The depressing thing was that he was appointed in the first place. We've done the highly regarded, highly rewarded, foreign coach/administrator thing to death. If it was ever going to work, it would have done so before Bob Brett was appointed.
The questionable part of this is that Brett was working with Downey at Tennis Canada ! Bob Brett is an intelligent man with a passion for the game and a reputation as one of the worlds best when it comes to Tennis knowledge ! Brett could have done the job as performance director or Head of coaching with his eyes closed.
It seems that the problem lies with the incompetence of Downey who has already single handedly decimated the sport in the UK !
My theory is Downey is still working for the Canadians and has been sent to ruin our game by taking revenge for the "GB stealing Rusedski debacle" !!!! (said in jest)
Yes, I was reading that Brett worked with Downey in Canada.
Surely Downey should very much know the guy's strengths and weaknesses, and if employing him employ him appropriately. Plenty folk who have never worked with Brett could see the issues and were pointing them out early doors.
"A major reason why mistakes like the Brett appointment arguably the right man in the wrong job - are repeatedly made is that the main LTA Board suffers from not having anyone with any significant experience of the professional game, and what is required to succeed in it.
After more than two years in position the LTA's independent Chairman, David Gregson who has done some good things like increasing focus on participation - has completely failed to address this."
From a Windsor Leadership April 2015 'breakfast briefing' with David Gregson:
"David is Chairman of the Lawn Tennis Association, and of CRI, a leading UK health and social care charity. He is also a Director of the London Legacy Development Corporation, which is transforming the Olympic Park following the 2012 Games; a member of the Advisory Boards for the Sutton Trust, promoting social mobility through education, and also the Education Endowment Foundation.
Previously, David was a co-founder and Chairman of Phoenix Equity Partners, a leading UK mid-market private equity business. David has an MBA from Manchester Business School and a degree in Maths and Physics from Cambridge University."
Looking just at current commitments, I'm not sure a national tennis body, a health charity, a property development company and two education foundations are very closely related. Can't see much crossover knowledge and expertise there.
Previously, David was a co-founder and Chairman of Phoenix Equity Partners, a leading UK mid-market private equity business. David has an MBA from Manchester Business School and a degree in Maths and Physics from Cambridge University."
Looking just at current commitments, I'm not sure a national tennis body, a health charity, a property development company and two education foundations are very closely related. Can't see much crossover knowledge and expertise there.
With all due respect, this is not unusual for the Chairperson of a Board. The whole point of this (usually) non-executive role is that they are NOT involved with day-to-day matters and can bring a wider perspective.
For example, look at Apple, the largest company in the world by market capitalisation. Its Chairperson since 2011 has been Arthur Levinson, whose background is in Biotechnology. It's perhaps unlikely that he could make an iPhone.
__________________
"Where Ratty leads - the rest soon follow" (Professor Henry Brubaker - The Institute of Studies)
But I have a lot of dealings with non-exec and exec Chairpeople (of smaller companies, admittedly) and it's still a point worth making that companies are advised to pick their Chairperson (and Board) with a great deal of care - to try and find people with crossover expertise and contacts and experience. (I've just been involved in a non-profit company that uses art for therapy appointing a Trustee from one of the large London museums to the Board - it's hardly the same vein of business at all but there's some obvious interesting areas of possible overlap).
The composition of a Board is really important to the good functioning of the company and this idea that 'general business' skills will come through is too overrated, in my view - specific knowledge and background are extremely helpful, if not absolutely key.
If Gregson has no sporting association/body background of any kind, and (key) has not appointed any Board members who do have, then that is a weak Board (again, in my view) to run a national sporting federation. A knowledge of health and education charities is not the same.