Re: Bielsa v Marsch
Posted: 15 May 2022, 22:35
Does it all boil down to this:
Marsch is the 49ers frontman. A fairly mediocre manager (not a bad manager, just nothing spectacular), he has been talked up in the media a lot. He fits in with the Western American/San Francisco/Californian-type culture of the minority owners. His face fits with them and simplistically they see it as him speaking for them.
The scenario could have been that the 49ers teed him up in the early winter, maybe before then. Something similar to this has happened before at Leeds. George Graham was on a £100k retainer from, I think, the summer of 1996, paid by Caspian, until we was eventually appointed early in the 1996/97 season after they sacked Howard Wilkinson. Marsch has probably been paid by the 49ers for some time.
The owners of the 49ers are looking at the situation from a distance and just see it in terms of numbers: the financial spreadsheets and match results. In their mindset, a relegation to the second tier is a singular financial disaster, and a commercial disaster because it affects confidence in them in their markets and among their own backers. Owning a relegated northern English club is not a good look for an NFL brand. This means there is no long-term view at Leeds. I am not criticising it or attacking or maligning anybody. I'm sure the 49ers bring many advantages and benefits to the club - especially in sponsorship and merchandising, which is all to the good. It's not for me to criticise, but if everything is driven by fairly short-term considerations, this affects how things are done in the background.
Maybe as the results worsened and spring approached, the 49ers insisted that the majority owners sack 'their man', Bielsa, and install the Americans' man, Marsch. While only minority shareholders, the 49ers have a lot of clout and have to be consulted on major board-level decisions under UK company law - not necessarily on personnel decisions like who is team manager, but they will be influential in that too, and they could be calling the shots as the major investment partner.
In summary, what all this boils down to is Long-Term (Evolutionary) Thinking versus Short-Term (Results-Driven) Thinking. This is not an argument against one or the other, just an observation and speculation about the possible dynamics at play in the background.
To put it simplistically, Bielsa represents (even embodies) Long-Term/Evolutionary Thinking in football, in which you build something slowly over time, play the right way, and so on. He needed a conservative board/owners.
Marsch represents more the Short-Term/Results-Driven attitude, in which what matters is the bottom-line only and placation of commercial owners is major part of decision-making.
The central point is that Marsch aligns better with the culture of the 49ers, and to an extent, the majority owners too, who probably only tolerated Bielsa.
As an aside, it will be interesting to see the 'politics' develop between Marsch and Orta, assuming Marsch survives. Due to Marsch's managerial style, Orta's role should gradually become superfluous over the next year or so. Orta may just take a general overseeing role of the manager, representing the Board/owners, or he may broaden his role or narrow it on scouting or some technical aspect, but Marsch won't need him to communicate within the club as Bielsa did.
Marsch is the 49ers frontman. A fairly mediocre manager (not a bad manager, just nothing spectacular), he has been talked up in the media a lot. He fits in with the Western American/San Francisco/Californian-type culture of the minority owners. His face fits with them and simplistically they see it as him speaking for them.
The scenario could have been that the 49ers teed him up in the early winter, maybe before then. Something similar to this has happened before at Leeds. George Graham was on a £100k retainer from, I think, the summer of 1996, paid by Caspian, until we was eventually appointed early in the 1996/97 season after they sacked Howard Wilkinson. Marsch has probably been paid by the 49ers for some time.
The owners of the 49ers are looking at the situation from a distance and just see it in terms of numbers: the financial spreadsheets and match results. In their mindset, a relegation to the second tier is a singular financial disaster, and a commercial disaster because it affects confidence in them in their markets and among their own backers. Owning a relegated northern English club is not a good look for an NFL brand. This means there is no long-term view at Leeds. I am not criticising it or attacking or maligning anybody. I'm sure the 49ers bring many advantages and benefits to the club - especially in sponsorship and merchandising, which is all to the good. It's not for me to criticise, but if everything is driven by fairly short-term considerations, this affects how things are done in the background.
Maybe as the results worsened and spring approached, the 49ers insisted that the majority owners sack 'their man', Bielsa, and install the Americans' man, Marsch. While only minority shareholders, the 49ers have a lot of clout and have to be consulted on major board-level decisions under UK company law - not necessarily on personnel decisions like who is team manager, but they will be influential in that too, and they could be calling the shots as the major investment partner.
In summary, what all this boils down to is Long-Term (Evolutionary) Thinking versus Short-Term (Results-Driven) Thinking. This is not an argument against one or the other, just an observation and speculation about the possible dynamics at play in the background.
To put it simplistically, Bielsa represents (even embodies) Long-Term/Evolutionary Thinking in football, in which you build something slowly over time, play the right way, and so on. He needed a conservative board/owners.
Marsch represents more the Short-Term/Results-Driven attitude, in which what matters is the bottom-line only and placation of commercial owners is major part of decision-making.
The central point is that Marsch aligns better with the culture of the 49ers, and to an extent, the majority owners too, who probably only tolerated Bielsa.
As an aside, it will be interesting to see the 'politics' develop between Marsch and Orta, assuming Marsch survives. Due to Marsch's managerial style, Orta's role should gradually become superfluous over the next year or so. Orta may just take a general overseeing role of the manager, representing the Board/owners, or he may broaden his role or narrow it on scouting or some technical aspect, but Marsch won't need him to communicate within the club as Bielsa did.