Mike Rigg has spoken - not sure if this is already on here

[rusty shackleford]

I love how Rigg gets rid of the manager most people wanted rid of, and it has somehow made him the bad guy! This place is great craic

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

Interesting diversity of opinion.

My personal opinion is that Riggs comes across as a fairly typical corporate bullsh***er. Not necessarily a bad thing in itself; it's a normal part of modern business.
I've come across dozens in a long and undistinguished working life. Many of them I haven't liked, but that isn't really material, they weren't there to be liked. Many of them were ineffectual or even disastrous. But some were pretty impressive. It always seemed to me to depend on the knowledge and understanding rather than the delivery.
Riggs didn't actually reveal much in the interview, unsurprisingly (hence all the 'reading between the lines' malarky), but it seems that he is calling the shots, at least on this side of the Ocean, and we must hope that his footballing substance at least matches his style.  

agreed re coporate bull stuff
but i thought he looked very distressed and I suspect the expeience of sacking Kit was traumatic
he did say a few thinngs if taken at face value that were interesting. the descision was obviously iminent but a combination iof the international break and letting in 5 V birmingham was too good an opportunity timing wise... it was clear he knew kit wasn't long for this team.  second 'head coach.' i still am none the wiser as to what that means
whoever is in charge of the foirst team has to have total control of training team selection and tactics, otherwise we will go backwards. the man must surely have first refusal on transfer policy.... otherwise he will always say i could only work with what i had and if a player is purchased for reasonable money and he doesn't think much of him, what happens then?

persoanlly cut through the bull and I feel we are in big trouble and have little faith our board has the first clue as to what it is up to. I hope they prove me wrong.

You seem to have written a job specification for 'head coach'. What is the issue?

Sorry, I was under the impression this MB was for opinion and I gave mine. 'The issue' as you call it is that I have written what I think a head coach should probably be, but I actually have no idea whether that is correct and more importantly what mr Rigg thinks a head coach is. I am also completely at a loss to understand under what circumstances a manager becomes a head coach and vice verca and what the lines of delineation are and where there must be an inevitable blurring of the lines. All I have heard is fancy management speak from a man that was clearly still upset because nobody likes to be at the sharp end of such trauma.

That is the issue. I want to know what the remit of the new man is. And given they want to select a head coach not a manager then presumably that will rule out quite a large number of candidates, maybe not.

Actually, thinking about it, and for that matter I cannot say i really understand he, Mr Rigg, does.  It really isn't very obvious, if we have a head coach and not a manager, who will select the players to be in the first team squad and arrange transfer targets?  These are the types of things that are on my mind because they are very unclear at the moment. I bring these things to the MB because sometimes people have a little more information of value and they may also encourage an interesting discussion.

i was agreeing with your specification of the role of head coach.

Therefore I don't see any major problems or conflicts with Rigg's role. The major differences for me between 'manager' and 'head coach' seems to be that transfers have to be agreed with the Director of Football (and the CEO for the budget) rather than between the manager and the owner/Board and that the DoF has control over the u21s and below rather than a manager leaving the head coach to run the first team.

I don't see the complications to the degree that others apparently do.

I see. Do you think what i described plus what you have added re the accademy is what Mr Rigg meant because I am honestly not sure. I was really asking a question because this has been a mystery to me for ages at other clubs.

I suspect once a new man is appointed all will become clear (I hope so anyway).

I think it just means that the arrangements will continue as under Symons so that we will have a DoF + a Head Coach (plus the CEO and other coaches) rather than a Manager in the old fashioned sense of being the one person in charge making the decisions about everything.

As Rigg says in the interview, the Head Coach reports to the DoF, not directly to the owner, and the DoF reports to the owner.

This is what Khan seems to have decided was needed after Magath, a more hands on management structure on the footballing side with the DoF hiring and firing the Head Coach rather than leaving it to the Board which had no footballing experience.

That structure means that the DoF and the Head Coach have clear roles whereas the roles of DoF and a manager would clash.

[WORTHINGFULHAM]

Alot of people don't like Rigg, but we are lucky to have him in my opinion. He is the hatchet man and a man who knows what he and khan wants long term. He is someone who probably wouldn't be your friend but to have him at Fulham fc is a godsend from a business perspective. It doesn't matter if we like him or not he is there doing a job and for the better.