Naismith/McAvoy/Forrest confirmed as management team - contracted to 2025 (title updated)

[Bongo 1874]

16 minutes ago, Thunder and Lightning said:

 

Do you know something or are you surmising? 

Look at the whole footballing operation mate,when a manager comes in he wants his backroom staff,look at Hibs for example they appointed Montgomerys men,it's standard practice,infact what we have done is quite frankly tinpot.

 

Exactly the same under Stendel, dribs and drabs.

 

It's like appointing someone random to be assistant to you, people naturally work and have better relationships with people they can trust and know.

 

Why is McAvoy assistant ? Why is Forrest still here ? There's only one reason? Why was Naismith given the job? Think about it.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Bongo 1874

[Thunder and Lightning]

5 minutes ago, Bongo 1874 said:

Look at the whole footballing operation mate,when a manager comes in he wants his backroom staff,look at Hibs for example they appointed Montgomerys men,it's standard practice,infact what we have done is quite frankly tinpot.

 

Exactly the same under Stendel, dribs and drabs.

 

It's like appointing someone random to be assistant to you, people natural work and have better relationships with people they can trust and know.

 

Why is McAvoy assistant ? Why is Forrest still here ? There's only one reason? Why was Naismith given the job? Think about it.

I knew it, its Pressley isn't it!

Edited October 24, 2023 by Thunder and Lightning

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, Bongo 1874 said:

Look at the whole footballing operation mate,when a manager comes in he wants his backroom staff,look at Hibs for example they appointed Montgomerys men,it's standard practice,infact what we have done is quite frankly tinpot.

 

Exactly the same under Stendel, dribs and drabs.

 

It's like appointing someone random to be assistant to you, people naturally work and have better relationships with people they can trust and know.

 

Why is McAvoy assistant ? Why is Forrest still here ? There's only one reason? Why was Naismith given the job? Think about it.

See instead of "Think about it," how about you just articulate your accusations clearly and concisely so we all know exactly what we're talking about.

Why does this need layers of innuendo?

[Bongo 1874]

3 minutes ago, Thunder and Lightning said:

I knew it, its Pressley isn't it!

The fundamentals of a football club are being disregarded.

[dannymack]

10 minutes ago, Bongo 1874 said:

Look at the whole footballing operation mate,when a manager comes in he wants his backroom staff,look at Hibs for example they appointed Montgomerys men,it's standard practice,infact what we have done is quite frankly tinpot.

 

Exactly the same under Stendel, dribs and drabs.

 

It's like appointing someone random to be assistant to you, people naturally work and have better relationships with people they can trust and know.

 

Why is McAvoy assistant ? Why is Forrest still here ? There's only one reason? Why was Naismith given the job? Think about it.

 

Hearts have got a habit of employing top class coaches... Ian Cathro, Austin McPhee, Gordon Forrest, unfortunately the fans in the stand who appear to be the real experts know better. 

[Bongo 1874]

5 minutes ago, dannymack said:

 

Hearts have got a habit of employing top class coaches... Ian Cathro, Austin McPhee, Gordon Forrest, unfortunately the fans in the stand who appear to be the real experts know better. 

A coach will implement his style on the players,ultimately he aids the manager.

 

If Forrest was suited to Robbies style of play,why would he benefit Naismiths, or again is it cost cutting.

 

Like Mcphee,Jon Daly,etc.

[dannymack]

46 minutes ago, Bongo 1874 said:

A coach will implement his style on the players,ultimately he aids the manager.

 

If Forrest was suited to Robbies style of play,why would he benefit Naismiths, or again is it cost cutting.

 

Like Mcphee,Jon Daly,etc.

 

At the very beginning it was Robbie who sourced out Forrest. 

 

 

[HopeDiouf]

1 hour ago, dannymack said:

 

Hearts have got a habit of employing top class coaches... Ian Cathro, Austin McPhee, Gordon Forrest, unfortunately the fans in the stand who appear to be the real experts know better. 

if the team they are coaching is continually getting beat, it's begs the question whether they are really top class coaches.

[Sooks]

2 hours ago, Bongo 1874 said:

The problem isn't Naismith, and if he does go you will see that.

The problem most definitely is Naismith and when he goes you will still not see that even though it will be glaringly obvious , just like Stendel 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Bongo 1874 said:

Look at the whole footballing operation mate,when a manager comes in he wants his backroom staff,look at Hibs for example they appointed Montgomerys men,it's standard practice,infact what we have done is quite frankly tinpot.

 

Exactly the same under Stendel, dribs and drabs.

 

It's like appointing someone random to be assistant to you, people naturally work and have better relationships with people they can trust and know.

 

Why is McAvoy assistant ? Why is Forrest still here ? There's only one reason? Why was Naismith given the job? Think about it.

McAvoy worked very closely with Naismith on the B team last season. He was academy director after all and most of the B team were academy boys. Forrest is a highly respected coach and also did a lot of work in recent seasons with younger players esp those out on loan so he would have worked pretty closely with Naismith as well.  Don’t make excuses. 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, dannymack said:

 

Hearts have got a habit of employing top class coaches... Ian Cathro, Austin McPhee, Gordon Forrest, unfortunately the fans in the stand who appear to be the real experts know better. 

Yep, our ‘failures’ eg Cathro and McPhee are going on to have much better careers in football management than anyone we have had in donkeys years other than possibly Levein. 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Bongo 1874 said:

Look at the whole footballing operation mate,when a manager comes in he wants his backroom staff,look at Hibs for example they appointed Montgomerys men,it's standard practice,infact what we have done is quite frankly tinpot.

 

Exactly the same under Stendel, dribs and drabs.

 

It's like appointing someone random to be assistant to you, people naturally work and have better relationships with people they can trust and know.

 

Why is McAvoy assistant ? Why is Forrest still here ? There's only one reason? Why was Naismith given the job? Think about it.

David Gray is still first team coach last time I looked. 

[OTT]

2 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

David Gray is still first team coach last time I looked. 

 

Think the underlying point Bongo is making is quite sound TBH. 

 

There is a makeshift feeling about this management team, and I don't think that is a good thing. 

 

When Naismith moves on, the new manager needs to be free to bring in their coaching team. 

[Taffin]

15 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

McAvoy worked very closely with Naismith on the B team last season. He was academy director after all and most of the B team were academy boys. Forrest is a highly respected coach and also did a lot of work in recent seasons with younger players esp those out on loan so he would have worked pretty closely with Naismith as well.  Don’t make excuses. 

 

 

I've seen this a few times. Is he? By whom?

 

His coaching career doesn't scream 'highly respected' if I'm honest.

[Taffin]

14 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Yep, our ‘failures’ eg Cathro and McPhee are going on to have much better careers in football management than anyone we have had in donkeys years other than possibly Levein. 

 

Nonsense. Neither of them have even had a managerial job since leaving.

 

Decent coaching careers aye, but as managers or even 'head coaches' they were both absolutely hopeless.

[soonbe110]

11 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Think the underlying point Bongo is making is quite sound TBH. 

 

There is a makeshift feeling about this management team, and I don't think that is a good thing. 

 

When Naismith moves on, the new manager needs to be free to bring in their coaching team. 

It’s makeshift because none of the three have a track record of success in management. And it shows. 

[Dazo]

13 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Think the underlying point Bongo is making is quite sound TBH. 

 

There is a makeshift feeling about this management team, and I don't think that is a good thing. 

 

When Naismith moves on, the new manager needs to be free to bring in their coaching team. 

While I agree with your last sentence I don’t the first. He is implying that we always force head coaches to work with coaches we choose or are already within the club. Until SN who appears to be happy with the coaching team evidence suggests otherwise. 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Dazo

[Boris5115]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

 

I've seen this a few times. Is he? By whom?

 

His coaching career doesn't scream 'highly respected' if I'm honest.

He should have been emptied along with Neilson and Elbows. Part of the problem and still is. 

[soonbe110]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

Nonsense. Neither of them have even had a managerial job since leaving.

 

Decent coaching careers aye, but as managers or even 'head coaches' they were both absolutely hopeless.

I said ‘football management’ - that means part of a management team in my view. 
Agree as managers but not as part of a management team. Both of them really successful. McPhee will probably soon be at an even bigger club than Villa. 

[Taffin]

Just now, Boris5115 said:

He should have been emptied along with Neilson and Elbows. Part of the problem and still is. 

 

I genuinely don't know enough about him to have an opinion beyond I'd usually say good practice would be a clean sweep of the previous managers coaching team.

 

It's not the first time I've seen him supposedly being highly regarded and yet...the pinnacle of his career appears to be an assistant to Robbie Neilson.

[Taffin]

Just now, soonbe110 said:

I said ‘football management’ - that means part of a management team in my view. 
Agree as managers but not as part of a management team. Both of them really successful. McPhee will probably soon be at an even bigger club than Villa. 

 

Fair - for me management means managing rather than coaching free kicks or helping Nuno out. I respect them both in their niches though, but managerial isn't a word that belongs anywhere near them.

[Dazo]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

I genuinely don't know enough about him to have an opinion beyond I'd usually say good practice would be a clean sweep of the previous managers coaching team.

 

It's not the first time I've seen him supposedly being highly regarded and yet...the pinnacle of his career appears to be an assistant to Robbie Neilson.

I think you’re doing him and a lot of coaches who would dream to get to that level a disservice Taffin. Whatever yardstick you’re using being assistant at hearts is a pretty good career achievement. 

[soonbe110]

11 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

 

I've seen this a few times. Is he? By whom?

 

His coaching career doesn't scream 'highly respected' if I'm honest.

Just ask in Scottish footballing  circles and you will find out. Popular and highly regarded. He won’t be out of work long if we punt him. 

[Boris5115]

17 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Just ask in Scottish footballing  circles and you will find out. Popular and highly regarded. He won’t be out of work long if we punt him. 

If he's such a good coach why are we so bad to watch. We are eye bleeding for large parts so surely that comes down to coaching does it not. 

[soonbe110]

2 minutes ago, Boris5115 said:

If he's such a good coach why are we so bad to watch. We are eye bleeding for large parts so surely that comes down to coaching does it not. 

Pretty sure he isn’t responsible for tactics, team selection etc.  He assists the manager to achieve goals but team selection and tactics is down to the top man. His main responsibility is working with the players on a one to one basis in terms of personal improvement as well as helping run training sessions. 

[Boris5115]

2 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Pretty sure he isn’t responsible for tactics, team selection etc.  He assists the manager to achieve goals but team selection and tactics is down to the top man. His main responsibility is working with the players on a one to one basis in terms of personal improvement as well as helping run training sessions. 

I'm sure it's a collective thing beetwen the management team as I've seen this quoted by both Neilson and more recently Naismith. I'm sorry mate but we look like a poorly coached team at the moment. 

[Bongo 1874]

1 hour ago, soonbe110 said:

David Gray is still first team coach last time I looked. 

That's correct.

Sergio Raimundo,  Miguel Miranda,

[Taffin]

4 hours ago, Dazo said:

I think you’re doing him and a lot of coaches who would dream to get to that level a disservice Taffin. Whatever yardstick you’re using being assistant at hearts is a pretty good career achievement. 

 

Quite true, it's all subjective I suppose. Generally anyone is highly thought of if you shrink those doing the thinking to a small enough pool. My old Sunday league manager was well thought of at that level. It's all relative, I've just seen it on here with no context previously which suggested it was a bit more general as in 'football on the whole'. It's been clarified it's in the Scottish football realm which as you say is still a good career but it puts it into a bit more context.

[soonbe110]

3 hours ago, Bongo 1874 said:

That's correct.

Sergio Raimundo,  Miguel Miranda,

He is actually assistant manager now.  Stuart Garden is still there as well. 

[Cruyff]

3 hours ago, Bongo 1874 said:

That's correct.

Sergio Raimundo,  Miguel Miranda,

Hibs GK Coach? Talk about a poisoned chalice.

[heatonjambo]

8 hours ago, Bongo 1874 said:

You can decide that mate.

 

Respect your opinion.

 

But sometimes it best to sit back reflect and look at the whole situation.

 

My advice.

👍

[Saint Jambo]

7 hours ago, Dazo said:

While I agree with your last sentence I don’t the first. He is implying that we always force head coaches to work with coaches we choose or are already within the club. Until SN who appears to be happy with the coaching team evidence suggests otherwise. 

 

Indeed. Who are these 'Naismith's people's that he would otherwise have brought with him. He came from within the club, so bringing other people from within the club into his management people is precisely him bringing 'his own people' with him. The idea that McAvoy and Forrest have been forced on Naismith against his will is a baseless conspiracy theory being pushed by a poster who can't accept that he has yet again miscalled whether a manager will be successful or not, despite his claim to great footballing insight.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Saint Jambo

[Arthur Morgan]

18 hours ago, dannymack said:

 

Proven right on what evidence ?

season isn't over yet, League Cup semi finalists too. 

 

I can't see him lasting beyond the year.

[Hearts1975]

14 hours ago, Dazo said:

While I agree with your last sentence I don’t the first. He is implying that we always force head coaches to work with coaches we choose or are already within the club. Until SN who appears to be happy with the coaching team evidence suggests otherwise. 

Sorry, I'm not being funny, and I could have picked up what you are meaning incorrectly, but there is slight contradiction in the above statement

His last sentence was that the new manager should be able to bring in his own backroom team - Thats absolutely correct. 

The first sentence was that Bongo was implying that McAvoy and Forrest was pushed on Naismith from the beginning 

The reason I am saying its a tad contradictory, is that if we are basing the fact that Naismith wanted Forrest and McAvoy as his assistants, because he didnt make a song and dance about it at the time, then I dont necessarily think, even if he felt otherwise, that it would have helped him get the gig, and by saying that he didnt want the other 2 as his backroom team.  

My guess is that he was given the opportunity on the condition that McAvoy and Forrest would be at his side as the backroom team. That was the package deal on the table. 

Probably a big reason that Naismith got the gig as he would have been more likely to run with the other 2, as opposed to an outsider.  

Fair enough, whatever it was. A good number of managers would want their own team as a minimum, and I dont think that would exclude someone like Naismith.

At the end of the day, and regardless of the reasoning, Naismith accepted the terms, but that doesnt necessarily constitute, that deep down, he agreed with it.

I will concede your last point, it is subjective based on lack of evidence, but if its subjective, it has to be subjective for whether he was, or wasnt, in favour of it.

We just dont know, no one knows, and thats the bottom line. 

Part of me is saying this as I do not believe that McAvoy or Forrest is part of the solution, but part of the problem.

I could very well be wrong but its just a feeling, and nothing more, in all honesty.  

 

[Dazo]

16 minutes ago, Hearts1975 said:

Sorry, I'm not being funny, and I could have picked up what you are meaning incorrectly, but there is slight contradiction in the above statement

His last sentence was that the new manager should be able to bring in his own backroom team - Thats absolutely correct. 

The first sentence was that Bongo was implying that McAvoy and Forrest was pushed on Naismith from the beginning 

The reason I am saying its a tad contradictory, is that if we are basing the fact that Naismith wanted Forrest and McAvoy as his assistants, because he didnt make a song and dance about it at the time, then I dont necessarily think, even if he felt otherwise, that it would have helped him get the gig, and by saying that he didnt want the other 2 as his backroom team.  

My guess is that he was given the opportunity on the condition that McAvoy and Forrest would be at his side as the backroom team. That was the package deal on the table. 

Probably a big reason that Naismith got the gig as he would have been more likely to run with the other 2, as opposed to an outsider.  

Fair enough, whatever it was. A good number of managers would want their own team as a minimum, and I dont think that would exclude someone like Naismith.

At the end of the day, and regardless of the reasoning, Naismith accepted the terms, but that doesnt necessarily constitute, that deep down, he agreed with it.

I will concede your last point, it is subjective based on lack of evidence, but if its subjective, it has to be subjective for whether he was, or wasnt, in favour of it.

We just dont know, no one knows, and thats the bottom line. 

Part of me is saying this as I do not believe that McAvoy or Forrest is part of the solution, but part of the problem.

I could very well be wrong but its just a feeling, and nothing more, in all honesty.  

 

All fair enough and due to lack of evidence we will never know. It was more about addressing the point that the club is forcing people to work with people they don’t want to. There is zero evidence to suggest this but an abundance suggesting the opposite. 
 

On SN himself do we really believe from what we know that he would be forced to work with people he didn’t want to or would be detrimental to his job ? I don’t, fair enough if anyone does but it all looks a bit conspiracy to me. incidentally I’m not suggesting those coaches are the right people.  

[Dazo]

10 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

Quite true, it's all subjective I suppose. Generally anyone is highly thought of if you shrink those doing the thinking to a small enough pool. My old Sunday league manager was well thought of at that level. It's all relative, I've just seen it on here with no context previously which suggested it was a bit more general as in 'football on the whole'. It's been clarified it's in the Scottish football realm which as you say is still a good career but it puts it into a bit more context.

To be fair I’ve heard similar from someone within the game but haven’t actually seen much evidence to back this up. Then again I don’t go and watch them train or are privy to what goes on in the dug out. 

[Hearts1975]

45 minutes ago, Dazo said:

All fair enough and due to lack of evidence we will never know. It was more about addressing the point that the club is forcing people to work with people they don’t want to. There is zero evidence to suggest this but an abundance suggesting the opposite. 
 

On SN himself do we really believe from what we know that he would be forced to work with people he didn’t want to or would be detrimental to his job ? I don’t, fair enough if anyone does but it all looks a bit conspiracy to me. incidentally I’m not suggesting those coaches are the right people.  

To answer, I dont personally either to be honest.

He doesnt strike me as the type to just accept something where he isnt in agreement with it. 

I am also concious, that if it was his big break into management, he may also make concessions if he thought it was a case of that was the package on offer, take it or leave it. 

All fair in terms of what you are saying. Ultimately he is responsible for the performances and none of this negates that. 

 

[Dazo]

8 minutes ago, Hearts1975 said:

To answer, I dont personally either to be honest.

He doesnt strike me as the type to just accept something where he isnt in agreement with it. 

I am also concious, that if it was his big break into management, he may also make concessions if he thought it was a case of that was the package on offer, take it or leave it. 

All fair in terms of what you are saying. Ultimately he is responsible for the performances and none of this negates that. 

 

On your last sentence absolutely, it isn’t anywhere near good enough. The blame lies with SN though not some fictional notion he hasn’t got the coaches he wants. I say that as someone who was happy with him being given the chance and thought he would do well. 🙄

[briever]

22 hours ago, Nerja Jambo said:

You're right on both counts. The vast majority were taken in by a slight improvement in form and much talk from him. These people must be a politicians dream, so easily taken in. Sacked that won't happen until after the transfer window which would be par for the course.

What are we basing this assumption on most wanted Naismith - I dont know anyone out of my friends and family who wanted Naismith.

[Dazo]

6 minutes ago, briever said:

What are we basing this assumption on most wanted Naismith - I dont know anyone out of my friends and family who wanted Naismith.

Yep, on here I was in the majority but amongst the hearts fans I know I was in the minority. 

[mitch41]

On 24/10/2023 at 10:26, Sooks said:

 

 

Yowzers Mitch . Hindsight and all that eh ? Eek

Still stand by my posts no matter how far you want to go back. You see something at the time and you make a decision but circumstances change and the Hearts management & Board should take the proper action, if not the team suffers. My priority is the team and everything from money raised after debtors paid / wages should go into the team.

[Bazzas right boot]

On 24/10/2023 at 13:18, Bongo 1874 said:

The fundamentals of a football club are being disregarded.

 

Nonsense. 

We finished 4th and 3rd last two seasons,  how on earth are the fundamentals of the football club being disregarded and if they, are when did this happen?

Just this summer?

 

Why make such dramatic statements.

They make no sense and have no substance.

 

 

[Thunder and Lightning]

Robbie's dad clawing the heed aff it cos he gets to bore us to death about wee Robbie again.