Steve Walsh - no longer our Director of Football

[Neiler]

..it’s quite simple, though. He’s responsible for on the field strategy and has one of two key roles to play in transfer activity. If Walsh doesn’t agree a transfer it doesn’t happen.

Since he was appointed, we’ve had more monies to spend. Since he was appointed, the team and squad are the poorest in recent memory.

I don’t think the lack of faith is alarming. He’s had a key role in putting us in a dark hole. He has to dig us out now.

I dont think it is that simple at all mate, i think his role is beyond a scout. I think people judge him on transfers in and the quality of the players, but for me his role is quite more wide reaching.

Hes mitigated the investment and made the club a significant amount of money, he has maximised Evertons assets at multiple levels and in terms of recruitment have there been more success then failures? People are quite damning at present, but i remember all the euphoria in the summer and people had the opposite opinions of excellent buys.

Its all very reactive and narrow for me, the judgement that people are coming to.

Year 1 he had done a great job, as the role is a more long term one, i expect that to increase incrementally as we reap the benifit of the underage recruitment.

Ultimately he will make the club a significant amout of money.

 

[Eggs]

I dont think it is that simple at all mate, i think his role is beyond a scout. I think people judge him on transfers in and the quality of the players, but for me his role is quite more wide reaching.

Hes mitigated the investment and made the club a significant amount of money, he has maximised Evertons assets at multiple levels and in terms of recruitment have there been more success then failures? People are quite damning at present, but i remember all the euphoria in the summer and people had the opposite opinions of excellent buys.

Its all very reactive and narrow for me, the judgement that people are coming to.

Year 1 he had done a great job, as the role is a more long term one, i expect that to increase incrementally as we reap the benifit of the underage recruitment.

Ultimately he will make the club a significant amout of money.

..he has got a wide remit but the first team squad is a mess and the team lack strategy, structure, cohesion and balance. This is a key performance indicator for him. Indeed, it’s probably his main KPI. He has to be at least partly culpable for the mess we’re in.

Transfer policy isn’t everything but it’s almost everything.

 

[sageyefc]

I dont think it is that simple at all mate, i think his role is beyond a scout. I think people judge him on transfers in and the quality of the players, but for me his role is quite more wide reaching.

Hes mitigated the investment and made the club a significant amount of money, he has maximised Evertons assets at multiple levels and in terms of recruitment have there been more success then failures? People are quite damning at present, but i remember all the euphoria in the summer and people had the opposite opinions of excellent buys.

Its all very reactive and narrow for me, the judgement that people are coming to.

Year 1 he had done a great job, as the role is a more long term one, i expect that to increase incrementally as we reap the benifit of the underage recruitment.

Ultimately he will make the club a significant about of money.

1. I agree, his role is more than transfers in which he's 100% failed in, its supposedly also about setting us up with a clear direction of how to play and offer some continuity regardless of manager and safe guarding us going forwards. To which he's completely failed, all he's done is give jobs to the boys, and created and extremely short term mindset at the club

2.please explain how he's made the club significant money??

3. Think it's safe to say in terms of recruitment there's been way more failures than success's

 

[Lanolin]

I dont think it is that simple at all mate, i think his role is beyond a scout. I think people judge him on transfers in and the quality of the players, but for me his role is quite more wide reaching.

Hes mitigated the investment and made the club a significant amount of money, he has maximised Evertons assets at multiple levels and in terms of recruitment have there been more success then failures? People are quite damning at present, but i remember all the euphoria in the summer and people had the opposite opinions of excellent buys.

Its all very reactive and narrow for me, the judgement that people are coming to.

Year 1 he had done a great job, as the role is a more long term one, i expect that to increase incrementally as we reap the benifit of the underage recruitment.

Ultimately he will make the club a significant amout of money.

Some did but many didn't. The prices paid for Sigurdsson, Klaassen and Keane were quite openly questioned by many.

 

[Neiler]

..it’s quite simple, though. He’s responsible for on the field strategy and has one of two key roles to play in transfer activity. If Walsh doesn’t agree a transfer it doesn’t happen.

Since he was appointed, we’ve had more monies to spend. Since he was appointed, the team and squad are the poorest in recent memory.

I don’t think the lack of faith is alarming. He’s had a key role in putting us in a dark hole. He has to dig us out now.

I just want to comment on this further when you look at the recuritment angle of this, who have been our worst signings?

Fore me its:

Snedierthing
Martina
Kalssen

Now if you take those three, i would be bold enough to say that they were Koemans notions, two players he as histrionically managed and had close experience of and one who was renewed in the Dutch league, you dont really have to Sherlock to work out where the driving forces of those signings came from. I accept that Walsh has to sign of players as well. But given there profile, their arent nay on here who didn't have baited breath wanting them yesterday either.

I have no issue with any other signings. in fact some of them are incredible buys for us.

 

[Neiler]

1. I agree, his role is more than transfers in which he's 100% failed in, its supposedly also about setting us up with a clear direction of how to play and offer some continuity regardless of manager and safe guarding us going forwards. To which he's completely failed, all he's done is give jobs to the boys, and created and extremely short term mindset at the club

2.please explain how he's made the club significant money??

3. Think it's safe to say in terms of recruitment there's been way more failures than success's

I dont think his role is to give us a clear direction of how to play at all mate? Do you believe that? I agree on continuity, but how has he not provided that? Within two weeks of the window opened we have seen players come and go despite having a manager a few weeks into his job. hes clearly not the king maker if you are referring to who is appointed Everton manager, im sure he was asked opinion but ultimately we know who made that decision.

Its quite simple if you are billionaire owner, you have X investment that you are willing to invest, their will be gross and net figure to that. You mitigate that investment by player trading, maximizing your assets that someone like Walsh facilitates you do that by selling excess players, buying low selling high, sending players on loan for loan fees, keeping or selling eventually, clearing a wage from the clubs books. Walsh is key to all this and year one he as been successful, i expect him to be even more successful when youth recruitment matures.

See my post above.

 

[Eggs]

I just want to comment on this further when you look at the recuritment angle of this, who have been our worst signings?

Fore me its:

Snedierthing
Martina
Kalssen

Now if you take those three, i would be bold enough to say that they were Koemans notions, two players he as histrionically managed and had close experience of and one who was renewed in the Dutch league, you dont really have to Sherlock to work out where the driving forces of those signings came from. I accept that Walsh has to sign of players as well. But given there profile, their arent nay on here who didn't have baited breath wanting them yesterday either.

I have no issue with any other signings. in fact some of them are incredible buys for us.

..Walsh has commented that he and the manager have to both agree a signing before it is allowed to happen. Walsh has the power of veto, no signings happen without his authorisation. As DoF he’s empowered to insist on signings that make the squad better balanced, with more athleticism (pace, power, mobility), players who compliment each other.

I accept Koeman might have instigated signings but Walsh agreed them. I want our DoF to facilitate a playing strategy. A playing strategy is something that looks sadly lacking.

 

[chazzle_dazzle]

I dont think his role is to give us a clear direction of how to play at all mate? Do you believe that? I agree on continuity, but how has he not provided that? Within two weeks of the window opened we have seen players come and go despite having a manager a few weeks into his job. hes clearly not the king maker if you are referring to who is appointed Everton manager, im sure he was asked opinion but ultimately we know who made that decision.

Its quite simple if you are billionaire owner, you have X investment that you are willing to invest, their will be gross and net figure to that. You mitigate that investment by player trading, maximizing your assets that someone like Walsh facilitates you do that by selling excess players, buying low selling high, sending players on loan for loan fees, keeping or selling eventually, clearing a wage from the clubs books. Walsh is key to all this and year one he as been successful, i expect him to be even more successful when youth recruitment matures.

See my post above.

sorry to like harp in here mate...

IMO - it was the scattergun approach to the management appointment which made me understand we didnt have a coherent plan in place for the direction of the club. He remit (as a traditional DoF - if he is that at our club is different kettle of fish) should be to implement a plan so the direction of the club, recruitment and playing style doesnt change with the manager, we have a set of "Ideals" in place which means that we recruit a manager based on those ideals.

Our search went from look at a passing and pressing manager, to a percentage and long ball manager. there didnt seem to be any plan, except sheer panic.

Imo, he is head of recruitment, and the club is at fault for putting a role on him he hasn't been able to successfully implement...

however, he should be held accountable for the squad and how imbalanced it is, if Koeman wanted players they BOTH had to sign off on them, if he thought it was going to unbalance the squad he should have said so... he never, it either indicates no leadership, or another spineless yes man.

could be either, or both.

 

[Neiler]

..he has got a wide remit but the first team squad is a mess and the team lack strategy, structure, cohesion and balance. This is a key performance indicator for him. Indeed, it’s probably his main KPI. He has to be at least partly culpable for the mess we’re in.

Transfer policy isn’t everything but it’s almost everything.

It seems to me people have there own job spec for him and judge him on that wothout knowing what it is. What happens if he has a list of strikers and left backs and the manager says ill go with what i have. Is it remit provide the options or tell the manager that hes managing wrong. The lines are demarcation are unknown to us, i suspect when it comes to first team amagers percentage wise the manager has more of a spoke.

Ive spoken about first team recruitment already, for me the only signing im not really happy with is Klassen, Martina and Snedrierthing, the rest i think will prove good recruitment either long term footballing wise or as investments. Thats my opinion of course.

 

[chazzle_dazzle]

..Walsh has commented that he and the manager have to both agree a signing before it is allowed to happen. Walsh has the power of veto, no signings happen without his authorisation. As DoF he’s empowered to insist on signings that make the squad better balanced, with more athleticism (pace, power, mobility), players who compliment each other.

I accept Koeman might have instigated signings but Walsh agreed them. I want our DoF to facilitate a playing strategy. A playing strategy is something that looks sadly lacking.

have to agree with you Eggs, see my post

 

[sageyefc]

I dont think his role is to give us a clear direction of how to play at all mate? Do you believe that? I agree on continuity, but how has he not provided that? Within two weeks of the window opened we have seen players come and go despite having a manager a few weeks into his job. hes clearly not the king maker if you are referring to who is appointed Everton manager, im sure he was asked opinion but ultimately we know who made that decision.

Its quite simple if you are billionaire owner, you have X investment that you are willing to invest, their will be gross and net figure to that. You mitigate that investment by player trading, maximizing your assets that someone like Walsh facilitates you do that by selling excess players, buying low selling high, sending players on loan for loan fees, keeping or selling eventually, clearing a wage from the clubs books. Walsh is key to all this and year one he as been successful, i expect him to be even more successful when youth recruitment matures.

See my post above.

It's is his role, That's what a director of footballs role is to over see all of that, if not then he's just a glorified scout.

Also on this Windows signings it's widely known they're Sams choices. And even still he's yet to address keys areas again.

At the time it was widely reported he was the man championing big Sam and his team to moshiri.



And regards you're second paragraph, what a load of bobbins.

Buying low, selling high???? We've literally done the complete opposite.

Near enough every signing he's made we have massively overpaid

 

[Tubey]

I hate his face.

 

[Neiler]

sorry to like harp in here mate...

IMO - it was the scattergun approach to the management appointment which made me understand we didnt have a coherent plan in place for the direction of the club. He remit (as a traditional DoF - if he is that at our club is different kettle of fish) should be to implement a plan so the direction of the club, recruitment and playing style doesnt change with the manager, we have a set of "Ideals" in place which means that we recruit a manager based on those ideals.

Our search went from look at a passing and pressing manager, to a percentage and long ball manager. there didnt seem to be any plan, except sheer panic.

Imo, he is head of recruitment, and the club is at fault for putting a role on him he hasn't been able to successfully implement...

however, he should be held accountable for the squad and how imbalanced it is, if Koeman wanted players they BOTH had to sign off on them, if he thought it was going to unbalance the squad he should have said so... he never, it either indicates no leadership, or another spineless yes man.

could be either, or both.

I can appreciate that description mate, i dont see a huge difference in Koeman or Allardyces style of play if im being honest or really there approach to management. But i dont really believe we have a set of ideals - i mean what are these and because no one knows they are open to interpretation to suit any argument? Different people have different opinion on Sams approach to management, which we see on here daily.

IMO is a good way of describing this issue, no one knows exactly what his remit is but are assuming they do.

I have to say i was surprised when Koeman was sacked, i thought he would have gotten more time, i know results were bad but it was a hasty decision, i tend to think it was based on more then results and perhaps his input and insistence on recruitment or the investment made. I think it was telling who got the chop.

 

[Eggs]

It seems to me people have there own job spec for him and judge him on that wothout knowing what it is. What happens if he has a list of strikers and left backs and the manager says ill go with what i have. Is it remit provide the options or tell the manager that hes managing wrong. The lines are demarcation are unknown to us, i suspect when it comes to first team amagers percentage wise the manager has more of a spoke.

Ive spoken about first team recruitment already, for me the only signing im not really happy with is Klassen, Martina and Snedrierthing, the rest i think will prove good recruitment either long term footballing wise or as investments. Thats my opinion of course.

..it’s not only the players who have come in, it’s the type of players who haven’t come in. Looking at players in isolation only reflect them as individuals, but we need to build a team.

 

[Neiler]

It's is his role, That's what a director of footballs role is to over see all of that, if not then he's just a glorified scout.

Also on this Windows signings it's widely known they're Sams choices. And even still he's yet to address keys areas again.

At the time it was widely reported he was the man championing big Sam and his team to moshiri.



And regards you're second paragraph, what a load of bobbins.

Buying low, selling high???? We've literally done the complete opposite.

Near enough every signing he's made we have massively overpaid

I dont agree mate, different directors of football have different roles at different clubs, the job spec isnt passed around one club to another its tailored to each club.

The rest is subjective to be honest "widely known" & "widely reported", i mean come on.