Wednesday 17th February, 20105 months ago
Taylor’s arrival sparks more questions than answers
The appointment of a new manager is almost always a time for optimism; but despite today’s confirmation Peter Taylor is to succeed Stuart McCall in the Valley Parade hotseat, I’m left with some uneasy feelings.
It’s not that I didn’t want Taylor to get the job. In an encouragingly strong shortlist, he stood out as the most capable candidate. Instead, it’s the length of contract he’s signed - until the end of the season – and the short and long term question marks which it raises. Just what are Taylor’s targets between now and then? What are his ambitions beyond this summer? There’s a danger the 18 remaining games this season could be among the most irrelevant in the club’s history.
Imagine the scenario of Taylor managing to turn around the recent poor form. City accelerate up the league table and threaten a play off spot, but the season’s end comes too early and they narrowly miss out. In between agonising over the what ifs, there would be loud calls for Taylor to be awarded a longer deal. Yet other clubs – in a division above and closer to his southern base - show interest too. Taylor leaves, City are back to square one.
Or, imagine the scenario of Taylor doing nothing to improve on what’s so far been a disappointing campaign. The Bantams finish little higher than they are now, or even drop lower. There are few fans willing for him to be given a new contract and so Taylor departs. Again, City are back to square one.
If there’s another managerial vacancy advertised at Valley Parade this summer, the eventual appointment would find out of contract players - Matt Glennon, Simon Ramsden, Luke O’Brien, Michael Flynn, Matt Clarke, Lee Bullock, Peter Thorne, Chris Brandon, Steve Williams, Jon McLaughlin, Michael and Rory Boulding, Jon Bateson, Leon Osborne, Luke Sharry and Steve O’Leary - had all probably departed, or Taylor had made a decision for them. Even if these players were still around hoping for a deal, would the new manager be able to adequately judge which ones to keep with no competitive action?
In the meantime there’s also the uncertain future of the existing coaching staff, the potential for the youth set up to be ignored, the threat that loan signings Taylor may make quickly departing having done little but block City’s fringe players from the opportunity to step up. The brief for Taylor seems to be little beyond steadying the ship, but does that mean we suspend considering the ship’s ultimate course?
Perhaps this is a clever approach. If Taylor doesn’t impress during his initial contract, we may be thankful the club is not committed to entrusting him for longer and having to consider an expensive sacking. It may be also be Taylor isn’t 100% sure about committing himself to the Bantams, and so working at the club for a few weeks wins him over and he becomes eager to sign up for longer.
The other consideration is whether the club has a long-term successor to McCall and Taylor firmly in mind, who isn’t available until the summer. BfB has previously reported how Paul Jewell is still being paid by Derby County, but come the summer he is more likely to be in need of work and may relish a return to City.
Joint Chairmen Mark Lawn has also been quoted on a number of occasions recently about a current League Two manager they wanted to speak to, but were denied permission. The smart money is this being Accrington’s John Coleman, and perhaps the club are prepared to hold out until the summer in order to get their man.
Whether Jewell or Coleman are in the long-term sights or not, Taylor’s arrival is at least reassurance the club isn’t repeating old mistakes. Three years ago last weekend, Colin Todd had been sacked and it was no secret Chairman Julian Rhodes was holding out to get McCall. With the City legend making it clear he was to see out his contract as assistant at Sheffield United so wouldn’t join until the summer, Rhodes resorted to David Wetherall as caretaker and the club slid to relegation. Handing the role to the City captain was not only costly for his inexperience, it meant one of the key players had their mind occupied on far more than his own game.
By appointing Taylor this time, the chairmen should have ensured a short-term boost of the team delivering at least the 10 more points needed to avoid relegation – but this is not a time for the pair to relax. There has to be a plan that goes beyond the final game of the season at Crewe, and then there has to be a plan B and a plan C. They simply cannot allow the club to be in a position of not knowing what to do if Taylor doesn’t work out, or they risk next season as well as this one being wasted.
The worry I have with Taylor coming in is the chairmen might increasingly look at managers as easily expendable and believe that, just because their mailbox was jammed with managerial CVs this time around, there’ll be as big a queue next time.
If they consider Taylor to be the man to guide the club over the next few months, what about the next few years? If they consider Taylor to be a stop gap, the search for a new manager must begin now.
It seems to me to be a very sensible approach from both parties. A quick decision was needed, and at the present time we are unsure about finances, Taylor doesn’t probably want to commit until he knows the finances and whether the club match his ambitions. He and indeed we have no idea which staff he might want/feel he needs, what happens with Jakes and Wethers for example? There are plenty of questions, and I’m pretty sure this is the reason why it is only a short term contract at this stage! At the end of the day a contract in football means nothing as we’ve all seen, and if you read his interview it appears that both parties are looking towards the long term. Well done to the club for making a swift, impressive appointment, hopefully we’ll make positive strides for the duration of this season, Taylor will see the ambition this club has, will sign a longer contract, shape his team and use his experience at this level well – and we’ll eventually start to move forward again!!
The BCFC site mentioned this morning that Taylor will have Jacobs assisting him
Whilst I agree that there are questions, I think there comes a point when we have to trust Lawn & Rhodes. They gave us what we wanted with McCall as manager, they have kept the club going when external forces would see it die, they gave McCall much longer than the results warranted (which is porbably again what the fans wanted) and then from a long list of failed managers they picked the, to quote Michael, “outstanding candidate”. They haven’t done a lot wrong, so I think we need to trust that they know what they’re doing here. The other main factor as Michael pointed out is that Taylor might not want anything longer.
There have been lots of rumours on the various messageboards but if I can put a theory forward – Lawn has seen that from a playing/coaching perpsective City are in a mess, he wanted to put someone in to help Stuart but he wouldn’t have it, now he’s going to put someone in place to put City back in the right shape. He wants this done by summer. Taylor an experienced successful manager is coming in with Hunter to sort out the coaching and the squad; to lay the foundations for someone to take over in the summer. If Taylor likes it and wants it the job will be his, but if not then the club will be in a good state for someone to take over.
I have always had reservations over Taylor because he seems to have a very big opinion of himself and tends to fall out with anyone and everyone, but the facts are that 1. he has got a successful record (Leicester apart), 2. unlike the other rumoured candidates he could get a job in a much higher league and 3. he is not shy of League 2 and a challenge. So as far as I’m concerned the King is dead, long live the King!
Thank you Jason for voicing my concerns so well.Throughout the recent days I have refrained from comment because it was all speculation but now we know the situation – and it’s still speculation!
You use the word “committing” a number of times and to me the way this appointment has panned out sums up,a lack of commitment on all sides.
How can anyone at the club work successfully when the alleged talk from the board room,even at the time of appointment, is about alternatives for the summer and others we wish to talk to.
The contracts issue of so many players and staff is also a real worry for the summer and is unlikely to be sorted in these circumstances.
Far from being a win/win situation I think this is a stop -gap measure aimed at ensuring League status above anything else and has no other bearing on the future of the club.
This appointment is not one to bring much-needed stability to the club. It leads to months of further speculation that benefits no one.
This is not a criticism of Peter Taylor but it IS a criticism of the club and the situation in which it has put itself and its supporters.If Peter Taylor was such an impressive candidate he should have been given the job of bringing the club on – but maybe he wouldn’t commit to that.
So board and manager end up satisfied and supporters have to go along with a situation that has , to me at least, too may parallels with our previous reliance on “loan” players – just when you begin to identify with them and see how much they can do for us, they’re gone and we’re back to square one.
If this was to be purely an interim appointment then I could have accepted that it was appropriate for the situation but a “Maybe / Maybe not” appointment does little to reflect the commitment of so many supporters whose hopes have been raised once again.
Good luck Peter.
Cheer up Jason!
I take your point, but at least we have a light at the end of the tunnel. I would have thought that Lawn and Rhodes will be knocking on Taylors door with an extension should he fit the bill within the next few weeks. How many other clubs have the potential of us in Leagues 1 and 2? A handful, and of those their managers are pretty much safe I would say.
Anyone any ideas of these 2 players Taylor has suggested that would improve City? And are we likely to be able to bring them in?
Thanks for the advice Steve! I’m on holiday from work for a couple of days and in the middle of a Simpsons DVD marathon, so fear not I don’t need to cheer up!
There are two different things here. In terms of the appointment of Taylor – I’m as a delighted as anyone. He was the best candidate and he’s track record shows he can do a job for us. As Michael said in his excellent article, he is an outstanding appointment.
However the length of contract is a real issue to me. When people like myself argued McCall should stay as manager it was to do with the belief of building a club long-term. We had a man who might not have always got his tactics right and who had made some disappointing signings, but who was paying attention to all aspects of running the club – including the youth set up.
Appointing Taylor for three months is a further move away from proper building. Because if Taylor leaves in the summer what will have been gained from these 18 matches? The season might well already be over, but if so you’d be building for next season, assessing the players and determining which areas need improving. If City end the season not sure what to do next, then the eventual new manager will be at a real disadvantage. If all the out of contract players leave, it will mean they would start with just six professional players on the books. It will greatly reduce the chances of instant promotion, so City may have to give the new man two years to get out of the league.
I think back to Paul Jewell as caretaker in 1997/98 season and, although it wasn’t necessarily planned he would get the job full time, that period did allow him to analyse the current players and make appropriate signings for the next season (and we all know how that worked out). If Taylor isn’t going to stay past the summer, what will he and Bradford City gain in the long term from him being in charge now?
I really hope it works with Taylor and that, come May, he and the club are both keen to iron out a proper contract. But if that doesn’t happen, I really hope the chairmen have a strong idea of who the next person will be so that they could perhaps even be looking at the games between now and May, so they can come in and make informed decisions.
If either of these scenarios work out then great, I certainly won’t need cheering up!
I wouldnt be surprised if a number of contract issues are sorted before the end of the season. Taylor will know the standard of player required to get promoted and I wouldnt be surprised if this is taken advantage of over the next 4 months. If Taylor thinks they are good enough then they will be good enough for another manager, also vice versa. Any friendships, personal crusades go out of the window with a new manager. Perform or be shipped out. Its like getting in Ofsted and supernany for a few months
Yes, the out of contract players are a concern (some of them) but hopefully Taylor isn’t so callous, nor them so dispassionate about the club as to let them all leave for nothing. I would hope that Taylor, or whoever is in charge come the summer still has the likes of Ramsden, Williams and O’Brien to build on next season, but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. A mad dash to the play offs? Let’s have the first half of last season again, now!
Come on City!!
In a way, I hope that Peter Taylor is NOT allowed to bring in new players, loans or otherwise. I would rather he spent time assessing and coaching the current squad. Stability is a word that been much used on this website recently and rightly so, but I think that stability should extend to the squad too, with reservations. Stuart used a lot of loan players last year, some who were very good and some who were worse than our contracted players. It was a gamble that failed. Perhaps the added quality of loan players was not enough to overcome the damage to the cohesion of the team.
I hope that Peter Taylor can get the most of our current squad because we have some good players but not a good team at the moment.
I’m relieved that Peter Taylor has been appointed and i would be suprised if Lawn and Rhodes didn’t offer him a longer contract before the current deal runs out. I believe the chairmen would have been suprised by the positive response to the role and therefore they only stated they were looking for a short-term option until someone of Taylors calibur potentially became available in the summer. The shorter-term deal may be somewhat of a reflection of Lawn and Rhodes not wanting to go back on their word, especially after the ‘sacking’ of McCall seemed to raise questions of the chairmen.
Taylor’s background in football excites me most about this capture. He has had various successes in terms of getting teams promoted as already discussed. His stint in non-league football could help our newly professional players. England under 21 success could help out our quite young squad develop and reach it’s potential. Moreover, this signing has once again raised the perceived ambition of the club and hopefully this will encourage players who were thinking of leaving to stay and help bring in new faces from the higher leagues.
I fear the intrinsic insatiable appetite for pessemism that plagues the majority of city fans is clouding many people’s judgement.
Taylor has already said he see this as a long term project analogous to his Hull experience and (chairman willing) would like to stay for a long period. There is no need to get twitchy about long term aspirations, let him steady the ship and exhibit enough performances to suggest we’ll mount a campaign next year, then sit down and negotiate.
A probation period is typical in modern employment contracts and very few managers make it to the end of their stated contractual term (meaning there is an early termination fee). The initial contract period is excellent in my view as it incentivises the incumbent (Taylor) to perform to a level worthy of longer employment. This is an approach straight out of the commercial world and I suspect is Mr Lawn’s brainchild. Football has operated by its own rules for too long, congratulations to the Board for adopting a more business like approach to this appointment.
I am confident Taylor will deliver the goods, is Wembley a bridge too far this year??
Hi Matt
With respect, I think your viewpoint is based only on Taylor succeeding rather than considering what if he doesn’t do very well. I’m not a pessimistic fan by any means, and I think Taylor will do well. But this is hardly the first time City have appointed a manager with a good track record, and history shows there is no guarantee he will be successful.
I too have been thinking about the comparisons with the commercial world and how probationary contracts are the norm – this does work from what I’ve seen where I work. However, I think in football it is different. For one most people in the commercial world, even managers and directors, don’t have a probationary period where they have to assess whether to keep or get rid of the staff below them. More often when they don’t work out, a replacement is recruited and any ideas they had instigated which haven’t worked are simply undone. It’s not that simple for City with the playing staff.
I really hope it works, and I’m looking forward to going to Accrington on Saturday for the Taylor era to kick off, but I don’t think the board can relax for a minute and they have to plan for the future in years not months. I’m sure we can all agree in hoping they are.
Please can we all be positive!! This is the first genuine piece of good news that City fans have had in at least 5 years?! How anybody can be even slightly negative about this is beyond me?!
As I wrote this morning, football clubs are all about momentum (good or bad) & city have been on a downward slide for too long. Today should be the day that all City fans remember as it should be the start of some upwards momentum.
We have all had just cause to moan & complain for many years now (I seem to have done it continually to all my friends about City for as long as I can remember!!), but we should all now be coming together to support the players & new management team to try and get this club back where it should be. PLEASE CAN WE ALL BE POSITIVE!
I fully agree with both Jason and Michael and think this short term appointment is symptomatic of what’s wrong at our club just now.
On what basis were the co chairman appointing a manager? “He must have proven credentials in getting a team promoted from this division and if there is one outstanding candidate then we will consider making a longer term appointment straight away” there was never any chance of finding anyone who better matched those assertions.
What the short term appointment shows me is that Rhodes and Lawn “bottled it”, not having the courage of their convictions. Just who in the summer would be available with a better CV than Taylor’s? John Coleman? I think not!
This, added to the clubs policy of only signing players on 1 yr contracts shows just how far we’ve fallen. Short term-ism is the order of the day in the boardroom. To those who say “we could get someone else in the summer, I can only mention comments attributed to no lesser person than the late Sir Bobby Robson “Summer is the worst time to take over as manager at a new club. You’ve not seen your new players in a competitive match. You don’t know what you’ve got to work with but you’re supposed to start building a successful team.”
Taylor’s got plenty of time to assess his playing staff and decide what he needs to take the club forward. He should have been given at least an 18 month contract. This wouldn’t have broken the club. Instead he will become a free agent in the summer. We have every right to be worried.
Thanks for your response Jason.
On your first point. I don’t think my comments pre-suppose success, nor are they exclusively applicable to a successful outcome. The beauty of the probation period is that it allows for both success and failure to be dealt with equally well.
I think it’s flawed logic to assume that only a long term contract can deliver long term success. There’s an equally credible school of thought in support of the contrary which believes that long term contracts remove incentivisation from the equation.
I personally don’t side with either view, I think the approach here is a sensible one, the transfer window is closed, no major changes to personnel can be made. It allows us to judge him on his management skills alone.
I am not personally concerned that those out of contract at the end of the year may leave, aside from a few players most of the squad are largely dispensable (as evidenced by our league position). Decisions on these players future have to be made, be it by an interim manager or a permanent one. Yes there is an inherent risk in allowing this decision to be made by an individual who may not be around next year, however, I’d rather that be the case than a decision made by an individual who has a two year contract but is ultimately an inferior manager/judge of player. In addition, Taylor’s contract is for the remainder of the season (meaning presumably last fixture in May). If it transpires that he is leaving, I believe there is ample time for any replacement manager to take stock of the squad and form his own view on who to retain or release.
I think the board have got this spot on. We can all speculate as to why they have taken the approach they have done. I can only presume they hadn’t anticipated such demand for the role. If Abbot, Coleman, Knill et al were the calibre of candidate the board initially expected, then imagine their surprise when Dowie, Cotteril, Allen and Taylor applied.
Hi again Matt
These are some interesting points you make and they’re not ones you necessarily hear many football fans say (even if deep down it’s how many feel). Perhaps you should write an article about your views on short term and long term planning for this site? I’m sure Michael would welcome it.
Personally I’m a strong advocate for the longer term approach and this was much to do with why McCall had my support. I really thought that this season he was getting it right in terms of bringing in players with a view for lengthy Bantams’ careers rather than older pros seeing out a year. I think since McCall joined he made it clear how important things like the youth set up is to the club, and has done much in the community too. I’m not sure the argument long term meant McCall relaxed, but some might say Colin Todd had less incentivisation.
I don’t share your view the squad is largely dispensable and I think we do have to bear in mind how tight the finances are at VP. We have a number of players – Clarke, Boulding, Bullock and Thorne for example – who have taken pay cuts to stay at the club. We can release them in the summer in the hope we get better replacements, but would they be as cheap or would they cause problems with the budget elsewhere? Similarly if Taylor offers deals to some players and leaves, what if his replacement doesn’t fancy them? He won’t have the budget to replace them.
It’s very different, but it’s interesting to note Colchester United’s efforts to sue Norwich for stealing their manager Paul Lambert (which may yet result in the League One leaders suffering a points deduction) on the basis of deserving compensation as his replacement Aidy Boothroyd wanted to sign replacements for the players Lambert had brought in. I’m sure the players Lambert had signed at Colchester are good, but each manager is different and wants to choose their players.
I really hope you are proven to be right and the board have got this spot on. I don’t wish to be unduly negative, but I personally don’t want the club to adopt a short term outlook and I hope this is a temporary thing. Certainly Taylor has said some impressive things today about taking the club forwards, let’s all hope the gets the chance to do this.
Though I think your point about the players with contracts up at the end of this season is well made and while I’m slightly surprised at the length of the contract offered to Taylor, I think we have to take the explanations given by both sides at face value.
Quite simply Taylor has a real chance to succeed with City (no guarantee – granted) which would scupper any secret intention by the chairmen to bring in anyone else in the summer. Surely with that kind of, let’s face it, uncharacteristic, forward thinking, they would’ve been better off doing what everyone expected and appointing Jacko and setting him up to get the boot with no hard feelings in the summer.
Apparently Taylor, before the interviews process had finished and with no job offered to him, called VP with suggestions for players to be brought in. He clearly has a plan and while he and City sniff each other’s bottoms Lawn and Rhodes have time to find an alternative should he be so successful that he goes elsewhere or fails miserably.
I reckon Taylor’s appointment is the best we could’ve got at this point and that the length of his contract is actually a sound and, in their eyes, quite unbelievable stroke of luck. When we read the comments that came from Lawn and Rhodes how many of us thought: ‘Short term contract = Jacko, long term = Taylor IF WE’RE LUCKY!’
Can’t see anything other than win-win. And, while I’m as stupidly optimistic as any other idiot football fan, I realy don’t expect us to go up. Although…
Spot on Graeme and Matt and Ben. Can’t see anything negative in this except for the comments on this page. As I said earlier we have no reason to distrust the Chairmen.
I think the joint Chairmen have got this one just about right.I think both parties have explained the reasons behind the short term contract and that should be taken at face value.There is a chance that either Taylor can’t settle at the club or that he’s a massive success and a bigger fish comes in for him at the seasons end,but that senario could have happened with a three year deal in place.
Personally I don’t think people should be that fearful of the summer. Considering the quality of candidates we attracted during this mid season change surely we can attract the same quality, or even better, during the summer?So even if Taylor succeeds, which is a low threshold in my eyes,or fails I suspect the manager of 2010/2011 will still be relatively successful and experienced(if Taylor OR who ever the board elects for).