There’s also a major data analysis element, no idea if we have anyone in the club at the moment who is pushing this?

Hi Sluffy, trust you’re keeping well? Naturally I need to keep people in line on the BN site and also Trotters Forever but of course you have Natasha to do that on here and who would argue with her? Certainly not me!! ;-) Anyway, no I wasn’t specifically referring to you regarding DL being a cheap option, it’s mentioned by many as if it’s something bad but I actually think it’s a plus. Much as I’d like David to get a chance I think if it was going to happen it would already have been confirmed, which probably means it won’t, which I think is a shame. It’s hard to judge who FV will go for, youth or experience? Nobody seems to be sure if they have money or not but assuming they do have the readies to run the club properly I’d like them to really push the boat out for a top coach. So many clubs take the cheap option, including us when BSA left and it’s been downhill since with those following. I’m hoping we have finally hit the bottom and our next incumbent can do a Phil Neal and turn us around.

Assuming they don’t give it to David Lee or invite Brownie back as my second choice, there are more on that list in the BN that I don’t want than do. I definitely don’t want Clough, Powell, Bowyer or Grayson, I’m cool on some of the other coaches named like Andy Hughes, Mark Kennedy, Michael Beale or Michael Jolley because I don’t see them as any better than our own David Lee or Nicky Spooner.

Those of interest to me in order of preference would be Ian Evatt, Sol Campbell and Sam Rickets. All I know about Evatt is the good job he’s done at Barrow and that has everything in front of him. He would come here seeing it as a massive leg up but one I’m sure he’d approach with vigour and ambition. He also has a reputation for good attacking football which is something we need from whoever gets the job. Sol Campbell I think has been humble enough to take on small clubs to learn his trade bottom up, which I think many players of his standing wouldn’t do. I think he did an incredible job against the odds in keeping Macc up and was definitely improving Southend before the season ended, so a big tick from me. Finally Sam Rickets who even as player I always thought would make a good manager and so it seems from his time at Shrewsbury. Whether he would want to step down a division I don’t know but I suspect like most if not all candidates, they would consider the job here as much bigger long term than where they are.

So that’s my opinion but I would still take DL over all of them and in fact Brownie too. Maybe that duo would be best but as I said, I think it would have already been confirmed if it was a goer.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

I'm sure it's fine.

I'm just saying if it really was the way forward then all the other clubs would have been doing it by now.

Apparently Preston do similar but I don't know of any other club doing it?

To be honest I don't really know what the Brentford model is - I thought it was the Moneyball approach - which I was aware of having a slight interest in baseball from a number of years back - indeed I happened to watch Oakland play at the Coliseum around the time it was happening (although I was unaware of what the plan was back then and just took it as a normal game).

So if the Brentford plan is Moneyball, then are they also imposing a top down system in the way they play - as we are led to believe that is what Phoenix is here for - in which case it is a variation as such on Moneyball as not only is the plan to find underrated/overlooked players but to find underrated/overlooked players than it into a certain style of play that the club determines it wants.

I'm sure Brentford's model looks to scout the continent, in which case they are sourcing a different type of underrated/overlooked player than the likes of Faal and the young kid from Blackpool who we 'scooped' everybody else with from lower tier nonleague.

Looks to me we are looking to bring in players we can develop rather than those that have had a 'chance' at other clubs already but have not seen to be a success at where they've been for whatever reason.

If so that isn't Moneyball as per the Brentford model as I understand it, it's a different strategy seeking players in a different market, to develop and sell on.

Isn't that what most clubs do now anyway?

I suppose the obvious question here is what is your understanding of the money ball system employed by Brentford?

I can’t pretend to be an expert but I know they cut their academy completely as they couldn’t compete with other London clubs and instead focus on a B team picking up ‘elite club’ rejects.

Wonder if the decision to cut the academy funding back is linked to this. 

There’s also a major data analysis element, no idea if we have anyone in the club at the moment who is pushing this?

I don't even believe we plan to even have a 'B' team next season!

I've not really followed football other than Bolton for many years now, let alone Brentford and how it models recruitment.

I do know though that they do recruit from Europe and I believe the simple plan is to buy players cheap (or for free) and sell on for a healthy profit.

Moneyball originally was to identify - based on statistics rather than traditional recruiting methods - players perceived to be undervalued at the clubs they were at and to trade for them, with the intent of unlocking their potential.

The film is rather good at showing how it works.

To a large extent that's what Allardyce did, he seemed to cotton on to the idea quickly, used the company that produced all the player stats and sign the players like Djorkaeff and Okocha who were out of favour at the clubs they were with but clearly still had what it takes.

His best example was probably Gary Speed who we signed when everybody else thought he was passed it. His biggest failure was probably Jardel - so it doesn't always work!

I don't know whether or not Brentford have picked up many of the elite club rejects and turned them into big money sales but they seem to have had success with the continental players they had brought in.

This model to me would seem different than what Bolton seem to be doing according to Iles if the plan seems to be develop our 'style' first (and stick with it) and bring in the coach and players who 'fit' that style.

No doubt the end aim is the same, to 'find' players cheap and sell on for high profit.

I'm not sure what sort of stats exist for players at tier three and four players and are freely available, let alone at 'reserve' team and non league level, where we would no doubt be looking to bring in players - remember that we still operate under an embargo where I guess we still can't pay transfer or loan fees(?).

I guess ultimately we will just have to wait and see what happens - Kenyon is clearly here for some reason unknown to us - a very big player at a financially bust club - so something is definitely afoot I would suggest.

I really don't think it is Moneyball if the desired relevant stats on players aren't there in the first place (maybe they are?) and I certainly can't see us scouring the continent for players so my guess it is more of the same to fill our 'limited' squad places, namely a number of experienced players to lead the team filled with a further five, six months loanees per half season and the young academy lads given a contract and maybe a few 'punts' like we've done with Faal.

Whatever it is we are stuck with it whether it works or not, so let's keep our fingers crossed that it does!

Whitesince63 wrote:Hi Sluffy, trust you’re keeping well? Naturally I need to keep people in line on the BN site and also Trotters Forever but of course you have Natasha to do that on here and who would argue with her? Certainly not me!! ;-) Anyway, no I wasn’t specifically referring to you regarding DL being a cheap option, it’s mentioned by many as if it’s something bad but I actually think it’s a plus. Much as I’d like David to get a chance I think if it was going to happen it would already have been confirmed, which probably means it won’t, which I think is a shame. It’s hard to judge who FV will go for, youth or experience? Nobody seems to be sure if they have money or not but assuming they do have the readies to run the club properly I’d like them to really push the boat out for a top coach. So many clubs take the cheap option, including us when BSA left and it’s been downhill since with those following. I’m hoping we have finally hit the bottom and our next incumbent can do a Phil Neal and turn us around.

Assuming they don’t give it to David Lee or invite Brownie back as my second choice, there are more on that list in the BN that I don’t want than do. I definitely don’t want Clough, Powell, Bowyer or Grayson, I’m cool on some of the other coaches named like Andy Hughes, Mark Kennedy, Michael Beale or Michael Jolley because I don’t see them as any better than our own David Lee or Nicky Spooner.

Those of interest to me in order of preference would be Ian Evatt, Sol Campbell and Sam Rickets. All I know about Evatt is the good job he’s done at Barrow and that has everything in front of him. He would come here seeing it as a massive leg up but one I’m sure he’d approach with vigour and ambition. He also has a reputation for good attacking football which is something we need from whoever gets the job. Sol Campbell I think has been humble enough to take on small clubs to learn his trade bottom up, which I think many players of his standing wouldn’t do. I think he did an incredible job against the odds in keeping Macc up and was definitely improving Southend before the season ended, so a big tick from me. Finally Sam Rickets who even as player I always thought would make a good manager and so it seems from his time at Shrewsbury. Whether he would want to step down a division I don’t know but I suspect like most if not all candidates, they would consider the job here as much bigger long term than where they are.

So that’s my opinion but I would still take DL over all of them and in fact Brownie too. Maybe that duo would be best but as I said, I think it would have already been confirmed if it was a goer.

Yes, I fine thanks 63, thank you for asking.

I'm sure Natasha would budge over a bit if you wanted to keep us in line as well - but I do hope you would like to post a little bit more often now you've found us once again.

Iles seems to be suggesting that Lee won't be the next manager and that we seem to be keen on somebody who is already in a job, so let's hope it's one of the three you are keen on, who all seem to be decent bets.

What did you think of Hill and Flitcroft, did they deserve to go or not?

I liked the idea of a Bolton-born lad managing the club and would have been happy, on his appointment, for the arrangement to have been for a minimum of two years. His subsequent efforts and interviews soured me on his appointment pretty quickly, however, and while I appreciate the difficulty of the job he had to do, he was not hoodwinked; he knew what he was up against. 
New league, new team, new management, new start.
Once in, never out.

Nigel Clough the new fave @ 5/2
Gary Bowyer 2nd @ 11/4 
David Lee @ 4/1

I’m sure Clough would stabilise the club and get us up. But would he inspire the fans? Doubt it. If FV are really looking for a more innovative approach I think they’ll go for a younger lesser known entity. Kind of hope they do to be honest, just to make things interesting.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I’m sure Clough would stabilise the club and get us up. But would he inspire the fans?

If he stabilises the club and gets us up they'll be inspired.

Were at the bottom of the pile, why should we have someone who is going to steady the boat, which I think Clough would do. There again there's no doubting his experience.  A young manager may have different ideas and look forward rather than consolidate. Difficult whatever we do.

Definitely, absolutely, certainly don’t want Clough. Ask the Sheffield United fans what they think. Dour, boring football with the club going nowhere just like we had with Parky. Gets sacked and Chris Wilder comes in, same players, different mindset, total positivity and that’s exactly what we need our next manager to have. Nice guy Cloughie but sorry not what we want here. We’re not recruiting a gentleman, we want a taskmaster, someone who wants to use our club to further his own career and Cloughie won’t do that and neither will Bowyer or the other journeymen touted. 

Sluffy, re KH and Flicker, I was disappointed with the appointment in the first place but got behind them as all supporters should. KH actually impressed me at first and we seemed to be on the right track but hanging players like Zouma and Weir out to dry publicly was wrong and after that I feel with his petulant attitude he lost both the players and the fans and had to go. It’s a shame but I think it was the right decision. I’m just hoping FV make another right decision and appoint David Lee or if not one of the three I mentioned earlier.

I don't think many Bolton fans care about the quality of football anymore, we just want a solid team that doesn't look soft.

As long as it's someone with no previous connection to BWFC I'll be happy.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

If he stabilises the club and gets us up they'll be inspired.

Did Parky inspire you?