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

[gezkc]

One thing I took from this interview was that Rigg never wanted Kit, "let's plan for the divorce" wouldn't be the greatest thing to hear for anyone.

Sounds very sensible to me, particularly considering Kit's inexperience. All managers have to leave some time, be it for poor results or them moving on to bigger and better things. I don't think it necessarily means Riggs didn't want him.

[Wimbledon_White]

One thing I took from this interview was that Rigg never wanted Kit, "let's plan for the divorce" wouldn't be the greatest thing to hear for anyone.

Yeah that is shocking.

Sounds to me like Kit never stood a chance once Rigg was on-board.

So much for our values.

Are you in love with Kit?
I thought this was all about football and what is best for our club!

What?
So we can't feel sympathy for the man?

[nose]

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.

[BestOfBrede]

One thing I took from this interview was that Rigg never wanted Kit, "let's plan for the divorce" wouldn't be the greatest thing to hear for anyone.

Yeah that is shocking.

Sounds to me like Kit never stood a chance once Rigg was on-board.

So much for our values.

Are you in love with Kit?
I thought this was all about football and what is best for our club!

What?
So we can't feel sympathy for the man?

I'm sorry wimbledonwhite, but you have haven't stopped having a dig at those that weren't happy with Kit! Now you are attempting to suggest that he never had a chance and the values of our club are not worth very much?
The geezer had a good run and is still respected by most supporters at Fulham...
But unfortunately, he isn't right, at this time, to take us up and keep us up!

He's gone now so just leave it and await the new Head coach.

[rubbernecca]

Bring back Rene Meulensteen

:plus one:

[rubbernecca]

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.   

Beyond the corporate BSer, he also has a big ego and seems to be the only person calling the shots. 

This is an organisation?

[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?

[Ichabod Magoo]

One thing I took from this interview was that Rigg never wanted Kit, "let's plan for the divorce" wouldn't be the greatest thing to hear for anyone.

I guess that's one of the first things he'll discuss with the new coach ... planning for the inevitable divorce.

[Ichabod Magoo]

Bring back Rene Meulensteen

Do you really think he could be convinced to leave his consulting position in the City of Brotherly Love ... or better yet, Chester?   :022:

[H4usuallysitting]

Rigg worries me...... Far to much corporate speak, he appears to have the ear of Mr Khan and this could be a problem in attracting the right candidate for the new Coach/Manager position......I fear that a corporate approach will not get us the right Coach/Manager and hope this doesn't become a backward step for the club

[MJG]

Of course he has the ear of Khan,  Khan employed him to be exactly that.

[nose]

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.

[Asotosyios]

I think all those that question our decision to go for a Head Coach rather than a Manager or cannot understand the difference should have a look at Garry Neville's article on the "The era of the gaffer is over" thread.

[nose]

I think all those that question our decision to go for a Head Coach rather than a Manager or cannot understand the difference should have a look at Garry Neville's article on the "The era of the gaffer is over" thread.

Our descision? I do not recall being asked my opinion but leaving that aside I thank you for pointing me in the direction of the article, do you know where I can find it, do you have a link?
What i do know regardless of the article is that if you really want to be successful in any walk of life you need a leader that is not afraid to and able to make decisions. If the man charged with picking the team and running the tactics is not in sole charge there is a recipe for an unaccountable muddle.

[filham]

Well we now no who is running the club and for sure the new Head Coach will have to accept Rigsby as a boss.

This of course rules out proven giants such as Moyes, Bruce, O'Neill and Rednap. We are destined to have a pure coach looking for what could be a possible stepping stone into management coming to us with the intention of staying for a couple  years experience.

[Asotosyios]

I think all those that question our decision to go for a Head Coach rather than a Manager or cannot understand the difference should have a look at Garry Neville's article on the "The era of the gaffer is over" thread.

Our descision? I do not recall being asked my opinion but leaving that aside I thank you for pointing me in the direction of the article, do you know where I can find it, do you have a link?
What i do know regardless of the article is that if you really want to be successful in any walk of life you need a leader that is not afraid to and able to make decisions. If the man charged with picking the team and running the tactics is not in sole charge there is a recipe for an unaccountable muddle.

You can find the link on this thread: http://www.friendsoffulham.com/forum/index.php?topic=50949.0

When I said our decision, I meant the club's decision. For the record, I do agree with you that we need a leader but I don't think that the Head Coach will be a Rigg's yes man. This system with a Director of Football/General Manager and a Head Coach is something common in Europe and even more common in all professional sports in the States, so I fully understand Khan's decision to apply a similar system to Fulham.

[Jimmy Hill]

I think the club are right to employ this system.

Obviously the Head Coach is going to have an input into who comes in but what they are trying to avoid is when you employ a manager you get all there followers with agent fees etc..

I would imagine it being a double tick approach so whoever comes in doesn't have free rein on the cheque book. This structure also protects the director of football from the media allowing for continuity in the club when there is a change of coach.

Yes Rigg is a bit too corporate but he is a man with a plan for our club and has been consistent and ambitious in what he has been saying from the beginning. Im happy for him to hire the next person, "who he wants" and see with interest if he can deliver.

Personally i think Rigg's plan will get us promoted by May 2017

[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.

[Burt]

My thoughts:
1. The club didn't have to do an interview like this, but chose to do so. Hats off to them for that.
2. There is complete clarity on what the next person will be - a head coach.
3. There is complete clarity on the selection criteria - someone who fits in with the Fulham ethos, and someone experienced with a track record at this level.
4. There is complete clarity on the goal - top 6, return to the premier league.
5. It looks like there is a healthy dose of realism in the place - work for the best, but plan for the worst too, and be transparent about that.
6. Like it or not, football is a multi-million pound enterprise nowadays and so having corporate types like Riggs in place is essential.

A good interview, I thought...

[nose]

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).