Statement of intent
The fierce Blues statement that rejected the 'myth of interference' was a sure sign that the club remain gunning for Alex McLeish and Aston Villa.
They have no intention of letting the £5.4 million claim for compensation drop.
That's what Blues say they are owed, as per the terms of McLeish's contract.
McLeish, in his resignation email, cited interefence by the board that made his job 'untenable', and he was later backed up by the League Manager's Association on this.
He and his camp believe they have grounds for constructive dismissal, but Blues insiders say their case is very, very strong and are prepared to take it all the way.
The statement by Blues was fired off after comments made by Chris Hughton during media interviews on his official unveiling.
Hughton was asked this question: "The previous manager stated he couldn't do his job because of the board making their views known. Are you sure you can manage how you want to manage?'
He replied: "Anything which has been written in the past is very much in the past. I can only speak about my relationship which I will have with Peter Pannu and the board.
"I can assure everyone there will not be a player who comes into this football club without my blessing. I want to have a good relationship with Peter and the board.
"It's very important, more important in the modern game, and I expect us to work together - particularly in the immediate time where there is a lot of work to do."
Hughton wasn't seeking confrontation with the board or warning them, as if to say 'I'm in charge, I call the shots, don't mess me about'. He answered the question honestly, almost innocently, if you like. He knows that he has to work with Carson Yeung and Peter Pannu.
But it made a decent line for the media and the subsequent reporting of it got under the skin of Pannu, because the allegations of boardroom meddling and interference are a main crux of the McLeish claim and much of what was written assumed this was what had been happening at St Andrew's. Not so, said Blues, hence their statement, which went:
"Following assumptive and incorrect newspaper articles published over the last couple of days, that Birmingham City is concerned could potentially lead to our supporters believing something that is inaccurate, the club has released the following statement . . .
"The club is disturbed and very concerned with the recent reporting by selective, and we believe agenda-led, reporters suggesting that the Birmingham City board had interfered with the previous manager in the transfer market. That is factually incorrect and the club did, on the 14th June 2011, release a statement stating our position.
"It is reiterated very strongly that there is a robust system in place whereby only players with the written authorisation of the manager had ever arrived at the club under the previous manager and will still be the case going forward.
"Players recommended by the board, such as, Babel, Odemwingie, Pennant and a Chinese player, for commercial reasons, didn't arrive as no approval was forthcoming from the manager. Players such as Dembele chose not to come and N'Zogbia due to his sudden demand for last minute increase in wages. In the case of Zamora, it was felt there had been quite a few injuries and anyway he signed a massive new contract at Fulham due to our approach.
"As the legal dispute is ongoing, it is appropriate that this myth of interference is put to rest once and for all."
A board proposing players to their manager is hardly new in football. After all, it's their money, their prerogative.
Agents develop relationships with chief executives - frequently they are given mandates to help sell players - and if we look back at the previous regime, David Sullivan's closest confidante was Barry Silkman, with the latter presently having a great influence at West Ham United.
Indeed, when Steve Bruce made it clear to the board that he needed more firepower than the budget would allow after the relegation of 2006, Sullivan decided to stump up the cash for Cameron Jerome.
That was a 'gift' and Bruce went along with it, and Sullivan has also said publicly that Christian Benitez was his signing!
And then there was Fumaca in Trevor Francis's time . . .
On the flip side, if club owners relentlessly try to hoist players on managers, it's a recipe for disaster. There has to be give and take, and the manager's judgment has to be trusted.
McLeish assiduously checked out the merits of Mauro Boselli, who was championed by Sammy Yu. But he resisted, and Boselli was a £7 million flop at Wigan Athletic and loaned to Genoa.
As for Chinese players, his view was that if they were good enough he would take them. But for commercial reasons, as a sideshow, no.
The Nikola Zigic issue is a thorny one. There were mutterings on the football grapevine that he wasn't McLeish's player, merely 'one on the list', but the board preferred to whack out the cash on him, after counselling the opinion of former BIHL director Christian Karembeu.
Zigic's difficult start suggested his signing was a mistake. But when he grasped the nettle, he was such an important part of the team. His goals and nuisance value won Blues points and was hugely significant in the run up to, and winning, the Carling Cup. And had he stayed fit after Wembley . .
So who takes the credit for Zigic after all? Manager, board, both? If Zigic's case is used in the current legal battle, then the club will argue that the manager signed off the transfer and if he wasn't happy at the time, then why do so?
It is easy to be wise after the event and say such and such a player should have been signed, because of how well they performed.
Benitez was an unknown quantity and nobody really expected him to work out like he did (despite the lack of goals), and no one could have envisaged how much of an impact Peter Odemwingie, a player many clubs were unsure about, would have at Albion. And how much Roberto di Matteo actually knew about him has been subject of some debate in the game.
McLeish didn't get all his preferred targets last summer and therefore had to bring in what he termed 'last minute dot com' players, and loanees are always fraught with danger and available for a reason.
There was some bad luck and players simply rejected Blues also (Cacau, Fabrizio Miccoli, Moussa Dembele, Charles N'Zogbia).
The Blues board could counter that McLeish should have used those he did get, and his squad, better in the league.
With Hughton in as the board's own appointment, then you would imagine there's an accord on transfer policy and players.
Both manager and the directors have to be basically singing from the same hymn sheet for things to work which, on the face of it, does seem to be the case.
Older/Newer
4 Comments
Profile
Colin Tattum - Mail man Colin Tattum's view of what's going on at Birmingham City FC.
Tatts, I guess we will never know the whole truth of what goes on regarding transfers but it will never work unless the manager has the final say. I do believe Pannu when he says that no signings were made without Mcleish signing them off.
I find it impossible to believe that McLeish's position had become untenable, after all Yeung had backed him after relegation and signings were being made on Mcleish's recommendations.
There is no question in my mind that Mcleish was tapped up and Villa should pay Blues the compensation they are due.
Tatts, I suspect McLeish's resignation owed more to 50% cut in salary than meddling behind the scenes.
Being such a 'principled' manager, had the position been untenable, I suspect he would have gone before he did.
I think the current board, while novices in footballing terms, have tried to keep the fans involved more than the last lot and been as on the level as we could hope for.
At the end of the day they're businessmen and I've never met a businessman yet who completely leaves his business to a manager, without making suggestions or giving instruction.
To think they wouldn't is naiive in the extreme. Since when did managers of football clubs suddenly become brilliant businessmen?
So, businessmen conduct business and managers suggest the players they want. If a chairman says he won't buy a player, tough. It's his money after all.
If McLeish resigns because Villa sell Downing or any other of the squad he would like to keep, we can assume he was being totally straight about his reasons for leaving Blues.
I suspect this will not happen.
For me, Hughton is walking in with his eyes open, devoid of ego and willing to do his best with what has been suggested he will be allowed to work with.
I hope he succeeds and I don't think for one minute the board will hamper him - it's not in their interests to do so.
As ever though, it promises to be another interesting season at Stan's.
Interesting article and a good insight into a pretty murky world. Interestingly, no mention of Luciano Figueroa who I believe was another Sullivan signing. In the same way I think McLeish was too pig-headed to make Chucho's move permanent (because he wasn't his signing), I don't think Brucie gave Figueroa a chance for the same reason. Despite a bad cruciate injury which set him back, he has scored ever since he left us including 9 goals in 15 games for Argentina. Foreigners do take time to adjust but if they are good enough and given time, they improve. Just look at Diego Forlan whose career incidentally was kick-started at Villareal when he was paired with.......Luciano Figueroa!
Good work Tatts.
Is this what really led to Mcleish leaving Birmingham?
He has mad mugs of Birmingham City and their fans. What are Villa thinking about? He is great at getting teams relergated!
http://www.thedailytackle.com/2011/06/birmingham-city-end-of-season-party.html