Johannes Spors

[Dman]

On 23/10/2025 at 16:02, Matthew Le God said:

Better to have someone good for a short time, than plod along with someone other clubs think aren't good enough.

yeah, because that has worked an absoulte treat for us since SR came in. 

Joe Sheilds - 5 months then he was off

Jason Wilcox - 8 months then he was off

Spors - 8 months, looks to be off. 

Completely unsustainable for the figure head of our club in a footballing respect to change as frequently as that. Its absolutely no wonder we're a complete basket case. 

 

[Matthew Le God]

12 minutes ago, Dman said:

yeah, because that has worked an absoulte treat for us since SR came in. 

Joe Sheilds - 5 months then he was off

Jason Wilcox - 8 months then he was off

Spors - 8 months, looks to be off. 

Completely unsustainable for the figure head of our club in a footballing respect to change as frequently as that. Its absolutely no wonder we're a complete basket case. 

 

Jumping to conclusions to say "looks to be off"

Also bizarre to deliberately pick weaker candidates for a job than you need to.

[Dman]

23 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Jumping to conclusions to say "looks to be off"

Also bizarre to deliberately pick weaker candidates for a job than you need to.

well done, in usual fashion you've completely missed the point 👍

[trousers]

19 minutes ago, Dman said:

well done, in usual fashion you've completely missed the point 👍

There's probably a "fallacy" in your reply. Not sure which one though, will leave that to MLG to clarify.

[benjii]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

There's probably a "fallacy" in your reply. Not sure which one though, will leave that to MLG to clarify.

Ad nauseam phallus, incoming.

[Matthew Le God]

3 hours ago, Dman said:

well done, in usual fashion you've completely missed the point 👍

Yes or no. Do you want Saints to sign staff the top cubs won't want to sign in the future?

[trousers]

59 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Yes or no. Do you want Saints to sign staff the top clubs won't want to sign within 1 year?

Made the question more pertinent to our situation for you...

P.s. there are pros and cons of both scenarios, for what it's worth...

 

Edited Monday at 13:14 by trousers

[coalman]

4 hours ago, Dman said:

yeah, because that has worked an absoulte treat for us since SR came in. 

Joe Sheilds - 5 months then he was off

Jason Wilcox - 8 months then he was off

Spors - 8 months, looks to be off. 

Completely unsustainable for the figure head of our club in a footballing respect to change as frequently as that. Its absolutely no wonder we're a complete basket case. 

In many new jobs it's going to take you 5-6 months to get to the point where you're really delivering. The first couple of months are about figuring what goes where. Then where you can add some value. And, only then, can you start to make serious headway. Our recent DoFs have stayed long enough to turn the dog's arse they inherited into a bigger dog's arse then fucked off.

[Dman]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

Yes or no. Do you want Saints to sign staff the top cubs won't want to sign in the future?

I want saints to sign staff (and by staff we mean the man setting the strategy of the club), who stay in a job long enough to actually make a difference. 

[Matthew Le God]

18 minutes ago, Dman said:

I want saints to sign staff (and by staff we mean the man setting the strategy of the club), who stay in a job long enough to actually make a difference. 

You have avoided the question by answering something I did not ask. It was a yes or no question.

Edited Monday at 13:43 by Matthew Le God

[CB Fry]

18 minutes ago, Dman said:

I want saints to sign staff (and by staff we mean the man setting the strategy of the club), who stay in a job long enough to actually make a difference. 

In fairness to the club I think they are trying to do that. 

They are not intentionally appointing people that they know will leave after seven months.

Edited Monday at 13:42 by CB Fry

[tdmickey3]

1 minute ago, CB Fry said:

In fairness to the club I think they are trying to do that. 

They are not intentionally appointing people that they know will leave after seven months.

Maybe but are you forgetting the compo they receive from the individuals new employer..... profit not to be sniffed at

[Holmes_and_Watson]

43 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Maybe but are you forgetting the compo they receive from the individuals new employer..... profit not to be sniffed at

Staff trading along with player trading is the SR way. Presumably a reason why we also hired only up and coming project managers.

[Dman]

50 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

In fairness to the club I think they are trying to do that. 

They are not intentionally appointing people that they know will leave after seven months.

I'm not aruging they are - clearly they aren't. The question is probably why are these people leaving..?

But to say, to MLG's point, its better to have someone for a short period that everyone wants, is clearly nonsense.. as proven by the past 2 years. 

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, Dman said:

I'm not aruging they are - clearly they aren't. The question is probably why are these people leaving..?

Not hard to work that out. Because some of biggest and richest clubs in world football offer them huge wage increases. 

[Matthew Le God]

7 minutes ago, Dman said:

But to say, to MLG's point, its better to have someone for a short period that everyone wants, is clearly nonsense.. as proven by the past 2 years. 

You've taken that out of context. Re-insert the context of what I was comparing it to.

[CB Fry]

19 minutes ago, Dman said:

I'm not aruging they are - clearly they aren't. The question is probably why are these people leaving..?

Man United, Chelsea and (let's see if it happens) Juventus. 

Why would they stay? I definitely wouldn't.

[trousers]

MLG and Dman both have valid points:

a) appointing a DoF that nobody else wants = not great

b) appointing DoFs that keep getting enticed elsewhere within months of joining Saints = not great

Is there an answer to this conundrum? Who knows. I'd probably look at other similar sized clubs to see how they manage to keep hold of decent DoFs and perhaps use them as a template for what we could/should do...

 

Edited Monday at 15:23 by trousers

[mikee]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

MLG and Dman both have valid points:

a) appointing a DoF that nobody else wants = not great

b) appointing DoFs that keep getting enticed elsewhere within months of joining Saints = not great

Is there an answer to this conundrum? Who knows. I'd probably look at other similar sized clubs to see how they manage to keep hold of decent DoFs and perhaps use them as a template for what we could/should do...

 

I guess the answer is to have success on the pitch so that people want to stay and ride the wave of success. Unfortunately we have been in a downward spiral so it's a case of rats deserting a sinking ship.

[stknowle]

On 23/10/2025 at 15:36, S-Clarke said:

I don't believe that Sports Directors keep leaving us simply because other clubs come knocking, there is seemingly a will for them to explore other opportunities and open the door for these approaches quite quickly. It's usually a good 6 months > year and the cycle continues.

They must see the chaos and they know they're better off running rather than committing long term, and let's not forget that if Rasmus still has his muddy hands all over everything, he could certainly be winding up any Sporting Directors once they've been in the room for a period of time. 

There is a consistent factor which pre-dates Sheilds, Wilcox and Sporrs - and he's called Rasmus.

A key indicator of a badly run business is high staff turnover. SFC have this, ergo it is a badly run business run by idiots.

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, stknowle said:

A key indicator of a badly run business is high staff turnover. SFC have this, ergo it is a badly run business run by idiots.

Losing staff to significantly richer and higher-profile companies is not an indicator of a badly run business. Please do not take this as me saying that the club is being well run.

[stknowle]

8 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Losing staff to significantly richer and higher-profile companies is not an indicator of a badly run business. Please do not take this as me saying that the club is being well run.

Nonsense Matthew, the staff see how shit the business is and want out asap, ideally to better employers. However I am prepared to grant your request to not take your statement as you saying the club is being well run. 👍

Edited Monday at 16:13 by stknowle

[Badger]

Not sure what we look for on the CV for a Sporting Director. Wonder if our search is based solely on football related matters and experience. Perhaps this is too narrow and we should widen the criteria.

Aberdeen are showing the way to this less blinkered approach.

 

 

[SW11_Saint]

19 minutes ago, Badger said:

Not sure what we look for on the CV for a Sporting Director. Wonder if our search is based solely on football related matters and experience. Perhaps this is too narrow and we should widen the criteria.

Aberdeen are showing the way to this less blinkered approach.

 

 

I mean, I’d hire him just to hear the stories over a 🍺!

Edited Monday at 20:56 by SW11_Saint

[Badger]

Just now, SW11_Saint said:

I mean, I’d just hire him to heat the stories over a 🍺!

Sounds as if he knows how to pick up a penguin. 

[saint michael]

5 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

Losing staff to significantly richer and higher-profile companies is not an indicator of a badly run business. Please do not take this as me saying that the club is being well run.

Which of these hires do you think have been successful for saints and why? What do you think the bigger clubs have seen to want to hire them?

[TheAlehouseBrawlers]

6 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

Losing staff to significantly richer and higher-profile companies is not an indicator of a badly run business. Please do not take this as me saying that the club is being well run.

Joe Shields couldn't go directly from City to Chelsea, same with Wilcox to United so, it's not too much of a stretch of imagination that SFC were used as a convenient stepping stone to smooth the way. Shit for continuity at our football club but nice drop of compensation for the business model.

[Mboto Gorge]

1 minute ago, TheAlehouseBrawlers said:

Joe Shields couldn't go directly from City to Chelsea, same with Wilcox to United so, it's not too much of a stretch of imagination that SFC were used as a convenient stepping stone to smooth the way. Shit for continuity at our football club but nice drop of compensation for the business model.

Please can you provide proof to MLG that the decision to use saints was merely as a stepping stone. Please provide evidence that the compensation provided was an incentive for saints to sanction the move. 

[Osvaldorama]

1 hour ago, Mboto Gorge said:

Please can you provide proof to MLG that the decision to use saints was merely as a stepping stone. Please provide evidence that the compensation provided was an incentive for saints to sanction the move. 

Sorry, this post uses the ‘Begging the question’ fallacy.
The post assumes the conclusion (Saints were used as a stepping stone and compensated to sanction the move) without providing evidence, then demands proof for those assumptions.

[leeham_69]

11 hours ago, trousers said:

MLG and Dman both have valid points:

a) appointing a DoF that nobody else wants = not great

b) appointing DoFs that keep getting enticed elsewhere within months of joining Saints = not great

Is there an answer to this conundrum? Who knows. I'd probably look at other similar sized clubs to see how they manage to keep hold of decent DoFs and perhaps use them as a template for what we could/should do...

 

"This director of football is too shit!" said Goldilocks, "and THIS director of football is too good!"

"Ah, this director of football is just right! ... actually never mind let's get another shit one"