Is O'connor up to the job??

[jgriffin]

Nice reasonable post. The problem is that Tigers have had their greatest successes largely from within, with crucial interventions from Barbed Wire etc (I don't count Loffreda or Meyer). There has been a certain amount of glue throughout with former players such as Deano, Cockers and Smurf. We seem to have entered another turbulent period like the one around the Loffreda/Meyer debacles - which to some degree were player-initiated.
We have to be honest - the BoD has made some great commercial choices, but more variable ones on the park. We tried to continue with the thrifty model despite the increasing evidence of failure to compete with the more overt moneymen. There was then a change of tack, but IMO I worry that the calibre of key coaches we have aren't up to it. Bozza has done a great job but then we begin to ask questions. Really needed a triumvirate of experienced and proven effective forwards coach, head coach, backs coach, with add-ons of defence, breakdown etc. Not sure we have ticked all the boxes.

[johnthegriff]

Obviously at present our team is not where we want it to be, the reasons have been discussed many times and we all have our views. Past history suggests that we do better with coaches that have past experience at the club, I personally think that the club were wrong to sack Cockers but agree that change had to be made, change does not happen overnight, it takes time and our new head coach has inherited a squad not of his choosing, he has managed a few adjustments losing some higher paid players he viewed as surplus to requirement and signing one or two the management team thought would add to the squad. Money management within the salary cap is a factor, losing a contracted player does not necessarily free up all his wage immediately, and maybe the wage of an unused player does not count against the cap. I am guessing a little but the thought seems reasonable. Some of the recent recruits that have been criticised may be here because they were cheap and we hoped only to be using them in extreme emergency or not at all. I think we will see evidence of further planned changes in the coming weeks and fair judgement of the current management /coaching set up comes when next season is under well under way.
The criticism of the board and Simon Cohen is unfair, in the years since the game went professional we have purchased our own ground, and some of the surrounding land, built two new stands that have produced major revenue streams and on the pitch won a lot of trophies. The plans for a hotel and a multi-storey car park are not vanity projects, they are key to Tigers being self sufficient, I am not sure how some can criticise Leicester for these schemes yet praise Wasps their use of the Ricoh. As I understand it the Granby Halls site development will require very little capital investment by our PLC whilst the car park meets all the criteria applied by banks for loans that will self finance repayments, unlike the Crumbie Stand or a new training ground. Incidentally our current training facilities are pretty good, I have not seen what other Premiership clubs have but I have heard comments by players that have and generally they are favourable to Leicester. We have not got a Leicester City type dome but facilities at Loughborough do compensate for that to a certain extent. The Board have not got everything right, who does? On the whole I think they have been pretty good, there have been changes over the years, there are now fewer players as directors but maybe the business experience has grown and I welcome the appointments of senior club executives like Andrea and Ian into policy making roles and with Ben Kay and Rory Underwood we have voices with practical professional rugby experience. Those that want to change the board should ask themselves who would they change them for, and maybe they should buy a few shares and come to the AGM and make their comments known face to face.

[BFG]

Perfectly explained situation around the salary cap johnthegriff, but I think that squad should not be anywhere near the salary cap and wonder how and why it got close to it!
The squad is not high quality enough to warrant being near the cap and if it is then Leicester are overpaying players above the pay grade that their quality demands in my opinion!
I can only really see a few that could be considered top earners, Cole, Ford, Toomua and obviously Manu and Mulipola at the time of signing were both hitting top notes regularly, and possibly May but wingers are a plenty so shouldn't be so in my opinion!
This is a big problem if more are earning amounts close to the above, like being ripped off buying a car and spending all your money on a dud and then having no money for repairs when it keeps breaking down, but even when you do scrape together some for repairs it's so little only a botch job can be afforded!

[kend]

The answer to the OP's question is 'nobody knows'. He inherited a team of coaches and players; until he has the chance to get his own team in place we just won't know. Hopefully the people that appointed him will have seen the plan and believe it is credible.

The criticism of the board and Simon Cohen is unfair, in the years since the game went professional we have purchased our own ground, and some of the surrounding land, built two new stands that have produced major revenue streams and on the pitch won a lot of trophies. The plans for a hotel and a multi-storey car park are not vanity projects, they are key to Tigers being self sufficient

True enough, but they are also the people who make the decisions for the head coach/DoR. As such they do have the ultimate responsibility for the performance on the field. It's a bit like a supermarket congratulating their CEO for maximising gains from their property estate while ignoring loss in core business market share.

If it turns out to be another wrong decision then someone at board level has to go. I wonder where the crunch point is? A failure to make top four (we can maybe afford to lose 2/3 more games and still keep forth in reach?) will cause some interesting questions. I would have thought top six is non-negotiable, because of the revenue implications. IMHO, top six and all involved get another season!

[TigerCam]

Regardless of how the real-estate and investments are performing if the product is poor, which it currently is, then the buck stops at the CEO desk. A CEO is has the ultimate responsibility to at least maintain and definately improve the product. Infrastructure is just one element. The product is what takes the field every match day. It is the product the the supporters buy year in-year out and one aim/value of a CEO is to make sure it should always satisfy - 100%. If the Tigers do not make the play-offs this season then the CEO has to answer for it and given the past few years of so-called 'transition, change, adjustment' without consistency of improvement, the question has to be asked of the CEO why and as their employment is a 'results' based position, lack of results they should be replaced for the sake of the product and it customers.

[johnthegriff]

Fair points, I did say I thought the Board wrong to sack Cocker. The problem is many coaches prove their quality at one club although they may fail at another and succeed again elsewhere, a coach may get the best out of some players but he needs good players to win trophies and time to find and select ones who fit the style of play he wants. I agree top six is a must and challenging for silverware next season is essential. The Board may have been wrong to sack Deano, they were wrong not to keep Wellsy, Lofreda and Meyer did not live up to expectation, Cocker probably exceeded expectation. The Board were right in appointing Dwyer, Deano, Howard and Cocker, it is a lottery and only time tells if a decision is a good one, immediate results can be misleading sticking with a bad decision is in my opinion the only area where blame can be attached and I don't think we are at that stage. MOC needs time and it would be wrong to deny him that.

[PhilG57]

OK John, I'm up for the "buy a few shares, and go to the AGM" plan. However the info on share purchase which was on the club website seems to have disappeared. Can you point me in the right direction?

[wellstiger]

Short answer..... NO....
Middling answer.....No not with the supporting coaches or lack there of.
Long answer ....Possibly if a decent set of supporting coaches, who could work with him are appointed.
Possibly if he is brave enough to drop senior players who are obviously underperforming for what ever reason
Possibly if the board appoint early Jan 2018 so as to build momentum for next season.
Possibly if he is brave enough to ship out those who are past sell by date.

[strawclearer]

It's such a difficult question to answer. Indeed, it may not even be the right question!

When I left University, I was not fit to run a business. I may have had a few of the necessary abilities but I had hardly any of the skills and none of the experiences. By my mid 30's, I'd had senior roles in companies with hundreds of employees and £multi-million turnovers - sometimes successfully, other times...meh! I'd put myself into a position where I could realistically ask a BoD to take a calculated risk by making me an MD for the first time.

Asking a proven MD with a history of success to take on the leadership role is easy - but expensive. Appointing someone without that pedigree is far riskier, if cheaper. It also requires that some time be given to allow the new leader to 'grow into the role'. He (or she) is unlikely to 'hit the ground running' as would the proven, more expensive MD. If the Board gets it right, they're heroes! Get it wrong and they - and their MD - should not last long.

(Incidentally - asking which of these routes the Board wants to follow is just about the first question a 'Head-hunter' should ask!)

So - I ask: did the BoD see MO'C as a proven Head Coach who would provide immediate, significant improvement or as one who would need to be given time to succeed in the role? Did they properly determine which of the two the Club needed before the Search began? Has he been promoted into a job that is within his abilities to learn, develop and grow into or has he reached his level of incompetence?

If we knew the answers to these questions, the next step might be easier to predict!

[G.K]

I'm not sure they even asked the questions.

Proven success? Certainly not.

Grow into the role? Do me favour - he's coached at Tigers before and has been a head coach.

Anyway neither Lofredda nor Mauger were given the opportunity to 'grow into the role' so why should someone who's coached here before?