Possible Director of Football

[quasi modo]

Do it right and it can work.

Almost always seems to go tits up though.

Only in the UK it doesn't seem to work, but the majority of European clubs including the successful ones it has worked for a long time.

 

[Scolari]

If the Chief Scout is replaced by a Director of Football, will the manager be replaced by a 1st Team Coach?

 

[quasi modo]

If the Chief Scout is replaced by a Director of Football, will the manager be replaced by a 1st Team Coach?

Head coach?

 

[bizzaro]

Only in the UK it doesn't seem to work, but the majority of European clubs including the successful ones it has worked for a long time.

Depends on the dynamics of the DoF and Manager.

If both are pursuing their own things on player acquisition and team deployment.

Then it won't work.

If both work well together, it can work.

But they've got to really get on.

 

[orly]

If the Chief Scout is replaced by a Director of Football, will the manage be replaced by a 1st Team Coach?

Director of football and chief scout are totally different

There is no manager though as you say, becomes "first team coach" usually

 

[ToffeeDoug]

Only in the UK it doesn't seem to work, but the majority of European clubs including the successful ones it has worked for a long time.

British managers are old fashioned dinosaurs, never!

 

[The Esk]

There's good management reasons for separating managing the club, handling personnel and dealing with transfers (the administration and negotiation, but not the selection exclusively) and the coaching of the first team.

Firstly it relives some of the burden of management on the head coach, secondly it provides a single reporting structure for the junior team management and the general coaching staff.

In the case of Everton there's possibly a more Machiavellian reason - it significantly reduces the roles of our existing Chairman and CEO. It paves the way for Bill to be just a figurehead for the time he remains on the Board (if he's not looking for investors (as he was 24/7) or being involved directly with the manager what does he do?) other than a figurehead there's really no role for him. Similarly it frees up the CEO to just manage the business and as I said earlier today concentrate on growing revenues and building infrastructure. You can guess where I am going here

 

[quasi modo]

Depends on the dynamics of the DoF and Manager.

If both are pursuing their own things on player acquisition and team deployment.

Then it won't work.

If both work well together, it can work.

But they've got to really get on.

Exactly what I said earlier on, need a pairing/team to work closely together and to trust one another for it to work, ideally suited for a pairing who have worked together before.

 

[Hangleton]

The director of football might improve Pellegrini's chances at the manager job because City's DOF made some absolutely shocking buys this past summer. Who knows how much input Pellegrini had into, say, spending 28 million on Nicolas Otamendi.

Compared to Niasse - he's worth it.

 

[mightymoyes]

I've never been a huge fan of Directors of Football, I think they can often have very different agendas to the manager which can cause a lot of conflicts (just look at the 'transfer committee' over the park), however, if we pick the right man, it could work very well.

to be fair most of their signings are starting to come good (balotelli apart!)

 

[JustOpp]

The funny thing is, Martinez would probably make a pretty good Director of Football.

-Solid eye for talent
-Knows how to sell the club to talented players
-Had strong ideas for Academy improvements
-Kept an eye on both the present and the future in the transfer window

If you take form out of the equation, Martinez built a fairly impressive foundation of talent at Everton. He just struggles to manage.

 

[Hangleton]

Basically - you can't keep changing club/team "philosophies" on the whim of some coach who seems great at first but is actually limited. The owner needs to have a guy to trust that will help push the club in the required direction - the criteria to judge the coach is then purely based on results on the pitch. Not some intangible like "youth team feel good improvements"

 

[Goat]

Only in the UK it doesn't seem to work, but the majority of European clubs including the successful ones it has worked for a long time.

Most top clubs will use 1 and most top class managers will enjoy working with 1, it allows them to concentrate on winning matches and coaching the players.

 

[ToffeeDoug]

There's good management reasons for separating managing the club, handling personnel and dealing with transfers (the administration and negotiation, but not the selection exclusively) and the coaching of the first team.

Firstly it relives some of the burden of management on the head coach, secondly it provides a single reporting structure for the junior team management and the general coaching staff.

In the case of Everton there's possibly a more Machiavellian reason - it significantly reduces the roles of our existing Chairman and CEO. It paves the way for Bill to be just a figurehead for the time he remains on the Board (if he's not looking for investors (as he was 24/7) or being involved directly with the manager what does he do?) other than a figurehead there's really no role for him. Similarly it frees up the CEO to just manage the business and as I said earlier today concentrate on growing revenues and building infrastructure. You can guess where I am going here

Sounds to me that we also want to introduce accountability and measureability against set targets, managers and others no longer get a free pass regardless because they are an incredible guy or whatever.

 

[ToffeeDoug]

to be fair most of their signings are starting to come good (balotelli apart!)

I would take Markovic off their hands at half the original cost.