Previous Message

I agree with you that TFG's financial prudence is welcome and represents stability. Mortgaging the club's future on a punt and hoping for the best - which was the club's MO under Kenwright, was never going to work and Moshiri (Usmanov's) fall from grace via the Ukraine War (plus the introduction of PSR) put the club in a terribly precarious position.

We're at the point now where it's clear TFG will never allow "Everton" (the footballing entity) to get near to points deductions / needing to sell a player on Transfer Deadline Day to appease the bank. So in that respect, I would agree the club is stable (and unless something very bizarre happens) and will remain so for the foreseeable.

Alongside that sensible financial management, TFG also need to implement an 'on the pitch' strategy one which should allow the club the greatest chance to succeed.

And it's at this point, where you and I disagree quite strongly. I think 'stability' on the playing side is pretty much a misnomer. I think the key thing a club needs is alignment.

Players inevitably come and go, that's just part of football (always has been). And actually, managers (unless they perform) also come and go. The idea that 'stability' is the necessary attribute, I don't think is true. The clubs who are successful (and the managers - coaches - who are successful) is where there is alignment. Put simply, the strategy (how you plan to win) aligns with how the manager/coach implements that strategy. And the alignment across the football club (Execs/Recruiters/Coaches) is what leads to stability.

Last close season was a stuttering start for TFG's 'new regime' primarily because not all of the people were employed and working at Everton, in time for that Transfer Window. But despite that, I think you can see the strategy that TFG propose to implement - buy primarily young players with upside / room to grow and supplement with older more experienced players.

We clearly don't have alignment. The manager is not implementing that strategy. There are ad nauseum examples which demonstrate that to the point where I don't think the counter argument can even be made. You cannot function properly as a club when the manager does not play the players he's been bought, where his beliefs are at odds with the people holding the purse strings - where he is not aligned with the strategy.

I think last season (on the pitch) was a total failure of process. The Manager took short-term decisions (at the likely cost of the Club's longer term prospects) and it backfired badly. As frustrating as that is to look back on, the opportunity last season presented (the lowest points total required to qualify for the Conference League) has gone. We need to focus on next season.

And it boils down to this - does this manager (with his accumulated history/baggage) and with just 1 year left on his contract, have the capability to work within the strategy that the club very much appears to want him to?

We could keep him for 1 more season - or worse, even longer and have our 'stability'. I suggest that employing a manager/coach who is prepared to work within the strategy the football execs are working to (to create alignment across the Club) is significantly more likely to create success.