posted Oct 28, 2008

At the moment i think the heirachy is the wrong way round.

It seems the sporting directors have more power at a club business level than a manager.

The director should not only work for the club but under the manager. A manager should say what players he needs for the coming season or a player he really wants to sign. The director should then negotiate for the player or liase with the scouts about finding the players a manager needs.

At the moment it's a case of the sporting director buys players they think benefit the club when it is only the manager who knows exactly how he wants his team to play and what is needed.

That seemed to be the case at Spurs. They were buying lots of midfielders especially in the central posistion when they already had plenty.

The sporting director should be the link to all aspects of the club but not dictating what the manager needs.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

I think you guys make too much of this director of football role, many just reject the concept because it's a fancy 'continental' idea and therefore automatically wrong.

I think the role makes sense, as the article states, to give continuity to the team, otherwise after a couple of managers come and go you end up with 30+ players like Chelsea when Avramovich took over.

It's just something you have to work at, that's all. Bringing in directors of football with no knowledge of the British game (I'm looking at you Spurs, and Pompey, etc) or people who have a disruptive influence (Newcastle anyone?) is the wrong way to go. What European clubs tend to do is to pick a player which is part of the club's history (Rummenigge for Munich, Leonardo for Milan), and train him into the role.

Also, some manager are obviously brilliant at dealing and wheeling (Redknapp, Wenger) and it would be a shame to waste their talent.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

you need one guy in charge, the manager. then he can choose - does he want a DOF (and he should appoint him)?, does he want a head coach who handles all training? ect.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

Real Madrid and Barca have sporting director.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

Firstly BBC - what is the difference between a European club and a Premier League club? Surely by now BBC writers can learn it is 'continental', not European, they mean to say in these articles.

Secondly, I love Arnesen's quote about how the key to a sporting director's role is to provide stability. How long did he stay at Spurs before decamping to Chelsea?

As for the whole sporting director role, surely it is a basic fact of any business that if you can operate without a partiuclar role then there is no point in having it? The fact that Comolli has left and is not even being replaced says it all really doesn't it...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 29, 2008

You say that a good sporting director should be like a good referee, but how many of those are there about?

I think the problem with that role in England is not that the manager thinks that the sporting director may be after his job, but that he has more power in the club than the coach.

For this system to work, it needs communication, possibly even on a weekly basis. Any scouts that are in contact with the sporting director also need to contact the coach, to know what qualities are sought for in a player and he will then be able to please both.

Both the coach and the sporting director should have a common vision, of a player and of a team and the coach should ultimately have the final say on player recruitment. The Sporting Director, as you say, should be the nuts and bolts. Doing a job whilst not attracting any attention to himself. It is when there are differences of opinion between the two that things get messy. In this situation, it needs clear heads and a settlement, with the manager being given the benefit of the doubt.

As for managers having players forced upon them, this is not on. In the case of Keegan and Curbishly we are led to believe that players were also being sold over their head, which is wrong too. Both these cases, as with the one at Tottenham, needed more communication within the club, especially with the tricky subject of player sales. However I do feel that Comolli didn't really have much of a plan for the transfer window, he seemed to do things as he went along, but again he needed to speak with the manager and Chairman to sort something out early, rather than make a huge mistake on the last day.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 31, 2008

Much like football team formation, there is no one best solution. I suspect the best solution for each club is the one that suits the individuals involved. I do however feel it is a rediculous given that if the team fails it is the coach that should leave. Structures in other businesses and walks of life succeed or fail depending on the characters involved working together. I suspect there has been many occassions where a manager has been appointed on reputation alone and not whether he is a team player, able to work with others, or even whether they have similar footballing philosphies with the incumbant director. This adds to my impression that most footballing institutions make poor decisions on a regular basis that would have them sacked much quicker in other jobs.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 10, 2008

May the Good Lord help St Et now that this plonker is back at their club.

This coming from a Tottenham fan!!

All HAIL HARRY REDKNAPP! :D

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 10, 2008

sorry for all u ppl that think this fella Comolli was any good, Well!!! wake up smell the coffee!!! this guy was!! for want of a better phrase, he was SHIT!!! pardon my french!!!!!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 10, 2008

I WONT pardon your language!!!





I'll back to nines

Spot on!

add comment | complain about this comment