Michael Dunford returns as CEO

[Green Matt]

My major concerns about this guy are that he always seems to be associated to clubs that are either already or quickly become financially insecure.

His time at Everton, when he began, they were in a bad way. With us, we became in such a bad shape (which was not seen until Ridsdale came in to help)and from the outside looking in, he did little to aid the situation. He was at Birmingham and they ended up in the financial mire. When he went in the Chesterfield they were already in the mire. His time at Crawley didn’t go well either. I guess a career of negative performance experience is still experience?!

I know people are saying under different bosses he may prove successful, but with that many bites at the cherry and to not really ever have altered any of the clubs fortunes for the positive, nor in recent years it seems has been capable of holding a job down...I just have so many reservations.

I really hope he proves me wrong, of course. I bet his first interview will say, a review will be undertaken of current and possible future streams, followed by him saying the club needs to strengthen its connection with fans and the City alike. Again, hope he proves me wrong.

It's unlikely that Dunford was behind all that, let's be honest. Football club owners are the ones deservedly infamous for the disappearance of English football down the pan.

 

[Isondil]

The quotes in the post I put out are all by reporters at various establishments from equivalents of the the Herald to the Telegraph. I don’t know about you, but I am inclined to believe Kenwright or Pottinger far more than I am going to believe Duncan or Balham or myself.

But Balham as you, personally, have never once been able to provide a ‘fact’ to counter a single post of mine to which you disagree...I once again challenge you openly Balham to find from Kenwright or Pottinger or another such chairman something that says he excelled in his job and I will gladly read to see if I am wrong, which I very well could be. The situations at any of these clubs could have been considerably worse if it were not for his efforts. But I haven’t seen anyone say that of him. I’m not being obstinate, but if you would like me to change my opinion I need a lot more than ”cause Balham said so”.

Sadly you will not attempt to do so, you just pipe up with your unsupported opinion and anything other than yours is wrong. Because this is how you, sadly, operate.

Green Matt, I am not by any means suggesting that at all locations he was solely responsible. The board and chairmen at each are equally accountable. He was however in prominent positions at all locations, positions in which he should have been able to influence.

I know if I can see the club is struggling and I’m not being listened to, or able to affect the changes required to stave of administrators, courts and alike. I would resign out of principle and make it public that I had a fundamental difference in the clubs direction. Which to me suggests he is a) unable to see the direction and therefore is dangerous or b) does see it and stands by idly, equally dangerous, picking up his pay cheque.

Like I say, I really hope he does a better job this time around but I am not confident with him in a position of big influence at Argyle.

 

[Argyle Casual]

Not overly impressed to be honest. Was hoping for someone pragmatic with fresh ideas.

 

[Balham Green]

The quotes in the post I put out are all by reporters at various establishments from equivalents of the the Herald to the Telegraph. I don’t know about you, but I am inclined to believe Kenwright or Pottinger far more than I am going to believe Duncan or Balham or myself.

But Balham as you, personally, have never once been able to provide a ‘fact’ to counter a single post of mine to which you disagree...I once again challenge you openly Balham to find from Kenwright or Pottinger or another such chairman something that says he excelled in his job and I will gladly read to see if I am wrong, which I very well could be. The situations at any of these clubs could have been considerably worse if it were not for his efforts. But I haven’t seen anyone say that of him. I’m not being obstinate, but if you would like me to change my opinion I need a lot more than ”cause Balham said so”.

Sadly you will not attempt to do so, you just pipe up with your unsupported opinion and anything other than yours is wrong. Because this is how you, sadly, operate.

Green Matt, I am not by any means suggesting that at all locations he was solely responsible. The board and chairmen at each are equally accountable. He was however in prominent positions at all locations, positions in which he should have been able to influence.

I know if I can see the club is struggling and I’m not being listened to, or able to affect the changes required to stave of administrators, courts and alike. I would resign out of principle and make it public that I had a fundamental difference in the clubs direction. Which to me suggests he is a) unable to see the direction and therefore is dangerous or b) does see it and stands by idly, equally dangerous, picking up his pay cheque.

Like I say, I really hope he does a better job this time around but I am not confident with him in a position of big influence at Argyle.

Where are the quotes? I don't see any. You've just made it up as you always do. It's very difficult to counteract fantasy or delusion.

 

[foreigner]

Why have an open and transparent interview process if you are only looking to appoint "football" people- ( the Jock one that turned us down, and now Dunford). I would have looked to have given the interim bloke the job. He looked and sounded the part, or if not, possibly someone from outside football.

 

[Steve Evans]

please somebody explain what the duties of a CEO are?

 

[Mike Greening]

I think he will do a great job.

 

[dunlop]

please somebody explain what the duties of a CEO are?

Resposable for the day to day running of the whole football club, that may now have changed with DA now having overall responsibility of the whole football structure at the club.

 

[area51]

Dead wood - with baggage :huddle:

 

[Steve Evans]

please somebody explain what the duties of a CEO are?

Resposable for the day to day running of the whole football club, that may now have changed with DA now having overall responsibility of the whole football structure at the club.

thank you.

 

[Metal Green Mickey]

Can’t really remember my opinion on him tbh.

My concern is his “communication skills” with the fan base as he does seem to have encountered people and got on the wrong side of a few. This is shown by the lack of overwhelming support he has got regarding his appointment.

I think it feels like a backwards step. No offence to him, but it just feels like it wasn’t an overwhelming success with him before as CEO and l just would of liked a more dynamic, younger person.

I look at his previous record at other clubs. It’s not exactly success stories. Surely he had quite some influence at them? That concerns me.

 

[Herts Green]

Not really sure why some people are connecting the performance of the CEO to the performance of the team on the pitch. The CEO has no influence on the football side as that’s the managers job and no influence on the financial side as that’s down to the Chairman and the Board of Directors. How chesterfield and Crawley performed on the pith has nothing to do with Dunford.

 

[Metal Green Mickey]

I was thinking more ‘financial’ success. Off the field for example l don’t really see these clubs much, if any, stronger financially.

Also CEO normally has a large influence in the direction of the club. Maybe it’s different at Argyle now with the Adams role but at some of Dunford’s previous clubs they don’t seem to have made great strides forward when he has been in charge.

I’m not against the appointment. It just feels like we have been here before.

 

[Metal Green Mickey]

Looks like this appointment was all sorted some months ago.

Chesterfield fans seems to be in the know late April/early May...

http://www.thecfss.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=62762

All this now makes more sense.

Adams obviously knew. He then got his new contract and responsibilities. I guess he was told about Dunford and what his role would be. He signed his new deal so must of been more than happy.

Dunford lm guessing had his role outlined and how his role is more to do with bringing more revenue streams to the football club and less on the footballing playing side of decisions.

Looks like it’s just an example of more good planning by the club in terms of how we were going to move forward from last season.

 

[Isondil]

Part of the CEOs job is to create new and maximise current revenue streams. At Crawley this is what he was charged with and an outgoing chairman said, while Dunford was charged with doing so, he was not able to make the club financially self-sufficient unless the team won extra cup games. Therefore the club had to go cap in hand to its benefactors to supplement income.

Dunford’s job at Argyle (this time around), including the day to day running, will also include the maximisation of all current and new revenue streams. Considering the redevelopment I consider this a big opportunity. Unlike Crawley, we do not have a benefactor to go cap in hand to. Thusly, I would prefer a CEO who has a track record of maximising income.

Obviously it didn’t come off, but that CEO north of the boarder we were heavily linked with has a recent track record of maximising profit and revenues. It was common knowledge and the press were able to report on it. Never has the press been able to do the same for Dunford.