The next manager...

[Muffles 8]

... will define the board''s ambition for the club.

They need to prove to the fans that they want the best for the club and are prepared to appoint someone to take us forward after a step back.

Malky as a player was monumental for us, but despite what he did with Watford and Cardiff, I don''t feel he''s the man to take us forward, possibly get us back in the Premier League, but we need a longer term plan, another Lambert.

Without dwelling on the past as ''little Norwich'', we are not a club capable (yet) of attracting a big name and keeping them long term, but the new manager has got to be someone who will not only take us up next season but also keep us there for a few seasons, allowing us to establish ourselves again.

The board need to re-kindle the fans faith in them and appoint a name who we can trust and see as a new messiah.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Chances of Norwich''s next manager being at the club more than a couple of seasons are very slim, either they get promoted and keep club up and are poached, or fail to get promotion and are sacked. This is why it is vital to get in that DoF McNally mentioned so managerial changes don''t have such a damaging effect on the club.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Wouldn''t a DoF get snatched too if he was any good?

[Holtcantshoot 0]

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Wouldn''t a DoF get snatched too if he was any good?[/quote]If Newcastle and Fulham are anything to go by Directors of Football normally struggle to have much of an impact, disrupt the current manager and then leave by mutual consent after a 3-6 month spell at the club anyway.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

[quote user="Holtcantshoot"][quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Wouldn''t a DoF get snatched too if he was any good?[/quote]If Newcastle and Fulham are anything to go by Directors of Football normally struggle to have much of an impact, disrupt the current manager and then leave by mutual consent after a 3-6 month spell at the club anyway.[/quote]

My thoughts too. I don''t like too many people in management. Stinks of inefficiency. Bring me my Malky. You know what? If he takes us up and leaves us in 17th after half a season of premiership footy before being sacked, i''ll be delighted.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="Holtcantshoot"][quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Wouldn''t a DoF get snatched too if he was any good?[/quote]

If Newcastle and Fulham are anything to go by Directors of Football normally struggle to have much of an impact, disrupt the current manager and then leave by mutual consent after a 3-6 month spell at the club anyway.
[/quote]

 

DoF less likely to go as there is a much lower rotation between clubs - compare how many managers got sacked to DoFs.

 

Not every DoF works perfectly, but the ones at Swansea, Southampton, Palace etc have done good jobs. Swansea and Southampton are pefect examples of clubs who have used their DoFs to keep the clubs running steady through managerial changes and transfer windows - in Southampton''s case it has also helped in bring through players such as James Ward-Prowse, Luke Shaw, Sam Gallagher and Calum Chambers. WBA had Dan Ashcroft until the beginning of the season - compare their excellent transfer window under him to the awful one without.

 

Just because some DoFs have failed doesn''t mean the whole system in flawed, of course if you bring in someone like Jow Kinnear or Dennis Wise it will go wrong, because they are the wrong men for the job. As for ineffciency, isn''t it much better to have someone doing much of the backroom work so the manager can go out and coach his players? Rather than chatting to agents/watching development games/scouting players etc.

[Holtcantshoot 0]

It''s an interesting question. Personally I think it''s better for the First team manager to have an autonomous control over all these areas. Perhaps not talking to the agents, scouting the players and watching development games himself but employing people he trusts to do this and having the final say in what players will be available for the first team.I would be wary of someone senior to the first team manager / coach buying players for them that may not suit the style of football they want to play. I''m probably totally wrong but I got the feeling the Mid-March signing of RVW seemed more of a board level "look at the pulling power of our big premier league club" than a managers signing (I''ve got no evidence of that at all by the way). He just was never going to suit a 4-5-1 defensive set-up and Hughton showed in his first 8 months as manager he wasn''t willing to work with any other style.I suppose if the Director of Football also hires the Coach and ensures he has a like minded belief in the way the game should be played this would lessen this risk but it''s going to have to be a strong relationship between the two roles.

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="Holtcantshoot"]It''s an interesting question. Personally I think it''s better for the First team manager to have an autonomous control over all these areas. Perhaps not talking to the agents, scouting the players and watching development games himself but employing people he trusts to do this and having the final say in what players will be available for the first team.I would be wary of someone senior to the first team manager / coach buying players for them that may not suit the style of football they want to play. I''m probably totally wrong but I got the feeling the Mid-March signing of RVW seemed more of a board level "look at the pulling power of our big premier league club" than a managers signing (I''ve got no evidence of that at all by the way). He just was never going to suit a 4-5-1 defensive set-up and Hughton showed in his first 8 months as manager he wasn''t willing to work with any other style.I suppose if the Director of Football also hires the Coach and ensures he has a like minded belief in the way the game should be played this would lessen this risk but it''s going to have to be a strong relationship between the two roles.[/quote]

Well, ideally that shouldn''t happen. It should be a consultative process, in which the coach identifies areas to strengthen and the DoF assigns scouts, gathers reports on players etc. before bringing them back to the manager and identifying the best possible fit for the club. 

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="Holtcantshoot"]It''s an interesting question. Personally I think it''s better for the First team manager to have an autonomous control over all these areas. Perhaps not talking to the agents, scouting the players and watching development games himself but employing people he trusts to do this and having the final say in what players will be available for the first team.

I would be wary of someone senior to the first team manager / coach buying players for them that may not suit the style of football they want to play. I''m probably totally wrong but I got the feeling the Mid-March signing of RVW seemed more of a board level "look at the pulling power of our big premier league club" than a managers signing (I''ve got no evidence of that at all by the way). He just was never going to suit a 4-5-1 defensive set-up and Hughton showed in his first 8 months as manager he wasn''t willing to work with any other style.

I suppose if the Director of Football also hires the Coach and ensures he has a like minded belief in the way the game should be played this would lessen this risk but it''s going to have to be a strong relationship between the two roles.
[/quote]

The problem with the manager employing people who he trusts to do those jobs is once the manager leaves the whole club falls apart as you need to replace 6,7 or 8 members of staff and all the work they are doing. Look at Norwich over the past few seasons - when Lambert left he took Culverhouse and Karsa with him, but Scott Marshall the U21 coach was also a Lambert appointment, and he left to Villa at the beginning of this season. Hughton brought in Chester, and now he is almost certain to leave this summer taking with him the scouting network (or at least most of it). Such vital elements of the club shouldn''t be linked to one man - especially when that is the first team manager and they tend to only last 2 seasons.

 

Also, managers don''t really care that much about developing youth players, they say they do but why would a current manager worry about how younger players are getting on in knowledge they almost certainly won''t be at the club to actually use those players?

 

The fact Norwich didn''t sack Hughton earlier is because he was so ingrained in everything within the club that the board felt that pulling that apart mid-season would be incredibly damaging - Norwich need to avoid being in that situation again.

It''s an aside by RVW was definitely a Hughton signing, he tried to sign him for Newcastle and said he''d been watching him for sometime. Maybe a good DoF would have said ''Yes he''s a good player, but he doesn''t suit your style does he?"

[Bury Yellow 2]

Thank you for your input over the last few days Bethnal. All very interesting. I wasn''t convinced about a DOS, mainly, I suppose, because I could never get what their duties and responsibilities were.

Having read your explanations I can see why the board would be keen to open such a position.

I hope that both appointments are from outside the club.

[Dubai Mark 0]

Good thread and on both topics, the manager and a Director of Football I have changed my mond big time in recent months. Right now there are two objectives for the club........the long term development of "the club" and getting "the team" back into the EPL. I feel these should be treated seperately and as such would welcome a DoF type football head at the club to stabilise the long term and now I really believe we should choose a Manager with the best credentials to simply bounce us back up in to the EPL and then you can move on from there with a manager (who maybe the same one) who is more suited to keeping us up......

[CanaryNath 30]

I wanted to come on here and post something about a director of football positon and what it might add to our club in terms of stability going forwards, however Bethnal has explained it far more clearly than I could have!

It''s a role that, if used correctly, can really stabilise a club and help build an ethos.....look at Swansea and the style of play they have built.....this goes back three or four managers now.

Great posts, Bethnal, really interesting.

[Nuff Said 5,089]

I''ve just read a chapter on DoFs in Tales From The Secret Footballer (both his books should be a must read) - convinced me it''s a good idea.

Not to knock BYG, he''s as spot on as ever.

[FenwayFrank 2,456]

I''m sure Tom Cavendish will be able to tell us all about this .........

[Canary Willo 0]

Bethnal, is there any current names, based on your knowledge of the role, you would like to see fulfil this at Norwich?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="Holtcantshoot"]It''s an interesting question. Personally I think it''s better for the First team manager to have an autonomous control over all these areas. Perhaps not talking to the agents, scouting the players and watching development games himself but employing people he trusts to do this and having the final say in what players will be available for the first team.I would be wary of someone senior to the first team manager / coach buying players for them that may not suit the style of football they want to play. I''m probably totally wrong but I got the feeling the Mid-March signing of RVW seemed more of a board level "look at the pulling power of our big premier league club" than a managers signing (I''ve got no evidence of that at all by the way). He just was never going to suit a 4-5-1 defensive set-up and Hughton showed in his first 8 months as manager he wasn''t willing to work with any other style.I suppose if the Director of Football also hires the Coach and ensures he has a like minded belief in the way the game should be played this would lessen this risk but it''s going to have to be a strong relationship between the two roles.[/quote]

The problem with the manager employing people who he trusts to do those jobs is once the manager leaves the whole club falls apart as you need to replace 6,7 or 8 members of staff and all the work they are doing. Look at Norwich over the past few seasons - when Lambert left he took Culverhouse and Karsa with him, but Scott Marshall the U21 coach was also a Lambert appointment, and he left to Villa at the beginning of this season. Hughton brought in Chester, and now he is almost certain to leave this summer taking with him the scouting network (or at least most of it). Such vital elements of the club shouldn''t be linked to one man - especially when that is the first team manager and they tend to only last 2 seasons.

 

Also, managers don''t really care that much about developing youth players, they say they do but why would a current manager worry about how younger players are getting on in knowledge they almost certainly won''t be at the club to actually use those players?

 

The fact Norwich didn''t sack Hughton earlier is because he was so ingrained in everything within the club that the board felt that pulling that apart mid-season would be incredibly damaging - Norwich need to avoid being in that situation again.

It''s an aside by RVW was definitely a Hughton signing, he tried to sign him for Newcastle and said he''d been watching him for sometime. Maybe a good DoF would have said ''Yes he''s a good player, but he doesn''t suit your style does he?"

[/quote]If we are going down the road of having a director of football then it may change the argument about who would be the best choice for manager. You don''t need someone who can wheel and deal in the transfer market. The DoF will presumably take care of that. The manager then effectively becomes the head coach, tactician and man-manager/motivator. I don''t know enough about some of the possible candidates but is there among them someone (Edde Howe or Garcia perhaps?) who fits that description?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="Holtcantshoot"]It''s an interesting question. Personally I think it''s better for the First team manager to have an autonomous control over all these areas. Perhaps not talking to the agents, scouting the players and watching development games himself but employing people he trusts to do this and having the final say in what players will be available for the first team.

I would be wary of someone senior to the first team manager / coach buying players for them that may not suit the style of football they want to play. I''m probably totally wrong but I got the feeling the Mid-March signing of RVW seemed more of a board level "look at the pulling power of our big premier league club" than a managers signing (I''ve got no evidence of that at all by the way). He just was never going to suit a 4-5-1 defensive set-up and Hughton showed in his first 8 months as manager he wasn''t willing to work with any other style.

I suppose if the Director of Football also hires the Coach and ensures he has a like minded belief in the way the game should be played this would lessen this risk but it''s going to have to be a strong relationship between the two roles.
[/quote]

The problem with the manager employing people who he trusts to do those jobs is once the manager leaves the whole club falls apart as you need to replace 6,7 or 8 members of staff and all the work they are doing. Look at Norwich over the past few seasons - when Lambert left he took Culverhouse and Karsa with him, but Scott Marshall the U21 coach was also a Lambert appointment, and he left to Villa at the beginning of this season. Hughton brought in Chester, and now he is almost certain to leave this summer taking with him the scouting network (or at least most of it). Such vital elements of the club shouldn''t be linked to one man - especially when that is the first team manager and they tend to only last 2 seasons.

 

Also, managers don''t really care that much about developing youth players, they say they do but why would a current manager worry about how younger players are getting on in knowledge they almost certainly won''t be at the club to actually use those players?

 

The fact Norwich didn''t sack Hughton earlier is because he was so ingrained in everything within the club that the board felt that pulling that apart mid-season would be incredibly damaging - Norwich need to avoid being in that situation again.

It''s an aside by RVW was definitely a Hughton signing, he tried to sign him for Newcastle and said he''d been watching him for sometime. Maybe a good DoF would have said ''Yes he''s a good player, but he doesn''t suit your style does he?"

[/quote]

If we are going down the road of having a director of football then it may change the argument about who would be the best choice for manager. You don''t need someone who can wheel and deal in the transfer market. The DoF will presumably take care of that. The manager then effectively becomes the head coach, tactician and man-manager/motivator.

I don''t know enough about some of the possible candidates but is there among them someone (Edde Howe or Garcia perhaps?) who fits that description?
[/quote]

 

Both Brighton and Bournemouth have directors of football, or at least people in those roles with slightly different job titles. Garcia is especially use to that system coming from Spain.

 

Neither of them would struggle working with a DoF, and neither would many younger managers. The new breed of progressive managers favour working within that structure, AVB requested Tottenham appoint a DoF so he didn''t have to dedicate a lot of time to player recruitment.

 

Many people (not necessarily you Purple, but the broader posters) seem to think that a DoF will just go out and buy any old player, regardless of who the manager is - which is of course nonsense. The process is collabrative, but it just means the manager doesn''t have to spend hours going through videos, trips abroad or looking at statistic. This is done by other people and they discuss with the manager on signings.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

 

Both Brighton and Bournemouth have directors of football, or at least people in those roles with slightly different job titles. Garcia is especially use to that system coming from Spain.

 

Neither of them would struggle working with a DoF, and neither would many younger managers. The new breed of progressive managers favour working within that structure, AVB requested Tottenham appoint a DoF so he didn''t have to dedicate a lot of time to player recruitment.

 

Many people (not necessarily you Purple, but the broader posters) seem to think that a DoF will just go out and buy any old player, regardless of who the manager is - which is of course nonsense. The process is collabrative, but it just means the manager doesn''t have to spend hours going through videos, trips abroad or looking at statistic. This is done by other people and they discuss with the manager on signings.

[/quote]Bethnal, based on what you and Parma have separately posted I am rather warming to the idea. I do worry a bit that this is a specific and kneejerk reaction to Hughton being given a record amount of money in the summer and wasting most of it. There is a legal adage that hard (ie extreme) cases make bad law. Not all managers will make such a pig''s ear of a transfer window. And it means the directors would have to get two key  personnel decisons right rather than one!

[Tommo 51]

Hopefully this is just wild speculation about Inside sources at Carrow Road:-

http://sportsnewsireland.com/soccer/soccer_irish/former-crystal-palace-captian-set-to-be-new-norwich-city-manager-2014-05-14/?