The DoF type set-up

[offix]

Without starting yet another discussion about whether Ru**rt acts (or should act) as DoF at Saints, it seems that the type of set-up that includes a DoF is running into some problems in the English game. Curbishly and Keegan both cited the fact that they did not have a (big enough) say in who gets hired and/or sold as a major reason for their departure.

 

What really would be the advantage to any club of having a DoF? I don't see it quite frankly, but am interested to hear other points of view.

[aintforever]

I suppose in our case one advantage is that the person buying the players has got a financial brain and knows how to make money in player trading.

 

I don't like it because it's not as simple as a player being good or bad, a good player in one managers mind is a bad one in another. If the DOF and managers way of thinking are not closely aligned then you could have problems.

 

Also if it all goes pear shaped where does the blame lie? When you have amanager he takes the responsiblity.

[Legod Second Coming]

The most succesful football club in Europe had 13 managers during the same time that Alex Ferguson has been at United.

 

Which of the two clubs won the Champion's League most often during that period?

 

And which has the DoF...

[Wopper]

The DOF gets any backhanders going.

[um pahars]

Without starting yet another discussion about whether Ru**rt acts (or should act) as DoF at Saints, it seems that the type of set-up that includes a DoF is running into some problems in the English game. Curbishly and Keegan both cited the fact that they did not have a (big enough) say in who gets hired and/or sold as a major reason for their departure.

 

What really would be the advantage to any club of having a DoF? I don't see it quite frankly, but am interested to hear other points of view.

 

Could you argue that some of the hostility and opposing sentiment towards the set up is a historical and cultural thing in the English Leagues. we have never had this set up, instead the "Gaffer" is the sole man in charge and is aided by an Assistant Manager and maybe a Coach?

 

Therefore "English" managers see it as a slur on their credibility and stature if they have to report to someone other than the Board/Chairman and don't take to not being the main man in charge of the footballing side.

 

It would appear to be the norm on the continent, but has it always been that way???? And is it more successful, or just more suited to their cultural and historical roots????

[Thedelldays]

they were talking about this on talksport...and counting all the european clubs with england in term of success domestically and in europe....team with DoF have been far more successful by a mile than those without..

 

I know it works more so on the continent but interesting no doubt..

[Long Shot]

Interesting hearing Redknapp's views today. He said he turned downed the Newcastle job because he did not want to work with a DoF but admitted he could see why they are becoming needed. I think the success depends on the relationship between the manager and the DoF. If it is lopsided then it won't work. If there is no mutual trust it won't work. I would be interested to know more about how Ferguson sees things because as far as I am aware he (the manager) takes all footballing decisions and for me (being old school) that is still the preferable way.

[Thedelldays]

with more and more high profile foreign managers revloving through the english game, the DoF role will rise and become more high profile than ever before.....

 

have no idea if that is a good or bad thing...I guess it has to be judged individually on its merits with each club that adopts it...

[up and away]

Without starting yet another discussion about whether Ru**rt acts (or should act) as DoF at Saints, it seems that the type of set-up that includes a DoF is running into some problems in the English game. Curbishly and Keegan both cited the fact that they did not have a (big enough) say in who gets hired and/or sold as a major reason for their departure.

 

What really would be the advantage to any club of having a DoF? I don't see it quite frankly, but am interested to hear other points of view.

 

You only have to look at our best two best managers in recent history, WSG and Hoddle. I doubt most fans would trust them with 10p in a sweet shop, such is their past record.

Then you have the likes of Wenger, with most managers being happy to get even near his buying record. So in reality, it will depend upon the individuals involved.

 

I believe the set up Lowe had previously, where there was a group looking at player acquisitions (including the manager/coach), worked extremely well. The other strong point of the system is that it provides far better continuity should the manager / coach leave.

 

The two examples you have cited, Curbishly and Keegan are classic examples of taking on a DOF. Curbishlys buys are sufficient alone to get him bouncing down the road on his arse, with Keegans theory to keep buying players he fancies until he gets one that fits. I thought Newcastle made 3 very good buys in the summer and a big thumbs up in what they were doing. As to the sale of players, Keegan is not considering the financial side one bit with the example of Owen. You are either held to ransom with his wage demands or you can move him on for some sort of a fee at the present. Keegan threw his arms up in the air as soon as he got to Newcastle, saying it was impossible to break into the top 4 without the money. What he should of said, was he was not Arsene Wenger.

[Long Shot]

You only have to look at our best two best managers in recent history, WSG and Hoddle. I doubt most fans would trust them with 10p in a sweet shop, such is their past record.

Then you have the likes of Wenger, with most managers being happy to get even near his buying record. So in reality, it will depend upon the individuals involved.

 

I believe the set up Lowe had previously, where there was a group looking at player acquisitions (including the manager/coach), worked extremely well. The other strong point of the system is that it provides far better continuity should the manager / coach leave.

 

The two examples you have cited, Curbishly and Keegan are classic examples of taking on a DOF. Curbishlys buys are sufficient alone to get him bouncing down the road on his arse, with Keegans theory to keep buying players he fancies until he gets one that fits. I thought Newcastle made 3 very good buys in the summer and a big thumbs up in what they were doing. As to the sale of players, Keegan is not considering the financial side one bit with the example of Owen. You are either held to ransom with his wage demands or you can move him on for some sort of a fee at the present. Keegan threw his arms up in the air as soon as he got to Newcastle, saying it was impossible to break into the top 4 without the money. What he should of said, was he was not Arsene Wenger.

 

 

Yes yes yes but you can't employ a carpenter and then ask him to use someone else's tools. Would Eric Clapton chose to do a gig with a borrowed guitar? Would Picasso have painted out of someone else's studio or had his models picked for him. Would a captain take off with a plane he hadn't done the safety checks on? I could go on but hopefully you get my drift. I think Curbishly and Keegan have done the right thing. If the football decisions at a club are to be run by a committee concensus then don't bother appointing a manager.

[Plumstead_Saint]

The most succesful football club in Europe had 13 managers during the same time that Alex Ferguson has been at United.

 

Which of the two clubs won the Champion's League most often during that period?

 

And which has the DoF...

Are you saying that in EVERY OTHER RESPECT these two clubs have been EXACTLY THE SAME over this period?

Because if not, your comparison is meaningless.

Edited 3 September, 2008 by Plumstead_Saint

[NickG]

Yes yes yes but you can't employ a carpenter and then ask him to use someone else's tools. Would Eric Clapton chose to do a gig with a guitar he hadn't designed? Could Picasso have painted using a set a decent paints suppled by someone else? Would a captain take off with a plane he hadn't personally chosen from the boeing catalogue? hopefully you get my drift. I think Curbishly and Keegan have done the right thing. If the football decisions at a club are to be run by a committee concensus then don't bother appointing a manager who just wants to spend spend spend.

 

fair point

[Legod Second Coming]

Are you saying that in EVERY OTHER RESPECT these two clubs have been EXACTLY THE SAME over this period?

Because if not, your comparison is meaningless.

 

 

Well.

 

Real Madrid - thirteen managers but league champions and European Champions more often that Machester United, one manager same period.

 

Only other difference? Real have a DoF. United don't.

 

What does that tell you about:

 

a) the value of a DoF

b) the need for managerial stability.

 

Answers on a postcard to:

 

Mr Dino Saur

Tabloid School of Football Myths and Conventions

Bunkum Lane

Boloxville

England.

[Legod Second Coming]

Yes yes yes but you can't employ a carpenter and then ask him to use someone else's tools. Would Eric Clapton chose to do a gig with a borrowed guitar? Would Picasso have painted out of someone else's studio or had his models picked for him. Would a captain take off with a plane he hadn't done the safety checks on? I could go on but hopefully you get my drift. I think Curbishly and Keegan have done the right thing. If the football decisions at a club are to be run by a committee concensus then don't bother appointing a manager.

 

Playing Devil's advocate:

 

1. Would Clapton rig the amps and microphones himself then - and carry out the sound checks? Does he insist on hand picking the backing vocalists and the man who paints the set?

 

2. Did picasso go to Florence and mix the Prussian blue and Gaussian ink by hand himself?

 

3. Does the Captain select the mechanic who services the aircraft, recruit the stewardesses and insist only on flying in a Boeing, not in an Airbus secured by his head of procurement?

 

 

Put it another way. It's 4am. It's dark. Around you are two hundred men, hunched below a rocky outcrop. In one minute you will give the signal. And you will lead those men to an assault on Goose Green - risking your life and theirs.

 

As their commanding officer:

 

Did you have to hand recruit every man-jack of them, train them, equip them and have them build a bond solely with you??

 

Or do you LEAD the men you are given with the skill, wit and courage for which YOU yourself were trained??

 

I wonder...

[scooby]

Well.

 

Real Madrid - thirteen managers but league champions and European Champions more often that Machester United, one manager same period.

 

Only other difference? Real have a DoF. United don't.

 

What does that tell you about:

 

a) the value of a DoF

b) the need for managerial stability.

 

Answers on a postcard to:

 

It tells you that Lord Lowe's method of dispensing with managers when we need to (you know, rather than listen to the cry from the flat caps of 'stability') is the right one.

[offix]

Interesting discussion, and conducted without any abuse. Thank you all for that!

After reading it all, I think I agree most with Um Pahars that it is possibly a cultural thing. However, that does not mean that the DoF system would be better or worse than the "Gaffer" system we have had for so long in the UK. After all, the premiership is still right up there as one of the best leagues in the world, and got to that status for a very large part (most clubs) without DoFs?

[benjii]

The "DoF structure" - ie. a top-down system of player recruitment where the first team coach is not the chooser of players - is inevitable as more and more clubs rely on finance from private owners and interested individuals.

 

If you are personally pumping tens, hundreds of millions into a business with no likelihood of return are you really going to trust someone like Keegan, Redknapp or Curbishley with it? With increased financial investment from the owners/directors is bound to come increased hands-on control. The higher the risk, the greater the control required. That principle holds true in general when talking about the financing of high risk ventures. There are few more high risk than football.

 

Easier to appoint a lackey or "yes man" as a low-profile, behind the scenes DoF than appoint a high-profile "manager" with gravitas who fits the same description.

 

Right or wrong, this structure goes hand in hand with the new ownership model in top level English football IMO.

[saint_stevo]

have i missed something?

 

We dont have a DoF do we?

[offix]

have i missed something?

 

We dont have a DoF do we?

 

Some would say that defo we do

[Greenridge]

I'm sure there are some examples of it working here in the UK but I'll be damned if I can think of one. Anyone have any suggestions? :confused:

[CabbageFace]

Lets face it Keegan is quitting because he cant be arsed anymore and he knows Newcastle will never be a top 8 team and curbishley is quitting because he knows he blew alot of money on injured rubbish. It has nothing to do with a DoF.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Well.

 

Real Madrid - thirteen managers but league champions and European Champions more often that Machester United, one manager same period.

 

Only other difference? Real have a DoF. United don't.

 

What does that tell you about:

 

a) the value of a DoF

b) the need for managerial stability.

 

Answers on a postcard to:

 

Mr Dino Saur

Tabloid School of Football Myths and Conventions

Bunkum Lane

Boloxville

England.

 

Isn't the difference that Real Madrid has massive debts which are guaranteed by the Spanish Government?

[ottery st mary]

Lets face it Keegan is quitting because he cant be arsed anymore and he knows Newcastle will never be a top 8 team and curbishley is quitting because he knows he blew alot of money on injured rubbish. It has nothing to do with a DoF.

 

Like Saints then in 07/08 season.

[stevegrant]

It's certainly a cultural thing, the English game pretty much since football began has been run on the basis that the manager does everything from picking the team to buying the players. After all, managers in any other industry will be the ones who hire and fire their employees, so from that perspective you can understand "old school" managers like Curbishley and Keegan being slightly hacked off that some of those responsibilities have been taken from them. The same would apply to managers who ply their trade in the lower divisions, predominantly on the basis that clubs at those levels can't really afford to have more than one person in decision-making positions like the manager, director of football, etc.

 

It's a system that's been in place on the continent for as long as I can remember. Clubs like Real Madrid, AC Milan, Bayern Munich and so on have all had "sporting director" positions or similar, who has generally been the person who conducts the transfer business, leaving the team manager/head coach to get on with training, tactics and team selection. Of course they will "generally" have an input on transfers as well, and I'd be absolutely stunned if the likes of Bernd Schuster and Jurgen Klinsmann weren't heavily consulted on transfer targets etc.

 

With Curbishley, it actually appears to me as if the board has been trying to force him out for a while. They didn't let him spend very much in the summer, but enforced the sales of Zamora and Paintsil to Fulham and then Ferdinand and McCarthy (for ridiculous fees, FWIW) to Sunderland. Based on AC's transfer history with West Ham since they suddenly found themselves fairly flush with cash, I don't blame them one bit, and I'm surprised he's lasted in the job as long as he has done.

[ottery st mary]

Wise was appointed after Keegan, I think. Both football men.

Wise is a freind of the Chairman Ashley, purse strings and all that. Would it not be advisable of some connection at least between the coach and DOF about styles at least so all are pulling in the same direction. Keegan chosing DOF or DOF chosing Keegan.

If for example Saints Directors Lowe or Wilde are acting as DOF, neither is a football man and regardless of good scouts(possibly Prost) the coach needs to be in the loop from the outset and not being given players and told to sort it out , like it or lump it. Should be working with a football DOF.

In our case at least make Wotte the DOF and as seems JP and Wotte are on same wave length we could be going in the right direction.

If this is the case it has not been made very clear as most still think Rupert is the DOF.

Or bring in Cruyff.

[stevegrant]

Wise was appointed after Keegan, I think. Both football men.

Wise is a freind of the Chairman Ashley, purse strings and all that. Would it not be advisable of some connection at least between the coach and DOF about styles at least so all are pulling in the same direction. Keegan chosing DOF or DOF chosing Keegan.

If for example Saints Directors Lowe or Wilde are acting as DOF, neither is a football man and regardless of good scouts(possibly Prost) the coach needs to be in the loop from the outset and not being given players and told to sort it out , like it or lump it. Should be working with a football DOF.

In our case at least make Wotte the DOF and as seems JP and Wotte are on same wave length we could be going in the right direction.

If this is the case it has not been made very clear as most still think Rupert is the DOF.

Or bring in Cruyff.

Yep, unity is the one thing that is required under this structure. Foreign clubs tend to get that a bit easier as there is already a pre-conceived understanding that the DoF/head coach structure is how it works. It's very clear that Keegan wasn't aware that a DoF was to be appointed at Newcastle, particularly one who was going to be working out of an office in London.

 

With JP/MW, it's clear that they understood the structure when they were appointed and seem very comfortable with it. As such, there is a hell of a lot more chance of that working than the situations at West Ham and Newcastle, where the old-school manager is very clearly uncomfortable with the situation.

[ottery st mary]

To be fair some of the Managers, in the past, have been well at it with their suitcases of notes and Chairman having the wool pulled over their eyes etc.

But agree, Unity and hopefully we will all be happy and DOF together with Coach report back to Chairman and everyone is aware of the structure from the outset. Hopefully this is in place at Saints if not we slowly move towards that system. No offence towards Directors of Football clubs under this system I still hope the DOF is from football background and is in tandem with Coach of side. The Directors still have the purse strings and final say. Onwards and upwards. Bring on the yuf.

[up and away]

Interesting discussion, and conducted without any abuse. Thank you all for that!

After reading it all, I think I agree most with Um Pahars that it is possibly a cultural thing. However, that does not mean that the DoF system would be better or worse than the "Gaffer" system we have had for so long in the UK. After all, the premiership is still right up there as one of the best leagues in the world, and got to that status for a very large part (most clubs) without DoFs?

 

When you look back at the Premier league previous to the massive injections of capital, it was extremely poor and generally way behind much smaller footballing nations. Money has converted the Premier league into the best league in the world and with that have come all the players, techniques and structure used at the best clubs and countries in the world, very little modelled on England. To give you an idea where we would be without the money, just look at Rangers and Celtic. Prior to the Premier these teams were not far off a parallel with the good teams in England. Now how far do their structure and organisation look behind the EPL? The only real difference that has separated us being money.

 

The one country that can be used as a guiding light in punching way above their weight in football is Holland. This was not a natural footballing nation where high percentages of the population were playing football on the beach every weekend. They were skating on frozen canals, cycling, hockey or some other minority sport. Then along came a club called Ajax with an organisational structure that managed to elevate the club to far greater heights than their resources warranted. Soon copied by many other clubs in Holland, it elevated the whole country in the footballing world. Other countries looked at what was going on with Ajax and copied to various degrees across Europe. Whereas in our little back water we had a manager who was responsible for everything, even down to the guy who washed the kit.

 

So where does the DOF fit into all of this? Well you can quote the obvious examples of what the Dutch clubs have done and how they have been copied, but the obvious answer is what is required to give you a winning football team. For a club to be successful someone needs to be getting in the right player, but that does not need to be the coach / manager. We can all give so many examples where clubs would have been far better off if the manager had nothing to do with player transfers. The manager / coach has to be part of the system that brings / sells players at a club, but the amount of influence he / she should have will be directly related to past success / failure. By natural selection the person who selects the fewest duds and better prospects will come to the fore, that may or may not be the coach / manager. On the opposite hand you have managers who are in their position mainly because of their acquisitions in the transfer market and wisely leave the training and tactics to others.

 

The two aspects do not need to go hand in hand with one person for a club to be successful, but the two aspects do need to be done well for a club to be successful. It makes so much sense to have the DOF approach, where you have safe guards attached to the manager / coach to compliment his position rather than erode it and a less emotive objective of what is required.

 

Look at the problems West Ham have had and it looks odds on they will be taking the DOF route in the future, to avoid the waste of resources that could cost them their position in the Premier. Then look at why this happened at Newcastle, exactly for the same reasons that caused Curbishlys position to become untenable. Very early days I know, but if you look at the value for money acquisitions made in the Premier this season and what was required for the club, Newcastles summer acquisitions look very good value. And if you were looking for someone to get in players on a limited budget, Keegans name would be down the bottom of that list, even though you may fancy him as manager.

[CabbageFace]

West Hams DoF obviously was rubbish if he signed Bellamy, Dyer, Llundberg, Pantsil, Niell etc.

 

lol.

[stevegrant]

West Hams DoF obviously was rubbish if he signed Bellamy, Dyer, Llundberg, Pantsil, Niell etc.

 

lol.

Curbishley signed those players. Then West Ham appointed a DoF who subsequently decided it would actually be in their interests to pay Ljungberg £6m to leave the club straight away!

[ottery st mary]

Mind you Ljungberg was an expensive buy for someone who in his latter period at Highbury was always injured.

All that money in his underpants and one gave the appearance he always had his knickers in a twist, so to speak.

Big gamble. Big mistake. Maybe Curbishley has had his day. Having said that knowing the FA he will be the next England Manager and win the World Cup.