We might not get 'transparency' from the Board but, for those who've been crying out for it, here it is in all its glory from Mark Allen. It's not a strange interview for him to give - it was pre-planned. He and Robertson sat down with Murty to announce his appointment and then each of them had 1-to-1s with the Press afterwards. What each of them was going to say would have been agreed beforehand.
You can interpret it as 'working his ticket', you can interpret it as 'not my fault, guv'nor' or any other way you like. I read it as Allen saying he did his bit, he drew up his list with an indication of positives and negatives for each of the names thereon and he handed it to the Board - as was his remit. Thereafter, it's for the Board to address what went wrong.
We don't know what names were on his list but, at a guess, I'd say there were some 'names' (Allardyce, Pulis, Moyes, perhaps), some former employees (McInnes, GvB, McLeish, perhaps) and some 'rising stars' (Ten Haag, perhaps). We will never know. They would also have had his comments on any applications they had received. The Board would have ruled some out on grounds of cost, others on lack of experience, others as being 'past it' - that's what the Board are there to do having given due consideration to Allen's pros and cons for each 'candidate'. They made their choice to go for McInnes - many saw it as the 'pragmatic' approach - but had it blow up in their faces when he 'declined' (let's not go over the reasons for that again). Instead of moving on to the next best candidate they appear to have been stumped by this. Who knows why? Such outcomes are virtually inevitable in any search to fill a high-ranking position.
I can see plenty wrong with the Board's actions - I don't see too much wrong in Allen's interview to be honest.
nt pulling their strings
