• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Paul Mitchell - Head of Recruitment and Analysis

Finney Is Back said:
A good company will always have a proper review when just a single employee chooses to leave with the company not wanting to lose them. If a company has two regrettable leavers at the same time then it would be negligent not to review the situation. Valued employees leaving is a good early sign to those at the top that things aren't right. Of course if the reason that the valued employees are leaving is BECAUSE of those at the top then it is a different story.
Click to expand...

Finney, I think there is a bit of supposition there on your part. We don't know that the company didn't want to lose them. In actual fact what Levy wrote suggests that this is amicable. We don't know how well they are valued.

Put another way, has there been a stepped improvement in our recruitment since we have employed those two? I would say that there has been an improvement, but not as marked as I would have liked. Kante's, Mahrez's and Mane's won't happen every year, but we've definitely not been shopping in that market. However a tough negotiator Levy is, I'm pretty sure that any fees under £10m and certainly under £5m, we would take a punt on. Instead, most of our signings have been in the £10m- £20m market, where we have never really made that many mistakes in the past. So perhaps maybe this is just a case of both parties just saying this isn't really working, let's move on.
 
There could be a number of reasons for a parting of ways.
If, as has been speculated, Mitchell still has to work until at least the end of the window and possibly beyond, that would imply that things have not totally broken down.
Things may not have worked out as Mitchell envisaged when taking the job. He may find he doesn't get on with management or colleagues; he may find the role has changed organically from what he initially expected; he may find that he has less influence than he thought might be the case; he may feel he has taken the role as far as he can and it is time to move on. None of those reasons would be particularly contentious in any "normal" business environment. Many people change employer only to find it does not work out.

Of course, it could equally be that he feels totally undermined and unable to perform his job, is at regular loggerheads with Levy, can't stand his working environment, hates coming into work every day, and has reached the end of his tether. Those reasons would be more concerning, if justified.
The truth is we will probably never know the full story.

As long as his leaving does not displease Poch, we will be fine.
 
indianspur said:
so Mitchell and Mackenzie gone. Surely they will take other members of the scouting/player analysis team they helped to set up too.
Click to expand...
I would assume both members of staff are senior enough to have had to have signed anti-poaching agreements when they joined our club. However that typically only provides a brief period of respite from that happening.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I would assume both members of staff are senior enough to have had to have signed anti-poaching agreements when they joined our club. However that typically only provides a brief period of respite from that happening.
Click to expand...

"anti-poaching agreement" Would be against employment law I would think the nearest thing would be a 'contract' with reparation/break costs.
We all know that a contract means very little, you just pay to break them.
 
StephenH said:
"anti-poaching agreement" Would be against employment law I would think the nearest thing would be a 'contract' with reparation/break costs.
We all know that a contract means very little, you just pay to break them.
Click to expand...
I had to sign such an agreement the last time I moved company. Of course there are ways round such things (i.e. somebody else does the official recruiting into their division) but non-poaching agreements are pretty common at the higher levels.
 
Gazzasrightboot said:
Put another way, has there been a stepped improvement in our recruitment since we have employed those two? I would say that there has been an improvement, but not as marked as I would have liked. Kante's, Mahrez's and Mane's won't happen every year, but we've definitely not been shopping in that market. However a tough negotiator Levy is, I'm pretty sure that any fees under £10m and certainly under £5m, we would take a punt on. Instead, most of our signings have been in the £10m- £20m market, where we have never really made that many mistakes in the past. So perhaps maybe this is just a case of both parties just saying this isn't really working, let's move on.
Click to expand...

This is where I come from on it. Could not agree more.

We have Toby and Wanyama which for me is Poch knowing what they are about as much as PM influence at Spurs, we could have identified those with Poch alone, it might be nice to have PM around to back your view but ultimately if Poch says to Levy "I have worked with them, I know them and I can get them reasonably" Levy would go for it, he has proved in past (Hoddle and Dean Richards).

So aside from that we sign Son for a bucket load of cash and Janssen who again was a radar player.

Lets take the theory that PM and Macca were upset of lack of signings look at the size of the squad and squad happiness and what is needed, should the club sign 5/6 players because we have identified them when in reality we don't need them today? Making unhappy players and giving Poch a job he does not need?

On that note people hark on about Bat and missing out, but we signed Janssen, so its not like we were gonna sign both, so whats there to moan about? Also this lad from France STILL might sign.
 
StephenH said:
"anti-poaching agreement" Would be against employment law I would think the nearest thing would be a 'contract' with reparation/break costs.
We all know that a contract means very little, you just pay to break them.
Click to expand...

You can have a contract that would prevent an ex-employee poaching staff within a certain period after leaving. Although if the position is advertised, and a staff member found out about it through their own means,applied, and went through the standard recruitment process of that company, I doubt you could prevent them taking the job. So it is all a bit nebulous.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I had to sign such an agreement the last time I moved company. Of course there are ways round such things (i.e. somebody else does the official recruiting into their division) but non-poaching agreements are pretty common at the higher levels.
Click to expand...

Yeh I have had them in Sales jobs, can't take clients.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
You can have a contract that would prevent an ex-employee poaching staff within a certain period after leaving. Although if the position is advertised, and a staff member found out about it through their own means,applied, and went through the standard recruitment process of that company, I doubt you could prevent them taking the job. So it is all a bit nebulous.
Click to expand...

Ive wasted money trying to inforce these type of contractual 'agreements'. And ALL I got from it was a nice case of wine from our solicitors at Christmas!
 
Gutter Boy said:
I think it is important we replace Mitchell with another data bod, but one who realises they are the servant, not the master. Data-informed, not data-driven.
Click to expand...

Yep bingo

You also have to take into account you are there to find these people, but the final say is not yours...
 
Grays_1890 said:
Yep bingo

You also have to take into account you are there to find these people, but the final say is not yours...
Click to expand...

You can see how that would lead to friction - I would be bloody livid if I find the Dele Alli and the bloke upstairs ignores it!
 
its clear he is fed up with the job, otherwise the paper can't write that in no uncertain terms.

i thought we had very good transfers so far.

will be interesting to hear both sides of the story, but it looks like something has broken down, i just hope levy and poch have a plan b.
 
StephenH said:
You can see how that would lead to friction - I would be bloody livid if I find the Dele Alli and the bloke upstairs ignores it!
Click to expand...

It happens in all sorts of businesses.

A geologist does loads of research to find likely oil deposits. The finance people then bid on the plot. But they don't fully back the intelligence and another company hits the jackpot when it turns out to be good.

The spook who thought they knew which cave in the Tora Bora Bin Laden was in in 2001, but someone up the line had doubts and wouldn't sign off the bunker buster
 
Last edited:
;)
Gutter Boy said:
It happens in all sorts of businesses.

A geologist does loads of research to find likely oil deposits. The finance people then bid on the plot. But they don't fully back the intelligence and another company hits the jackpot when it turns out to be good.

The spook who though they knew which cave in the Tora Bora Bin Laden was in in 2001, but someone up the line had doubts and wouldn't sign off the bunker buster
Click to expand...
It's probably Mason's fault. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back