|
Post by a king of orient on Sept 12, 2008 17:28:05 GMT
What do you people think of this new "craze"? I personally think it's a shambles which has been proved by the number of resignations rumoured to have been cause by a Director of Football having too much control. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Wolvensam on Sept 12, 2008 17:35:26 GMT
It's not required - we've had perfectly successful transfers under Mick McCarthy because he can spot a player as can his staff, once he spots the players it's up to Jez Moxey (our CEO) to negotiate the fee with the club in question.
I don't really see how a director of football can bring anything more to a club? The chairman provides the cash, the CEO handles the cash, the manager manages the team and the scouts scout the players.
|
|
|
Post by stealth1039 on Sept 12, 2008 17:38:19 GMT
It works abroad with no problems but I think the role needs defining better for England. The clashes all seem to be over the D of F buying & selling players that the manager didn't want to. A modern managers job does seem to have been downgraded to purely coach wherever they have a D of F and I don't really see how that can work. Surely the manager MUST choose who he has in his team?
Sam & I discussed this somewhere & couldn't really see which part of a D of F's role wasn't covered by another employee anyway.
|
|
|
Post by a king of orient on Sept 12, 2008 17:43:28 GMT
Precisely what I was thinking. Why can't clubs see that just a manager has worked for all these years. Look at Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea as some examples (there are more but it's just for argument's sake). Wenger has been in charge for years, as has Fergie at United and they have had no need for a D of F and look how successful they have been. They haven't had one at Chelsea either (although I may stand to be corrected) and they have has success. Fair enough, Roman came in and gave them the money to spend but he didn't pick out every player he wanted. It's the same at Villa. Randy Lerner just gives O'Neill the cash and lets him spend it.
|
|
|
Post by stealth1039 on Sept 12, 2008 17:53:12 GMT
Chelsea do have one actually Pij as they stole ours! Arnesen was more interested in the money than building something from scratch & his leaving screwed Jol as well in the end.
|
|
|
Post by a king of orient on Sept 12, 2008 17:56:41 GMT
Oh yes, I forgot about him. Didn't Chelsea want him to help with the youth development or something? I think that might have almost ruined Spurs. They were going really well when he went.
|
|
|
Post by Wolvensam on Sept 12, 2008 18:10:42 GMT
Didn't Abramovich buy Shevchenko even though Mourinho didn't want him?
|
|
|
Post by stealth1039 on Sept 12, 2008 18:10:52 GMT
It was a shame as Arnesen was renowned for his world wide contacts and ability to spot a player. He also worked very well with Martin Jol having known him in Holland whereas it seems that he & Arnesen's replacement Comoli didn't get on. Still that's always the story with Spurs - so near yet so far.
|
|
|
Post by a king of orient on Sept 12, 2008 18:13:50 GMT
Didn't Abramovich buy Shevchenko even though Mourinho didn't want him? I think that was one of the only ones though. Mourinho decided on most of the players though.
|
|
|
Post by arover on Sept 12, 2008 19:14:24 GMT
The main thing is surely knowing what job you have signed up for and then working within that framework and not having the goalposts moved in mid contract.
|
|
|
Post by stealth1039 on Sept 12, 2008 19:52:13 GMT
Absolutely and I'm sure that's why it works on the continent but not here. We still have a lot of old school managers who are used to being, effectively, the Chief Exec. People like Harry Redknapp who have wheeled & dealed on limited amounts of money for all their career - very successfully but they weren't in competition with megabucks either.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Sept 13, 2008 10:59:42 GMT
If this system is to work then the role has to be defined with clarity as at the moment there is no standardized role....
It would seem that both Keegan and Curbishley feel they were misled in the roles their directors of football were playing....
It does seem clear that the system can work but painfully obvious for managers and supporters that it does not work when the roles are not clearly defined,as Arover pointed out... It is no coincidence that the most successful clubs have a much clearer decision making chain of command, and that usually the manager or head coach is the one who is either responsible for transfers, or has a solid working relationship with the staff that do, working together for the betterment of the club....
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 13, 2008 21:12:19 GMT
It's laymans terms for technical director
|
|
|
Post by stealth1039 on Sept 14, 2008 10:23:05 GMT
Which is an even more obscure job description. Is he in charge of things like the floodlights?
|
|