You’d think so but it’s all got to do with the structure of the club. You see the coach is answerable to the head of high performance but there’s only a dotted line of reporting from that position through the head groundskeeper position to the ceo. As a result, X is nominally responsible for the success of the coach but it wouldn’t be fair on him to hold him accountable for that performance.
The guy has just steered us through the biggest shitstorm in the history of the game. He’s one of the major reasons why the club isn’t a complete basket case as a result of something that would have destroyed lesser clubs. How he’s copping criticism I don’t understand. I’d go as far as to say he’s one of the greatest assets this club has.
In regards to the performance of the team it’s his job to provide the football department with the best resources and opportunities available for them to succeed. I fail to see how he falls short here.
If anyone has an issue with Worsfolds appointment, I’d love to hear who they would have hired at the end of 2015 and a reasoned argument for why they would have done better with the circumstances Worsfold found himself in.
P.S. One game and three minutes is not a running joke.
Most successful clubs seem to have young people in high positions with fresh ideas. I like that he is ceo, i think our coaching panel might need some more young blood in it too i’d say it’s one of the oldest in the game.