Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Why Norwich need a new management structure

Recommended Posts

"we let our manager''s manage" is a phrase I have repeatedly heard at Carrow Road. It is about to be consigned to the received wisdom recycle bin.

There has long been a culture of "the football side" and " the business side" at Carrow Road, which has lead to some notable success and some structural football flaws.

Having passionate fans run the football club is a wonderful, rare fairytale in the context of billionaire megalomaniacs playing FM with pinball playthings.

It can be argued that there has been too much deference to the perceived all-encompassing wisdom of the English omniscient manager model.

Ex-players can rarely leave the game they love. They often know no other world and simply cannot leave the drug they love and have dedicated their lives to. The fitness aspect, the male camaraderie, the quasi-military regimen and branding breeds a certain culture and lifestyle that is intoxicating. From within this relatively closed-shop many a manager is born. In no other industry does the best lorry driver become the chief Executive of the transport company. There is no logical reason why players should make great managers. There is however a vast amount of money swilling around and an addictive environment that limits the desire to open the books and even hint that the emperor may not actually be wearing the finest clothes.

The surprise to me is not that streetwise, wily, ruthless businessmen like Abramovic take more than a passing interest in how their millions and billions are spent, what kind of entertainment they watch, who represents their brand, whether their multi-million pound assets are happy, committed to their fitness regime or perhaps indulging in recreational drugs on the King''s Road.

It can be observed that organisations make changes that remedy the freshest commercial wounds. Norwich have just made the greatest investment in their history and achieved a regressive outcome. Expensive assets were obtained to drive the organisation to greater heights, though no joined-up thinking existed to ensure that the maximum was extracted from the assets or that they were truly the right fit for the requirements at hand. DoF lines of communication need not be designed to micro-manage every operational football decision, but rather to ensure that an over-arching culture is adhered to and that a pattern if play methodology is in identifiable in the outlay on major asset purchases. It may be that a company-wide culture is established to provide opportunities to youth potential wherever possible. To positively-discriminate in favour of home-grown products, only resorting to acquisition when no suitable candidate exists within the club structure.

Given that we no longer have the premier television revenues to fill the considerable gap to the billionaire benefactors, a more corporate model of management that ensures better oversight and cultural continuation is long overdue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''d say in some industries like transport, the best lorry drivers do become the next ceos in the future.

I also think that to make such drastic change is premature. I think we get in a good manager who can make subtle changes like 2 or 3 new signings to plug obvious gaps and then try keep this talented squad together and give it a chance to show last season was a blip.

If that then proves otherwise, then we have big changes top to bottom. Lets not panic yet guys! The finances are still fine and will continue to be for a while yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So! You''re looking at the Bigger Picture. I like the Bigger Picture. This one''s a bit of a facer though.

What would you suggest then? It sounds like you envisage a period when NCFC would be at risk of being distinctly unsuccessful;: do you think the Board would take that risk? Would the ''supporters'' (real & plastic) wear it??

The situation seems rather analogous to the world economic one to me. It''s a mess, everyone can see there''s a better way, but how the Hell do you get from here to there?

Answers on a postcard ...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think some of this needs a little clarification.

quote user="Parma Ham''s gone mouldy". we let our manager''s manage" is a phrase I have repeatedly heard at Carrow Road. It is about to be consigned to the received wisdom recycle bin.

There has long been a culture of "the football side" and " the business side" at Carrow Road, which has lead to some notable success and some structural football flawqs.

Can you highlight what successes and what flaws are in this system?

Having passionate fans run the football club is a wonderful, rare fairytale in the context of billionaire megalomaniacs playing FM with pinball playthings.

It can be argued that there has been too much deference to the perceived all-encompassing wisdom of the English omniscient manager model.

English football teams have a good record of success against European clubs. Wouldn''t that suggest our model is better?

Ex-players can rarely leave the game they love. They often know no other world and simply cannot leave the drug they love and have dedicated their lives to. The fitness aspect, the male camaraderie, the quasi-military regimen and branding breeds a certain culture and lifestyle that is intoxicating. From within this relatively closed-shop many a manager is born. In no other industry does the best lorry driver become the chief Executive of the transport company. There is no logical reason why players should make great managers. There is however a vast amount of money swilling around and an addictive environment that limits the desire to open the books and even hint that the emperor may not actually be wearing the finest clothes

What you describe is probably true but I don''t see the evidence that this is a failing culture in football. The cut throat competitiveness of football ensures survival of the fitest.

The surprise to me is not that streetwise, wily, ruthless businessmen like Abramovic take more than a passing interest in how their millions and billions are spent, what kind of entertainment they watch, who represents their brand, whether their multi-million pound assets are happy, committed to their fitness regime or perhaps indulging in recreational drugs on the King''s Road.

So what is the surprise to you?

It can be observed that organisations make changes that remedy the freshest commercial wounds. Norwich have just made the greatest investment in their history and achieved a regressive outcome. Expensive assets were obtained to drive the organisation to greater heights, though no joined-up thinking existed to ensure that the maximum was extracted from the assets or that they were truly the right fit for the requirements at hand.

You maybe correct but what evidnce is there to support your claim?

DoF lines of communication need not be designed to micro-manage every operational football decision, but rather to ensure that an over-arching culture is adhered to and that a pattern if play methodology is in identifiable in the outlay on major asset purchases.

What does this mean in layman terms? Will adhering to a culture make us successful? A criticism of Hughton was that he adhered to a failing culture

It may be that a company-wide culture is established to provide opportunities to youth potential wherever possible. To positively-discriminate in favour of home-grown products, only resorting to acquisition when no suitable candidate exists within the club structure.

I doubt our problems were down to not playing youth and the link between youth and a DoF is not clear to me.

Given that we no longer have the premier television revenues to fill the considerable gap to the billionaire benefactors, a more corporate model of management that ensures better oversight and cultural continuation is long overdue

This implies that we''re we not relegated then a cultural change would not be necessary. I''m sure you don''t mean that

The whole question of a DoF is worth looking at but I don''t think your analysis addresses the upside or downside and what you describe could be addressed by the current management model. As someone from within football Parma, I''d like to know more what you think DoF model could achieve that the traditional English model can''t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I must confess that I have had difficulty with Parma''s input previously. One notable assertion from him this season was that draws are as good as wins. On this thread I''m afraid Parma gets lost by being preoccupied with his own maize of flowery verbiage and, having made the point that no industry other than football would entrust former players to management oversight roles, then fails to define what skills are required for a candidate fitting into a new management structure to ensure better oversight. How does such a candidate know when to pull the trigger or put the gun in the holster for another day?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, you''re quite right chaps. iPhone lost some of this.The chinese-wall division between football and commerce has lead to notable off-field development and independent-of-football revenue streams. This is admirable and was/is thoroughly necessary without TV income streams. The Norwich brand has also been leveraged successfully and physical assets sweated ensuring that once-a-week spikes in income are a thing of the past. The professionalism of auxiliary facilities from medical to educational to sport science and analysis are now light years from a few years ago. The schism has been a tendency for the footabll side "to be left to the football people". That the success, gloss and revenues from the off-field activities are intrinsically linked to on-field success - despite the best endeavours and vision of self-sustainability - is now fully recognised. Amortising and minimising this fact is wise, though the de-facto scenario that a single over-arching Fergusone-esque figure had far greater influence of a £100m business, than any executive or billionaire business benefactor is ludicrous. As fans we buy into the myth of the omniscient manager. This culture has been perpetuated and fostered by in-house footballers on the gravy train. The thought that such major businesses entrust their immediate - and perhaps longer term - futures to the latest lorry driver off the production line is - and has always been  - madness.In the Roman vs Delia model, Abramovich was not a benign, feudal Lord, bequeathing some of his vast wealth onto the tenant farmers. He wanted to know where the money was going. Why and how it was being spent. He installed checkers, watchers and reckoners. What would you do? Delia -rather admirably - said "I''m a fan, I love the club, here''s the most money I can scrape together, do your best with it....". This is an incredible gesture. Walk a mile in her shoes. There you are having made millions and a majority owner in the club you love. You would / should just stand by as random lorry driver after random lorry driver "does his best" with your hard-earned millions and " reckons 1-in-4" of the signings will come good? [vid Worthington]. Who benefits from such meagre expectations? Who is protecting what? Would you not be tempted to have a rather more hands-on approach...? I am amazed that more scrutiny, control, analysis, overseeing has not taken place much sooner. In Italy one of the practical purposes of DoF and Technical Directors is to control, watch and protect the flow of money. The scope for dubious practice, siphoning and mis-direction is rife in a nindustry where opaque scrutiny exists alongside vast wealth. The thought that an ex-player walks into the blank chequebook and waves it around was  -unsurprisingly - first questioned in the bella peninsula. JUst as in the stands there are many visions of how a club should be run, team should play, which assets should be purchased. Thus an unbrella structure that remains inviolate, despite [or rather because of] managerial upheaval every 18 months, is entirely necessary and pragmatic. We cling to a single figurehead of power because it suits our psyche to gaze up at the almighty, then excite ourselves at the empowerment of being able to play anti-nero and put our thumbs down to see him summarily executed after displeasing us.In our case, this was after the greatest investment in our history. Our latest Nero emptied our piggy bank and went backwards. Huggton''s autistic methodology required a wizard at 9 [and surely a 10?], to perform as a sparkling cherry atop a prosaci, regimented cake. An umbrella structure would ensure a football analysis above that of the present managerial / Head Coach encumbent. In practical terms this would certainly include the creation and club-wide adherence to an agreed blueprint pattern of play. Finance, Scouting, DoF, Coaching, Youth [and in due course supporters] would understand the methodology and assets would be designed to fit the model. This has been the case at Ajax [from where I had a visiting Coach for 6 months in Italy] for 20 years and more. To bring it back to Norwich, we could clearly see for example that a cheaper, Crouch-like player would have suited Hughton''s approach far better than RvW, whose penchant for angled driving runs from outside the box was never seen in a yellow shirt. Clubs have a tendency to work with the current manager and draw up abc lists of desired players, within a budget that are accessible. Mnaagers have a short shelf life and a tendency to yes to the best they can get, to both bolster their chances of remaining in post a little longer and boosting popularity with fans. This is football culture, but not how I run my business. Cultures have to change.Manchester United have long embraced giving Youth a chance, it is their culture. This resulted in the great successes of 92'', but equally is observed in the support of Welbeck et al in ''14 in entirely different circumstances. It is not the Chelsea culture, despite lavish spending on Europe''s best teenies. Norwich fans do about care more than just the next result. Should there be a stated culture to positively-discriminate in favour of youth opportunity [until and unless they do reach the necessary level, it is not charity], then this could be a valid reference point. It might also be that a desire [not a stricture] to play fluid, between-the-lines possession-oriented football, with ball-playing centre halves, a focal point 9 and pace going beyond might be a model to follow. Incoming Managers would need to want to adhere to the philosophy. The umbrella structure would monitor their suitability and judgment criteria could and should be laid out in advance.Manager''s should not be allowed to manage. At least not with my money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Sorry, you''re quite right chaps. iPhone lost some of this.The chinese-wall division between football and commerce has lead to notable off-field development and independent-of-football revenue streams. This is admirable and was/is thoroughly necessary without TV income streams. The Norwich brand has also been leveraged successfully and physical assets sweated ensuring that once-a-week spikes in income are a thing of the past. The professionalism of auxiliary facilities from medical to educational to sport science and analysis are now light years from a few years ago. The schism has been a tendency for the footabll side "to be left to the football people". That the success, gloss and revenues from the off-field activities are intrinsically linked to on-field success - despite the best endeavours and vision of self-sustainability - is now fully recognised. Amortising and minimising this fact is wise, though the de-facto scenario that a single over-arching Fergusone-esque figure had far greater influence of a £100m business, than any executive or billionaire business benefactor is ludicrous. As fans we buy into the myth of the omniscient manager. This culture has been perpetuated and fostered by in-house footballers on the gravy train. The thought that such major businesses entrust their immediate - and perhaps longer term - futures to the latest lorry driver off the production line is - and has always been  - madness.In the Roman vs Delia model, Abramovich was not a benign, feudal Lord, bequeathing some of his vast wealth onto the tenant farmers. He wanted to know where the money was going. Why and how it was being spent. He installed checkers, watchers and reckoners. What would you do? Delia -rather admirably - said "I''m a fan, I love the club, here''s the most money I can scrape together, do your best with it....". This is an incredible gesture. Walk a mile in her shoes. There you are having made millions and a majority owner in the club you love. You would / should just stand by as random lorry driver after random lorry driver "does his best" with your hard-earned millions and " reckons 1-in-4" of the signings will come good? [vid Worthington]. Who benefits from such meagre expectations? Who is protecting what? Would you not be tempted to have a rather more hands-on approach...? I am amazed that more scrutiny, control, analysis, overseeing has not taken place much sooner. In Italy one of the practical purposes of DoF and Technical Directors is to control, watch and protect the flow of money. The scope for dubious practice, siphoning and mis-direction is rife in a nindustry where opaque scrutiny exists alongside vast wealth. The thought that an ex-player walks into the blank chequebook and waves it around was  -unsurprisingly - first questioned in the bella peninsula. JUst as in the stands there are many visions of how a club should be run, team should play, which assets should be purchased. Thus an unbrella structure that remains inviolate, despite [or rather because of] managerial upheaval every 18 months, is entirely necessary and pragmatic. We cling to a single figurehead of power because it suits our psyche to gaze up at the almighty, then excite ourselves at the empowerment of being able to play anti-nero and put our thumbs down to see him summarily executed after displeasing us.In our case, this was after the greatest investment in our history. Our latest Nero emptied our piggy bank and went backwards. Huggton''s autistic methodology required a wizard at 9 [and surely a 10?], to perform as a sparkling cherry atop a prosaci, regimented cake. An umbrella structure would ensure a football analysis above that of the present managerial / Head Coach encumbent. In practical terms this would certainly include the creation and club-wide adherence to an agreed blueprint pattern of play. Finance, Scouting, DoF, Coaching, Youth [and in due course supporters] would understand the methodology and assets would be designed to fit the model. This has been the case at Ajax [from where I had a visiting Coach for 6 months in Italy] for 20 years and more. To bring it back to Norwich, we could clearly see for example that a cheaper, Crouch-like player would have suited Hughton''s approach far better than RvW, whose penchant for angled driving runs from outside the box was never seen in a yellow shirt. Clubs have a tendency to work with the current manager and draw up abc lists of desired players, within a budget that are accessible. Mnaagers have a short shelf life and a tendency to yes to the best they can get, to both bolster their chances of remaining in post a little longer and boosting popularity with fans. This is football culture, but not how I run my business. Cultures have to change.Manchester United have long embraced giving Youth a chance, it is their culture. This resulted in the great successes of 92'', but equally is observed in the support of Welbeck et al in ''14 in entirely different circumstances. It is not the Chelsea culture, despite lavish spending on Europe''s best teenies. Norwich fans do about care more than just the next result. Should there be a stated culture to positively-discriminate in favour of youth opportunity [until and unless they do reach the necessary level, it is not charity], then this could be a valid reference point. It might also be that a desire [not a stricture] to play fluid, between-the-lines possession-oriented football, with ball-playing centre halves, a focal point 9 and pace going beyond might be a model to follow. Incoming Managers would need to want to adhere to the philosophy. The umbrella structure would monitor their suitability and judgment criteria could and should be laid out in advance.Manager''s should not be allowed to manage. At least not with my money.[/quote]Yes, that reads better! Firstly this paragraph...In our case, this was after the greatest investment in our history. Our

latest Nero emptied our piggy bank and went backwards. Hughton''s

autistic methodology required a wizard at 9 [and surely a 10?], to

perform as a sparkling cherry atop a prosac, regimented cake....from a professional coach should be required reading if there really is anyone left who thinks Hughton was blameless in our relegation. On the contrary he gots things badly wrong. His mismanagement was a major factor in us going down.. Moving on, it seems to me there are two issues here. The first is control of spending per se:Abramovich was not a benign, feudal Lord, bequeathing some of his vast

wealth onto the tenant farmers. He wanted to know where the money was

going. Why and how it was being spent. He installed checkers, watchers

and reckoners.... In Italy one of the practical purposes of DoF and Technical Directors is to control, watch and protect the flow of money. It is not clear to me that we don''t have that at the moment. We have a finance director and a CEO who has a background in football. I assume they do that, and it is not a job in any event for which a knowledge of football is required.What seems to me a stronger - and to NCFC more relevant - point is this:An umbrella structure would ensure a football analysis above that of

the present managerial / Head Coach encumbent. In practical terms this

would certainly include the creation and club-wide adherence to an

agreed blueprint pattern of play. Finance, Scouting, DoF, Coaching,

Youth [and in due course supporters] would understand the methodology

and assets would be designed to fit the model.That I get as a theory, for which a DoF with a career in football would be required, alhough I imagine there will always be conflicts between the theory and the practice. That is not control of spending per se, but conrol of spending to fit the football philosophy and long-term aims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing you mention about trusting ex players with money is interesting. I know one ex PL footballer through playing Poker and Snooker with him who allegedly won himself a year extension (when it didn''t really make sense for him to be awarded due to lack of games etc) through a poker game with his manager (an ex top flight player himself). It honestly doesn''t surprise me! Interestingly enough, he nearly joined us on loan that season he couldn''t get games too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can''t help but think this is a somewhat verbose way of jumping on Bowketts comments last night at the EOS Dinner, where he , and McNally, said that the Club was going to significantly change its structure by appointing a Director of Football.

 

I would have been slightly more impressed if Parma had come up with this thesis half way through last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="GPB"]

Can''t help but think this is a somewhat verbose way of jumping on Bowketts comments last night at the EOS Dinner, where he , and McNally, said that the Club was going to significantly change its structure by appointing a Director of Football.

 

I would have been slightly more impressed if Parma had come up with this thesis half way through last season.

[/quote]To be fair, this is not a new idea from Parma. He has been pushing this for quite a while, based on his experience on the continent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="GPB"]

Can''t help but think this is a somewhat verbose way of jumping on Bowketts comments last night at the EOS Dinner, where he , and McNally, said that the Club was going to significantly change its structure by appointing a Director of Football.

 

I would have been slightly more impressed if Parma had come up with this thesis half way through last season.

[/quote]

To be fair, this is not a new idea from Parma. He has been pushing this for quite a while, based on his experience on the continent.
[/quote]

 

Fair enough Purple. I don''t have the patience to read most of the posts so I stand corrected. We are going to get these changes anyway, along with playing the "Norwich Way", perhaps Palma could throw some (brief) notes together on what this actually is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blimey, I must admit I didn''t read Parma''s bit first time as it looked too wordy and the Internet has killed my attention span but it is an excellent piece - who is he and what does he know, Purple seems to indicate he has coaching experience?

Most footballing philosophies read to me like motherhood and apple pie - can anyone explain to me one that they think would work at CR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramovich was not a benign, feudal Lord, bequeathing some of his vast

wealth onto the tenant farmers. He wanted to know where the money was

going. Why and how it was being spent. He installed checkers, watchers

and reckoners.... In Italy one of the practical purposes of DoF and

Technical Directors is to control, watch and protect the flow of money. It

is not clear to me that we don''t have that at the moment. We have a

finance director and a CEO who has a background in football. I assume

they do that, and it is not a job in any event for which a knowledge of

football is required.

You are quite correct PC, though I would limit this point to the

acquisition of playing staff and who, how and why they are selected, not the off-field mechanics of pricing and contract negotiation or company finance, which the excellent McNally and Bowkett have well covered. Roman has ensured that he has eyes on the training ground, in the game and even the changing room as required. He is not merely negotiating value for purchases that are identified, but openly [and covertly], checking the methodology, viability and suitability of the selection process. Not leaving it "to the football side" to do that part unquestioned or unregulated. I would certainly do this in my company and I suspect you would in yours. Many a product designer "designed what they wanted for Christmas" or over-indulged their position as buyer, intoxicated with the power at corporate level. How much more true this is in a closed, boys club industry awash with money and a network of mates and mate''s mates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want practical specifics, Here is an [brief] excerpt from a Coaching report on Norwich from earlier in the season:"...The above factors ensure [Norwich] do not counter

or stretch teams. We lack pace and the pace we do have is constrained

by the methodology that requires careful positioning by the wide

players. Redmond''s pace would be better used going beyond RVW and his

dribbling better used   In the 10 position, where risk of (his) tactical

compromise is far less. RVW cuts a forlorn and frustrated figure.

Analysing his movement and counterpointing it with footage of his

previous career goals and inherent style and playing strengths, it is a

legitimate question to ask whether his particular skills match the

precise requirements of Hughton''s structure. He is a willing worker now,

but stretching teams on The counter by moving wide into space to

receive the ball, then driving angled runs towards and into the Box for

shooting opportunities (his modus operandi) are not seen or likely to

occur with our set up. Playing on your own up front is a thankless task

and it is hard not to reach the conclusion that Crouch''s

predictable, repeated, hard-to-combat structural play is what would suit

Hughton''s way better. Many a defender-turned-manager has a view that

strikers create and score goals in an alchemists moment and are the

(separate) cherry on the (main) cake. In coaching and managerial terms I

am not convinced that Hughton knows what strikers need. He has bought

an expensive toy and expects it to perform something out-of-the-ordinary

once a game to exploit the clean sheet that has been religiously worked

on. In coaching terms I see far less methodology in the phase between

midfield possession and chance creation...." ".....full backs

are however over-protected and Hughton''s methodology simply does not

allow for altered circumstances (and are typically influenced by the

position a manager played as a player). Indeed he has the coaches (as

opposed to the manager''s) autistically repetitive patterns even when 4-1

down after 37 minutes or 1-1 against a deep-defending 10 men. It was

noticeable in the last 15 minutes that Olsson was repeatedly allowed the

ball by the opposition, but he was still conscious that he was the pace

entrusted with watching opposition breakouts. He was somewhat paralysed

by what he has been drilled to do and the circumstances. The manager

displays the same (deliberate) inflexibility. He is reinforcing his

one-card-trick methodology...."All of us are subject to critique and performance analysis in our daily lives. The thought that a football manager should have autocratic power and the right to unquestioned decision-making immunity wihin the football sphere is outdated. A tier of football management that exists as a lines of communication reporting structure to the Board, financial stakeholders to scrutinise on-field performance and assess whether it is in line with a defined development blueprint is overdue and a logical addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do see an advantage in hiring a DoF but this just seems to be extending the staff hierarchy. Yes the football manager shouldn''t have autocratic power but if the board weren''t questioning why Hughton was paying £15million of their money on two strikers who couldn''t do what was required of them as a lone striker (hold the ball up, run the channels and lay the ball off to on running midfielders) would they question any Director of Football put in place?It will mean we are paying two high wages to do the job that the manager was previously doing himself but as with bringing in an incompetent manager in Hughton, if we bring in an incompetent DoF in who makes judgement errors will we be any better off?Yes you can easily replace an incompetent employee but as with Neil Doncaster, Bryan Gunn and Chris Hughton our board seem to have great difficulty in identifying incompetence, whether it''s running the business or football side of the club, so I can''t see the hiring of this role resolving that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this for me - then thanks. Your points on RvW and Redmond seem spot on but what else would you change? Do you think we need the target man so many on here are after or is there another way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite his obvious managerial weaknesses Chris Hughton is not a stupid man, I''d wager he''s pretty damn bright. However even the average fan like me could see from youtube alone that RVW was not a striker that was going to fit in with Hughtons approach, nor was Hooper for that matter. We all assumed there would be a different approach this year because of this but we stuck with the same negative, dogmatic approach that Parma explains very well as the season before.

I was very worried when we signed RVW but I didn''t dare speak out out of fear of being branded a negative binner. I never saw him as the right fit for Hughton. We needed a more mobile Holt type player

So can someone please explain to me how this c0ck up occurred!? Was it the scouting teams fault? Hughtons? Also would having a management team above the coaching team help stop problems like these from occurring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main problem I think is that the board have made some dire appointments including former players who have gone from heroes to zeros and the management have brought in players who have promised much and delivered nothing, not living to their full potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think some of the problems described by Parma Ham are not necessarily caused by having an ''omniscient manager'' as it was put, but the fact that we had the wrong man in the job. If we had the right man in the job there would have been no problem with the management structure. We all know that the overseeing manager can work - Ferguson being the obvious example. Wenger another, and then looking down the scale, Martinez, Pochetino, Pulis are all of that type and it even seemed to work fairly well for us with Lambert. In exceptional circumstances it can even work in the business world - don''t forget that the worlds richest company was built and run with the ''omniscient presence'' of Steve Jobs. The fact is you could argue that if the board made sure that they got the appointment of the manager and his management team right, a director of football would not be so necessary.

What is true is that the management structure at football clubs provide you with no safety net for bad decisions from the manager. No ''independant'' authority with footballing knowledge who can call him on a potential mistake or error in his thinking. And no matter how good your manager is there will always be poor decisions. From this respect I can see how a director of football with footballing knowledge who almost acts as an inspector who can report to the club how things are going, and can come in to advise when necessary could have some benefit. However, the lines of power can so easily become blurred, and it would be very easy for the director of football to essentially be a backseat manager. Is it worth opening this minefield of potential internal problems for being able to install a safety net for those few bad decisions? Maybe.

What is certain is that choosing the right manager or management team is much more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technical Manager a good decision, a key role in Italy. Reinforcing the over-arching culture, assessing football matters from within. Supportive, yet with lines of communication to the board.

Football knowledge, yet not as frontline or media-tasty as DoF. An excellent -overdue - appointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Foley.

Manager''s (quite rightly) no longer allowed to manage (without scrutiny/oversight/qualification)

The temptation/obligation/tradition of giving-your-football-mates- a-leg-up is over.

The positive trade off is that responsibility is shared, compartmentalised and cellular. This encourages greater evolution and less revolution as manager''s (head coaches) get regularly hounded out by twitter campaigns and restless obsessive a looking to amortise their own inadequacies by transferring them into an omniscient manager who they have the pyrrhic power to behead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that Parma, but the job spec has apparently slipped from the one Bowkett and McNally refered to at the end of season dinner ("you cant have your manager phoning the CEO at midnight to discuss a loan to Southend") where an Experience Football person was suggested , with gravitas and experience at the highest level , to the suggestion now that Hydration and sports science is the main isue withour any conection to Football .

 

To use your Italian comparison, I would be happy with the Berta role. But this isn''t Ricky Martin , and I hope that the Board can find/attract a person of suitable gravitas/experience/knowledge to fit with the role as you describe.

 

I might suggest that this is why the expenditure on Adams has been lower , to keep enough in the pot for the TD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should never be desirable under the proposed structure. The entire purpose is to ensure cultural continuity, football oversight and internal (also playing) culture is maintained.

Whilst The head coach may be more freely jettisoned, the over-arching structure must remain inviolate.

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  

×
×
  • Create New...