Last man standing at the City Ground

October 5, 2011 11 Comments »
Last man standing at the City Ground

Where to begin… The Nottingham Forest soap opera continued in a dramatic fashion on Sunday night in a way that few could have foreseen. Steve McClaren resigned, Nigel Doughty stepped down as chairman and Mark Arthur remains as chief executive. And all that we’re left with are unanswered questions.

Why was Davies sacked in the first place?

McClaren’s complaints proved that many of Davies points were actually valid — the club’s transfer process is flawed beyond comprehension. But I stand by (almost) everything I wrote in June — Davies’ time was up and bringing him back would be a mistake.

He was the right man at the right time — he restored our self-confidence and he re-established us in the Championship. But he was not a man for long-term building, he’s not someone who develops the youth players or who brings the whole club forwards as one. This is time for a fresh start.

Why did Doughty appoint McClaren and then pull the plug on funds?

This is the key point of McClaren’s brief tenure. Apparently the relationship had soured even before the season started, so what was Doughty thinking appointing a high-profile manager and not backing him?

Nine players out, including two on loan, and only five in — after Davies had complained about a small squad for two seasons. On paper, those five signings looked like good acquisitions (and may yet turn out to be so) but we should have added at least three more. Or rather, if we could only sign five players it should have been Ishmael Miller, one of Reid/Greening/Boateng, a centre-back, a left-back and a winger as well as a few loans.

Doughty’s brief time on Twitter looks like it was largely to manage expectations of the forthcoming Financial Fair Play. McClaren was officially appointed on 13 June; the Football League announced the FFP agreement on 10 June. That deal didn’t come out of thin air. Why not just be honest? There isn’t much to spend, let’s appoint a young manager, scout the lower leagues and bring though young players… I’m sure most supporters would see sense in that.

Why was McClaren so bad?

Well, he wanted width and he didn’t get width. That was clearly how he hoped to play, based on his successful stint at FC Twente with a 4-2-3-1 system. And if he’d managed to sign Wayne Routledge and/or Wesley Verhoek, as well as a loan player, things might have been different. In fact, Davies also struggled with the lack of wide players towards the end of last season.

People have questioned his signings but given that he had to bring players in, was working with a smaller budget than expected and had the acquisitions panel to deal with, it’s hard to judge him.

But it goes much deeper than that. While problems might have been apparent in Forest’s defence since March, we still had one of the best defensive records in the division over the past two years. McClaren’s tactics looked duff, as did his man-management. Playing 3-5-2 against Watford got a result but it was tactical suicide against Burnley, a side who play with out-and-out wingers. Playing four centre-backs against Birmingham, presumably to deal with the aerial threat of the 6ft 7in striker Nikola Zigic (making his comeback after being injured since February), proved nonsensical.

Worse still, several players looked like they didn’t really have their hearts in it — the dressing room problems rumoured under Davies rearing their head — and fans quickly targeted Jonathan Greening as the cause of the slow and labouring midfield. The only positives were the late addition of Clint Hill, Joel Lynch’s progression as a first team player and the nascent partnership of Miller and Robbie Findley.

Why has Doughty stepped down?

Let’s be clear, a small protest on Sunday didn’t prompt Doughty to quit as chairman. McClaren’s exit was on the cards and Doughty was well aware of the discontent among fans — he also has many interests beyond the club.

His interview on BBC Radio Nottingham on Sunday night revealed a broken man, disenchanted with life as chairman and apologetic that he’d been responsible for the McClaren fiasco. Doughty’s clearly a fan and he’s put a lot of money into Nottingham Forest — money that he doesn’t expect back. Whether he’s writing most of it off against tax or not, he’s still lost millions of his own money and we should be thankful for that.

Ultimately though, it’s not the investment that counted but the poor decisions. Where’s the strategy? We’ve lurched from manager to manager with no idea about how the club should be structured, where we want to go and how we want to get there. Doughty’s tenure has seen the appointments of the likes of Joe Kinnear, Gary Megson and now McClaren as well as his initial involvement in bringing David Platt to the club. It’s been 10 years of relative failure, or at least standing still, and he’s fallen on his sword.

What are the implications of Financial Fair Play?

You only need to read — actually you should be made to read — the Swiss Ramble’s dissection of Forest’s finances to see what FFP will mean. To an outsider, Doughty’s investment has been significant — it’s the decision-making and lack of progress that counts. Under FFP we won’t be allowed to continue to spend more than we earn which means we will need to be a better-run outfit than we are now — our wages are too high and after this season we’ll need to bring that wage bill down.

Doughty has already said his “financial involvement will reduce dramatically over the next few years,” but this would have happened due to FFP, regardless of whether he was chairman or not. In theory, it means there is no place for a sugar daddy in football anymore.

Doughty’s sensible, albeit poorly-executed, vision of a self-sufficient club will need to become a well-executed one in seasons to come.

Who will be the next manager?

Ideally the hierarchy at the club will sit down and address the problems of the last decade and decide on a long-term strategy. Tuesday’s papers suggested former manager Paul Hart will return as technical director with a manager selected from a shortlist of Karl Robinson, Mark Robins, Paul Tisdale and Kevin MacDonald. The appointment of Hart will be something of a PR masterstroke — at least short-term — and buys into Stan Collymore’s call for ex-players to become involved with the club. And while Martin O’Neill and John Robertson is the ‘dream ticket’ it remains unlikely — although their connection with the club may mean more than some think.

However, Wednesday’s reports suggest there is no decision on a two-tier structure and no budget for compensation which points to an out-of-work manager. Hopefully we’ll be avoiding the names that usually get dragged out when there’s a managerial vacancy — Iain Dowie, Aidy Boothroyd, Roy Keane, Dave Jones, David O’Leary, Alan Curbishley, Alan Shearer, Brian Laws, Phil Brown, Paul Ince… Please stay away.

The first job is turning around our desperately poor form. The defence needs work and we really need some wide players — either on loan or Anderson and McCleary’s return from injury. This shouldn’t be a relegation battle as it’s clear that Forest have one of the strongest squads in the Championship, the troops just need to be rallied.

What will the future bring?

Fans will need to buy in to a stable, long-term strategy. We are a Championship club — a good season is making the play-off places, an excellent season is promotion — we can’t expect success but we can hope. And a new structure with a young manager and a small budget deserves our patience. Clearly we shouldn’t be talking three- or five-year plans (we’ve done that) but expectation has made the manager’s job something of a poisoned chalice.

And as FFP kicks in we’ll need to be financially sustainable. We turned down offers for many of our best players this summer which seems to have gone unnoticed by many fans — this will undoubtedly change in the future. But if we have youth players coming off the conveyor belt to replace the sales then this should be one of the ways the club is funded — Southampton, for example, have sold Theo Walcott, Gareth Bale and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain for in excess of £30 million in the past five years while Reading sold Matt Mills and Shane Long for over £10 million this summer.

As the last man standing of the old ‘regime’, we can only hope Mark Arthur will make the necessary changes…


  • Red Ric

    This is a well written piece very balanced and highlights all the ups and downs that have led us to this mess.When you have people who dont know football making decisions about football you end up with our current plight a total snakes and ladders situation.

    I personally fear for us in the future and I am not convinced we have the right people making decisions on the new manager and new chairman.I live in hope however and we will all have to lower our expectations if they had only backed billy when we were in the mix I believe we would be a premier league club now.

    U reds

  • Pingback: Last man standing at the City Ground - LTLF – Nottingham Forest

  • http://www.ltlf.co.uk Alex

    A very thoughtful and succinct summary of recent events there. You are right to say the club needs to set in place a sound long-term strategy but the nature of the beast is that a few mistakes have left us in a perilous position – can we afford to let a young manager take over the ropes and take the neccesary time to build his team while we dangle above the relegation zone?

    • http://seatpitch.co.uk Seat Pitch

      It’s a fair question and I don’t think anyone really knows the answer. Billy isn’t coming back, like it or not, and we just tried an ‘experienced’ manager — who does that leave? Is Roy Keane, Sean O’Driscoll or Dave Jones a better bet than someone from a lower league? Relegation is obviously a threat but we’re a far better and stronger squad than we were when Calderwood was sacked. I could be way off the mark (sometimes I am) but it shouldn’t take too much to turn it around… And obviously we’re skint.

  • Husky Red

    Great article. The other piece of the jigsaw is this:

    The new chairman shouldset the chief exec a revenue target, and judge him by whether he achieves it. Look at the 21,000 season ticketsspld at Norwich even during their league 1 years, 95% of which are sold by the previousAPRIL, before forests are even offered. What brilliant financial certainty. Norwichs income, from a ground 15% smaller than ours, would be a major part of FFP success. Cardiff and Ipswich are also examples of lowergates but ten to twenty percent higher overall club income. Coventry’s hyperactive approach to a sponsor for every aspect of the match day may be annoying (This corner was brought to you by smiths office supplies. Seriously.) …. But you have to admire the fact that the club have realised they needs to squeeze every last £ of commercial opportunity out of the club to provide an income base for success on the pitch.

    I’d also give the CEO a target for the running costs ofthe club excluding player wages and academy costs. Forests spendseems high compared to others. A wage bill of £16m on a turnover of £15m should mean a loss, but not a £12m loss.

    Though all this points to the “up and coming” candidates, I think the changes that FFP brings will modify the lobbying of Davies, and a clear strategy would mean managers like him buy in. One thing Davies isgood at is getting more from a squad. Maybe this, minus the constant campaigning for more funds, is just what the club needs

    • http://seatpitch.co.uk Seat Pitch

      Some very good points… You can’t help but think that we’ve taken our eye off the ball in terms of revenues while we have someone funding our losses. The club could/should be making so much more from sponsorship as well as ‘exploiting brand opportunities’, etc.

  • http://johnson744@btinternet.com Red Rob

    A good set of observations here – and if you are right it looks like a relative low profile
    younger manger is on the cards – a la Calderwood ? – I’m not sure if this is what will do the trick given the position we are in – surlely we want someone to hit the ground running , we have no time for trainees … and if it was my decision I would go for Billy again .

    The point about how well the non footballing side of the club is run is also a good one given this is about to get a whole lot more important – I see this as a definite weakness and clearly Mark Arthur’s bag – is it me or do other clubs seem more switched on innovative and focused in this department ( including Derby )?.

    I worry Marthur is now out of his depth big style – He has a week to make a very important call for the club – His track record is not good in my book – but we’d better get behind whoever he selects for the good of the club ……..sniping from next week is verboten
    including me ! promise UREDS

  • Jamie

    The only criticism I would make about this piece is that it, like so many others I’ve read about Forest’s situation, positions Billy Davies as some kind of failure, and serves to equate his tenure at the club with that of Steve McClaren. No assessment can be made of the present shambles without first acknowledging that Davies was by any yardstick the most successful Forest manager appointed by the current chairmanship, and that his time at the club saw almost perpetual upward mobility. Davies was guilty of nothing but losing play-off fixtures; or complete games of chance as they might otherwise be known. To apportion blame for this is similar to doing so for picking the wrong lottery numbers.

    There can be absolutely no question that sacking Davies was an astonishing error, and a decision driven only by pride, vanity, and a desire to exercise power. No footballing explanation could possibly have been identified for terminating his contract. If failure to reach the Premier League was identified as a footballing reason, this was the action of the impossibly deluded.

    Davies’ post-match interviews were constantly misinterpreted by fans, media and apparently board members alike as job dissatisfaction, despite the fact that at no stage did he ever even suggest that the club’s transfer policy may cause him to consider his position as manager. This was a conclusion widely drawn without supporting evidence. I saw the same interviews and only ever interpreted them as an attempt to manage expectations; an understandable ploy given that the team was constantly performing better than any sensible person could have forecast. Davies correctly identified that the level of success being enjoyed at particular times (such as when hitting 2nd place last season) was unsustainable given the squad size and the inevitablilty of injuries and fatigue. To point this out was merely stating fact, but no one wants to listen to this when they are carried away with excitement.

    Had Davies’ comments been meant as genuine dissatisfaction, or even as a threat to the board, then this would undoubtedly have affected team morale. Yet there was no sign of this whatsoever, and in fact team spirit remained visibly high almost throughout Davies’ time in charge. This is in stark contrast to what we have seen this season, where many of the same players have looked totally devoid of belief in their ability.

    To summarise my view, I think Davies earned the right to express his views on transfer policy or any other issue at the club by proving that he could do so without affecting team performance. I don’t believe that his integrity would have allowed him to publicly castigate others at the club for not doing their job properly if the merest suggestion existed that the same might apply to him. McClaren almost immediately adopted the position that he had the right to repeat the actions of his predecessor, apparently ignorant of the fact he was in no position to criticise whilst players with proven ability were consistently making basic errors under his charge.

    I do not see the relevance of how likely Davies’ return to the club is when discussing his qualities. The fact is that if Davies had remained in charge, the depression currently infecting our football club would be unimaginable. Certainly nobody would now be talking of the need for a “fresh start”. If even the most rudimentary logic was being applied to this situation, Davies would not merely be the best choice of manager, he would be the only choice.

    • http://seatpitch.co.uk Seat Pitch

      Great post Jamie, I don’t think I’ve seen such an eloquent case for Davies’ tenure… Don’t get me wrong though, I never viewed his time as a failure.

      Sadly, as usual with Forest, nobody really knows the whole truth and all we’re left with are ifs and buts. We may well have had more success with Davies if he’d been backed when he wanted and had a more amenable relationship with the board. But, in my opinion at least, his position was untenable because of that relationship — regardless of whose fault it was.

      If you believe the journalists reporting from the ‘front line’, Davies had been angling to leave Forest for at least a year and, it’s rumoured, there were several players glad to see him go.

      Whatever the truth, things would have been very different if he’d been left to get on with it on his terms. And that’s the crying shame of the whole situation…

  • Pingback: Nottingham Forest (since 1865) | The heart is in Nottingham, but Hart remains in London

  • Pingback: Last man standing at the City Ground | markyboy123

RELATED POSTS