I think the point you made about hiring a firm to do it is a very good one.
The fact the axis this appointment is viewed through is Allardyce V Dyche is the problem. There are a world of managers out there, and they are the two names that head our list? It's incredible really.
Both will have an enormous negative impact long term on what we are trying to do. This is particularly true of Allardcye who pretty much every club he's involved with struggle once he leaves. It is not surprise as he reduces everything down to the necessity of the next few games and keeping his loyal entourage of staff happy.
His appointment would be akin to Smith. It would irreparably damage the young talent we have who would be sold on for him to afford seasoned pros.
My biggest and emerging concern with Allardyce now, is, as I've mentioned, the nature of his relationship with Walsh.
Walsh's role is up in the air but all the evidence suggests whatever he has been contributing has failed badly.
If he were to become just a nodding approver to whatever Allardyce suggested, his (Walsh) role is completely redundant, and as you suggest, it leads to much bigger problems.
I don't buy into the idea that a manager of a football club has to get his way with everything, all the time, and that there is automatic trouble if this isn't the case. If we had a competent board and DoF in place, I would be reasonably confident that there would be enough checks and balances to limit Allardyce' excesses.
You can have a clear line of command at a club whilst maintaining a level of responsibility and maturity between highly paid professionals to ensure that a long-term strategy is adopted and maintained, both in good times and bad. There must be a healthy tension between all for plans to succeed, to avoid groupthink and complacency developing.
We are a case study of what happens when none of this is in place, Allardyce or not.
