Managerial appointments


Middlesbrough finished a point off the play-offs in the English Championship last season, which was not enough to save manager, Tony Pulis, from the sack.  Pulis is an experienced hand with teams fighting relegation from the Premiership or looking for promotion to it, having worked at Stoke, Crystal Palace and West Brom.

A month after the sacking, Middlesbrough gave rookie, Jonathan Woodgate, the job, with former Celtic striker, Robbie Keane his assistant.

Football teams have a tendency to overcompensate for their last perceived mistakes when appointing a manager.  Pulis was taken from a regular, if uninspiring, stock.  They have not made that ‘mistake’ with Woodgate.

The former Real Madrid defender will bring colour and excitement to the Riverside, at least in the short-term, but his chances of out-performing Pulis next season are open to debate.  Middlesbrough have the resources to attract managerial talent from most leagues in Europe or South America.  While these territories have worked well for others seeking improvement in England, there are significant risks.

Like Sunderland, who appointed St Mirren manager, Jack Ross, a year ago, they could have looked to less-risky Scotland, but can you name an appropriate candidate who would be up for this one?

Appointing a rookie is a big roll of the dice, to be avoided if possible.  But anyone who tells you appointing a sure-fire success is easy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  All you can hope to do is avoid sure-fire failures.

Click Here for Comments >

About Author


  1. CHAIRBHOY on 16TH JUNE 2019 9:03 PM


    AULDHEID @ 1:37 PM, (and other folk commenting)



    Yes, maybe Petrie did not want the RFC 2011 licence issue to overshadow his bid for the Presidency for which he was a shoo-in.



    He may feel that now he’s in the position he’s fire proof alla CO. And the process can continue.




    The CAS thing has puzzled me from the start, not only the ridiculous notion that the SFA can’t adjudicate on a process they themselves administer.




    It is the arbitation. It suggests a decision was reached that has been challenged and there is a clause in the 5 way agreement that states all disputes will go to CAS.



    But what is being disputed. The ligitamacy of the granting of the licence or the responsible party, Oldco pre CW, Oldco with CW or Newco.




    As you say, at the end of the day it is the SFA implementing an UEFA process, if the SFA can’t resolve it and obviously they can’t, it should have been escalated to UEFA.




    Regarding Maxwell, we once again find ourselves in a position where we need to trust an SFA official to do the right thing.




    Despite all his fine words (and to be fair some actions) it comes down to his integrity. If he is the football administrator that is going to do the right thing in this regard, he’s going to be the first.



    We’ll see…



    Hail Hail




    Maxwell said it would be the SFA Board who would decide if a referral to CAS was needed.


    My point is the Petries appointment GIVEN HIS ROLE in both the Licencing Committee of 2011 and the 5 Way Agreement means the SFA cannot now and should never have been the adjudicators in any way.



    Petrie is heavily conflicted. There already was an attempt at removing the grant period from scrutiny for which no explanation was given and which was challenged by Res12 lawyer last June, a challenge as yet not responded to. The actual charges relating only to the monitoring period bear every sign of a predetermined result.



    Petrie is now in a position to be his own judge and jury in what looks like a serious breach of the rules that he may bear some responsibility for. That is totally unacceptable without some SFA statement clarifying what took place in March/April 2011.



    Then there is possibility his knowledge of the 5 Way played it’s part in the decision to refer case to CAS , a decision that helped his chances of being elected. That needs clarifying.



    How can any decision coming from the SFA without total clarity carry any authority?



    How would Celtic justify a decision lacking full transparency to its shareholders?


    It’s simply not on.



    The matter has to go to UEFA to look primarily at the SFA handling of matters in 2011 including their own exchange with SFA in Sept 2011 when CWs monitoring submission was discussed.



    Not to do that puts the Celtic Board in a position where they have to be accountable to shareholders which is what they are supposed to be, so no bad thing if it happens at next AGM unless they change policy on Res12 before then.