[QUOTE=MrsORichSenior;38827968]Part 2:

Ok, I have used your reply and have added some responses.

To be clear, i consider this as a purely intellectual exercise, as none of the suggestions that are likely to be of the greatest impact will be taken by the club, so should you wish not to respond, I won't be hurt.

My responses are in italics

1,2,3,4,5 - Which club operates like that in PL or FL or any European League ?

In my reply to your challenge, I never suggested I wanted to emulate, nor take as an example, the structures and internal processes of any other club, that remains the case. However I would suggest that Mourinho, Wenger, Pochetino and others in the position of Manager/Head coach at their respective clubs act in precisely the manner I suggest in my post. THEY make the suggestions on players, coaches, tactics, formations etc, and if a Dof exists, they facilitate by acquiring the players the Manager/Coach specifies. Logic would suggest that this is the ONLY way a DoF can add any value, by negotiating with player agents, clubs etc, so the terms of any deal are commercial acceptable, releasing the Manager/Head coach to concentrate on playing matters. A DoF is NOT (Or at least SHOULD not), be responsible for specifying nor determining whether player a or b or c is suitable for the squad, as they have NO responsibility for the performances of the squad (or at least, they shouldn’t have!)

2,3,5 - Monk had that role at Boro and .............. ? Irrelevant

8 - The club has stated staff review at season end. – I wait with baited breath
9 - The coach in situ was happy at terms/conditions at appointment. – Irrelevant, see my response to your comment regarding (1,2,3,4,5)

6,7 - The club has stated review at season end - Rad quoted upon purchase of club that 'in built flexibility' within 5 year planning structure was to be 'annually' monitored and if so required would be acted on. – As per 8

10 - The Rad will no doubt have let the current Coach know exactly what was required and visa versa at appointment- its been stated by BOTH parties Hecky has FINAL say on players in/out and tactics and is IN the loop regarding all decisions on such matters.

Irrelevant, (see my point regarding (1,2,3,4,5). The “current coach” would be the manager were my suggestions to be enacted, and the roles and responsibilities in place at the moment would be replaced, as per those suggestions

Example - David Stockdale was offered £30,000 per week plus add on's within a 3 Year contract by 'Arry at Brum (£4.6 million) plus a non disclosed signing on fee as he was out of contract at Brighton. – Irrelevant
That is why Greens replacement was not Mr Stockdale.

Sensible decision ? – Err, No

Monk was always going to leave, once a DoF position was announced, so what he knew of the GK situation is irrelevant. The CLUB would have known just as much about Greens situation and anything to do with BPF, so should have been able to act accordingly.
Firstly, there was no reason why the club could not have met Greens requests, for one season it would have been worth it. Secondly, as it is, we have wasted £500k on Flapper, and are considerably further down the Championship table than we would have been had we retained his services, so no, not a sensible decision to allow Green to leave, and therefore no replacement would have been required.

Your Orta stance,accusations ........ ?
Wolves owner and Fosun have substantial holdings via a subsidiary in Jorges Mendez agency Gestifute - after doing research for years in connection to Simon ORourkes expose on Ken Bates dealings and subsequent legal threats from Bates and his 'silent' investors thrown at us it's fair to say the Wolves scenario will get more 'heated' investigatory wise from what I've heard.

Don’t care, not what I was writing about and not the same situation as applies at Leeds

If the FA/FL turn blind eyes then I will assume the Rad will not hesitate to advise his backers to follow the example Wolves have set - I note Bristol City have now denounced Wolves too today.

Ditto

Legal loopholes will be exploited - For instance, some offshore bonds still offer benefits to higher rate taxpayers because they allow a person to defer tax. Offshore bonds are however complex products that should be used by individuals who are fully aware of their tax benefits.As a contracts translator it's a common avenue legally exploited in the music industry regularly.

Ditto

Surplus players ?

Well, Massimo provided that answer of how it's done for the Rad.......... – err, not sure what you mean. I don’t suppose many would take Cellinos modus operandii as a suitable template for any club, never mind Leeds, but one way or another the squad needs to be finessed (Radrizzani has said as much when he commented publicly that the squad is “too big”)

Ticket pricing & young fans ?

I am privy to information but stress all is being done - and has been done and will continue to be done including Safe standing initiative introduction.Ive stated before that younger Leeds fans pricing is competitive.Fulham away next up will cost a Leeds family £250 to witness up front - nuff said. –

Err, pricing for young fans is NOT competitive. £10 tickets (both accompanied and otherwise) are regularly publicised by Spam for their home matches in the Premiership, they are by no means the only example. For ALL PL clubs, adult away prices have been capped at £30, something our away followers can only dream of. If away fans are to be encouraged, all Championship clubs should do something similar, but with Leeds, as the club that regularly takes the largest away following, they could, and should, make it their business to take a lead.

Commercial revenue ?

I am privy to information but can state that from my position 'outside' of the club that potential financial investments from outside the clubs structure is in negotiation from within UK shores and outside of UK domaine presently.
The club already has a list of global investors with guaranteed capital awaiting upon season end reviews and season 18/19 requirements. – I wait with baited breath

You reason Primark as a bench mark market wise analyst- well, with a share of 6.9% of the current UK clothing market and now over stepping Next to become the second biggest clothing retailer in the UK via cheap bulk buy/pile 'em high stock - is that not the very suggested strategy your critical of Leeds currently doing ? ( Also took Primark more than 5 years to rebrand the UK High Street with their wares).

Err….To be very, very clear, I am absolutely in favour of the Primark model in terms of Leeds apparel and other items sold online and in the Leeds shop. I AM NOT in favour of the same policy as it HAS been applied to the “buy em cheap, stack em high” approach to player acquisition!!!

As to your view going forward, as with all businesses, global influences will play a part, but retaining a high-volume, relatively low-margin approach to sales of apparel etc will be most sustainable, both when domestic budgets are under pressure and cost/value is uppermost in peoples minds, and in less “fraught” times, when a retailer who has built up a loyal and committed customer base will be rewarded with even greater transaction volumes. M&S, Next, good old BHS are all suffering because they have sought to hold the high ground, some have gone, others will either shrink or fail. I’d prefer Leeds to be a Primark, when it comes to selling “stuff”, NOT how it acquires playing resources.


I suspect that others will be bored with this now (probably were when they saw my first response), so by all means respond if you wish, but perhaps that should be the end of this "dialogue".