Martin_T Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Interesting to note that two Premiership clubs this season have so far dispensed with the Director of Football and Head Coach management structure championed by one contributor in particular as being the same model Hearts have implemented. Both Spurs in dispensing with the services of Damian Comolli and Newcastle with Tony Jimenez have recognised that such a structure was bloated, pointless and not condusive to good results. Both have gone back to basics and appointed a traditional manager with full responsibility for team selection and player recruitment. Perhaps it's time Mr Korobochka was given his jotters in line with this new trend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Perhaps it's time Mr Korobochka was given his jotters in line with this new trend? But if he was sacked, who would...who would...? What the feck does he do again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudi must stay Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 But if he was sacked, who would...who would...? What the feck does he do again? 'Sport Director'. He's actually listed before Csaba in the club info page, tells you how important they think he is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Tony Jiminez left Newcastle by choice because of the ongoing ownership question marks at that club and protests against his involvement meanwhile Joe Kinnear also only has a temporary contract. Toon not finding new buyers too easily in the current climate. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/newcastles-ashley-faces-further-complication-957434.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted October 27, 2008 Author Share Posted October 27, 2008 Tony Jiminez left Newcastle by choice because of the ongoing ownership question marks at that club and protests against his involvement meanwhile Joe Kinnear also only has a temporary contract. Toon not finding new buyers too easily in the current climate. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/newcastles-ashley-faces-further-complication-957434.html Nice attempt at spin, but the availability of new club owners is not the discussion point on this thread. Who is in the director of football role at: Manchester United? Liverpool? Arsenal? Everton? Hull City? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Nice attempt at spin, but the availability of new club owners is not the discussion point on this thread. Who is in the director of football role at: Manchester United? Liverpool? Arsenal? Everton? Hull City? Not spin Martin your OP was incorrect - only Spurs have dismissed their entire management structure whilst Newcastle still have Dennis Wise and Joe Kinnear in place although for how much longer who knows - they didn't dispense with the structure as you suggested, the other guy left because of a combination of the protests against him and the likelihood he would lose his job once Ashley sells the club. Newcastle & Spurs didn't struggle because of their management structure - Ramos got to sign almost all of the players he wanted, whilst at Newcastle there simply wasn't the amount of money available that keegan wanted and some felt was necessary to improve the squad, your OP was way too simplistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Nice attempt at spin, but the availability of new club owners is not the discussion point on this thread. Who is in the director of football role at: Manchester United? Liverpool? Arsenal? Everton? Hull City? Chelsea still have Kenyon signing the players on behalf of Abramovic and I doubt Mark Hughes chose Man City's summer buys...It's horses for courses IMO, and both systems can work. The question is not black and white, in the mould of one good, one bad...but rather how good the people in all respective positions are - Manager, Sports/Football Director, Coach and Owner. Some might suggest that the more heads the snake has the more risk there is that one will not get on with the others, underperform or that there is a lack of true accountability(see Tottenham x2), whilst the counter-argument is that having a keyman and holding onto him if he is good, is very difficult at all bar the top clubs (see Portsmouth x2). Other clubs fail repeatedly at both systems (see Newcastle x5 or 6 or more) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted October 27, 2008 Author Share Posted October 27, 2008 Not spin Martin your OP was incorrect - only Spurs have dismissed their entire management structure whilst Newcastle still have Dennis Wise and Joe Kinnear in place although for how much longer who knows - they didn't dispense with the structure as you suggested, the other guy left because of a combination of the protests against him and the likelihood he would lose his job once Ashley sells the club. Newcastle & Spurs didn't struggle because of their management structure - Ramos got to sign almost all of the players he wanted, whilst at Newcastle there simply wasn't the amount of money available that keegan wanted and some felt was necessary to improve the squad, your OP was way too simplistic. Incorrect. Comolli was in charge of identifying signing targets at Spurs. This is reckoned to be one of the reasons behind Ramos failure at Tottenham and it was for that reason that the White Hart Lane club were speculated to be sacking Comolli long before the speculation began regarding Ramos. What do you think Korobotchka does at Hearts and do you think it has any benefit for the club? Other than taking up an unnecessary wage (whether this is being paid by HMFC or UBIG is not relevant). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Incorrect. Comolli was in charge of identifying signing targets at Spurs. This is reckoned to be one of the reasons behind Ramos failure at Tottenham and it was for that reason that the White Hart Lane club were speculated to be sacking Comolli long before the speculation began regarding Ramos. What do you think Korobotchka does at Hearts and do you think it has any benefit for the club? Other than taking up an unnecessary wage (whether this is being paid by HMFC or UBIG is not relevant). Ramos has only been a considerable success at one club in Seville and a lot of that success is credited to their 'DoF' or whatever you want to call it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertonian_II Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 The DoF should be the guy who directs the football side of the club and is sometimes like Sir Alex Ferguson who combines the role of head coach and DoF. He just delegates more. So perhaps most clubs have a DoF, he just ain't called that. As far as Hearts are concerned, Laszlo seems more than capable of filling the role of head coach and DoF. Taxi for ketchup. He's only VR's eyes and ears and as far as I'm aware has never had the guts to take any of the flack that's been flying around for a while now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 The role of Director of Football should be a role that works hand in hand with the Manager/Head Coach. The Manager/Head Coach has to have the final say on what players are brought to the Club. If the Club cannot afford his No.1 target he then continues down his list until a player that fits into the Clubs budget is found. It is difficult to judge a Manager/Head Coach on results when the players playing aren't players he wanted at the Club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puppeteer Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Chelsea still have Kenyon signing the players on behalf of Abramovic and I doubt Mark Hughes chose Man City's summer buys...It's horses for courses IMO, and both systems can work. The question is not black and white, in the mould of one good, one bad...but rather how good the people in all respective positions are - Manager, Sports/Football Director, Coach and Owner. Some might suggest that the more heads the snake has the more risk there is that one will not get on with the others, underperform or that there is a lack of true accountability(see Tottenham x2), whilst the counter-argument is that having a keyman and holding onto him if he is good, is very difficult at all bar the top clubs (see Portsmouth x2). Other clubs fail repeatedly at both systems (see Newcastle x5 or 6 or more) Isn't Frank Arnesen - nabbed from Tottenham - still the DoF at Chelsea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 It is clearly possible for both structures to be successful as AC Milan, Olympique Lyon, Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Barca, Real etc all have slightly different models with traditional managers or sporting-directors or club presidents or a combination of these three roles all contributing to success and policy at those clubs in differing degrees at each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Isn't Frank Arnesen - nabbed from Tottenham - still the DoF at Chelsea? Not sure if he still is, but TBH I couldn't think of his name when writing the post. I think Kenyon still does the negotiations though. I believe the Chelsea system is pretty similar to Hearts own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 It is clearly possible for both structures to be successful as AC Milan, Olympique Lyon, Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Barca, Real etc all have slightly different models with traditional managers or sporting-directors or club presidents or a combination of these three roles all contributing to success and policy at those clubs in differing degrees at each. It is. But it's not a system that tends to work in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboSean Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Isn't Frank Arnesen - nabbed from Tottenham - still the DoF at Chelsea? He is indeed. One of the reasons Mourinho left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Not sure if he still is, but TBH I couldn't think of his name when writing the post. I think Kenyon still does the negotiations though. I believe the Chelsea system is pretty similar to Hearts own. Peter Kenyon is the CEO at Chelsea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 It is. But it's not a system that tends to work in this country. Perhaps DH although every club and every situation is different and it certainly isn't suitable to be imposed on traditional managers who have been used to exercising much of the power at clubs ........ there is a conflict at many clubs now in that they've wanted to take the big money available from new owners but then baulked when they've wanted to introduce their own management systems ... kinda like saying give us your money but leave us alone ..... although this isn't exclusively a british / foreigner split as Ashley, Wise & Jiminez implemented the same system and they're all UK citizens as far as I'm aware ... it's a clash of ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Perhaps DH although every club and every situation is different and it certainly isn't suitable to be imposed on traditional managers who have been used to exercising much of the power at clubs ........ there is a conflict at many clubs now in that they've wanted to take the big money available from new owners but then baulked when they've wanted to introduce their own management systems ... kinda like saying give us your money but leave us alone ..... although this isn't exclusively a british / foreigner split as Ashley, Wise & Jiminez implemented the same system and they're all UK citizens as far as I'm aware ... it's a clash of ideas. Agreed. But as it's highly unlikely 2 guys in such important positions will agree on the ability of every player targeted, And if the DOF signs player A when the Manager wanted player B then that when the problems start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Teams don't fail simply because of the management structure. There are different structures operating throughout the leagues but their success depends upon the quality of the people fitting into the structure and how they inter-act. My own view is that with bigger clubs the manager simply cannot cope on his own with the requirements of the job as he cannot be in 2 or 3 places at once eg coaching 1st team players, looking at reserve/youth teams, spying on forthcoming opposition, mentoring, scouting players etc etc. He needs help so ideally it should be people he could trust and work with and it matters not if they are called DoF, Asst Manager, Sporting Director, reserve coach etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 This structure, for whatever reason, just doesn't work in British football. It works for Chelsea because they have the very best guys in for the job and they actually understand how the system operates. We are too set in our ways and the one man running the club method has served our clubs well. I wouldn't be surprised to see most clubs revert back to the tried and tested method. Spurs are the first, expect Newcastle to empty Wise soon as well. Having Dennis Wise running things over Kevin Keegan was just a piece of nonsense. Having Korawhatshisname working above Csaba Laslo or any other manager of HMFC is just a piece of nonsense. I would love to see NMH agree that this doesn't work but he is a stubborn chap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 This structure, for whatever reason, just doesn't work in British football. It works for Chelsea because they have the very best guys in for the job and they actually understand how the system operates. We are too set in our ways and the one man running the club method has served our clubs well. I wouldn't be surprised to see most clubs revert back to the tried and tested method. Spurs are the first, expect Newcastle to empty Wise soon as well. Having Dennis Wise running things over Kevin Keegan was just a piece of nonsense. Having Korawhatshisname working above Csaba Laslo or any other manager of HMFC is just a piece of nonsense. I would love to see NMH agree that this doesn't work but he is a stubborn chap! I'm not that stubborn AP but I'd rather it was Csaba Laszlo made the judgement or comments that it was or wasn't working to his satisfaction and whether he was happy or unhappy with sporting-directors or football coaches etc that he has to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Chelsea still have Kenyon signing the players on behalf of Abramovic and I doubt Mark Hughes chose Man City's summer buys...It's horses for courses IMO, and both systems can work. Whereas we're getting diddies on load fae Kaunus. Not quite the same thing is it. The question is not black and white, in the mould of one good, one bad...but rather how good the people in all respective positions are - Manager, Sports/Football Director, Coach and Owner. Some might suggest that the more heads the snake has the more risk there is that one will not get on with the others, underperform or that there is a lack of true accountability(see Tottenham x2), whilst the counter-argument is that having a keyman and holding onto him if he is good, is very difficult at all bar the top clubs (see Portsmouth x2). Other clubs fail repeatedly at both systems (see Newcastle x5 or 6 or more) How many clubs, with dof and all the rest of the BS, have won the premiership or SPL? Chelsea - with all their millions? And even then they had Mourinhio pretty much getting free reign. How many time have you seen teh DOF bull**** go completely pear shaped, the team sit near the bottom of the table, and them all fall out with each other and get fired? All the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 I'm not that stubborn AP but I'd rather it was Csaba Laszlo made the judgement or comments that it was or wasn't working to his satisfaction and whether he was happy or unhappy with sporting-directors or football coaches etc that he has to work with. yet when people do complain about the interference, e.g. Rix, you still make excuses to justify Vlads actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 It is. But it's not a system that tends to work in this country. It works at Hearts. :4_1_72: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share Posted October 28, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7693806.stm Good BBC article on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markletissier Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 anatoly and angel gtf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.