seeing that Roy is so unpopular, how much money should he be trusted with? and let's not forget that purslow as md has shown little evidence that he knows what his doing in the transfer market. he did sign Roy paying almost 3m
how much should Roy get?
- Thread starter redhorizon2
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Roy should be trusted only with whatever we'll owe him if we terminate his contract tomorrow.
Purslow's gone BTW.
Purslow's gone BTW.
so that's nothing
A Director of Football in charge of transfers is certainly a model that has seen immense success in English football with a wealth of empirical evidence to suggest it is indeed the road to success.
You're very bright to suggest it
You're very bright to suggest it
So which Chelsea players did he buy?
[quote author=Richey link=topic=42444.msg1206393#msg1206393 date=1288125184]
Having a director of football choosing which players to buy has always sounded like an awful system to me.
Wouldn't that person also need to decide on formation and tactics in order to know what kind of player to buy?
[/quote]
Yes, but it's not like they'd never communicate is it ?
Having a director of football choosing which players to buy has always sounded like an awful system to me.
Wouldn't that person also need to decide on formation and tactics in order to know what kind of player to buy?
[/quote]
Yes, but it's not like they'd never communicate is it ?
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42444.msg1206395#msg1206395 date=1288125234]
[quote author=Richey link=topic=42444.msg1206393#msg1206393 date=1288125184]
Having a director of football choosing which players to buy has always sounded like an awful system to me.
Wouldn't that person also need to decide on formation and tactics in order to know what kind of player to buy?
[/quote]
Yes, but it's not like they'd never communicate is it ?
[/quote]
No, but there's still too much scope for a clash of views and responsibilities. The risk is less in Europe, where coaches rather than fully fledged managers prepare and pick the teams.
[quote author=Richey link=topic=42444.msg1206393#msg1206393 date=1288125184]
Having a director of football choosing which players to buy has always sounded like an awful system to me.
Wouldn't that person also need to decide on formation and tactics in order to know what kind of player to buy?
[/quote]
Yes, but it's not like they'd never communicate is it ?
[/quote]
No, but there's still too much scope for a clash of views and responsibilities. The risk is less in Europe, where coaches rather than fully fledged managers prepare and pick the teams.
So if the manager has to tell the director of football exactly what formation and tactics he wants and exactly the kind of player he wants, as well as taking into account who he thinks he will be able to work with and who will get on with the rest of the squad, it really begs the question why doesn't the manager just do it himself?
Sounds like the director of football is essentially a scout with a chequebook.
Sounds like the director of football is essentially a scout with a chequebook.
[quote author=Richey link=topic=42444.msg1206408#msg1206408 date=1288125501]
So if the manager has to tell the director of football exactly what formation and tactics he wants and exactly the kind of player he wants, as well as taking into account who he thinks he will be able to work with and who will get on with the rest of the squad, it really begs the question why doesn't the manager just do it himself?
Sounds like the director of football is essentially a scout with a chequebook.
[/quote]
Look at our spending in the past decade, are you advocating that as the way forward ? Let's just piss all our money up against the wall on bad decisions and 26 goalkeepers then. I think the job is too big for one person, and because of the tenuous nature of a Premiership managers position it results in too much short term thinking and too much panic buying. Certainly in our case anyway. You cou;d never see any overarching strategy to what Benitez did.
A DOF is ultimately thinking more long term than a manager, looking at the player development side of things, basically providing the manager with a squad to work with. The manager deals with coaching, motivating, and tactics etc. If the manager feels there is a weakness in the squad he can ask the DOF to look into fixing it.
So if the manager has to tell the director of football exactly what formation and tactics he wants and exactly the kind of player he wants, as well as taking into account who he thinks he will be able to work with and who will get on with the rest of the squad, it really begs the question why doesn't the manager just do it himself?
Sounds like the director of football is essentially a scout with a chequebook.
[/quote]
Look at our spending in the past decade, are you advocating that as the way forward ? Let's just piss all our money up against the wall on bad decisions and 26 goalkeepers then. I think the job is too big for one person, and because of the tenuous nature of a Premiership managers position it results in too much short term thinking and too much panic buying. Certainly in our case anyway. You cou;d never see any overarching strategy to what Benitez did.
A DOF is ultimately thinking more long term than a manager, looking at the player development side of things, basically providing the manager with a squad to work with. The manager deals with coaching, motivating, and tactics etc. If the manager feels there is a weakness in the squad he can ask the DOF to look into fixing it.
A lot of teams on the continent have a director of football and obviously it's a model that in itself doesn't ensure success. The director of football could just as easily piss a load of money away on rubbish and youth goalkeepers. You need to find the right guy, which is going to be a very hard job and you need to ensure he and the manager can work together well.
[quote author=Richey link=topic=42444.msg1206480#msg1206480 date=1288126935]
I can see your point but isn't that extremely dependent on having a very good director of football? On recent history I'm not confident about us finding one decent person let alone two.
[/quote]
Yeah it is, but since he won't have to get caught up in the day to day side of the club he's got ample opportunity to do it well.
Essentially I'd like to see a club structure built up so that if a manager one day ups and leaves it doesn't leave us up shit creek. There should still be a functioning club around him.
I can see your point but isn't that extremely dependent on having a very good director of football? On recent history I'm not confident about us finding one decent person let alone two.
[/quote]
Yeah it is, but since he won't have to get caught up in the day to day side of the club he's got ample opportunity to do it well.
Essentially I'd like to see a club structure built up so that if a manager one day ups and leaves it doesn't leave us up shit creek. There should still be a functioning club around him.
the upside of a director of football is even if you have a revolving door of managers the purchases remains consistant. it always surprises me why so many top managers submit to this rather than going to a club where you make your own purchases.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42444.msg1206382#msg1206382 date=1288124933]
Most of the top clubs have one, or a technical director. Like Chelsea.
[/quote]
Man City do it, through Brian Marwood.
I read an interview with him a while back in which he outlined the type of procedure they have to go through to sign any player. Some sort of detailed 50 page document has to be drawn up on the player covering everything - background, role, cultural fit, capabiliy, style, how he'd fit into the team, blah blah blah - Which then get's presented to the Arab lad who decided whether to sanction the transfer or not.
Apparently they do this for all propsective signings, whether they're a Tevez or a 13 year old.
I'll see if I can find the article. Quite interesting.
Most of the top clubs have one, or a technical director. Like Chelsea.
[/quote]
Man City do it, through Brian Marwood.
I read an interview with him a while back in which he outlined the type of procedure they have to go through to sign any player. Some sort of detailed 50 page document has to be drawn up on the player covering everything - background, role, cultural fit, capabiliy, style, how he'd fit into the team, blah blah blah - Which then get's presented to the Arab lad who decided whether to sanction the transfer or not.
Apparently they do this for all propsective signings, whether they're a Tevez or a 13 year old.
I'll see if I can find the article. Quite interesting.
[quote author=Peatcheo link=topic=42444.msg1206524#msg1206524 date=1288133081]
Im not too sure how much Id want Roy to have, whats he been like in the transfer market with his other clubs?
[/quote]
He's bought some quality, and he's bought some rubbish.
Like every other Manager in the history of football.
Im not too sure how much Id want Roy to have, whats he been like in the transfer market with his other clubs?
[/quote]
He's bought some quality, and he's bought some rubbish.
Like every other Manager in the history of football.
S
Squiggles
Guest
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42444.msg1206523#msg1206523 date=1288133018]
Yup, here it is - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2010/oct/06/manchester-city-brian-marwood
[/quote]
I'd love to see how Benitez sold the board the idea of Keane, Dossena and Aquilani.
I imagine our player documents could have been written on a stamp.
Yup, here it is - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2010/oct/06/manchester-city-brian-marwood
[/quote]
I'd love to see how Benitez sold the board the idea of Keane, Dossena and Aquilani.
I imagine our player documents could have been written on a stamp.
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42444.msg1206526#msg1206526 date=1288133570]
[quote author=Peatcheo link=topic=42444.msg1206524#msg1206524 date=1288133081]
Im not too sure how much Id want Roy to have, whats he been like in the transfer market with his other clubs?
[/quote]
He's bought some quality, and he's bought some rubbish.
Like every other Manager in the history of football.
[/quote]
How much are we looking at getting in Jan?
[quote author=Peatcheo link=topic=42444.msg1206524#msg1206524 date=1288133081]
Im not too sure how much Id want Roy to have, whats he been like in the transfer market with his other clubs?
[/quote]
He's bought some quality, and he's bought some rubbish.
Like every other Manager in the history of football.
[/quote]
How much are we looking at getting in Jan?
i can see the benefit of having someone in charge of bringing in youth players (as dalglish seems to be doing, with shelvey, wilson and maybe this wickham lad), and having that as a foundation for long-term development, but i generally hate the idea of having a director of football in charge of ordinary first-team transfers. i justdon't see the point of it, at all.
fine, have a huge scouting network. fine, have people advising the manager. but ultimately, if you want good long-term development of the team, then it has to be the manager's decision because ultimately he'll be the one building and shaping the team. look at the four greatest long-term team-building successes of the last 30 years: liverpool, man utd, arsenal, and chelsea: all done with a manager having almost total control over transfers. is there any comparable long-term success story using the continental DOF model? for me, the reason teams like real madrid and barcelona succeed in europe so infrequently (relative to their resources) is precisely because they're hampered by such an inefficient philosophy, with new galacticos and new coaches coming in every other season. look at how many brilliant players real madrid flog for huge losses because they're bought with no idea how they fit in from one year to another or with any consistent team strategy. imo, if real madrid, with their ridiculous wealth and huge pulling power, had had one really good manager for the last 10 years buying the players he wanted, i think they'd have won the CL about 5 times.
you really only have to look at spurs to see the merits of letting a manager have control.
fine, have a huge scouting network. fine, have people advising the manager. but ultimately, if you want good long-term development of the team, then it has to be the manager's decision because ultimately he'll be the one building and shaping the team. look at the four greatest long-term team-building successes of the last 30 years: liverpool, man utd, arsenal, and chelsea: all done with a manager having almost total control over transfers. is there any comparable long-term success story using the continental DOF model? for me, the reason teams like real madrid and barcelona succeed in europe so infrequently (relative to their resources) is precisely because they're hampered by such an inefficient philosophy, with new galacticos and new coaches coming in every other season. look at how many brilliant players real madrid flog for huge losses because they're bought with no idea how they fit in from one year to another or with any consistent team strategy. imo, if real madrid, with their ridiculous wealth and huge pulling power, had had one really good manager for the last 10 years buying the players he wanted, i think they'd have won the CL about 5 times.
you really only have to look at spurs to see the merits of letting a manager have control.
[quote author=Peatcheo link=topic=42444.msg1206533#msg1206533 date=1288134284]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42444.msg1206526#msg1206526 date=1288133570]
[quote author=Peatcheo link=topic=42444.msg1206524#msg1206524 date=1288133081]
Im not too sure how much Id want Roy to have, whats he been like in the transfer market with his other clubs?
[/quote]
He's bought some quality, and he's bought some rubbish.
Like every other Manager in the history of football.
[/quote]
How much are we looking at getting in Jan?
[/quote]
God knows.
I'd be surprised if we spent more than 10M though.
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42444.msg1206526#msg1206526 date=1288133570]
[quote author=Peatcheo link=topic=42444.msg1206524#msg1206524 date=1288133081]
Im not too sure how much Id want Roy to have, whats he been like in the transfer market with his other clubs?
[/quote]
He's bought some quality, and he's bought some rubbish.
Like every other Manager in the history of football.
[/quote]
How much are we looking at getting in Jan?
[/quote]
God knows.
I'd be surprised if we spent more than 10M though.
[quote author=Peatcheo link=topic=42444.msg1206533#msg1206533 date=1288134284]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42444.msg1206526#msg1206526 date=1288133570]
[quote author=Peatcheo link=topic=42444.msg1206524#msg1206524 date=1288133081]
Im not too sure how much Id want Roy to have, whats he been like in the transfer market with his other clubs?
[/quote]
He's bought some quality, and he's bought some rubbish.
Like every other Manager in the history of football.
[/quote]
How much are we looking at getting in Jan?
[/quote]
reports are saying £25-30m. seems reasonable, but i'm not sure if the players will be there to sign in january.
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42444.msg1206526#msg1206526 date=1288133570]
[quote author=Peatcheo link=topic=42444.msg1206524#msg1206524 date=1288133081]
Im not too sure how much Id want Roy to have, whats he been like in the transfer market with his other clubs?
[/quote]
He's bought some quality, and he's bought some rubbish.
Like every other Manager in the history of football.
[/quote]
How much are we looking at getting in Jan?
[/quote]
reports are saying £25-30m. seems reasonable, but i'm not sure if the players will be there to sign in january.
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42444.msg1206534#msg1206534 date=1288134325]
i can see the benefit of having someone in charge of bringing in youth players (as dalglish seems to be doing, with shelvey, wilson and maybe this wickham lad), and having that as a foundation for long-term development, but i generally hate the idea of having a director of football in charge of ordinary first-team transfers. i justdon't see the point of it, at all.
fine, have a huge scouting network. fine, have people advising the manager. but ultimately, if you want good long-term development of the team, then it has to be the manager's decision because ultimately he'll be the one building and shaping the team. look at the four greatest long-term team-building successes of the last 30 years: liverpool, man utd, arsenal, and chelsea: all done with a manager having almost total control over transfers. is there any comparable long-term success story using the continental DOF model? for me, the reason teams like real madrid and barcelona succeed in europe so infrequently (relative to their resources) is precisely because they're hampered by such an inefficient philosophy, with new galacticos and new coaches coming in every other season. look at how many brilliant players real madrid flog for huge losses because they're bought with no idea how they fit in from one year to another or with any consistent team strategy. imo, if real madrid, with their ridiculous wealth and huge pulling power, had had one really good manager for the last 10 years buying the players he wanted, i think they'd have won the CL about 5 times.
you really only have to look at spurs to see the merits of letting a manager have control.
[/quote]
Real Madrid aren't the greatest example because they are so commercially minded, they buy players some of the time at least simply to heighten interest in them in a particular country - because they sell their own TV rights, not La Liga. And I always thought it was the President that was the driving force there rather than any DOF ?
Success in Europe is all about getting yourself into the knockout stages and then getting a bit lucky. No amount of money could guarantee you success in a knockout format.
Very few managers can and will look in the long term simply because of the pressure to get results now, they are with a few exceptions all short termist and all trying to keep their heads above water, it's an unhealthy situation. If you've got a staff working in the background on the clubs long term development it can be done properly, like the City example Ryan posted above, if things aren't going well on the pitch you've got someone in the background working away and you can sack the manager without everything going to shit . Lyon are a great example of it, I think they won the league five times on the trot with three different managers simply because the managers weren't allowed to come in and rip up everything that had gone before.
i can see the benefit of having someone in charge of bringing in youth players (as dalglish seems to be doing, with shelvey, wilson and maybe this wickham lad), and having that as a foundation for long-term development, but i generally hate the idea of having a director of football in charge of ordinary first-team transfers. i justdon't see the point of it, at all.
fine, have a huge scouting network. fine, have people advising the manager. but ultimately, if you want good long-term development of the team, then it has to be the manager's decision because ultimately he'll be the one building and shaping the team. look at the four greatest long-term team-building successes of the last 30 years: liverpool, man utd, arsenal, and chelsea: all done with a manager having almost total control over transfers. is there any comparable long-term success story using the continental DOF model? for me, the reason teams like real madrid and barcelona succeed in europe so infrequently (relative to their resources) is precisely because they're hampered by such an inefficient philosophy, with new galacticos and new coaches coming in every other season. look at how many brilliant players real madrid flog for huge losses because they're bought with no idea how they fit in from one year to another or with any consistent team strategy. imo, if real madrid, with their ridiculous wealth and huge pulling power, had had one really good manager for the last 10 years buying the players he wanted, i think they'd have won the CL about 5 times.
you really only have to look at spurs to see the merits of letting a manager have control.
[/quote]
Real Madrid aren't the greatest example because they are so commercially minded, they buy players some of the time at least simply to heighten interest in them in a particular country - because they sell their own TV rights, not La Liga. And I always thought it was the President that was the driving force there rather than any DOF ?
Success in Europe is all about getting yourself into the knockout stages and then getting a bit lucky. No amount of money could guarantee you success in a knockout format.
Very few managers can and will look in the long term simply because of the pressure to get results now, they are with a few exceptions all short termist and all trying to keep their heads above water, it's an unhealthy situation. If you've got a staff working in the background on the clubs long term development it can be done properly, like the City example Ryan posted above, if things aren't going well on the pitch you've got someone in the background working away and you can sack the manager without everything going to shit . Lyon are a great example of it, I think they won the league five times on the trot with three different managers simply because the managers weren't allowed to come in and rip up everything that had gone before.
- Status
