Coppell lined up as Director of Football - online report (or not)

[Legod Third Coming]

Why has no one ever pointed a telescopic camera at the moon and taken a recent photo graph of the stuff they left behind?

 

Er, have you any idea the sort of camera lens required for that?

[trousers]

Er, have you any idea the sort of camera lens required for that?

 

I was thinking more or a camera attached to a telescope. I'm led to believe that they can see as far away as stars and stuff.

[kpturner]

Lee Harvey Oswald was the "fall guy" set up by the USA

 

Jack Ruby was paid by the USA to shoot LHO, and shut him up

 

Unless you believe that bullets can change direction by 90 degrees, then one of the fatal head shorts came from the grassy knoll .........

And there's me hearing rumour that it was something to do with the CIA - now you reveal that the conspiracy was devised by the entire country!

 

JFK was asking for it wearing those "fatal head shorts". He should have kept them around his butt like the rest of us.

Edited 9 September, 2009 by kpturner

[SaintRichmond]

And there's me hearing rumour that it was something to do with the CIA - now you reveal that the conspiracy was devised by the entire country!

 

It HAD to be someone in the country at the time ... the only person it could NOT have been was LHO, and his "fairground" quality rifle

 

 

JFK was asking for it waring those "fatal head shorts". He should have kept them around his butt like the rest of us.

 

I agree he should have washed them .......

 

PS ... "waring" ???????[-o

[ghq]

Any of you chaps interested in joining The Flat Earth Society?

[kpturner]

I agree he should have washed them .......

 

PS ... "waring" ???????[-o

Hoisted by my own petard - again :smt087

[torsaint]

If it is next summer WGS will be thoroughly rested by then. Oh dear another red herring.

[Clifford Nelson]

In an ideal world I agree.

 

But the term Football Manager is a misnoma.

 

The best Football Managers RUN every aspect of the football side of their club.

 

When do you think Alex Ferguson last took a training session with his players? He doesn't really - that's the coaches' job. But he decides who stays, who goes, who coaches, the scouts, the colour of the changing room walls, who is allowed into the changing room, who isn't, the players babies' names, their wives...

 

That's why he fired Beckham and Ronaldo. And yet they will STILL win the league.

 

In football, the manager dictates the on-field strategy, which means dictating the off-field, football-related decisions.

 

He may have to go cap in hand to his Chairman for cash to buy the players, to appoint the right coaches, scouts, etc. But the Manager makes these decisions.

 

Where a Chairman appoints a DoF it nearly always fails. Why? Because this is the Chairman admitting he doesn't know enough about the business he runs to TRUST his manager.

 

Otherwise, why else bring the DoF in??

 

If the DoF is dictating football strategy - HE is de facto the MANAGER.

 

Football Managers do these things because that is what they have been hired to do, i.e. everything. Our owner and our chairman doesn't want it like that. So they will appoint a Director to do the directing and the Manager to do the managing.

 

You're merely confessing to the usual sin, which is that most people in Britain can't understand the difference between the two as little as that between strategy and tactics. As it works elsewhere why should we be so pigheaded about it.

[Legod Third Coming]

I was thinking more or a camera attached to a telescope. I'm led to believe that they can see as far away as stars and stuff.

 

Yeah but they can't see a bloke reading the sun on Jupiter can they!??

 

Der!

 

You can see the Sea of Tranquility like, but you can't see the waves, you know!

 

Anyway, this is pointless, every one of the conspiracies was debunked on myth-busters.

[Legod Third Coming]

Football Managers do these things because that is what they have been hired to do, i.e. everything. Our owner and our chairman doesn't want it like that. So they will appoint a Director to do the directing and the Manager to do the managing.

 

You're merely confessing to the usual sin, which is that most people in Britain can't understand the difference between the two as little as that between strategy and tactics. As it works elsewhere why should we be so pigheaded about it.

 

In my business we work most often by Consensus.

 

When I suggested to Sir Richard Dannett that the army could adopt this approach, he funnily enough decided that their current method of him giving the orders and everyone following might be a more productive route forward...

 

Which goes to show there is no pig-headedness involved.

 

You are comitting the cardinal sin of business. You are looking at other markets and assuming that what works in them will work in yours. Whereas, you should be evaluating what works BEST for your competition.

 

We do not need to be competing on the FTSE 500, we need to be competing against Liverpool, Manchester United and before them Stockport County.

 

So rather than question my business knowledge, I respectfully direct you to the best in OUR CURRENT BUSINESS.

 

English clubs dominate European Football.

 

Those English clubs that do, do not have DoF roles.

 

Ergo, why should we need one??

 

It is a risk with no proven upside, in fact quite the reverse. Don't you agree?

[scotty]

Yeah but they can't see a bloke reading the sun on Jupiter can they!??

 

Der!

 

You can see the Sea of Tranquility like, but you can't see the waves, you know!

 

Anyway, this is pointless, every one of the conspiracies was debunked on myth-busters.

 

Dont tell me you believe those myth-busters, thats all a conspiracy to cover up the real truth.

[Legod Third Coming]

Dont tell me you believe those myth-busters, thats all a conspiracy to cover up the real truth.

 

hahahahahah nice one

 

I loved the bit where they rebuilt a scale model of the moon to show how the shadows fall in different directions. Real clever stuff.

[Clifford Nelson]

In my business we work most often by Consensus.

 

When I suggested to Sir Richard Dannett that the army could adopt this approach, he funnily enough decided that their current method of him giving the orders and everyone following might be a more productive route forward...

 

Which goes to show there is no pig-headedness involved.

 

You are comitting the cardinal sin of business. You are looking at other markets and assuming that what works in them will work in yours. Whereas, you should be evaluating what works BEST for your competition.

 

We do not need to be competing on the FTSE 500, we need to be competing against Liverpool, Manchester United and before them Stockport County.

 

So rather than question my business knowledge, I respectfully direct you to the best in OUR CURRENT BUSINESS.

 

English clubs dominate European Football.

 

Those English clubs that do, do not have DoF roles.

 

Ergo, why should we need one??

 

It is a risk with no proven upside, in fact quite the reverse. Don't you agree?

 

And the foreign clubs who dominated for years before us had DoFs when we didn't. Does all this prove anything?

[Legod Third Coming]

And the foreign clubs who dominated for years before us had DoFs when we didn't. Does all this prove anything?

 

Er, didn't they dominate when English clubs were actually banned from Europe... before that, we dominated (well Liverpool did) when no-one had ever heard the phrase 'Director of Football'.

 

I think most DoFs were actually employed at Clubs like Real where the ownership changes every year because the President stands for election - hence some continuity was felt to be essential. Thus the Sporting Director (DoF) role was born.

 

If you have a Chairman and Manager, there is no need for a DoF. Which is why every time people try it (in the UK) it seems to end in disaster.

[Torres]

every time people try it (in the UK) it seems to end in disaster.

 

The irony being that just one example of many where it was very successful was at one of Steve Coppell's former clubs.

[Torres]

 

English clubs dominate European Football.

 

Those English clubs that do, do not have DoF roles.

 

 

Chelsea do.

[krissyboy31]

Makes me laugh how people on here seem to know better than the people who own and run the club. Markus Leibherr has employed Cortese to run his company. Cortese as CEO and Exec Chairman says he needs (and will employ) a Sporting Director and therefore there WILL be one. All the arguments that we don't need one are invalid because, unless you haven't realised, we do not own the club, they do!

[unionhotel]

Makes me laugh how people on here seem to know better than the people who own and run the club. Markus Leibherr has employed Cortese to run his company. Cortese as CEO and Exec Chairman says he needs (and will employ) a Sporting Director and therefore there WILL be one. All the arguments that we don't need one are invalid because, unless you haven't realised, we do not own the club, they do!

 

Couldn't have put it better myself!!!

[Legod Third Coming]

The irony being that just one example of many where it was very successful was at one of Steve Coppell's former clubs.

 

Which one?

[Legod Third Coming]

Makes me laugh how people on here seem to know better than the people who own and run the club. Markus Leibherr has employed Cortese to run his company. Cortese as CEO and Exec Chairman says he needs (and will employ) a Sporting Director and therefore there WILL be one. All the arguments that we don't need one are invalid because, unless you haven't realised, we do not own the club, they do!

 

Er, that puts an end to discussing the team then, since we don't pick it... what an incredibly illogical post.

[Legod Third Coming]

Chelsea do.

 

Only since July this year.

 

And while I am sure Ancelotti and Chelsea will be successful, it's a tad premature to ascribe the success they enjoyed without Anersen to him just yet!!

[Torres]

Which one?

 

Reading.

[up and away]

In my business we work most often by Consensus.

 

When I suggested to Sir Richard Dannett that the army could adopt this approach, he funnily enough decided that their current method of him giving the orders and everyone following might be a more productive route forward...

 

Which goes to show there is no pig-headedness involved.

 

You are comitting the cardinal sin of business. You are looking at other markets and assuming that what works in them will work in yours. Whereas, you should be evaluating what works BEST for your competition.

 

We do not need to be competing on the FTSE 500, we need to be competing against Liverpool, Manchester United and before them Stockport County.

 

So rather than question my business knowledge, I respectfully direct you to the best in OUR CURRENT BUSINESS.

 

English clubs dominate European Football.

 

Those English clubs that do, do not have DoF roles.

 

Ergo, why should we need one??

 

It is a risk with no proven upside, in fact quite the reverse. Don't you agree?

 

Based upon this logic, even the most humblest of pongo's would consider the opposite to have more possible value at first light. Just because of the advent of the massive Sky money into the Premier, we are now claiming the reason for all our recent success is down to not having a DOF. You may as well throw in the argument regarding the teams who wear red to give you an even bigger advantage.

 

Over the years of European football, teams that have the European structure have been a lot more successful. But you pick on a limited window at one particular moment in time to justify a point? Where other factors have far greater influence. So this must be an English thing, where even the 11 players on the pitch and the manager are not English? must be the kit man then?

 

Both systems work, but generally the possibility of any one person being able to do all aspects are the exception. Ferguson does not do anywhere near the amount of training he did when he originally arrived, though performed under his directions. It's impossible to perform all tasks to your best ability because of the massive nature of clubs nowadays. We have two classic examples at Saints with Hoddle and WSG, two of the best coaches we have had. But they should not be allowed pocket money to go out in the transfer market alone. The continentals split the tasks of their coaches such that one possible aspect at which they may be poor, does not influence the aspect at which they may excel.

 

If the Dutch clubs of the previous years had an English system as ManU, their fortunes would have easily varied with change of managers. Whereas the system kept on trucking irrespective of personnel. Finances has meant the death knell for smaller leagues now, but previously their system was a clear winner.

 

Both systems work, but it is far more difficult to find one uber manager than spliting the job up to allow each person with their own particular niche to perform as a whole better. Any manager who stays at a club for a good period of time naturally gravitates to other aspects of the job at which he is good, farming out those he does not favour or is poor at. What you end up with at the end of the day is a pick and mix DOF who happens to be in charge of the team. Lose that manager and all of a sudden you need someone to cover all the aspects which the previous manager dealt with well, whereas with the continental system there is less aspects to concern yourself with.

 

For Cortese this is a no brainer!

[Clifford Nelson]

Er, didn't they dominate when English clubs were actually banned from Europe... before that, we dominated (well Liverpool did) when no-one had ever heard the phrase 'Director of Football'.

 

I think most DoFs were actually employed at Clubs like Real where the ownership changes every year because the President stands for election - hence some continuity was felt to be essential. Thus the Sporting Director (DoF) role was born.

 

If you have a Chairman and Manager, there is no need for a DoF. Which is why every time people try it (in the UK) it seems to end in disaster.

 

I think we have to agree to disagree about what is the reason for the disasters because I have repeatedly seen the same or similar disasters in industry, where every manager sees it as his duty to stick his fingers in the pie being baked by the manager below him, and the directors are meddling as much as anybody else. "Director" is often an honour title for a senior operating manager. That is not the experience I have had working with and for companies from northern Europe and the US where hierarchies are flatter and you are encouraged, or even taken for granted, to make decisions and take responsibility for them. Here you have to ask the boss who will have to ask his boss who will have to check with the director. It's a mess in my book.

 

In a similar vein I want the Manager to take all the decisions on footballing tactics to win games. But there are also other, more strategic decisions to make.

[Torres]

Only since July this year.

 

And while I am sure Ancelotti and Chelsea will be successful, it's a tad premature to ascribe the success they enjoyed without Anersen to him just yet!!

 

Arneson has been DoF at Chelsea since he joined them from Spurs, albeit operating under a bizarre title. They didn't really pay Spurs £6m+ compensation for a scout. Dib Dib.

[Legod Third Coming]

Reading.

 

Who was DoF?

[krissyboy31]

Who was DoF?

 

Nicky Hammond.

[Clifford Nelson]

Based upon this logic, even the most humblest of pongo's would consider the opposite to have more possible value at first light. Just because of the advent of the massive Sky money into the Premier, we are now claiming the reason for all our recent success is down to not having a DOF. You may as well throw in the argument regarding the teams who wear red to give you an even bigger advantage.

 

Over the years of European football, teams that have the European structure have been a lot more successful. But you pick on a limited window at one particular moment in time to justify a point? Where other factors have far greater influence. So this must be an English thing, where even the 11 players on the pitch and the manager are not English? must be the kit man then?

 

Both systems work, but generally the possibility of any one person being able to do all aspects are the exception. Ferguson does not do anywhere near the amount of training he did when he originally arrived, though performed under his directions. It's impossible to perform all tasks to your best ability because of the massive nature of clubs nowadays. We have two classic examples at Saints with Hoddle and WSG, two of the best coaches we have had. But they should not be allowed pocket money to go out in the transfer market alone. The continentals split the tasks of their coaches such that one possible aspect at which they may be poor, does not influence the aspect at which they may excel.

 

If the Dutch clubs of the previous years had an English system as ManU, their fortunes would have easily varied with change of managers. Whereas the system kept on trucking irrespective of personnel. Finances has meant the death knell for smaller leagues now, but previously their system was a clear winner.

 

Both systems work, but it is far more difficult to find one uber manager than spliting the job up to allow each person with their own particular niche to perform as a whole better. Any manager who stays at a club for a good period of time naturally gravitates to other aspects of the job at which he is good, farming out those he does not favour or is poor at. What you end up with at the end of the day is a pick and mix DOF who happens to be in charge of the team. Lose that manager and all of a sudden you need someone to cover all the aspects which the previous manager dealt with well, whereas with the continental system there is less aspects to concern yourself with.

 

For Cortese this is a no brainer!

 

Hear, hear! You put that better than I did, and I'm pleased to see somebody understanding the differences well.

[Legod Third Coming]

I think we have to agree to disagree about what is the reason for the disasters because I have repeatedly seen the same or similar disasters in industry, where every manager sees it as his duty to stick his fingers in the pie being baked by the manager below him, and the directors are meddling as much as anybody else. "Director" is often an honour title for a senior operating manager. That is not the experience I have had working with and for companies from northern Europe and the US where hierarchies are flatter and you are encouraged, or even taken for granted, to make decisions and take responsibility for them. Here you have to ask the boss who will have to ask his boss who will have to check with the director. It's a mess in my book.

 

In a similar vein I want the Manager to take all the decisions on footballing tactics to win games. But there are also other, more strategic decisions to make.

 

We will agree on one thing and that is your penultimate sentence.

 

But in order to win games, I believe a manager must be more than just a coach. If he has an approach which wins matches, that approach is normally dependent upon a 'type' of player, style and strategy of play so he needs to ensure that coaching, scouting and player pruchases are all geared to first team success. This is essentially a strategic decision.

 

This was the major failing of Rupert Lowe in my book. Without going over old ground, if you get the first team right and the club is geared towards this, the rest is all commentary.

 

I agree that you don't need the manager agreeing the contracts, signing off the bonus payments and the like, although the best managers must surely be involved in this because salaries can and do have such a big imact on team motivation.

 

I guess I see a Manager's role as being in the true sense - a manager. And not as many people see him - a coach.

 

Where a DoF is brought in above a manager and without the manager's input, time and again it ends more often in disaster than success.

 

That is not my view, that's just my experience of football.

 

I suspect that most often it fails (as it did at OUR CLUB) because the DoF is an ex-manager who then has his own ideas about how to manage the team.

 

Where Sporting Directors/DoFs appear to work well is when they work for the manager rather than the reverse. So they are there to FACILITATE the manager, not to manage him.

[aintforever]

Based upon this logic, even the most humblest of pongo's would consider the opposite to have more possible value at first light. Just because of the advent of the massive Sky money into the Premier, we are now claiming the reason for all our recent success is down to not having a DOF. You may as well throw in the argument regarding the teams who wear red to give you an even bigger advantage.

 

Over the years of European football, teams that have the European structure have been a lot more successful. But you pick on a limited window at one particular moment in time to justify a point? Where other factors have far greater influence. So this must be an English thing, where even the 11 players on the pitch and the manager are not English? must be the kit man then?

 

Both systems work, but generally the possibility of any one person being able to do all aspects are the exception. Ferguson does not do anywhere near the amount of training he did when he originally arrived, though performed under his directions. It's impossible to perform all tasks to your best ability because of the massive nature of clubs nowadays. We have two classic examples at Saints with Hoddle and WSG, two of the best coaches we have had. But they should not be allowed pocket money to go out in the transfer market alone. The continentals split the tasks of their coaches such that one possible aspect at which they may be poor, does not influence the aspect at which they may excel.

 

If the Dutch clubs of the previous years had an English system as ManU, their fortunes would have easily varied with change of managers. Whereas the system kept on trucking irrespective of personnel. Finances has meant the death knell for smaller leagues now, but previously their system was a clear winner.

 

Both systems work, but it is far more difficult to find one uber manager than spliting the job up to allow each person with their own particular niche to perform as a whole better. Any manager who stays at a club for a good period of time naturally gravitates to other aspects of the job at which he is good, farming out those he does not favour or is poor at. What you end up with at the end of the day is a pick and mix DOF who happens to be in charge of the team. Lose that manager and all of a sudden you need someone to cover all the aspects which the previous manager dealt with well, whereas with the continental system there is less aspects to concern yourself with.

 

For Cortese this is a no brainer!

 

I think you are over complicating it somewhat, managers can and do have all sorts of specialist coaches, managers have many different styles, some are hands on, some dont see that much of the players from week to week.

 

IMO there is little difference between having a Manager and Coach or a DOF and Head Coach. The way I understand it the difference is the DOF buys the players but lets the head coach pick the team whereas a manager does both.

 

I just cant see it working if a DOF is brought in above Pardews head, for it to work the DOF has to appoint the manager IMO, then the DOF has a stake in the managers success.

[Legod Third Coming]

Nicky Hammond.

 

Has he been a success?

(These are genuine questions - all I can find on Wiki is that he was appointed in 2003 and I don't really know whether Reading were up/down went up/down since then). Six years seems like a good time in the role without losing too many managers.

[krissyboy31]

Has he been a success?

(These are genuine questions - all I can find on Wiki is that he was appointed in 2003 and I don't really know whether Reading were up/down went up/down since then). Six years seems like a good time in the role without losing too many managers.

 

I'd say for a club of Reading's size it's been a success. Madejski needs to spend a lot of time away from RFC to run Auto Trader and Hammond looks after the footballing side in his absence. He obviously had a good working relationship with Coppell because they worked together for 5 seasons, in which time they got to the PL (and stayed up) got relegated and then made the play-offs.

[Legod Third Coming]

I'd say for a club of Reading's size it's been a success. Madejski needs to spend a lot of time away from RFC to run Auto Trader and Hammond looks after the footballing side in his absence. He obviously had a good working relationship with Coppell because they worked together for 5 seasons, in which time they got to the PL (and stayed up) got relegated and then made the play-offs.

 

Just looked him up on the Reading site and it appears Pardew employed him! lol.

 

It says he handles all transfers and contract negotiations. Would love to know the full extent. I reckon it probably helps that he has never been a manager and probably has no aspirations to be so (although had to guess at that last bit of course). He was their Director of Youth football apparently.

[NickG]

Er, didn't they dominate when English clubs were actually banned from Europe... before that, we dominated (well Liverpool did) when no-one had ever heard the phrase 'Director of Football'.

 

I think most DoFs were actually employed at Clubs like Real where the ownership changes every year because the President stands for election - hence some continuity was felt to be essential. Thus the Sporting Director (DoF) role was born.

 

If you have a Chairman and Manager, there is no need for a DoF. Which is why every time people try it (in the UK) it seems to end in disaster.

 

Lawrie Mc

Dave Bassett - Leicester's promotion year

works at Aberdeen and Rangers

Chelsea are not doing too bad with one (Arnesen)

West Ham currently have one

Reading have one -since 2003 -about when they imrpoved!

Bristol Rovers - Lennie Lawrence

Stoke - since 1999 - was that when they improved?

David Dein has described his role at Arsenal as DoF

 

It can/does work, depends on circumstances and personalities.

 

Very easy to write it off without really understanding the roles.

[Kadeem Hardison]

I agree wit LeGod Second Coming, we should not appoint a DoF and we will be dominating European football in no time.

[Legod Third Coming]

Lawrie Mc

Dave Bassett - Leicester's promotion year

works at Aberdeen and Rangers

Chelsea are not doing too bad with one (Arnesen)

West Ham currently have one

Reading have one -since 2003 -about when they imrpoved!

Bristol Rovers - Lennie Lawrence

Stoke - since 1999 - was that when they improved?

David Dein has described his role at Arsenal as DoF

 

It can/does work, depends on circumstances and personalities.

 

Very easy to write it off without really understanding the roles.

 

I think having someone to handle all the contractual negotiations with players is fine and if DoF describes that role, so be it - but isn't that what good old fashioned Chairman used to do?

 

Where it constantly goes wrong, it seems to me, is where it is a role that renders the manager a coach.

 

I guess most of the managers I admire and who are succesful probably operate in a DoF role and rely on a coaching staff.

 

Where you list a few clubs with them, I could list the most succesful without them.

 

As for Frank Arnesen, this is lifted from the internet today:

 

Arnesen is also credited with unearthing Robin van Persie, Chelsea defender Alex and Tottenham goalkeeper Heurelho Gomes, but has failed to develop a homegrown star at Stamford Bridge despite spending around £62m on young talent.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1212436/Chelsea-guilty-biggest-mistake-ditching-Frank-Arnesen-warns-Blues-scout.html#ixzz0QjeuIaSy

 

"...has failed to develop a homegrown star at Chelsea despite spending £62m on young talent..."

 

not exactly a glowing endorsement is it?