As far as I can see, since IOR have owned the club and discounting the current management duo as well as the one they inherited, the following assistant managers have been appointed:

Appointed by arcane forces:
Martin Scott with Neale Cooper
Michael Barron with Mick Wadsworth/Neale Cooper/John Hughes
(also Chris Turner, as Paul Stephenson's upstairs assistant, and Jackie Honour, who was only ever going to be a very short term appointment)

Appointed by first team managers:
Colin West by Turner
Kevin Sheedy by Newell
Steve Agnew by Scooty
Ian Butterworth by Wilson
(there was also Mick Wadsworth, appointed by Turner, but I don't think he ever actually assistant managed?)

So considering the performance of each of these, who is better at making assistant manager appointments and why?

I'm fairly certain that the club appointed Butterworth after interview, and he was thrust upon Wilson.... in that case it worked quite well.... I can't remember when/ how Butterworth left the club in relation to Wilson's departure but I think they have never worked together since?

It goes without saying the manager needs an assistant he knows and can work with.

Anyway, my view ids that if you get the right team in place.... it matters not how they were appointed, but I do get the impression that there is far less chance of "turncoating" and "backstabbing" from a number 2 selected by the man in charge, as was displayed by Scooty, and also the undoubted meddling of Turner second time around while others were "In charge" - following their independent appointments made by the club

I think this also hindered Wadsworth and Cooper second time around... it seems they had no control/authority over their number 2... because seemingly the number 2 wanted their own say


Manager appointing number 2 every time for me