By David Rushby

There’s a less-than subtle narrative that has been evident as fans have tried to unpick our current predicament, before deciding who to blame. Some of this can be pretty ugly at times, with insults hurled in the vain attempt that somehow change will occur.

In the interest of trying to be a bit more constructive, I’ve looked at our situation over the last week to try and identify who’s at fault for such an unproductive season so far. As we unpick our chain of command, I would agree with anyone who has put forward the idea of good, solid leadership as the solution. This is something that we can all seek and expect. Although it may not be quite as simple as it sounds, and we may be less clear about what this actually looks like.

I like the idea that we have a house style, that the club has a vision that precedes any managerial appointment, but I don’t think many clubs have this. There should be some underlying ambitions that the club should establish, but it really does come down to the manager to take it from there. If you like, the owner and board identify ‘what’ they want, with the manager responsible for ‘how’ it is achieved.

Initially this then leads us to scrutinising Stefan Rupp and how he may lead the club. For me, this is possibly not as obvious as it sounds. We have to first of all remember that he is a businessman. I have no doubt that as he floats the club to prospective buyers, that financial sustainability is his priority. He has never pretended to love City or claimed to be the one to lead us. He may have done this elsewhere, but he has always adopted the role of a club investor, which is ultimately a business decision. This position is the same as most club owners, which makes the expectation of leadership unrealistic.

And so he appoints Ryan Sparks. This is a sensible business decision. Even those who have little time for Sparks can’t deny that he made some good financial and commercial decisions. This, as he said, was his mandate.

He’s not a football expert or a leader. He has the CV of a businessman. Expecting him to lead us is a big ask, although I think that he has sometimes been too quick and a little naïve to adopt this role. Which has increasingly come back to haunt him. Being appointed the youngest CEO should secure self-confidence, but it then needs validating by success. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that he is entirely accountable for appointing the person who is expected to bring success and leadership to the club, and so let’s consider the role of the manager.

I could refer to Graham Alexander, Mark Hughes or whoever, but ultimately this is the person that is expected to give us hope, entertainment and positive outcomes. This is who speaks to us and shares their views and ambitions, giving us confidence in our club and future. This person generates the interest and excitement, whilst the CEO considers how best to take care of the logistics and operations behind the scenes.

This is why the fans forum last week was so awkward. You have a person who has appointed someone to lead us, and provided the head of recruitment to aid success. The dynamics could not have been more uncomfortable. What we saw was an unproven leader, his head of recruitment and the person who appointed them both. It would probably have been more interesting, and made more sense, if Sparks had been asking the questions to Alexander and Stephen Gent.

As we begin to narrow down who is responsible for our league position, we can also see who should be the one to lead us up the table. For this, the expectation lies with the manager. Alexander has now had enough time to begin to demonstrate competency, and so we should begin to expect this. If we now talk less a little less about the ownership and business management, and more about the significance of the manager, we’re moving in the preferred direction.

Taking a look at some other examples of leaders in football, there’s a fairly obvious tradition. When Chelsea appointed Jose Mourinho, they brought in a figurehead, a leader. He was exceptional in connecting with the fans, generating swagger and success. This was his role, unlike Roman Abramovich, a businessman who delegated this entirely. With Arsene Wenger, I wouldn’t even be able to tell you who owned the club or appointed him, because we never needed to ask. Sir Alex Ferguson highlights the point that once a successful leader departs, anyone can fail to appoint a decent successor, bringing unwanted scrutiny to the ownership. Even the polarising Steve Evans has his own leadership style, which the board knew all about when they appointed him. This demonstrates ‘what’ a board wants, leaving the ‘how’ to Evans unorthodox ways.

If we look at the recent history of leaders at Bradford City, we have had some better than others. Phil Parkinson is the obvious one. Parkinson made sound signings, had a vision for success and carefully rebuilt the foundations. All the while he was honest and straight with the fans and media. He also took a little time to do this, growing the interest and the crowds, rather than instantly acquiring  the expectations of a disaffected 18,000 matchday fanbase.

Hughes is not famed for leadership in the dressing room, despite what we would hope for. He was a popular appointment and brought a good number of positives, but was unable to assure the fans that he knew his best side, which substitutions to make or how best to secure a win. We even began to question if he talked to the players at all.

This brings us to Alexander. We’ve seen likable leadership qualities. His ability to change things positively and to bring glimmers of hope. I heard a (US) Wrexham fan say that he had (note the Americanism here..) ‘out-strategised’ Parkinson, who had resorted to substituting his star signings. But we’ve also seen indecision and uncertainty. Players, formations and performances that have not been good enough.

Maybe Alexander should have been doing more the talking in the fans forum? I’d like to know more about what he believes in, what could work and how he intends to achieve success. I’d like to share his views, be inspired by his intentions and enthused by the possibilities. Even if this is simply smoke and mirrors in the short term. I’m OK with that. As long as behind the scenes we have a manager who starts so apply a longer-term strategy whilst achieving short term wins. I’d also like to this to be consistently reflected in the players performances and how they echo his views and epitomise his intentions.

We can then come away from games with the bigger picture, and a sense of direction regardless. It was encouraging on Saturday to see such character from City, defending resolutely, delivering crunching tackles and creating more opportunities as the game progressed. That’s much more convincing that simply telling us that they need to be better ‘next time’.

We’re now ready to re-connect with Bradford City, with renewed faith in the manager. We need to hear more about what Alexander about what our philosophy could be. With more airtime dedicated to football and with the Sparks and Rupp headlines hopefully, slowly subsiding. And if City can be a ‘sustainable’ club, with secure ownership and viable business management, then imagine what we could be with a manager who is able to lead?

Categories: Opinion

Tags: BCAFC