the demise of the club manager

[Oz]

harry redknapp has an article in the news today concerning his view that the football manager as we have known and loved/hated is on his way out. the big money men have moved in and will continue to do so and will insist on their shekels being spent their way. coaches and directors of football will be employed by them to cover the football side with what they are left with.

 

he is of course, dead right. sky sports, the so-called premiership and winner take all philosophy will have a lot to answer for in the years to come.

[NickG]

if it gets rid of rednapp then Directors of football should be made madatory!

 

Gerry Francis on Sky saying that Ferguson does not get involved in some transfers at all and others may suggest a few players to the board

[Thedelldays]

harry redknapp has an article in the news today concerning his view that the football manager as we have known and loved/hated is on his way out. the big money men have moved in and will continue to do so and will insist on their shekels being spent their way. coaches and directors of football will be employed by them to cover the football side with what they are left with.

 

he is of course, dead right. sky sports, the so-called premiership and winner take all philosophy will have a lot to answer for in the years to come.

why?

 

why on earth does everyone blame sky, no one had a real problem a few years back when WE were in the prem, fleecing lower league clubs for their young talent and managers...we all thought it was the 'natural process' within football...

[Legod Second Coming]

why?

 

why on earth does everyone blame sky, no one had a real problem a few years back when WE were in the prem, fleecing lower league clubs for their young talent and managers...we all thought it was the 'natural process' within football...

 

Quite right DD. Sky actually SAVED football in this country which very few people seem to recall...

[Legod Second Coming]

The reason club managers are going is because a DOF structure on the continent works and foreign owners want to employ it as it saves them from managers leaving.

 

So they are moving to a 'coaching model'.

 

Good/bad?? Who knows. Works at Real.

[JRM]

Rather than say Sky "saved" football you could argue they just re-branded it, along with the Taylor report to turn it into the big business that is, with over-inflated wages / ticket prices which have priced a lot of fans out from going (especially some London clubs) and turned grounds into the souless sanitised places they are now. it's all about image. one day it will end up like formula one with a world league playing, each team named after a corporate sponsor!

[Thedelldays]

The reason club managers are going is because a DOF structure on the continent works and foreign owners want to employ it as it saves them from managers leaving.

 

So they are moving to a 'coaching model'.

 

Good/bad?? Who knows. Works at Real.

as i said in another thread, this very subject was being debated on the radio yesterday and it is a FACT that if you take all teams in europes six major leagues (england, italian, spanish, dutch, german and french) teams with a DoF have been more succesful by a mile domestically in their own leagues and in europe..

 

the more foreign intrest we have in this country, the more the DoF rile will rise...I think it should just be accepted IMO...football changes as everything in life...

[ottery st mary]

Arry boys problem is he knows he could never be termed as a ffotball coach.

To be fair he could be called a Manager of coaches, a sort of co-ordinator.

More often than not he does not coach but counts his loads of dosh in his office.

After all these years of wheeling and dealing you might even suggest he is an accountant or Fiancial guru or just a rich bugger.

[JRM]

that's true, and with the sums of money involved nowdays who would want to trust a crook like Redknapp to make the signings! get in a DOF you can trust!

[Thedelldays]

Rather than say Sky "saved" football you could argue they just re-branded it, along with the Taylor report to turn it into the big business that is, with over-inflated wages / ticket prices which have priced a lot of fans out from going (especially some London clubs) and turned grounds into the souless sanitised places they are now. it's all about image. one day it will end up like formula one with a world league playing, each team named after a corporate sponsor!

err...what turned ground into what they are now was the government after a little accident called hillsborough....

 

was SMS souless when we packed it out every week and tickets where like rocking horse shiiit...?

 

no it was not...I loved the atmosphere at SMS

[Legod Second Coming]

Rather than say Sky "saved" football you could argue they just re-branded it, along with the Taylor report to turn it into the big business that is, with over-inflated wages / ticket prices which have priced a lot of fans out from going (especially some London clubs) and turned grounds into the souless sanitised places they are now. it's all about image. one day it will end up like formula one with a world league playing, each team named after a corporate sponsor!

 

Football was on its knees. Grounds were empty (with or without seats) and the game was dying. Sky came in an delivered the kind of players who would never previously have been attracted to England and helped improve the game immeasurably.

 

For a long time, the game benefitted tremendously from the increased revenues and the improvements in safety and amenities etc.

 

Call them sanitised grounds if you like (and I love Loftus Road).

 

Where football went wrong - was the Bosman ruling.

 

Which is one of those laws, like most, which has 'unintended consequences'...

 

Those being that football clubs earn money simply to spunk it away on players and not reinvest it in their clubs.

[mdearlove]

Certainly seems like things are heading that way - Flavio Briatore seems to prefer to keep control of his money -

QPR owner Flavio Briatore has told BBC London that he will decide where the club's money is spent.

 

"I don't trust anyone with my money. Sometimes I will ask the manager of the bank but not the coach," he said.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/q/qpr/7597491.stm

[sad saints fan]

I think this is just a reflection of what is happening in every industry now ,mine included.

When I started in the construction industry ,more years ago than I would like to admit,the "site agent"(now known as a site manager)who was the main contractors representative on site,would always come from a trade background,i.e carpenter ,bricklayer ,plumber etc. Although there was some financial control by way of a quantity surveyor,these people would in no way tell the agent how to run the job.Nowadays a Q.S is by far and away the most powerful person in a building company as they control the purse strings and many members of senior management are drawn from their ranks.

[SuperMikey]

Tbf there are going to be plenty more football managers about come November.

[Windmill Arm 2]

Anything Redc*nt writes says or thinks will be taken by myself as lies, utter fukcing lies, the man is a shyte.

[Huffton]

Its simple really.Harry doesn't like it as if he can't do the deal then the crooked bastard can't get his brown paper envelope.

Tough ****e you saggy faced ****.

[Oz]

Anything Redc*nt writes says or thinks will be taken by myself as lies, utter fukcing lies, the man is a shyte.

 

 

what a really intelligent reply, i don't think

[egreog]

Some really intellectual responses on this thread!!........sadly the facts are that big owners want a big say in how things are run in THEIR clubs.......just the way it is nowadays!!

[RobM]

I'd be more worried if football were not evolving. Changes like this are all a part of natural progression, of the game evolving over time.

 

If the DoF role wasn't successful or didn't work, it wouldn't make it's way into conversations like this. It would be put down to history and forgotten about. But if something works it's bound to be taken on and used elsewhere... survival of the fittest

 

Football needs to evolve, it needs to move forward and it needs change to stop it from going stale. People like our mate 'Arry wont like this, but then perhaps they are part of the problem?

[revolution saint]

I guess the argument boils down to who is accountable and responsible. Under a traditional structure it's the manager and he's the one out on the touchline and in front of the cameras. If he's the one who has spent money poorly then he quite rightly takes the blame. A Director of Football is more removed and from a fans perspective less accountable. If a team plays badly how do the fans know whether it's poor coaching or just a poor player?

 

When Burley spent 7 million on what many believe now to be rubbish at least you could place a pretty hefty proportion of the blame on him.

 

I honestly don't know what's better but as a fan I'd like to know who is responsible for a team playing well or poorly and a DoF muddies the water a bit. I guess there's probably no definitive answer - it'll depend on the personnel and resources as much as anything.

[Polaroid Saint]

Harry Redknapp Cucks Sock.

[Polaroid Saint]

And now a sensible reply:

 

The shananigans at West Ham show the traditional club manager to be on the way out true - Fridgeirsson "friend of the owner" - (odd job title) Said:

 

"About a year ago, we began to feel we were vulnerable in having a structure with one manager who runs all football matters,"

 

So there you go.

 

And with Keegan gone, well - another one bites the dust (I should image he'll be straight back to Glasgow and donning his soccer circus ringmasters shell-suit pretty sharpish).

[Saint_clark]

I'm sure Mark Hughes isn't complaining that the owner bought Robinho, and to be honest if I was Curbishly i'd be happy with getting £9million for Ferdinand and £4.5million for Mcartney.

[Fowllyd]

Football was on its knees. Grounds were empty (with or without seats) and the game was dying. Sky came in an delivered the kind of players who would never previously have been attracted to England and helped improve the game immeasurably.

 

I'd say the real resurgence in interest in football in this country came in the aftermath of the 1990 World Cup. England reached the semi-final stage for only the second time and were unfortunate to lose; in Paul Gascoigne the game had a new (and as yet untarnished) superstar; the massive problems with hooliganism were diminishing fast.

 

It's true that the Sky deal pumped enormous money into the game, but that only came along a few years later - the Premiership in particular had a product by then which they could sell to Murdoch (not a man to throw money at losing causes) and they did so with gusto. Murdoch, in turn, was prepared to pay over the odds in order to establish his channel and kill off the competition (anybody remember BSB? Thought not). It was a convergence of circumstances which worked well for all parties involved.

 

But, if the game had been in a truly parlous state, Murdoch would never have paid big money to screen it.

[Thedelldays]

I'd say the real resurgence in interest in football in this country came in the aftermath of the 1990 World Cup. England reached the semi-final stage for only the second time and were unfortunate to lose; in Paul Gascoigne the game had a new (and as yet untarnished) superstar; the massive problems with hooliganism were diminishing fast.

 

It's true that the Sky deal pumped enormous money into the game, but that only came along a few years later - the Premiership in particular had a product by then which they could sell to Murdoch (not a man to throw money at losing causes) and they did so with gusto. Murdoch, in turn, was prepared to pay over the odds in order to establish his channel and kill off the competition (anybody remember BSB? Thought not). It was a convergence of circumstances which worked well for all parties involved.

 

But, if the game had been in a truly parlous state, Murdoch would never have paid big money to screen it.

 

 

so much so that sky has more NFL games than prem games..where Stetanta has more and more prem games every year and now has england games...

 

what does that tell you? if it is not sky it is someone else..

 

thanks largely go sky, the standard of football is soo much better now than what it was even 10 years ago

[Fowllyd]

so much so that sky has more NFL games than prem games..where Stetanta has more and more prem games every year and now has england games...

 

what does that tell you? if it is not sky it is someone else..

 

thanks largely go sky, the standard of football is soo much better now than what it was even 10 years ago

 

What it tells me is that the point I was making was correct - Murdoch was only ever going to pump his firm's money into a good prospect, not a dead duck. Football in this country was on the up when Sky got involved - if it hadn't been they'd have picked another sport to televise.

[Thedelldays]

What it tells me is that the point I was making was correct - Murdoch was only ever going to pump his firm's money into a good prospect, not a dead duck. Football in this country was on the up when Sky got involved - if it hadn't been they'd have picked another sport to televise.

sure it was on the up...but the sky thing back in the early 90 gave it one hell of a push..

 

like I said...99.99999% of saints fans never had an issue with sky and/or worry if the arse would fall out of the prem when we were in it...

[saintcrris]

Quite right DD. Sky actually SAVED football in this country which very few people seem to recall...

 

Quite right

 

But not many of us were thanking Sky when we waited 2 months or so for our first saturday

3pm kick of a few years back.

 

Football cannot survive without it, but its a bloody pain in the arse.

[Fowllyd]

sure it was on the up...but the sky thing back in the early 90 gave it one hell of a push..

 

like I said...99.99999% of saints fans never had an issue with sky and/or worry if the arse would fall out of the prem when we were in it...

 

And on that I'm sure you're totally correct. Personally, I always did feel uneasy at the ever-increasing concentration of wealth at the top end of the game - and indeed the ever-increasing greed of those instrumental in its happening. But that's just me...

[sadoldgit]

You don't hear him complaining about the money he has been given which enabled him to finally get some success in football do you?

 

When he was with us an actually had to use his skill and wits to manage cos there was not any cash, guess what, he failed big time.

[Secret Site Agent]

I think this is just a reflection of what is happening in every industry now ,mine included.

When I started in the construction industry ,more years ago than I would like to admit,the "site agent"(now known as a site manager)who was the main contractors representative on site,would always come from a trade background,i.e carpenter ,bricklayer ,plumber etc. Although there was some financial control by way of a quantity surveyor,these people would in no way tell the agent how to run the job.Nowadays a Q.S is by far and away the most powerful person in a building company as they control the purse strings and many members of senior management are drawn from their ranks.

 

To right, I had a run in with my QS today. One thing that I have to point out though, as I have been likening Construction with Football is that when QS's in smaller and medium sized companies have made construction and programming decisions, the companies have lost A LOT of money, and a few have gone bust. As I mentioned in my thread early today, Money Men cannot be alowed to make decisions as they have no inside knowledge or skillbase beyond their basic knowledge, and do not like to take measured risks. Trust me, I fight them every day.

[Legod Second Coming]

I'd say the real resurgence in interest in football in this country came in the aftermath of the 1990 World Cup. England reached the semi-final stage for only the second time and were unfortunate to lose; in Paul Gascoigne the game had a new (and as yet untarnished) superstar; the massive problems with hooliganism were diminishing fast.

 

It's true that the Sky deal pumped enormous money into the game, but that only came along a few years later - the Premiership in particular had a product by then which they could sell to Murdoch (not a man to throw money at losing causes) and they did so with gusto. Murdoch, in turn, was prepared to pay over the odds in order to establish his channel and kill off the competition (anybody remember BSB? Thought not). It was a convergence of circumstances which worked well for all parties involved.

 

But, if the game had been in a truly parlous state, Murdoch would never have paid big money to screen it.

 

Aye, but the Premiership was created and packaged with selling the rights to a broadcaster in mind, that's what I was getting at. So, knowing that SKY had a dedicated sports channel with hours to fill and and that football was a potentially marketable product (with a following who weren't necessarily minded to go to games), the Premier League came together solely in order to sell their rights to a media company (SKY).

 

The money made from the sale is what then helped to turn the Premiership into the most expensive league in Europe - at the time the Italian League was probably Europe's premier league by a mile.

[dubai_phil]

There is nothing wrong with Sky's involvement in football, EXCEPT for the fact that it pumps TOO much money into too few clubs.

Football is a pyramid and needs to have the hope of movement upwards, not just for the fans and smaller clubs but also for the players.

If you starve the pyramid, eventually you starve the smaller clubs and they are unable to develop the players that the upper levels need.

I don't want a "communist style" system, simply a larger percentage share should be re-distributed downwards.

It is ludicrous that Darlington should earn 500k from their playoff games and that becomes enough money to completely re-build their squad and to survive for another year, when, thanks to tv money, Lampard earns that in just over 3 weeks and saggy allegedly earns that in one deal

[Legod Second Coming]

There is nothing wrong with Sky's involvement in football, EXCEPT for the fact that it pumps TOO much money into too few clubs. Football is a pyramid and needs to have the hope of movement upwards, not just for the fans and smaller clubs but also for the players.

If you starve the pyramid, eventually you starve the smaller clubs and they are unable to develop the players that the upper levels need.

I don't want a "communist style" system, simply a larger percentage share should be re-distributed downwards.

It is ludicrous that Darlington should earn 500k from their playoff games and that becomes enough money to completely re-build their squad and to survive for another year, when, thanks to tv money, Lampard earns that in just over 3 weeks and saggy allegedly earns that in one deal

 

 

That Phil is not the fault of Sky, that is the fault of the FA (since they own the Premier League).

 

But I feel for them. The big clubs have the power because it's them that people want to watch. You should see the Championship viewing figures for Sky - they're awful!!

 

The FA have a tough task to balance the demands of the big clubs who know they can sell their rights individually and make more money) and the needs of grass roots football.

 

What is beyond doubt is that Darlington get £500k they WOULD not have had without SKY. So in some senses, the FA have done a good job.

 

I don't envy them, I really don't.

[eelpie]

Quite right DD. Sky actually SAVED football in this country which very few people seem to recall...

 

That is very debatable.

Sky money is now destroying English football.

[eelpie]

In today's Guardian - an ongoing poll:-

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/poll/2008/sep/03/curbishley.manager.transfers

 

Overwhelmingly 88% of supporters don't want anyone but managers in charge of transfers.

[Legod Second Coming]

That is very debatable.

Sky money is now destroying English football.

 

Like everything, invest too little money - failure.

Invest the right amount of money - success.

Invest too much money - failure.

 

It is not SKY who determine where the money goes, that's the role of the FA.

 

It is not SKY who pay Robinho £160k per week.

 

It is not SKY who put the power in football in the hands of players.

 

It is not SKY who regulate agents and transfers.

 

In fact, all SKY do is buy and sell rights as any media operator does. What a sport does with the money, is down the sport.

 

So football is killing football.

[NickG]

In today's Guardian - an ongoing poll:-

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/poll/2008/sep/03/curbishley.manager.transfers

 

Overwhelmingly 88% of supporters don't want anyone but managers in charge of transfers.

 

 

Gerry Francis interviewed yesterday said this is not so much a culture change but about personailities and contracts. He said there has been this role for years under different names, e.g. financial director, and he said that even Alex Ferguson has has little involvement in some transfers in and out of man u. He said it comes down to trust and communication, most managers realise that they have neither the time or expertise to negitiate transfers or even know who can be afforded to be bought or sold. BUT you would expert constant dialogue and not turn up for training and find missing players!

This is what appears to have happened at WHU -its not the structures fault its the poor communication skill in implementing it.

[itchen]

That Phil is not the fault of Sky, that is the fault of the FA (since they own the Premier League).

 

But I feel for them. The big clubs have the power because it's them that people want to watch. You should see the Championship viewing figures for Sky - they're awful!!

 

The FA have a tough task to balance the demands of the big clubs who know they can sell their rights individually and make more money) and the needs of grass roots football.

 

What is beyond doubt is that Darlington get £500k they WOULD not have had without SKY. So in some senses, the FA have done a good job.

 

I don't envy them, I really don't.

 

But presumably the "awful" figures for the Championship are still enough to make Rupert (Murdoch, not Lowe) some money. I can't see them doing it out of charity.

[dubai_phil]

Hmmm

 

So through reasoned debate (how weird is THAT on here)

 

It would seem that it is the FA who run the PL who agreed the split on TV revenues who are ruining the game.

 

A bunch of faceless suits elected by other faceless suits riding a rich ivory towered gravy train of "I'm an important person-ess" into the ground.

 

The guys charged with looking after the game are the ones who managed to destroy it.

 

Makes the lunatics who took over our asylum look like amateurs.

 

Well done chaps, good job..

 

(oh and that's WITHOUT mentioning the other thing they are supposed to run - the England Team)

[Legod Second Coming]

But presumably the "awful" figures for the Championship are still enough to make Rupert (Murdoch, not Lowe) some money. I can't see them doing it out of charity.

 

Not sure how the package is constructed or negotiated, but no doubt when you take all the advertising and sponsorship revenue into account it makes them something of course! Probably from pubs who simply want to be showing football, but who knows??

[Legod Second Coming]

Hmmm

 

So through reasoned debate (how weird is THAT on here)

 

It would seem that it is the FA who run the PL who agreed the split on TV revenues who are ruining the game.

 

A bunch of faceless suits elected by other faceless suits riding a rich ivory towered gravy train of "I'm an important person-ess" into the ground.

 

The guys charged with looking after the game are the ones who managed to destroy it.

 

Makes the lunatics who took over our asylum look like amateurs.

 

Well done chaps, good job..

 

(oh and that's WITHOUT mentioning the other thing they are supposed to run - the England Team)

 

 

I did say Phil, I don't envy them!!

 

Let's say they didn't structure it they way they have (which effectively benefits the big four). They (big four) would simply get together and try to sell their rights independently of the league...

 

I've never done football rights personally, but racing rights I've been involved in and that's how it goes - striking a balance between what is saleable and what is pap for the benefit of as many people as possible.

 

Like I said, it's nigh on impossible to get right.

[eelpie]

Like everything, invest too little money - failure.

Invest the right amount of money - success.

Invest too much money - failure.

 

It is not SKY who determine where the money goes, that's the role of the FA.

 

It is not SKY who pay Robinho £160k per week.

 

It is not SKY who put the power in football in the hands of players.

 

It is not SKY who regulate agents and transfers.

 

In fact, all SKY do is buy and sell rights as any media operator does. What a sport does with the money, is down the sport.

 

So football is killing football.

 

Ironically, your last sentence has truth in it. Yet, despite all the odds, grass-roots non-league football lives on, and if not thriving seems to be doing ok and will always survive. Sure, of course Sky does not make the footballing decisions, but its overwhelming funding and world-wide viewing figures gives it enormous power over the decision makers. Remove Sky and Setanta's money which depends on advertising revenues (not an improbability) and the effects would be seismic.

[Cricketphilly]

I am quite vague as to what the job description of a modern manager is.

They do not coach the players or take training.

They do not scout the players.

They do not buy the players.

They do not sell the players.

Are they therefore a motivational speaker with the last word on tactics, line ups and substitutions?

[dubai_phil]

Ironically, your last sentence has truth in it. Yet, despite all the odds, grass-roots non-league football lives on, and if not thriving seems to be doing ok and will always survive. Sure, of course Sky does not make the footballing decisions, but its overwhelming funding and world-wide viewing figures gives it enormous power over the decision makers. Remove Sky and Setanta's money which depends on advertising revenues (not an improbability) and the effects would be seismic.

 

One small point of order. Sky don't have any world-wide viewing. The FA sells the rights to different parts of the world. So that in Asia you have Murdoch with his Star Network out of Hong Kong, Showtime here in ME, DST in SA etc. The increased value of those rights are part of the reason the money went up to the clubs this year. Showtime for example have Rob McAffrey (ex SSN) and a full-on studio with imported "guest" each week as well as an Arabic commentray crew. They show EVERY PL game live.

 

HTH

[eelpie]

One small point of order. Sky don't have any world-wide viewing. The FA sells the rights to different parts of the world. So that in Asia you have Murdoch with his Star Network out of Hong Kong, Showtime here in ME, DST in SA etc. The increased value of those rights are part of the reason the money went up to the clubs this year. Showtime for example have Rob McAffrey (ex SSN) and a full-on studio with imported "guest" each week as well as an Arabic commentray crew. They show EVERY PL game live.

 

HTH

 

Thanks for the clarification.

I always thought that The Premiership held their own rights.

[dubai_phil]

Thanks for the clarification.

I always thought that The Premiership held their own rights.

 

well FA/PL same same

[northants saint]

Regardless of the merits of the discussions on whether Sky saved football, isn't it also true that football saved Sky?

[up and away]

harry redknapp has an article in the news today concerning his view that the football manager as we have known and loved/hated is on his way out. the big money men have moved in and will continue to do so and will insist on their shekels being spent their way. coaches and directors of football will be employed by them to cover the football side with what they are left with.

 

he is of course, dead right. sky sports, the so-called premiership and winner take all philosophy will have a lot to answer for in the years to come.

 

This should actually read the demise of the British club manager, as it hardly exists elsewhere. Why satchel is so anti the DOF role surprises me, because basically that is all he has been doing. No one in their right mind would call him a coach and tactically the likes of Brian Robson leave him for dead. You will always get good coaches that are equally good in the transfer market, Wenger being your best example. But you do not need the one person to be good at running / coaching the team and spotting talent, you do need both tasks done well. So it is an obvious step for big clubs to divide this function and if the one person proves adept at both aspects, it naturally gravitates that way. But if one of the functions is not working properly, it is far more sensible just to address the aspect that is not working and leave the other in tact. We have had two very good examples of WSG and Hoddle who were very good team managers, but poor when left alone in the transfer market.

[Legod Second Coming]

Ironically, your last sentence has truth in it. Yet, despite all the odds, grass-roots non-league football lives on, and if not thriving seems to be doing ok and will always survive. Sure, of course Sky does not make the footballing decisions, but its overwhelming funding and world-wide viewing figures gives it enormous power over the decision makers. Remove Sky and Setanta's money which depends on advertising revenues (not an improbability) and the effects would be seismic.

 

Someone else would simply pay. There is a worldwide demand for Premiership football and it is not SKY who push the price UP!!! That, again, is the FA who understand the value of its rights.

 

To clobber SKY (a profit-making organisation) for overpaying for a product is quote ironic when you think about it...