posted Oct 28, 2008

Difficult thing to talk about because there have sucess stories with this system and real problems caused by it.

The Keegan situation required a Director of Football as Keeganhas never come over as a very stable employee at England or Newcastle, you often get the feeling that he would run off if he didn't get the right type of biscuits with his tea, but I was not sure what experience Dennis Wise brought to the position. I maybe wrong but he didn't seem to have a wealth of knowledge or stature therefore I would be concerned at the appointment if I was at the club.

Harry Redknapp is old school and although a real football man and well respected by fans and players alike he has only really managed rather small clubs. I am led to believe that Pompey are in real financial trouble, so he left them with the best team they have ever had and a FA Cup but at what cost, maybe some form of Director of Football is needed to explain the reality of what is affordable and what is not. I hear you say that it is a relationship between the manager and the Chairman but there should be something in between whether you call him Director of Scouts or Football there should be a business manager to ease the relationship between football matters and money. I have this worring feeling that Harry has left Pompey in so much debt that there maybe an underlying reason why he has jumped ship. I REALLY HOPE I'M WRONG.

Wenger and Dein worked the system well and I think Wenger is considered to have made some of the best transfer in amd outs ever making Arsenal a lot of money and almost financing the clubs transfer policy with internal finance. I should imagine that Dein has had a lot to do with that over the years and there seemed to be a respect between them.

Man Utd and Fergie the most sucessful team and manager in the modern day era, if the whole policy is down to Fergie then he has wasted 10's of millions over the years. It is not looked at because they win things and food is brought to the table but the loss on Veron alone at that time could have financed most clubs in the bottom half of the premier on its own. I am led to believe that UTD have debt's of 100's of millions and if they for any reason go into a slump for a five or ten year period they will be in serious trouble.

I think the basic fact is that the Premiership is big business with enormous financial rewards and losses, some form of business manager is required for direct football costs whatever he is called, but someone who can bring something to the table and stand between the football and business matters of players, agents, wages, fees leaving a relationship of manager to team a football matter.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

The sporting director should be a role which involves taking charge of the purchasing sporting equipment, upgrading the ground and technical sponsers. i reackon there should e a seperate role in the club called the negociation director 9obviously it would need a better name).

the manager and the chairman are too busy running the team and the club, so rather than them having to fly all over the planet to discuss deals with the club whilst there is still their own club to run a representative of the club does the deals for them.

so the manager identifies the players, the negociator says to the chairman i need £10 million to buy X,Y and Z player. then the negociator does the intial bidding and the player then meets the manager and the chairman to discuss contrcts details ETC.

Sporting directors are given the power to indentify players for the manager. the manager identifies the weak positions and the sporting director is then trusted to find the appropiate positions. and thats the traditional continental style. But because the sporting director is given too much power he undermines the managers authority and results in buying players the manager doesnt want.

In theory the system works in england. only the role is exaggereted by the amount of power given to the sporting director.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

I think it was on 5live the other day that it was postulated that the directors of Football at United and Arsenal have not been Gill or Dein but in fact SAF and Wenger themselves are the football directors. After all it is known that neither takes an overly active role in the coaching with that left mainly to Pat Rice at Arsenal and that Portuguese bloke (can't remember his name) up until he left United this summer.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

Jackie Milburn has it right. DOF is just a fancy term for chief scout. The person should report to and be appointred by the manager. Look at Wise at NU, he doesn't even go to his own team's matches.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

If 'Arry has left Portsmouth whilst they are in debt that's the chairman's fault not his. The manager says who he would like to buy but it's the Chairman's job to get him if the price is right. Chairman seem to get off scott- free these days.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

You may be right aggersforcaptain, but not sure as the last two times he didn't get his way he left the clubs, coming back to Pompey when he did get his way. I hope they will be OK and the results will go for them have a lot of mates who are pompey fans

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

I am not sure that is right gunnerslover2007 as Dein has been well documented over the years as the contract negoiator. I will stand corrected but that is what I have read over the last ten years

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

I would agree wholly with the comments regarding the appointments of DOF at the above mentioned clubs. At this time there are many honest and genuine ex managers sat on their hands doing nothing who could and should have been given the job at NUFC but that debacle is another story entirely.

Had Levy chosen a respected ex Manager to help Ramos and report to the board we may not now be questioning the role of DOF. The role is not a Chief Scout ! it is simply the job of a Honest Broker who should take an impartial role between the playing staff and the directors, taking on board all the paperwork, the academy, the press, travel and the immense HR and contractual dealings of the players and coaches. The Manager should concentrate all his efforts on the teams. It's simple, it does work but change the name, it is wrong to refer to them as directors, they are not.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

The problem at THFC was that the DOF was making the decisions on the in's and out's.

Thats the Managers job, he should have the last word on who comes in.

Even if the DOF spots a young lad he thinks would improve things, the Manager should have the last word, having been given a full dossier on that player.

Comolli didn't work that way he discussed in's and out's with Levy only and then told the Manager who his new player was or who was leaving.

That did not work and never would in the English set-up, as proven with Devonshire, Jol and Keegan.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

Thankyou mastermesmerize for clearing all the speculation up, it is good to have someone who obviously works at the club to give us the inside knowledge.

The one thing I don't understand that if Comolli did all the selling and buying and they were at the bottom of the table why didn't they sack him before Harry's arrival.

I don't suppose the practical common sense of business and resposibility applies to Premiership Football.

Can you clarify with your inside knowledge?

add comment | complain about this comment