Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Syteanric

so, when it goes pear shaped...

Recommended Posts

Who''s head do we call for?

The sporting Director, in charge of football matters?

Or

The "head coach" who''s hand is forced by players signed for him and who simply organises training every week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The people responsible for creating the structure that fails (which is not to say that the proposed structure will fail). That is, they who shall not be named.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also as the role of ''Head coach'' would be generally seen in English football as a more junior role to the conventional manager of a football club I see 2 issues,

1 looking at probably inexperience in this role so experienced current managers not really wanting to take this kind of a role

2 if the person brought in does a good job, the offer of being a manager of a club may make them very open to leave to another team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn''t need the final say if he picks the team though. It''s a good example of checks and balances. The DoF is not going to buy players if the Head Coach isn''t going to use them.

I think this is a positive move and given our recruitment recently, we need to change it up.

Ricky, 8.5m?

Hooper 5m

Naismith 8.5m?

Pritchard 8m

Klose 12m?

None of our big signings have yet provided the value we might have expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Fraz"]Also as the role of ''Head coach'' would be generally seen in English football as a more junior role to the conventional manager of a football club.[/quote]this to me seems we are going down the leagues and trying to get someone without "big club" experience. the DOF or Head of football or whatever they are will be basically baby stepping them through

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Syteanric"]Who''s head do we call for?

The sporting Director, in charge of football matters?

Or

The "head coach" who''s hand is forced by players signed for him and who simply organises training every week?[/quote]Oh, I think the least of your problems will be deciding who you fancy blaming when you think the time has come. It will be someone for something some time some how. It may well not be the person whose appointment you criticised at the time. It could just as well be the person you most welcomed. No matter, although to be fair, you are far from alone in this kind of convenient memory loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]Heavily involved yes, but does not have the final say - although given our recent transfer history that may be a good thing[/quote]nor has the manager for a long, long, long while

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Syteanric"]Who''s head do we call for?

The sporting Director, in charge of football matters?

Or

The "head coach" who''s hand is forced by players signed for him and who simply organises training every week?[/quote]when  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jamie Witherspoon"]Doesn''t need the final say if he picks the team though. It''s a good example of checks and balances. The DoF is not going to buy players if the Head Coach isn''t going to use them.

I think this is a positive move and given our recruitment recently, we need to change it up.

Ricky, 8.5m?

Hooper 5m

Naismith 8.5m?

Pritchard 8m

Klose 12m?

None of our big signings have yet provided the value we might have expected.[/quote]how come you get told how much the tranfers cost ?and are those net or gross figures ?or just what someone has made up ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ian"]Few celebratory drinks Purple?[/quote]I was going to reply that I was flattered you think me as easily capable of producing my jewelled and grammatically perfect prose when drunk as when sober, but then I saw my "who" in the first sentence should be a ''whom". To say I am mortified would be a severe understatement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Fraz"]Also as the role of ''Head coach'' would be generally seen in English football as a more junior role to the conventional manager of a football club I see 2 issues,

1 looking at probably inexperience in this role so experienced current managers not really wanting to take this kind of a role

2 if the person brought in does a good job, the offer of being a manager of a club may make them very open to leave to another team.[/quote]Well, let''s just start listing some of the people apparently quite happy to take on this "more junior role" working "under" a DoF or Sporting Director: Conte, Guardiola, Mourinho ............ They are working in"English football", so maybe English football has actually moved on a bit from how it is apparently still conceived by many posters on here. The evidence is that, far from being paranoidly averse to it, the best coaches value the division of labour involved. If people want something to moan about, they should be asking why it has taken the club so long to implement such a change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]Well, let''s just start listing some of the people apparently quite happy to take on this "more junior role" working "under" a DoF or Sporting Director: Conte, Guardiola, Mourinho ............ They are working in"English football", so maybe English football has actually moved on a bit from how it is apparently still conceived by many posters on here. The evidence is that, far from being paranoidly averse to it, the best coaches value the division of labour involved. If people want something to moan about, they should be asking why it has taken the club so long to implement such a change. [/quote]It is also as much a clarification of their roles.It has struck me that the club were trying something on these lines with Joe Royal and Michael Phelan.Sadly many on here are stuckm in some Roy of the Rovers image of the game, where the chairman (owner0 is some chap in a sheepskin coat puffing a cigar, the manager is a worried looking man in a suit and the coach is a chap in a roll kneck sweater wearing a flat cap.A similar view is taken regarding transfers where the mannager is allocated a sum of money and is then left to buy players as he sees fit. The ''cost'' is pretty much in line with what it might be were you to go Xmas shopping.. only larger sums. Picks up little ginger one, checks price tag and goes to till.Unfortunately until this type of set up is beaten into the head of many on here you might as well attempt to teach the a roop of monkeys the highway code. I expect what is happening here is that the football side of things will report to one director who will report to the board, raising any questions etc that need more of an executive decision. I don''t expect this structure to be totally linear and will be more a case of co-ordination that allows each to concentrate on their particular area. We have a far bigger playing staff from seniors to kids and I wouldn''t want Alan Irvine to be constantly checking on each one, nor having to draw up reports to the board. Maybe, as elsewhre, some should take time to have a look what is being done, why it is being done and have a look at other clubs and see what they are doing similarly, then come back with criticisms, concerns etc rather than moan just because it is ''foreign muck''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jamie Witherspoon"]Doesn''t need the final say if he picks the team though. It''s a good example of checks and balances. The DoF is not going to buy players if the Head Coach isn''t going to use them.

I think this is a positive move and given our recruitment recently, we need to change it up.

Ricky, 8.5m?

Hooper 5m

Naismith 8.5m?

Pritchard 8m

Klose 12m?

None of our big signings have yet provided the value we might have expected.[/quote]

the funniest thing about this statement is you seem to think we overpaid for them AND that they are big signings, but in the reality of modern football those prices are nothing, absolute drops in the ocean

you get what you pay for

and ultimately all of those players are solid average players, sadly norwich are operating around 8 years behind everyone else when it comes to modern football. Look at what was paid for banmford and jordan ibe, and their rubbish as well!!! but thats the market!! if you dont have the cash youre not in the game.

Generally youre looking at 15 million + for an average lower half premier league player nowadays, not even including wages.

comically enough norwich dont even sell at inflated market prices let alone pay them

and thats the problem with having an owner with no real money to invest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
re selling players...

We sold Redmond for 11million, everybody thought it was a great deal. Then Bournemouth paid 15million for Ibe. To top it off, Redmond is now in the England squad.

Southampton got a bargain that day...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jamie Witherspoon"]Iron Stan,

I was talking about our big money signings because those are our biggest money signings.

Trust that is clear.[/quote]I expect Alan Bowkett thought he''d been equally clear when he said we''d spent a record amount on team strengthening in the summer transfer window 2013. Like a pure drop of water added to a cloudy pool, it immediately becomes cloudy ......... [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×