Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lake district canary

When is a manager a manager?

Recommended Posts

If a Director of

Football is there to instigate a way of playing and the first team

coach/manager doesn''t do the business - but how different really, is the Director of

Football to a manager?   You are likely to end up with a heirachy at the

top of the club who decide everything and the first team coach/manager is merely the man on the

ground who carries the can, but has no real power to utilise his own way of doing things.

Managers are their own people, with their own way of doing things.  If

you want clubs to decide how a manager will play, then that is not going

to help your manager - it will only hinder him.   A manager has to have

a free reign - and ought to have a free reign on who gets transferred

in and out too. 

So if we get a DOF, who is it gets the sack when things go wrong?   I guarantee it will be the manager/coach - just the same as it is now. To me it seems to me a DOF is there to sit on the board, give them some kudos when things go wrong and enable them to say - "ahh we got relegated, but we have so and so as DOF so its not our fault things went wrong".  

The relationship between a DOF and team manager/coach is a very important one - when things are going well, everyone is happy, but at worst it just creates another layer of possible tension in a club''s heirachy.    I would prefer the manager to be king - he is the one who takes all the flack - so be brave enough to choose your manager and let him decide everything.  Appoint him, stand back and let him manage.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think England is the only major footballing country where NOT having a director of football is considered ''normal''. In Spain, Germany, Italy etc. not having a director of football would be like going into a season without a head coach: complete insanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Phillip J Fry"]I think England is the only major footballing country where NOT having a director of football is considered ''normal''. In Spain, Germany, Italy etc. not having a director of football would be like going into a season without a head coach: complete insanity.[/quote]

Does that make it right though?  Do dof''s really work in this country?  I don''t know, I''m just trying to get my head round it as to my mind there have been problems in this country with dof''s - are we geared up for it enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s worked under the radar at a few clubs in this country. In fact I''d venture to guess that the only reason it doesn''t worked sometimes is because the media and fans like you gnash their teeth and can''t get your heads around change. Instantly blaming any problem at a club on the DoF and making up tension where there isn''t any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Phillip J Fry"]I think England is the only major footballing country where NOT having a director of football is considered ''normal''. In Spain, Germany, Italy etc. not having a director of football would be like going into a season without a head coach: complete insanity.[/quote]

Does that make it right though?  Do dof''s really work in this country?  I don''t know, I''m just trying to get my head round it as to my mind there have been problems in this country with dof''s - are we geared up for it enough?

[/quote]
Like with managers, there are plenty of example where it has worked and where it hasn''t. For situations where it''s worked: Southampton, Swansea, WBA (under Ashworth), Brighton and Hove Albion (to an extent). All clubs I regard as very forward thinking with long-term strategies and a culture and style of play relatively unique to them. WBA are a bit of an exception, seeing as the excellent Ashworth and their best manager in recent history (Hodgson) were both nicked before they could really carry out their long-term plans to full effect, but apart from that, the other three clubs all have clear identity''s and labels that I would attach to them. I''m convinced that the next Brighton manager will carry on in a similar vein to their previous two managers and allow the club to grow consistently precisely because the DoF their will make fitting into the footballing culture they are developing a priority in selection. It''s that kind of consistency that has allowed Brighton to achieve a similar position and comparative results to last season despite losing a very influential manager in Poyet. 
That''s the kind of club I want Norwich to be, a club with a clear identity, a culture all of it''s own with a consistency in managerial appointments that means even when your good managers leave, it''s pretty much business as usual. Ideally, the ability to promote from within at every opportunity (although we are nowhere near that level yet) In order to do that, you need a DoF though, someone who can focus on the long-term, someone who can think about overarching goals that are, quite frankly, distractions to most managers nowadays who live and die based on first team success and, as such, cannot really focus on the long-term development of the club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Phillip J Fry"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Phillip J Fry"]I think England is the only major footballing country where NOT having a director of football is considered ''normal''. In Spain, Germany, Italy etc. not having a director of football would be like going into a season without a head coach: complete insanity.[/quote]Does that make it right though?  Do dof''s really work in this country?  I don''t know, I''m just trying to get my head round it as to my mind there have been problems in this country with dof''s - are we geared up for it enough?[/quote]
Like with managers, there are plenty of example where it has worked and where it hasn''t. For situations where it''s worked: Southampton, Swansea, WBA (under Ashworth), Brighton and Hove Albion (to an extent). All clubs I regard as very forward thinking with long-term strategies and a culture and style of play relatively unique to them. WBA are a bit of an exception, seeing as the excellent Ashworth and their best manager in recent history (Hodgson) were both nicked before they could really carry out their long-term plans to full effect, but apart from that, the other three clubs all have clear identity''s and labels that I would attach to them. I''m convinced that the next Brighton manager will carry on in a similar vein to their previous two managers and allow the club to grow consistently precisely because the DoF their will make fitting into the footballing culture they are developing a priority in selection. It''s that kind of consistency that has allowed Brighton to achieve a similar position and comparative results to last season despite losing a very influential manager in Poyet. 
That''s the kind of club I want Norwich to be, a club with a clear identity, a culture all of it''s own with a consistency in managerial appointments that means even when your good managers leave, it''s pretty much business as usual. Ideally, the ability to promote from within at every opportunity (although we are nowhere near that level yet) In order to do that, you need a DoF though, someone who can focus on the long-term, someone who can think about overarching goals that are, quite frankly, distractions to most managers nowadays who live and die based on first team success and, as such, cannot really focus on the long-term development of the club. 
[/quote]

Interesting. Have Norwich been slow on the uptake on this front?   But then appointing a DoF must be as difficult as appointing a first team manager/coach?    That makes two decisions you have get right - the DoF and the manager/coach.   Doesn''t that make things potentially doubly difficult?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lake district canary"]Interesting. Have Norwich been slow on the uptake on this front?   
[/quote]
Not really. As mentioned before, in England the position of DoF never really gained that much popularity. It''s only been relatively recently,with the influx of foreign owners and newer coaches who are willing to accept a degree of shared responsibility that a DoF has looked feasible in England and even now many fans express reluctance to appoint one.   
[quote user="lake district canary"]But then appointing a DoF must be as difficult as appointing a first team manager/coach?    That makes two decisions you have get right - the DoF and the manager/coach.   Doesn''t that make things potentially doubly difficult?[/quote]
Well, the biggest difference is that a DoF, by and large, tends to go unnoticed. As such there is less pressure on him to deliver instant results and more time for him to put thing right is mistakes are made. 
Whilst appointing a DoF is another challange, it is no more challenging than identifying a new manager. As long as you have faith in the board to select the right manager, then you should have faith they will appoint at least a semi-competent DoF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we are going down this route, it would make sense to get someone in who knows about Norwich well.  We are quite unique compared to a lot of other clubs - we have an inherent identity regardless of the football, that is quite dissimilar to most other clubs who are often big city clubs and clubs in less rural areas.   It is special in that regard and we would need someone  who understands that.    Hughton didn''t quite seem to understand that and suffered for it - and he was supposed to be a manager who was to stay and help build throughout the club - a kind of Dof/manager all in one. 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"]If we are going down this route, it would make sense to get someone in who knows about Norwich well.  We are quite unique compared to a lot of other clubs - we have an inherent identity regardless of the football, that is quite dissimilar to most other clubs who are often big city clubs and clubs in less rural areas.  [/quote]Not withstanding the fact every club is "quite unique", how would you describe our "inherent identity" and what makes us different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"][quote user="lake district canary"]If we are going down this route, it would make sense to get someone in who knows about Norwich well.  We are quite unique compared to a lot of other clubs - we have an inherent identity regardless of the football, that is quite dissimilar to most other clubs who are often big city clubs and clubs in less rural areas.  [/quote]Not withstanding the fact every club is "quite unique", how would you describe our "inherent identity" and what makes us different?[/quote]

Most league clubs are in areas of more population than Norwich is.  Norfolk - it goes without saying - is a more rural area.   Thyere are no other clubs of similar ilk who are in the top two divisions - none.   All the other clubs in the top two divisions are in areas of high population, or near larger cities/towns.  The only club who maybe isn''t is Brighton - but that is relatively near London and they are more comparable with Ipswich and Reading in that sense. Norwich is sufficiently out on a limb and away from big conurbations to retain a community feel to it that few clubs can rival imo.   Bournemouth maybe.  Blackpool - possibly.   Out of the top two leagues - Plymouth I would have compared us to in feel and being out on a limb - I lived near there for a few years and felt similar vibes in the community towards Plymouth. I don''t get that up here with Carlisle.  Other clubs in rural areas in lower leagues don''t have the same stature or expectations that we have.  Lincoln, Exeter, just aren''t the same.    This makes Norwich a special club imo - family orientated - and one of the friendliest - in a good way - clubs. 

All that, imo, helps what the club is all about.  The footballing identity is harder to quantify - that is not so unique as most clubs like to believe they have an attacking, entertaining philosophy.  What Norwich fans expect though is a lot of fight in the team and enjoy being the underdog going up against the big boys - but then that is the same for a lot of clubs too.  

So the uniqueness - imo - is not so much in the football, but more in the people and the area that the club is in.   Norfolk - and being out on a limb has allowed Norfolk to largely retain its character.  I know there is a lot more population movement these days and "out on a limb" is probably not the best way to describe it, but we have retained that character - and even though I moved away in the late seventies, that Norfolk nature has stood out wherever I have been as being special.  The nearest comparable thing I have found to "Norfolkness" is in Cornwall where there is a similar outlook to life, in many ways.     Scoff at this if you like, but people''s roots and the way they are  brought up are very important to the way  they live their lives - and Norfolk is special in that regard.    The football club and its fans reflect that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Valid analysis LDC.

Any club philosophy or methodology should take account of the cultural, geographical and social particularities that are inherent to Norwich.

My belief would be that a sold out stadium in league 3 and a high percentage of women and gentle, middle class folk should encourage Norwich to be brave and distinct in their approach. Be it to youth positive-discrimination, possession-based patterns of play or lower league potential stars, rather than established premier names,the consumers will tolerate not winning every week if they have a clear brand philosophy to be proud of. Norwich and Norfolk is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Valid analysis LDC.

Any club philosophy or methodology should take account of the cultural, geographical and social particularities that are inherent to Norwich.

My belief would be that a sold out stadium in league 3 and a high percentage of women and gentle, middle class folk should encourage Norwich to be brave and distinct in their approach. Be it to youth positive-discrimination, possession-based patterns of play or lower league potential stars, rather than established premier names,the consumers will tolerate not winning every week if they have a clear brand philosophy to be proud of. Norwich and Norfolk is different.[/quote]

This kind of goes with the "little Norwich" idea though, doesn''t it?   Happy to be in the lower league as long as we are being entertained.   That may be true of a proportion of Norwich fans, but there will also be a proportion that want us to develop into an established premiership club too.  That has looked a long way off at times over the last couple of seasons and we appear to be reverting back to type.   So the question is - does our club/fanbase overall have the ambition to be at the top table - or when push comes to shove, are we happier just being plucky "little Norwich"?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Valid analysis LDC.

Any club philosophy or methodology should take account of the cultural, geographical and social particularities that are inherent to Norwich.

My belief would be that a sold out stadium in league 3 and a high percentage of women and gentle, middle class folk should encourage Norwich to be brave and distinct in their approach. Be it to youth positive-discrimination, possession-based patterns of play or lower league potential stars, rather than established premier names,the consumers will tolerate not winning every week if they have a clear brand philosophy to be proud of. Norwich and Norfolk is different.[/quote]

This kind of goes with the "little Norwich" idea though, doesn''t it?   Happy to be in the lower league as long as we are being entertained.   That may be true of a proportion of Norwich fans, but there will also be a proportion that want us to develop into an established premiership club too.  That has looked a long way off at times over the last couple of seasons and we appear to be reverting back to type.   So the question is - does our club/fanbase overall have the ambition to be at the top table - or when push comes to shove, are we happier just being plucky "little Norwich"?    

[/quote]I''m unsure whether we do not have the ambition or don''t have the bravery to expand the club.For me if we wanted to become an established Premier League team we had to expand the stadium whilst in the top league. The sell out crowds suggest that, even if not right away, we did have the potential to increase our attendance levels to around the 32-35k mark. The tiny one tier city stand just looks very Championship/League One to me. I think that effects people''s impression of the club if your considering signing for us or Sunderland / Newcastle the general image of the club would sway you towards the impressive 50k seater stadiums rather than ''little old Norwich''.We''ve allegedly written off a lot of debts so I believe we could easily of acquired any necessary loan to do the work on the confidence it would have resulted in increased income and improved the overall value of goodwill of the club as well.

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...