how did he have a practicle 5 year plan if he wasn't aware of the full extent of the problems that needed fixing.
His 5 year plan must have been nothing more than a marketing ploy to promote himself.
It is standard practice when applying for any management role to go into the interview process with an outline of a plan. Be it for 5 years or 100 days and one of the first things in that plan should be to validate any assumptions you made as an outsider looking in (the view is always different when you get there). And YES, it is a marketing ploy to promote yourself, but what interview process anywhere does not require the candidates to market themselves?
But part of this marketing is also to show "why" the recruiter should believe you have the ability to implement the plan and /or adjust as needed.
What I find more interesting and potentially discerning is that the Board and Osborne may not have:
- fully validated the credentials of the candidate;
- fully understood the depth of the problems in the football club (this may be likely given that SK's KPIs we seemingly set too high);
- bought into SK's plan without fully understanding the cost of implementing it (i.e. some years in the wilderness before improvement);
Or maybe they did which is why they are continuing to support SK and the 5 year plan.
