Put it like that, yes, also poor recruitment process to select him in the first place.
Can’t agree with you Sid on a poor recruitment process. Candidates who really want a job will present the face that will get them that job. Their references can also be from
“friends” who want them to get the job. What they do after they are appointed determines whether they succeed or in Fletcher’s case, fail quickly.
But surely any candidate for the job would have to outlay his plans for the future and the people interviewing him should have told him that if he took on the job, small changes in the playing staff were possible, but in the main, he would have to work with the present players and make the best of what he had. Similar to the fact ( from what we gather ) that he was aware that he would have to work with the current coaches and not be able to bring in his own number two.
This.
How on Earth wasn’t it clear to Fletcher or Ling what the boundaries were?
If Ling wanted the manager to work with what we had, then that should have been made clear at the very start, before Fletcher accepted. It’s unfair to bring someone in and then kick them out when they want to put their own stamp on things.
Can’t agree with you Sid on a poor recruitment process. Candidates who really want a job will present the face that will get them that job. Their references can also be from
“friends” who want them to get the job. What they do after they are appointed determines whether they succeed or in Fletcher’s case, fail quickly.
But surely any candidate for the job would have to outlay his plans for the future and the people interviewing him should have told him that if he took on the job, small changes in the playing staff were possible, but in the main, he would have to work with the present players and make the best of what he had. Similar to the fact ( from what we gather ) that he was aware that he would have to work with the current coaches and not be able to bring in his own number two.
This.
How on Earth wasn’t it clear to Fletcher or Ling what the boundaries were?
If Ling wanted the manager to work with what we had, then that should have been made clear at the very start, before Fletcher accepted. It’s unfair to bring someone in and then kick them out when they want to put their own stamp on things.
Can’t agree with you Sid on a poor recruitment process. Candidates who really want a job will present the face that will get them that job. Their references can also be from
“friends” who want them to get the job. What they do after they are appointed determines whether they succeed or in Fletcher’s case, fail quickly.
But surely any candidate for the job would have to outlay his plans for the future and the people interviewing him should have told him that if he took on the job, small changes in the playing staff were possible, but in the main, he would have to work with the present players and make the best of what he had. Similar to the fact ( from what we gather ) that he was aware that he would have to work with the current coaches and not be able to bring in his own number two.
This.
How on Earth wasn’t it clear to Fletcher or Ling what the boundaries were?
If Ling wanted the manager to work with what we had, then that should have been made clear at the very start, before Fletcher accepted. It’s unfair to bring someone in and then kick them out when they want to put their own stamp on things.
I expect it was made clear and Fletcher agreed. I think Fletcher completely changed his position after he got the job, thinking that he was in a “honeymoon period”. Ling and the Owners didn’t accept his change or the “honeymoon” of a new manager.
But surely any candidate for the job would have to outlay his plans for the future and the people interviewing him should have told him that if he took on the job, small changes in the playing staff were possible, but in the main, he would have to work with the present players and make the best of what he had. Similar to the fact ( from what we gather ) that he was aware that he would have to work with the current coaches and not be able to bring in his own number two.
This.
How on Earth wasn’t it clear to Fletcher or Ling what the boundaries were?
If Ling wanted the manager to work with what we had, then that should have been made clear at the very start, before Fletcher accepted. It’s unfair to bring someone in and then kick them out when they want to put their own stamp on things.
I expect it was made clear and Fletcher agreed. I think Fletcher completely changed his position after he got the job, thinking that he was in a “honeymoon period”. Ling and the Owners didn’t accept his change or the “honeymoon” of a new manager.
Be interested to hear your reasoning?
You’re suggesting a rookie manager got a big opportunity, and then decided to ignore and got against orders to get people’s backs up on purpose?
Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:34 am
This.
How on Earth wasn’t it clear to Fletcher or Ling what the boundaries were?
If Ling wanted the manager to work with what we had, then that should have been made clear at the very start, before Fletcher accepted. It’s unfair to bring someone in and then kick them out when they want to put their own stamp on things.
I expect it was made clear and Fletcher agreed. I think Fletcher completely changed his position after he got the job, thinking that he was in a “honeymoon period”. Ling and the Owners didn’t accept his change or the “honeymoon” of a new manager.
Be interested to hear your reasoning?
You’re suggesting a rookie manager got a big opportunity, and then decided to ignore and got against orders to get people’s backs up on purpose?
Not to get people’s backs up. He just decided on a different approach after he got the job.
I expect it was made clear and Fletcher agreed. I think Fletcher completely changed his position after he got the job, thinking that he was in a “honeymoon period”. Ling and the Owners didn’t accept his change or the “honeymoon” of a new manager.
Be interested to hear your reasoning?
You’re suggesting a rookie manager got a big opportunity, and then decided to ignore and got against orders to get people’s backs up on purpose?
Not to get people’s backs up. He just decided on a different approach after he got the job.
It’s a lot more believable that Ling didn’t lay out the ground rules and then got annoyed when fletcher wanted to make changes.
Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:39 pm
Be interested to hear your reasoning?
You’re suggesting a rookie manager got a big opportunity, and then decided to ignore and got against orders to get people’s backs up on purpose?
Not to get people’s backs up. He just decided on a different approach after he got the job.
It’s a lot more believable that Ling didn’t lay out the ground rules and then got annoyed when fletcher wanted to make changes.
Unless you know something?
Out of interest, why is it a lot more believable that Ling didn't lay out the ground rules? There would have been a job spec for this role that would have been discussed in the interview afterall.
Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:39 pm
Be interested to hear your reasoning?
You’re suggesting a rookie manager got a big opportunity, and then decided to ignore and got against orders to get people’s backs up on purpose?
Not to get people’s backs up. He just decided on a different approach after he got the job.
It’s a lot more believable that Ling didn’t lay out the ground rules and then got annoyed when fletcher wanted to make changes.
Unless you know something?
Whatever the full extent of Ling’s role is seems to me that the recruitment process itself was flawed. Initially, by the artificial constraints placed on the “ type” of candidates that were apparently considered suitable for the job ( e.g.the exclusion of older more experienced individuals), secondly the club’s decision to insist on a pre condition that any new man MUST work with the existing staff and finally to choose to await applications from interested parties rather than proactively seeking out a successor.
Ling himself was critical - after the event- about the quality of applicants at his disposal when compared to those available when both Davis and Edinburgh were recruited but at the time, Fletcher was hailed by Nigel Travis as having the “ modern skills necessary to manage a football team” and we all know how Ling banged on about how Fletcher “ kept coming out on top” during the process. The appointment however was greeted with almost universal dismay by fans and his one month stay at the club saw not only a capitulation by the players on the pitch but apparently dissent and feuding off it as Fletcher failed to break into the so called “ unique culture” at the club.
A fiasco from start to finish and one hopefully the club - as a whole- will have learnt from.
It’s entirely plausible (and probable in my eyes) Fletcher agreed to it all thinking the coaching staff would back him, seeing as he’s the manager. He probably also thought the squad was better than it actually is. When you have a coaching set up who won’t back you and an unbalanced squad full of crap, it’s difficult for anyone.
A lot was made about the ‘process’ but Ling pushed a bloke who hadn’t managed for 6 years and wasn’t even in a coaching role at the time. The board should have said no but they put Ling in as DoF to oversee that side of things and trusted him. Fair enough, he admitted he f*cked that one up but appointing Ross shows leasona weren’t learnt. I hope it works out for Ross but he’s a very good number 2, not a manager.
He rightly has a lot of loyalty to the players who got Orient promoted and perhaps that blindaides him to their inadequacies.
Not to get people’s backs up. He just decided on a different approach after he got the job.
It’s a lot more believable that Ling didn’t lay out the ground rules and then got annoyed when fletcher wanted to make changes.
Unless you know something?
Whatever the full extent of Ling’s role is seems to me that the recruitment process itself was flawed. Initially, by the artificial constraints placed on the “ type” of candidates that were apparently considered suitable for the job ( e.g.the exclusion of older more experienced individuals), secondly the club’s decision to insist on a pre condition that any new man MUST work with the existing staff and finally to choose to await applications from interested parties rather than proactively seeking out a successor.
Ling himself was critical - after the event- about the quality of applicants at his disposal when compared to those available when both Davis and Edinburgh were recruited but at the time, Fletcher was hailed by Nigel Travis as having the “ modern skills necessary to manage a football team” and we all know how Ling banged on about how Fletcher “ kept coming out on top” during the process. The appointment however was greeted with almost universal dismay by fans and his one month stay at the club saw not only a capitulation by the players on the pitch but apparently dissent and feuding off it as Fletcher failed to break into the so called “ unique culture” at the club.
A fiasco from start to finish and one hopefully the club - as a whole- will have learnt from.
It would have been a fiasco even if Fletcher had followed what he said he would do at the various interviews. Added to this change of direction after he got appointed, was the fact that he was an unbelievably bad communicator as is evidenced by his interviews.
Isn’t it interesting that within this thread entitled Anthony Wordsworth, there are attacks on M Ling. There are also thinly veiled attacks on Ling and Embleton in the Cisse thread claiming it was easy to sign Cisse so no credit should be given to them. This points to a pattern of negativity from certain boarders to undermine Ling and Embleton at every opportunity. Bad show guys.
UpminsterO wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:07 pm
It's the extreme annoyance and frustration many fans feel over the recent coaching / DOF process and manipulation enhancing one persons career and destroying another person in the process in a poor way
That why many fans feel they are forced to repeat their voicing of displeasure which overrides any unofficial forum posting exspectations by a couple of people above a others not bothering to state
You can always go and find another club that doesn’t make any strange or wrong decisions EVER.
Within page 1 and page 2 there was some really interesting conversation about our recruitment without any of the usual - you just want us to fail - idiots.
Shame a few of the basics on here have ruined that by page 4
Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 6:14 pm
Within page 1 and page 2 there was some really interesting conversation about our recruitment without any of the usual - you just want us to fail - idiots.
Shame a few of the basics on here have ruined that by page 4
Maybe the anti-Embleton and anti-Ling posters need their own message board?
Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 6:14 pm
Within page 1 and page 2 there was some really interesting conversation about our recruitment without any of the usual - you just want us to fail - idiots.
Shame a few of the basics on here have ruined that by page 4
Maybe the anti-Embleton and anti-Ling posters need their own message board?
Or everyone posting here is alive to open and interesting conversation that is allowed to flow without being bogged down in 'waaa this is negative, go away'.
Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 6:14 pm
Within page 1 and page 2 there was some really interesting conversation about our recruitment without any of the usual - you just want us to fail - idiots.
Shame a few of the basics on here have ruined that by page 4
Maybe the anti-Embleton and anti-Ling posters need their own message board?
Or everyone posting here is alive to open and interesting conversation that is allowed to flow without being bogged down in 'waaa this is negative, go away'.
There is 'negative' and there is downright 'destructive' especially towards Ling and Embleton.
Maybe the anti-Embleton and anti-Ling posters need their own message board?
Or everyone posting here is alive to open and interesting conversation that is allowed to flow without being bogged down in 'waaa this is negative, go away'.
There is 'negative' and there is downright 'destructive' especially towards Ling and Embleton.
Well, thats your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But i can't stand the 'orient police', personally.
UpminsterO wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:07 pm
It's the extreme annoyance and frustration many fans feel over the recent coaching / DOF process and manipulation enhancing one persons career and destroying another person in the process in a poor way
That why many fans feel they are forced to repeat their voicing of displeasure which overrides any unofficial forum posting exspectations by a couple of people above a others not bothering to state
You can always go and find another club that doesn’t make any strange or wrong decisions EVER.
896E11FF-8B6D-4CAA-A4A1-3094CA12DA2E.jpeg (235.94 KiB) Viewed 385 times
Or everyone posting here is alive to open and interesting conversation that is allowed to flow without being bogged down in 'waaa this is negative, go away'.
There is 'negative' and there is downright 'destructive' especially towards Ling and Embleton.
Well, thats your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But i can't stand the 'orient police', personally.
This. Those that blindly back everything the club does are worse in my opinion. I think Ross and Ling would prefer someone to have a constructive negative opinion than to be sycophantic.
There is 'negative' and there is downright 'destructive' especially towards Ling and Embleton.
Well, thats your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But i can't stand the 'orient police', personally.
This. Those that blindly back everything the club does are worse in my opinion. I think Ross and Ling would prefer someone to have a constructive negative opinion than to be sycophantic.
Yep, I make you right there, both in terms of those that blindly back everything the clubs do and that constructive negative opinion is preferable (though don't see a huge amount of that).
